updates archive

Large numbers of Fort Monroe's truest friends commented by e-mail recently
to the Fort Monroe Authority about the Fort Monroe Reuse Plan. Thanks in
large measure to your voices, that tentative but still consequential
document will be improving as it evolves. More later on all of that;
meanwhile, this week or this weekend, Fort Monroe needs for you to spend a
few more minutes at your computer, again sending e-mail -- this time to the
Army. THE DEADLINE IS MONDAY, JULY 7. Below are:
* A QUICK, EASY HOW-TO
for those in a hurry.
* MORE INFORMATION
for those who might want it.
Thanks very much.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org)

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

QUICK, EASY HOW-TO for those in a hurry:

What's happening is a final round of public commenting to the Army about the
latest draft of the "programmatic agreement" that's being formulated to
protect Fort Monroe as a historic resource. "Section 106" of the federal
historic-preservation law requires it. Over four hundred of you commented
last winter in the first round, with great results. BUT THE LATEST DRAFT OF
THE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT STILL HAS SHORTCOMINGS THAT THREATEN FORT MONROE,
SO WE HOPE YOU WILL SEND A BRIEF E-MAIL MESSAGE BY MONDAY JULY 7 TO
monr.106public@us.army.mil SAYING AT LEAST THE FOLLOWING:
* Require leasing arrangements -- allow no land sell-offs.
* Limit development to what may be necessary for supporting post-Army Fort
Monroe -- allow no development just for development's sake or for purposes
beyond Fort Monroe.
* Prohibit development on the crucial "Wherry Quarter" land northeast of the
stone fortress.
* Strengthen provisions for ensuring future compliance with the letter and
spirit of the programmatic agreement.

That's it, but you might be interested in the reason for the "Wherry
Quarter" item. If so, please see the picture near the top of the CFMNP.org
home page showing what developers want. That picture is worth a million
words.

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

MORE INFORMATION for those who might want it:

(Note: These Web addresses might require copy-and-paste into your Web
browser's address line.)

A page-long writeup explaining the quick, easy how-to in a bit more detail
appears as a link from our "What's New" page at CFMNP.org.

Newspaper article showing how powerfully the public spoke in the first round
of "programmatic agreement" comments last winter:
http://cfmnp.org/letters_say_post_should_be_park.htm

The Army's Fort Monroe "Section 106" Web page:
http://www.monroe.army.mil/monroe/sites/Section106/Section106.aspx

The draft programmatic agreement:
http://www.monroe.army.mil/Monroe/uploadedFiles/Section_106_-_Public/ProgrammaticAgreemement.pdf

The Army's public questionnaire about the draft programmatic agreement:
http://www.monroe.army.mil/Monroe/uploadedFiles/Section_106_-_Public/Questionnaire.pdf

ALSO, a note about the general context. At Citizens for a Fort Monroe
National Park, we continue to believe that the most important recent
development is the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot's June 7 editorial:
http://www.cfmnp.com/vp_a_national_park_for_fort_monroe.htm

And one last thing: On Monday the 7th, I'll be part of a Fort Monroe
discussion on Cathy Lewis's noontime talk show "HearSay" on 89.5 FM in
Norfolk.
Steve Corneliussen
VP, Communications
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park

(Comments about this e-mail message -- or anything else? Please use reply
e-mail. Thanks.)

Feb. 24th, 2008

Reminder from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org): It's not too late to join many who have written to the National Park Service. Last Monday's appeal re-appears below, but the core message is simple: in as little as a sentence or three, please just tell the NPS why you believe that NPS involvement is the only sure way to manage post-Army Fort Monroe appropriately. (For a reminder of why this belief is valid, look no farther than the new picture near the top at CFMNP.org.) The NPS knows Fort Monroe is historically precious. They must decide whether they believe NPS management would be clearly superior to some combination of the state, Hampton and private entities. We hope you'll tell them that it would be superior, and why. Thanks.

PLEASE MAIL YOUR OPINION SOON TO:
Mr. Terrence D. Moore
Chief of Park Planning and Special Studies
Northeast Region, National Park Service
200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia
PA 19106

Feb. 18th, 2008

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org) asking you to help protect Fort Monroe by writing and mailing a letter in your own words -- not an e-mail message, but a snail-mail letter -- to the National Park Service. Following are
* the why,
* the what and the when,
* the mailing address, and
* some related information in the form of a "P.S."

THE "WHY"

Thanks to goodwill in the General Assembly and in Gov. Kaine's administration in 2007, efforts inspired and led by CFMNP President H. O. Malone resulted in the following paragraph becoming part of a Virginia state law. I've inserted four clarifications in brackets:

In formulating a reuse plan for Fort Monroe, the Authority [Virginia's Hampton-dominated, unrepresentative planning panel] 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 [i.e., Rep. Thelma Drake] to seek a reconnaissance survey from the U.S. Department of Interior [which means the National Park Service] 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 [the centuries-old name of the 570-acre Fort Monroe peninsula].

This modest reconnaissance survey was indeed requested, and the National Park Service, or NPS, will likely complete it in the next few weeks. The reconnaissance survey will answer one key question: Should Congress authorize a full-blown "Special Resource Study" of the possibilities for NPS management involvement at post-Army Fort Monroe?

We need a "yes." It's important to note that, goodwill in 2007 or not, Virginia's leaders should have asked directly for a full-blown Special Resource Study way back in 2005.

In the end it is state leadership, not just federal bureaucratic action, that creates a national park.

If the NPS does not recommend a Special Resource Study, the inadequate state-led and Hampton-dominated Fort Monroe planning process will focus narrowly on piecemeal sell-offs of this precious public property, not on a strategic vision. The ultimate result will be a diminished -- maybe greatly diminished -- historical and recreational resource.

Please note that the NPS doesn't need to hear that Fort Monroe is a unique national historic treasure. They already fully agree. They recognize that the entire Army post -- not just the moated fortress -- is a national historic landmark.

What they don't know is whether or not they believe that NPS management of this national historic landmark would be clearly superior to management by some combination of the state or Hampton or a private entity or entities. If they decide that they believe that some kind of NPS management couldn't be superior, they'll recommend against national park status.

At Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, we believe that the best solution is some sort of innovatively structured, self-sustaining national park. That's the surest way to make Fort Monroe into a grand public place for everybody -- and not into a gated community without the gate. It's also the wisest course economically, promising enrichment in several senses, starting with financial enrichment for Hampton.

THE "WHAT" AND THE "WHEN":

So here's the key question we hope you'll address in your letter: Why do you think that NPS management involvement is crucial for post-Army Fort Monroe?

We think NPS management involvement is crucial because:
* without federal involvement and leadership, neither Virginia nor Hampton can handle a national treasure of this stature, whether or not with public-private partnerships of some kind,
* only federal involvement and some form of federal stewardship can preclude harm to this precious historic resource, and
* an innovatively structured national park -- the precise outlines of which could only be developed through a Special Resource Study -- is the best assurance that Fort Monroe in its entirety can become a self-sustaining grand public place.

It's worth noting that we continue to believe that the outlines of an innovatively structured, self-sustaining Fort Monroe National Park should in some ways reflect the precedents set at the Presidio of San Francisco, which is run by a federal trust in partnership with the NPS. (We believe that the faltering arrangements at Governors Island in New York harbor, run mostly by the state and the city, would be a bad fit for Fort Monroe.)

What is your opinion on the key question? We ask that by Sunday, Feb. 24 -- or as soon thereafter as possible -- you place into the snail mail a letter expressing that opinion.

MAILING ADDRESS:

Mr. Terrence D. Moore
Chief of Park Planning and Special Studies
Northeast Region, National Park Service
200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia
PA 19106

P.S.:
* If you were to paste an electronic copy of your letter into an e-mail message and send it to Contact@CFMNP.org, we could forward it to the Virginia congressional delegation, most notably Congresswoman Thelma Drake, whose district contains Fort Monroe and who is to be the recipient of the NPS's report on its reconnaissance survey. This is a chance to show her and her congressional and state political colleagues why Fort Monroe needs to become a self-sustaining national park.
* Many who receive this e-mail appeal have already written to the Army. That was a great success. See for yourself; check the January 25 "NEW " blurb at CFMNP.org. We thank hundreds of you for doing that. And many who receive this e-mail appeal have already contributed generously for the Trust for Public Land study of Hampton Roads waterfront parkland. Thanks to you, the Fort Monroe National Park Foundation has raised about 2/3 of the needed $15,000. The foundation thanks you for that. (For more on this -- can still more of you help pay for that crucial effort? -- please see the foundation's Dec. 28 update at the CFMNP.org "Updates archive" link.)

If you shouldn't be receiving update messages like this one, or if you have a comment, please let us know by reply e-mail. Thanks.
Steve Corneliussen
Vice President, Communications
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org)

Jan. 5th, 2008

(Note: To reach any of the Web or e-mail addresses mentioned in this message, it might be necessary to copy and paste the address into your browser or e-mail message.)
This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org) asking you to help protect Fort Monroe by writing an e-mail note to the U.S. Army at monr.106public@us.army.mil by January 9 (if you have not done so already). Your note will help ensure that Fort Monroe is protected in its entirety as a "Grand Public Place" for everyone.

The Army doesn't make decisions about whether Fort Monroe will become a park or be developed, but under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Army does set up guidelines that must be followed in the future by any entity having ownership or jurisdiction.

With involvement by citizens and interested organizations including Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, the Army is now writing those guidelines. There have been public meetings, as announced in an earlier update message.

The public is encouraged to submit comments by e-mail (monr.106public@us.army.mil) or by regular mail (Directorate of Public Works, Attention: Jennifer Guerrero, 318 Cornog Lane, Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1110). The deadline is January 9. A brief note is all that's needed, though brevity isn't mandatory.

If you like, you can instead answer the Army's questionnaire, available at http://www.monroe.army.mil/monroe/sites/Section106/Section106.aspx . This requires some familiarization with the process. (However, you might like to see and make use of the response submitted by Alec Gould, a former superintendent of Colonial National Historical Park who advises CFMNP and who really understands what needs to happen at Fort Monroe. In our own submissions, some of us are deliberately echoing what he wrote, which is posted at http://www.cfmnp.org/army_questionnaire.htm .)

But brief comments in your own words will do fine. The most important part is that you do make some kind of response. The Army has already shown that it really does hear every voice.

We respectfully ask friends of Fort Monroe to consider that all of Fort Monroe and Old Point Comfort, not just the moated fortress, is historic. That's why a half-century ago, our nation designated all of Fort Monroe, not just the moated fortress, a National Historic Landmark. (And if you haven't seen the new Fort Monroe documentary "Kingdom by the Sea," it's available online at http://wmstreaming.whro.org/whro/ftmonroe/ftmonroe.asf .)

Today, however, inappropriate and financially unnecessary private development threatens this precious land. That's why the Civil War Preservation Trust, the largest organization dedicated to preserving Civil War sites, declared Fort Monroe "at risk." And that's why APVA Preservation Virginia included Fort Monroe among eleven "Most Endangered Historic Sites in Virginia."

By sending an e-mail note to the Army, you can help ensure that the National Historic Landmark in its entirety is respected, and that it is protected from inappropriate, financially unnecessary residential and commercial development.

Because privatization of land at Fort Monroe is the greatest single threat to Fort Monroe’s historic character, we believe that the most important opinions that anyone can express to the Army are:
* The guidelines must provide for positive, effective steps to ensure that the entire National Historic Landmark, not just the moated fortress, is respected and protected from any and all adverse effects, including privatization.
* The "adaptive reuse" of properties, though highly constructive and beneficial, must take place through leasing, not sales, because leases will allow significantly greater and more effective protection over the coming decades and centuries -- as opposed to conservation easements and covenants which, among other things, have the drawback of being a one-shot attempt to forecast the kind of protection needed years in the future, and may miss the mark.
* The best way to ensure the permanent well-being of Fort Monroe will be to designate a high-level steward, likely federal in some way, that is insulated from day-to-day local politics and that would oversee all 570 acres.

Thanks very much. Soon during January we will also be asking people to write letters -- not e-mail, but letters -- to the National Park Service.

If you shouldn't be receiving these updates, or if you have a comment, please let me know by reply e-mail. Thanks.
Steve Corneliussen
Vice President, Communications
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org)

Dec. 28th, 2007

This is a special appeal from the Fort Monroe National Park Foundation, a nonprofit educational foundation formed by leaders of the separate and earlier established Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). The foundation has commissioned -- and, with an initial stake contributed by foundation board members, has begun paying for -- a Hampton Roads regional waterfront parkland study by the Trust for Public Land. These respected national experts are already at work. The study will be vital for Fort Monroe's future, but it costs $15,000. We are asking for your IMMEDIATE HELP in raising the balance. Not one cent of your contribution would go to overhead or staff; we cover overhead, and we have no paid staff. Please help us by mailing a check as indicated at the bottom of this message.

Almost a half-century ago, our nation made a National Historic Landmark out of Fort Monroe, a peninsula nearly ten times the size of the moated fortress that it surrounds. We believe this entire Old Point Comfort peninsula, with four centuries in the public domain and going back to the origins of our nation, is precious in two fundamentally intertwined ways: historically and as a unique and scenic waterfront site lying exactly at the confluence of the Chesapeake Bay and Hampton Roads harbor in the geographic center of the region, featuring over three hundred acres of green space.

Others, however, perceive most of the open space of this National Historic Landmark as precious merely in a narrow, short-term financial sense. Virginia's 18-member Fort Monroe Authority (officially the Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority, often called the "FMFADA") has the power to sell off parts of Fort Monroe piecemeal, privatizing land that has been publicly owned for 400 years.

That's why an expert regional analysis is needed as to whether Virginia can afford to lose to development this precious open space, with its spectacular water views and two-mile promenade on the Chesapeake Bay. Public access to waterfront land is an important issue for the 1.6 million residents of Hampton Roads, and that issue intertwines in a fundamental way with the issue of preserving the National Historic Landmark for all Americans.

Yet no one has actually looked at how Fort Monroe figures in the issue of waterfront park space in Hampton Roads. So we commissioned a formal study by the Trust for Public Land (http://www.tpl.org/) -- a "national, nonprofit, land conservation organization that conserves land for people to enjoy as parks, community gardens, historic sites, rural lands, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come."

The completed study will be delivered to both Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Preston Bryant, who chairs Virginia's Fort Monroe Authority, and Governor Tim Kaine, who has the power to act on whatever the authority recommends concerning Fort Monroe's future.

All of the foundation's board members have spent substantial personal sums supporting efforts to educate the public regarding Fort Monroe's great value and potential. Despite that effort, we still need help from friends of Fort Monroe. The foundation has approval from the Commonwealth of Virginia to solicit funds, is operating in conformance with Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, and expects approval by the IRS as to tax-exempt status with respect to donations.

Please make checks payable to "Fort Monroe National Park Foundation" and send to:
Treasurer
Fort Monroe National Park Foundation
P.O. Box 097
Fort Monroe
VA 23651

Your assistance in securing this parkland study will help ensure an appropriate future for the national treasure that we all cherish. Ensuring that future is a once-in-400-years opportunity.

Please send any comments by reply e-mail, or enclose them with your check -- and please feel free to forward this message to any individuals or organizations that might be interested to know about this opportunity to help.

Thank you very much.

FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
Henry O. Malone, President, and Louis L. Guy, Jr., Treasurer

Dec. 4th, 2007

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org) asking you to attend the National Park Service's public forum concerning Fort Monroe at 6:30 this Thursday evening, Dec. 6, in Hampton -- and, if you're willing, to offer your opinion there as well. Please also urge others to attend (and speak). If you live outside Hampton Roads, maybe you can urge someone in the area to attend.

The meeting begins at 6:30 in the Northampton Community Center, located directly behind Jefferson Davis Middle School on Todds Lane in Hampton. Detailed directions appear below.

Attendance really matters. Now is the time for Americans in general -- Fort Monroe's actual owners, from across the region and elsewhere -- to make plain that a self-sustaining Fort Monroe National Park is the answer, not just for the municipal financial enrichment sought by many in Hampton, but for wider general enrichment in multiple senses starting with the financial one.

You might want to see CFMNP's Scott Butler's brief Daily Press op-ed at http://www.cfmnp.org/park_service_will_hear_citizens_.htm -- Scott begins by quoting President Theodore Roosevelt: "Here is your country. Do not let anyone take it or its glory away from you … . The World and the Future and your very children shall judge you according to the way you deal with this Sacred Trust."

And you might want to see some additional thoughts from CFMNP's Louis Guy at http://www.cfmnp.org/additional_thoughts.htm .

Directions to the National Park Service's public meeting concerning Fort Monroe, Thursday evening, Dec. 6, 2007, at 6:30 in the Northampton Community Center behind Jefferson Davis Middle School on Todds Lane in Hampton.
Please note that MapQuest may not be entirely reliable, and that the street address -- 1435-A Todds Lane -- may not be helpful either, because the Northampton Community Center does not front on Todds Lane in Hampton, but is located directly behind Jefferson Davis Middle School on Todds Lane. The school is on the north side of the street. That is, it's on the right if you're driving west toward the James River.

Here's how to get there:

1. From I-64 in Hampton, take the Mercury Blvd (Rt 258) exit toward the James River (# 263 if heading toward Williamsburg, or # 263A if heading toward Norfolk).

2. Proceed west on Mercury to the 3d traffic light from I-64 (Aberdeen Rd), getting into the right turn lane while passing Todds Center shopping mall on your right.

3. Turn right at Aberdeen, then go north one long block to the traffic signal at Todds Lane.

4. From Aberdeen turn left onto Todds Lane and proceed just over a half mile to the second traffic light (Macon St, on the left). Just before you reach that light, Jefferson Davis Middle School will appear on the right.

5.Turn right at the Macon St. light into the school grounds; then drive back behind the middle school to Northampton Community Center.

Oct. 28, 2007
This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org) asking you to help -- in two ways, in the coming days -- to ensure that Fort Monroe is protected in its entirety as a "Grand Public Place" for everyone.

All of Fort Monroe and Old Point Comfort, not just the moated fortress, is historic. That's why a half-century ago, our nation designated all of Fort Monroe, not just the moated fortress, a National Historic Landmark. (And if you haven't seen the new Fort Monroe documentary "Kingdom by the Sea," it's available online at http://wmstreaming.whro.org/whro/ftmonroe/ftmonroe.asf .)

Today, however, inappropriate development threatens this precious land. That's why the Civil War Preservation Trust, the nation's largest organization dedicated to preserving Civil War sites, has declared Fort Monroe "at risk" (http://www.cfmnp.org/fort_monroe_at_risk.htm). And that's why APVA Preservation Virginia included Fort Monroe among eleven "Most Endangered Historic Sites in Virginia for 2007" (http://www.cfmnp.org/APVA.htm).

In two ways, you can help ensure that the National Historic Landmark in its entirety is respected, and that is protected from inappropriate, financially unnecessary residential and commercial development:

1. Please express your views at one of the Army's upcoming public involvement meetings. At Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, we believe that the single most important thing you can say at these meetings is that you expect the entire National Historic Landmark, not just the moated fortress, to be respected and preserved. The meetings are explained in more detail at http://www.cfmnp.org/schedule_of_public_involvement.htm (and also at http://www.monroe.army.mil/monroe/sites/Section106/Section106.aspx). Here's the schedule, with links to an Army announcement for each one:
* 30 Oct., 7-9 P.M. in Hampton
(http://www.cfmnp.org/pdfs/106%20Flyer%20with%20Monroe,%20Hampton.pdf)
* 8 Nov., 6-8 P.M. in Norfolk
(http://www.cfmnp.org/pdfs/106%20Flyer%20with%20Monroe,%20Norfolk.pdf)
* 15 Nov., 6-8 P.M. in Richmond
(http://www.cfmnp.org/pdfs/106%20Flyer%20with%20Monroe,%20Richmond.pdf)
* 29 Nov., 6-8 P.M. in Washington
(http://www.cfmnp.org/pdfs/106%20Flyer%20with%20Monroe,%20Wash%20D.C.pdf)

2. Please spread the word about these public involvement meetings, especially those in Richmond and Washington. This is a chance for Fort Monroe's true friends to demonstrate that this national treasure is truly a national issue. The Army apparently does not have much money for advertising the meetings.

I try to fashion these occasional updates to reflect the general outlook of the CFMNP directors, a diverse group of citizens from Williamsburg to Norfolk listed at http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/BoD.htm. If you shouldn't be receiving the updates, or if you have a comment, please let me know by reply e-mail. Thanks.
-Steve Corneliussen
Vice President, Communications

Sept. 29, 2007
This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org) asking you to spread the word about WHRO Channel 15's upcoming "Kingdom by the Sea" documentary on Fort Monroe and its future.

The half-hour film premieres October 24 at 8:30 p.m. on WHRO-TV 15 and WHRO HD 15.1, and airs again on October 25 at 9:30 p.m. and October 28 at 2 p.m.

Please consider also registering right away so that you can attend an advance screening at the American Theatre in Phoebus (the part of Hampton closest to Fort Monroe) on October 15 at 7:30 p.m. Following the screening, Cathy Lewis will moderate a panel discussion and audience Q&A. The event is free and open to the public, but seating is limited. For reservations, WHRO asks that you please register online (http://www.whro.org/home/cfc/programs/FtMonroeRegistration) or call 757 889-9111. General admission seating will begin at 7 p.m.

Panelists:
• L. Preston Bryant, Jr., Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, who chairs the newly reconstituted Fort Monroe Authority in his position as Governor Tim Kaine's chief representative concerning Fort Monroe
• Steven T. Corneliussen, Vice President for Communications, Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park
• Ms. Conover Hunt, Executive Director, Fort Monroe Authority
• Ross A. Kearney II, Mayor of Hampton
• Robert Nieweg of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
• Kimball Payne of the Daily Press
• Jason Sweat of the Pentagon's Federal Office of Economic Adjustment

Please note also that you can submit a question when you register online. Here, just for one example, is the question submitted by Sarah Corneliussen, who grew up around Fort Monroe and was married in the chapel there 30 years ago: "Once public land is sold, it's gone forever. Secretary Bryant, what will you do to preserve the entire post, the entire National Historic Landmark, for the public forever?"

Mar. 20, 2007

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). On Wednesday evening at Sandy Bottom Nature Park in Hampton, we hope you can attend a panel discussion on "The Case for a Fort Monroe National Park" -- and we also hope you'll contribute during the citizen question-and-answer period. The York River Group of the Sierra Club is presenting the event, and has invited a diverse panel of five, including CFMNP's H. O. Malone and representatives from Hampton. The Sierra Club's full announcement appears below the dashed line.

This will be the first public discussion of post-Army Fort Monroe since the Civil War Preservation Trust declared the post to be at risk, and we believe that at least one reporter will be present. With a membership of over 70,000, the CWPT is the nation's largest organization devoted to preserving Civil War sites. The organization says that its recent announcement is "more than a list of threatened historic sites -- it is also a roadmap for saving the last remaining links to a moment in history that defined us as a nation." You can read more about this at http://www.cfmnp.org/fort_monroe_at_risk.htm .

Yet another public discussion will take place in Hampton on Saturday. Marc Follmer, deputy assistant to the governor, will present an "Update on Fort Monroe Reuse" at Del. Jeion Ward's town hall meeting, which is scheduled for 12 to 1:30 at the West Hampton Community Center, 1638 Briarfield Rd. In considering whether your attendance will help Fort Monroe, please recall how effectively you discussed Fort Monroe with Congresswoman Drake when many gathered with her at the Hampton Library earlier this year.

An update later this week will serve as a reminder about Saturday's event. Meanwhile, please consider attending the Wednesday evening panel discussion. Details sent from the Sierra Club appear below.

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

The Case for a Fort Monroe National Park:
A Panel Discussion on Historical & Environmental Aspects

Topic: Panelists will continue the exciting discussion on the best use for Fort Monroe, after it closes as an active military facility by 2011. All of Fort Monroe was designated as a National Historic Landmark District. Should all of Fort Monroe be preserved, or part of it? Should all or part of Fort Monroe become a National Park? The program will cover historic, environmental and economic views.

Panelists include:
Randy Gilliland, Vice Mayor of the City of Hampton
H. O. Malone, President of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park
John Ishon, Chair of the Hampton Federal Area Development Authority
Gerri Hollins, Contraband Society, descendent of Contraband Community
Catharine Gilliam, Virginia Program Manager, National Parks Conservation  Association

Following presentations will be a question & answer period.

Free and open to the public. Refreshments.

Date: 7:00-8:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Place: Sandy Bottom Nature Park, Visitors Center Conference Room, 1255 Big Bethel Road, Hampton, Va. 23666

Directions: From I 64, take exit 261A, go ¼ mile to Big Bethel Road, turn right onto Big Bethel Road, go ¼ mile and turn left into Sandy Bottom Nature Park. A Farm Fresh store will be on your right. Follow park road to center.

Directions from web: http://www.hampton.va.us/sandybottom/about.html

Presented by:  The York River Group of the Sierra Club, a non-profit environmental organization, with a mission to protect our natural resources, locally and globally and to engage others to help in that mission.

For further information:
Tyla Matteson, Chair, 804-275-6476, tmatteson1@mindspring.com
Tom Ellis, Vice Chair, 757-722-9785, tiellis@gmail.com.

Feb. 18, 2007

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). Here's a special request to you from Dr. H. O. Malone, CFMNP's president:

This week is a crucial time in Richmond for the future of Fort Monroe. Final negotiations have begun concerning the General Assembly's two different Fort Monroe bills. There's a distinct danger that the outcome could destroy the context of the fort by turning large swaths of land, in the public domain for almost 400 years, into private residential developments.

Among the options far superior to that would be to create an innovatively structured national park encompassing the entire Old Point Comfort peninsula. That option requires a study by the National Park Service. According to the Secretary of the Interior, the "site possesses exceptional value in commemorating and illustrating the history of the United States." Such a study, utilizing the best minds in the country, would ask the National Park Service to ascertain the best way to preserve and maintain the cultural and natural resources within a National Historic Landmark, first designated as such in 1960.

All friends of Fort Monroe who support the idea of a grand national park simply being studied by the National Park Service need to contact Governor Tim Kaine and tell him so this evening or early this week.

The governor is in the decisive place to influence or even control the outcome, since in the end there'll be no resolution without his support. So please phone him and leave a brief, clear message at 804 786-2211, or use his Web e-mail form at http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm .

If you like, you could simply say something like this: Governor Kaine, my name is ____ and I live in ____. Please permit a national park resource study of Fort Monroe, because continuing a federal role at Fort Monroe would allow Virginia to do far more to make it a great public place and a powerful economic generator for future generations.

By next Saturday the General Assembly and the governor will have decided one way or the other, or might perhaps have decided they cannot agree. If they decide wrongly or if they scuttle both bills, we will have just begun to fight.

Henry O. Malone, Ph.D.

President and Historical Advisor

Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park

PO Box 97

Fort Monroe, VA 23651-0097

757-851-4179

www.CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org

Feb. 16, 2007

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). Both the Virginian-Pilot and the Daily Press have published major editorials this morning concerning the two starkly contrasting Fort Monroe bills in the General Assembly. In both cases the editorial boards offer a mixture of good news and bad news -- with an error or two of plain fact in the Pilot's editorial. Both editorials appear below as posted early this morning on our Web site, with annotations hastily offered by CFMNP's Steve Corneliussen.

Please send comments or criticisms by reply e-mail or to Contact@CFMNP.org. For background on the two Fort Monroe bills, please see the entry for Feb. 14 and the second Feb. 10 entry at http://www.cfmnp.org/news.htm -- or just see the brief handout at http://www.cfmnp.org/pdfs/GearWilliamsDifferences.pdf . To tell Governor Kaine your opinion -- and if you do so, it will matter -- please call 804 786-2211 or use the Web e-mail form at http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm .

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

Visions collide on Fort Monroe
The Virginian-Pilot
February 16, 2007

It will be another four years before the Army shutters Fort Monroe, ending a distinguished career in the military spanning three centuries.

But before the General Assembly closes up shop this month, lawmakers must decide how best to use the time between now and 2011 readying Hampton Roads' durable sentry for a return to civilian life.

Here's the issue:

Should the commonwealth move out smartly on its own to study an array of options simultaneously? [[ABSOLUTELY! AND DESPITE WHAT THE PILOT EDITORS SAY BELOW, DEL. GEAR'S BILL, NOT SEN. WILLIAMS'S, IS THE ONE THAT SPECIFICALLY CALLS FOR STUDYING THE FULL RANGE OF OPTIONS.]]

Or should it march in place for a few years pursuing a single long shot, turning Fort Monroe over to the National Park Service? [[IT IS TRUE THAT THE GEAR BILL CALLS FOR THE NATIONAL PARK OPTION TO BE STUDIED FORMALLY IN WASHINGTON, AND IT IS TRUE THAT THE STUDY COULD TAKE WELL OVER A YEAR, MAYBE TWO YEARS -- THOUGH NOT MORE, IF VIRGINIA'S LEADERS WOULD SIMPLY SEE TO IT. BUT IT WOULD BE SIMPLY FACTUALLY FALSE TO SAY, AS THIS SENTENCE MIGHT BE SAYING, THAT THE GEAR BILL FORCES PURSUIT OF A NATIONAL PARK TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER OPTIONS. FURTHER, THE PRESIDIO PRECEDENT SUGGESTS THAT A SELF-SUSTAINING NATIONAL PARK COULD BE INNOVATIVELY STRUCTURED IN VIRGINIA. WHY ARE THE PILOT'S EDITORS TRYING TO CLOSE OFF MERE INVESTIGATION OF THESE OPTIONS?]]

Whoever ends up with it will have an extraordinary asset: a moated fortress that has played host to dramatic moments in the nation's history, in a waterfront setting as rare as it is breathtaking.

The prospects for its reuse have triggered flights of imagination that have included not just a national park and monument[[FORT MONROE IS ALREADY A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT.]], but a seaside historical village, as well as several variations in between. [[WHAT FLIGHTS OF IMAGINATION? IN FACT THE REUSE PROSPECTS HAVE NOT YET TRIGGERED ANY MEASURED, ORGANIZED, SENSIBLE EFFORT TO BRING TO BEAR VIRGINIANS' BEST IMAGINATIONS. THAT'S WHAT THE GEAR BILL SEEKS TO INVOKE. HOW CAN WE DECIDE ABOUT THIS NATIONAL TREASURE IN ANY OTHER WAY?]]

Each vision - one preferring Washington as the custodian [[FACTUALLY FALSE CNCERNING THE GEAR BILL. THE GEAR BILL DOES NOT PREFER WASHINGTON AS THE CUSTODIAN. IT CALLS FOR ALL OPTIONS TO BE STUDIED. DEL. TOM GEAR HIMSELF DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER SOME SORT OF NATIONAL PARK IS THE BEST OPTION. HE SIMPLY BELIEVES WE SHOULD FIND OUT ABOUT ALL OPTIONS.]], the other the commonwealth - comes with its own political agenda. They now have collided in competing legislation from the House of Delegates by Tom Gear of Hampton and in the state Senate by Marty Williams of Newport News.

The two bills have the same aim - creating boards to oversee the fort's reuse in a way that enhances, not diminishes, its historical character. [[THE GEAR BILL IMPLICITLY RECOGNIZES WHAT THAT SENTENCE DOES NOT: THAT FORT MONROE IS NOT ONLY HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT, BUT IS IMPORTANT AS TIDEWATER BAYFRONT GREEN SPACE AS WELL.]] And they have some good features in common. But on balance, the Williams bill has the strongest safeguards and makes the most sense.

Here's why:

First, it keeps Fort Monroe in the state's hands. Gear's bill is the favorite of those who believe that a giveaway is afoot behind the scenes to speed its conversion into an exclusive Hampton enclave. Hampton officials invited the suspicion by drafting a preliminary residential redevelopment plan, but have retreated in the face of public criticism. There's no evidence of a giveaway, and there are tall hurdles that would prevent this from happening, but the perception persists.[[EVIDENCE OF THE GIVEAWAY INTENTION IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION AND OPEN TO DEBATE. BUT IT IS SIMPLY FACTUALLY FALSE TO SAY THAT THE GEAR BILL CALLS FOR RELINQUISHING STATE CONTROL OF FORT MONROE. IT CALLS FOR LOOKING SERIOUSLY AT ALL THE OPTIONS, ONE OF WHICH COULD BE SOME FORM OF NATIONAL PARK -- INCLUDING SOME INNOVATIVELY STRUCTURED NATIONAL PARK, PERHAPS WITH SUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO PRESERVE VIRGINIA'S PREROGATIVES. HOW DO WE KNOW IF WE DON'T LOOK?]]

Yet the object of the Gear bill is itself a giveaway too, albeit an undisguised one, to the federal government. [[PLEASE SEE THE ANNOTATIONS ABOVE.]] Either way - giving the fort to developers, or to U.S. park officials - is a mistake. Fort Monroe should be treated like a priceless family heirloom; Virginians will betray their heritage if they give it up so casually.

Second, it takes leadership away from Hampton and vests it with the state. A local government, particularly one as small and as stretched as Hampton's, was never designed for a task of this scale and complexity. Both bills recreate a new governing body that relies on the expertise and authority of the governor's office and the Assembly. But Gear's bill gives Hampton so few votes as to effectively disenfranchise it. Hampton has the most to lose, so it's wrong to marginalize it. Williams gives Hampton a vital role, but not a decisive one.[[IN FACT THE KAINE-WILLIAMS BILL ESTABLISHES A PANEL OF 14, FULLY SEVEN OF WHOM ARE TO BE FROM HAMPTON AND HAMPTON ONLY -- EVEN THOUGH FORT MONROE BELONGS TO ALL VIRGINIANS, NOT JUST HAMPTONIANS. THE GEAR BILL'S PANEL OF 21 INCLUDES TWO HAMPTONIANS PLUS THE SENATOR AND DELEGATE WHOSE DISTRICTS CONTAIN FORT MONROE.]]

Third, it accelerates the environmental cleanup. Because of the laws governing base closures, Hampton has already established a working relationship with the Army. The Williams bill preserves these formal relationships; the Gear bill dissolves them. These relationships are important because they would put Hampton at the front of the line when the Army starts doling out money to clean up the base. No one knows how much this will cost, but the estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Gear's bill would kick this problem down the road a few years, putting the federal money at risk while its board pursues the unlikely possibility of a new national park. [[THE ARMY IN FACT DOES NOT CARE WITH WHOM IN VIRGINIA IT WORKS, AND THE EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS ARE EASILY TRANSFERRED IF VIRGINIA CHOOSES TO REORGANIZE ITS FORT MONROE EFFORT. THIS PARAGRAPH SIMPLY RECITES THE RED HERRING ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO TRY TO RUSH A 500-YEAR DECISION. IN EVERY CASE WHEN WE HAVE TRIED TO VERIFY OR CONFIRM THESE AND OTHER IMMEDIATE-EXPEDIENCY ARGUMENTS, WE'VE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ASSERTIONS OF THEIR OVERWHELMING IMPORTANCE. FORT MONROE HAS SIGNIFICANCE MEASURED IN CENTURIES; WE DO NOT NEED TO RUSH TO THE WRONG DECISIONS WITHIN THE COMING MONTHS. ]]

Finally, it's got much better safeguards. Any reuse plan for Fort Monroe would require a simple majority vote in the Gear bill, [[FACTUALLY FALSE STATEMENT. THE GEAR BILL'S BROADLY REPRESENTATIVE PANEL OF VIRGINIANS WOULD INDEED OPERATE BY SIMPLE MAJORITY, BUT ITS REUSE PLAN WOULD REQUIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROVAL. THAT'S WHY IT HAS NO SUPERMAJORITY LIKE THE ONE NEEDED IN KAINE-WILLIAMS TO HEAD OFF OVERCONTROL BY HAMPTON.]] but a supermajority of 75 percent in the Williams version. The protections are magnified because the membership of the Williams board effectively gives a veto to the representatives from the office of the governor. [[BUT THAT REQUIRES TRUSTING THE GOVERNOR RATHER THAN THE LEGISLATURE AND A BROADLY REPRESENTATIVE PANEL OF VIRGINIANS.]]

That means the buck stops with Gov. Tim Kaine. So, he'll get the blame if Fort Monroe is ruined, or the praise and admiration if it becomes a symbol of pride and achievement.[[NOT GOOD ENOUGH -- AND MOREOVER, GOV. KAINE'S TERM ENDS BEFORE THE ARMY LEAVES FORT MONROE. LET'S HAVE DECISIONS MADE BY VIRGINIA ITSELF, NOT JUST BY HAMPTONIANS PLUS THE PRESENT GOVERNOR.]]

By allowing citizens to fix so much responsibility on Kaine, the Williams bill creates the best chance for the best outcome for Fort Monroe. [[THE GEAR BILL VESTS POWER IN A BROADLY REPRESENTATIVE PANEL OF VIRGINIANS. KAINE-WILLIAMS VESTS 12/14 OF THE POWER ONLY IN A COMBINATION OF SEVEN HAMPTONIANS AND FIVE REPRESENTATIVES ACTING AT ONE MAN'S BIDDING.]]

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

http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-56417sy0feb16,0,4758728.story?coll=dp-opinion-editorials
Fort Monroe

A solution is at hand, but not to the big problem

February 16, 2007

Daily Press editorial

Within the next two weeks, if the two houses can agree, the General Assembly will change the way decisions will be made about Fort Monroe.

It may choose one of two paths before it: one proposed by Sen. Marty Williams, at the behest of Gov. Tim Kaine, and one by Del. Tom Gear. Both legislators represent the area in which Fort Monroe is located.

Their approaches have this in common: They change the composition of the body that will officially take the lead in planning for Monroe's civilian afterlife. By expanding the Federal Area Development Authority created by Hampton (in Williams' bill) or creating a new, bigger Fort Monroe Reuse Authority (Gear's bill), they would strip the small group anointed by Hampton of the autonomy and authority it now enjoys. Williams would give it power to develop a final reuse plan; Gear would limit it to recommending a plan to the governor and General Assembly. But by different approaches, both bills address one of the problems with planning for Monroe: The current FADA lacks the depth and experience the job demands.

They have this in common, too: Neither solves the fundamental problem that must be faced. And that is this: The state of Virginia must retain at least a significant part of 392 acres at Fort Monroe that will revert to it when the Army leaves. It must not hand that land over to the city, because the city is simply the wrong structure for a project of this scope.[[THIS STATEMENT IS PUZZLING CONCERNING THE GEAR BILL, WHICH CALLS FOR LOOKING AT ALL THE OPTIONS.]]

This cannot be said too many times or too plainly: When it comes to the historically significant areas of the base, there can be no question of the state stepping away from a responsibility not just to plan for but also to oversee, implement and fund their long-term preservation, interpretation and operation. It will take considerable resources, the kind the state has and that the city does not. For the governor to hand that off - that land or that job to another body, to a FADA or the city of Hampton - is wrong.

Unless that body is the National Park Service. Gear's bill requires that the option of a national park at Fort Monroe be pursued. Success would require that the state inspire the congressional delegation to push for it, and the Congress or the National Park Service to make it happen. Given the lack of enthusiasm on the part of all those parties, that seems like a pipe dream. [[WHAT LACK OF ENTHUSIASM? THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL PARK IS A PROFOUNDLY POLITICAL PROCESS. THAT MEANS THE PARK SERVICE HAS NEITHER ENTHUSIASM NOR A LACK OF ENTHUSIASM; IT SIMPLY AWAITS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. AND BECAUSE VIRGINIA WILL OWN FORT MONROE, CONGRESSWOMAN DRAKE AND THE OTHERS IN VIRGINIA'S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION BELIEVE THEY MUST AWAIT A SIGNAL FROM RICHMOND BEFORE THEY CAN ACT.]] Still, it's worth pursuing in a parallel track, but not to the exclusion of moving forward with an approach that retains the state's long-term obligations.

And besides, the national park option could be one whose realization we could come to regret. It will be necessary to preserve the historic and natural parts of Monroe. But turning the entire base into a park would get in the way of one of the objectives that cannot be ducked: using some of Monroe - imaginatively, sensitively, wonderfully - to generate economic output. Hampton will lose thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenue. It must be able to salvage that economic sustenance from the base's reuse.[[NATIONAL PARKS BRING ENORMOUS BENEFITS TO THEIR GATEWAY COMMUNITIES, AND A NATIONAL PARK AS HAMPTON ROADS' "CENTRAL PARK" WOULD ENHANCE THE REGION'S QUALITY OF LIFE. HOW CAN ANYBODY KNOW THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF A FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK WITHOUT STUDYING THE ISSUE, AS HAS NOT YET BEEN DONE -- AND AS THE GEAR BILL CALLS FOR DOING?]]

That goal is not incompatible with protection of the historic and environmentally sensitive areas.

The problem with Williams' bill is that it goes much further toward inviting the solution-that-must-not-be. It specifically gives the governor permission to hand over to the FADA the land at Monroe claimed by the state. As far as the historic core is concerned, that must not happen. As far as the adjacent, developable areas are concerned, that should happen only after it is clear these conditions are met: There is a plan in place for a fabulous use of those areas, and there is a designated body with the resources and commitment to implement that plan. That is not the case now.

Which brings us to something else the two competing bills share: They concentrate on who will do the planning for the reincarnated Fort Monroe, but pay insufficient attention to who will implement that plan.[[NOT TRUE FOR THE GEAR BILL, WHICH AS PART OF ITS CALL FOR LOOKING AT ALL THE OPTIONS ALSO CALLS FOR ORDERLY DECISION-MAKING ABOUT JURISDICTION.]]

The likelihood of a successful implementation at Fort Monroe is higher if the state retains title to its land. Turning it over to a FADA, of whatever stripe, opens the door for the state to sidestep any future obligation to carry out the plan. Implementation would devolve, by default, onto the city of Hampton, which will have the most to lose if the reuse is not the success it could be.

There is another element the two bills have in common. Both allocate seats on the new and improved FADA to key state officials, but neither includes key Hampton officials, such as the mayor and city manager. Both bills include some Hampton citizens, but none who is accountable to citizens or has authority to deliver on promises. The city and the state must work together to make Fort Monroe a success, and they must have chairs at the same table. Gear's bill actually goes deep into anti-Hampton territory (a sad commentary on their relationship), denying the city the right to appoint to the new FADA any of the people it had previously tapped for the job and put on its own FADA. That's simply hostile and inappropriate.

The General Assembly will be challenged to find a solution that will work. One that puts the right people on the FADA. One that anticipates who should be involved in and responsible for implementation as well as in planning. One that makes sure Virginia does not divest its obligations along with its land.

Feb. 12, 2007

This Fort Monroe special update carries a request to true friends of Fort Monroe from Mark Perreault of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). Mark has also written to Gov. Kaine on behalf of CFMNP, asking the governor to reconsider his support for Sen. Williams's bill (SB1392) in the General Assembly. Later today, Mark's letter to Gov. Kaine will be posted at CFMNP.org. It bears repeating that Kaine administration official Marc Follmer told a General Assembly committee that the administration does not oppose Del. Gear's bill (HB3180), the measure that we think gives Fort Monroe the best chance for the right future.

Message from CFMNP Vice President Mark Perreault, who is also president of the Norfolk Preservation Alliance:

This week may be an important if not defining week for what happens at Fort Monroe. The House of Delegates currently is on the right track (Tom Gear's HB3180), and the Senate and Governor's office are on the wrong track (Kaine/Marty Williams' SB1392) -- so if you care about Fort Monroe and think it belongs to all Americans, and think its future should be decided not by one city and a few development-minded cabinet secretaries, but by a broad-based panel looking at all options, and only then after passing their recommendation through the normal political process, then please contact by phone (preferably) or by e-mail:

(1) As many members of Virginia's 40 member Senate as you can (contacting all is easy by e-mail) and urge they SUPPORT HB3180, which has crossed over to the Senate for consideration. (A list of all 40 senators appears at

http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/$$Viewtemplate+for+WMembershipHome?OpenForm . The list contains their capitol phone numbers. You can click on names to find e-mail addresses.)

(2) The Governor, asking him to reconsider his plan to cooperate with Hampton in turning over large swaths of Fort Monroe to developers.  (You can call 804 786-2211 or use the Web e-mail form at http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm .)

And, very importantly, please pass this e-mail request on to anyone you think might also be willing to contact senators and the Governor's office, and ASK THEM to pass it on as well. REMEMBER, this is the week and the public must express themselves to the Senate and Governor NOW!

Feb. 10, 2007
From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org), this is a special update to report that Governor Kaine this morning has emphatically reiterated his intention to treat as settled state policy what has never been comprehensively debated in public: the notion that somehow Fort Monroe belongs to Hampton rather than to its actual owners, all of us.

The vehicle for this reiterated assertion is a Daily Press op-ed by L. Preston Bryant, Jr., secretary of Natural Resources, and Patrick O. Gottschalk, secretary of Commerce and Trade, "both serving," as the Daily Press makes sure to note in the author I.D. line, "in the Cabinet of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine." What's really at issue here is the contrast between Del. Gear's bill and Sen.Williams's, as discussed in earlier updates. Below are these politicians' op-ed plus a Fort Monroe National Park piece by CFMNP's Scott Butler, which also appears in today's Daily Press. I've annotated the politicians' op-ed, and I submit the following on behalf of CFMNP for your consideration. There will be more from us later -- and more importantly, we hope there'll be more from you.

Steve Corneliussen, CFMNP

Please send comments by reply e-mail or to Contact@CFMNP.org .

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

http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-49096sy0feb10,0,7642311.story?coll=dp-opinion-editorials

The commonwealth's vision for Fort Monroe

February 10, 2007

L. Preston Bryant, Jr., and Patrick O. Gottschalk

The Army's decision to close Fort Monroe in 2011 presents unique opportunities as the commonwealth makes important decisions about the future of this tremendous historical site. As we consider the future of this property, the commonwealth intends to bring its knowledge and resources to the table, steering the decision-making process with great care.[[Throughout this piece, these gentlemen are equating the Kaine administration, which is merely one important component of the commonwealth, with the commonwealth overall. But in some sensible way, the entire commonwealth, not just Kaine administration politicians working with seven Hamptonians, must decide Fort Monroe's future.]]

Gov. Tim Kaine's approach to Fort Monroe creates a strategic partnership with the city of Hampton and its citizens, [[Twice more, in equally stark language below, this op-ed reiterates what it says here: that the Kaine administration sees Fort Monroe as belonging to Hampton, and not to you and me.]] while ensuring our experts in environmental protection, historic preservation and economic development are fully engaged in the reuse planning and implementation.[[This phrasing is an attempt to catch up with the superior approach being promoted by Del. Tom Gear. Yes, the administration offers expertise, but that expertise comes with political spin. It is the Gear approach -- not Sen. Williams's approach being promoted here -- that brings in nonpolitical citizen experts in these areas, in addition to Kaine administration officials.]] Under this plan the commonwealth does not turn over the property to the city, thus relinquishing planning and stewardship responsibilities, as has been alleged repeatedly in comments published on this page.[[Let's be clear, please: What is alleged, and what is true, is that this is a distinction without a difference -- as the Daily Press editors and others have said. To give Fort Monroe to the panel these gentlemen are talking about is to donate it to Hampton.]]

Kaine's desire for a state-local partnership -- where the commonwealth retains ultimate authority over the reuse of state-owned properties -- is embodied in legislation currently under consideration in the General Assembly. This legislation would create a new 14-member Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority, which would include five of the governor's top advisors, as well as one member from both the House of Delegates and Senate. [[Let's be clear once again, please: The other seven members of the Williams-Kaine panel are to be Hamptonians, with no representation from anywhere else.]] The state's representatives will ensure that the FMFADA focuses its efforts in three areas -- responsible historic preservation, conservation of and public access to open space, and economic sustainability. Since any redevelopment plan would require a 75 percent super-majority vote from the FMFADA, the state's appointees will be able to ensure an appropriately preserved, well-designed, accessible and viable Fort Monroe.[[This is an implied admission that there is a grave danger in donating a national treasure to any one city.]]

Preservation of the historic and archeological resources on the property must be a priority of the reuse plans. The Secretary of Natural Resources, as a member of the FMFADA, can bring to bear the considerable expertise of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources on the planning and reuse process. We are fortunate to have a department that enjoys a national reputation, both for its steadfast defense of Virginia's historic treasures and for its effective historic rehabilitation programs, which spur economic development and promote urban revitalization in communities throughout Virginia.

Today, Fort Monroe is a recreational resource that is open for Hampton's citizens to enjoy. [[This is the second stark case that I mentioned: these gentlemen are saying that Hamptonians own Fort Monroe.]] As we make plans for the future, we must protect the miles of waterfront and many park-like attributes at Fort Monroe, and be sure these natural attractions remain completely accessible to both the residents of the Hampton Roads area and our visitors. There is also a need to showcase the "living history" of the property so that the public can share in the wealth of heritage tourism opportunities that Fort Monroe has to offer. The five Cabinet secretaries sitting on the FMFADA will ensure that the commonwealth's recreation, tourism and property-management experts will all contribute to these efforts.

The closure of Fort Monroe, while a tremendous opportunity for the commonwealth, is not without its economic challenges. Approximately 3,000 civilians and soldiers are employed at Fort Monroe today, and the loss of many of those jobs in 2011 will have a substantial effect on the economy of the Hampton Roads region.[[Yes, and how has Hampton responded? City leaders used a half-million federal dollars last year to pay out-of-state consultants to devise a plan to make the heart of the potential green space at Fort Monroe into a gated community without the gate. When Gov. Kaine spoke after the state-of-the-union address in 2005, his theme was this: "There's a better way." For Fort Monroe, Governor, there's a better way.]]

The Army also estimates that maintenance costs for the historic structures and infrastructure on the base are $15 million annually. [[No one, not even as part of the effort paid for by that half-million federal dollars mentioned above, has yet vetted that figure for the post-Army context. In this and other respects, the governor is making decisions about Fort Monroe's future without knowledge of basic facts. Why don't we look at all the angles and all the options before we begin deciding? Here again, the Gear bill is superior.]] In our reuse planning, the FMFADA must fully consider options for residential development, commercial opportunities and tourism to offset these job losses, as well as meet new financial obligations. [[There it is: residential development. Sell much of Fort Monroe to the few instead of enhancing all of it for the many. Now, maybe development of some sort will be needed. But we don't yet know, and under the Kaine-Williams approach, we wouldn't be taking a thorough, unbiased look at all the options. Any development should be shepherded by a high-level steward for Fort Monroe. That stewardship is the sort of thing we should be establishing first, before plunging ahead based on the governor's presumption -- stated not long ago by a spokesman -- that there must be an early transfer of the property so as to speed "redevelopment."]] We must ensure that Fort Monroe not only remains economically sustainable, but that its reuse results in long-term success for the regional economy. In a state that has been identified as the best state in the nation for business, no entity is better able to ensure the success of these efforts than the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, under the leadership the Secretary of Commerce and Trade, who will serve on the FMFADA.[[Del. Gear's bill advocates a thorough look at all the options, including the national park option. A deep irony in all of this is that a national park is actually economically superior to the parochial, narrowly envisioned approach that the governor is supporting. Steve, can you prove that? No. But I can cite a study showing the enormous benefits of national parks to their surrounding communities. And the record proves that no one in the Kaine administration has exercised the leadership required to move Virginia toward the Washington study that could get the facts for us. The Kaine administration is narrowing the possibilities prematurely and without a strategic vision.]]

The successful transformation of Fort Monroe from a military base into a vibrant community center can only be accomplished by an entity with that goal as its sole purpose. [[Exactly right. That's why the Gear bill must prevail and the Kaine-Williams bill must be defeated.]] The FMFADA will be just such an entity, and it benefits from continual input from both state experts and those who stand to gain the most from the transformation, local citizens.[["Public input" was proven to be a Potemkin measure, a lip-service phenomenon, in last year's charrettes and in much that Hampton's leadership does. "Public input" is not good enough. Fort Monroe's future requires citizen involvement and citizen power.]]

As we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement this year, it is fitting that we also carefully consider the future of Fort Monroe, truly one of the commonwealth's greatest historic and cultural assets. [[It is also a recreational asset for the entire region, a region where developers are increasingly making the shoreline congested. Fort Monroe should become a grand public place for everybody and a true economic engine for the region. That's why the Gear bill is essential.]] Working closely with the city of Hampton, [[And there it is the third time starkly. The governor considers Fort Monroe to be Hampton's. But it is not Hampton's. It's everybody's.]] we are committed to leading the way to ensuring a brilliant and prosperous future for Fort Monroe, a future that will span the next 400 years and beyond.

Bryant is secretary of Natural Resources and Gottschalk is secretary of Commerce and Trade, both serving in the Cabinet of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.

Copyright © 2007, Daily Press

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

http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-50052sy0feb10,0,4435632.story?coll=dp-opinion-editorials
Would a Fort Monroe National Park be feasible?

Scott Butler

February 10, 2007

The passage in the Virginia House of Delegates of Del. Tom Gear's Fort Monroe bill increases the likelihood of the sort of deliberative body that the Daily Press called for in its editorial, "More on Monroe," Feb. 3:

"The state could manage the transformation of Monroe through an independent group that is clearly the creature of the state, with authority and final responsibility for decision-making flowing down from the state. That would better ensure that the value of this national treasure is not compromised by narrower interests."

In addition to creating a body responsible to the state and more broadly representative than the Hampton Federal Area Development Authority, Gear's bill requires a consideration of all options for Fort Monroe, including that of a national park. Thus for the first time there is now the possibility of a serious attempt to answer two important questions: Is a Fort Monroe National Park possible? Would it be an economic asset to Hampton and the rest of the Peninsula? In the view of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, the answer to both questions is a resounding yes.

To some the phrase "national park" suggests an entity completely and inadequately supported by an underfunded national park system. But at San Francisco's Presidio, a former Army post that resembles Fort Monroe in its combination of historic structures, green space and beaches, another sort of national park has come into being. Under the cooperative management of the National Park Service and a federal trust, the Presidio is a vital public space with restaurants, hotels, George Lucas' film studio, and other businesses as well as leased residences. At present it receives some federal funding, but it is already meeting its operating-budget expenses and is well on its way to being self-sustaining. Moreover, according to Craig Middleton, executive director of the Presidio Trust, Fort Monroe is a good candidate for a Presidio-style park.

But Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park believes that such a park encompassing all 570 acres of Fort Monroe would not only serve the public interest by providing access to a national historic treasure and a wonderful recreational area with beaches and unparalleled water views, it would also serve the economic interests of the region.

A study commissioned by the National Park Service found that the $2.6 billion spent on the park system in 2005 generated revenue of more than $12 billion, most of which went to the gateway communities. If Fort Monroe became a national park, Hampton and Phoebus would partake of this economic bonanza. For the first time they would assume the identity of destination cities attracting not just national but international tourism.

A significant, and remunerative, aspect of this tourism would likely be heritage tourism. Fort Monroe encapsulates the history of African-American life. The first African-Americans in the English coastal colonies arrived aboard a ship that stopped at Old Point Comfort, the site of the post; the labor of slaves was used to build the fortress, and during the Civil War thousands of African-Americans sought and received sanctuary at Fort Monroe and Union-controlled Hampton in what historian Robert F. Engs has called "the first mass freedom incident of the war" and the beginning of freedom for all Americans.

Also, both the long-term regional prosperity associated with a national park and the quality-of-life benefits of a grand public space would lure development and other business to the area outside the park, amplifying its economic effect.

A final consideration is the millions in transition costs and the potential millions to repair the damage caused by storms. These costs would be paid by the federal government, not by the city of Hampton or the commonwealth. The same would be true of marketing expenses, though the designation "national park" is in itself an extremely potent marketing tool.

Economically speaking, the creation of a Presidio-like national park at Fort Monroe is a far better strategy for growth than the narrowly envisioned redevelopment plan thus far presented by Hampton. But if this strategy is to have a chance at becoming a reality, Gear's bill must be reconciled with the Virginia Senate's Hampton-oriented Fort Monroe bill without losing the features that distinguish it: state oversight, broad representation and thoroughness. Everyone interested in the economic revitalization of the Peninsula should urge Gov. Tim Kaine and their state representatives to follow Del. Tom Gear's lead and make his bill the will of the commonwealth.

Butler, a Newport News resident, is a board member of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org).

Feb. 7, 2007
From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org), this is a special General Assembly update to report that Del. Tom Gear's Fort Monroe bill passed the House of Delegates yesterday by a vote of 70-26.

For the first time since the BRAC decision was announced in 2005, Virginians now have a good prospect to see a broadly representative Virginia panel decide Fort Monroe's future according to strategic principles, with all Virginians having an actual say -- rather than having a narrowly configured Hampton panel decide merely parochially.

Jim Hodges's Daily Press article, below the dashed line, reports the new political situation. Another bill, sponsored by Sen. Marty Williams and promoted by Gov. Tim Kaine, has passed in the Senate. Some sort of choice needs now to be made.

That Kaine-Williams bill seeks to donate Fort Monroe to Hampton via a panel that includes five Kaine administration officials plus Sen. Williams, Del. Gear, and seven Hamptonians, but with no direct representation for Fort Monroe's actual owners -- citizens like you and me -- and no representation by nonpolitical citizens who are professionals in historic preservation, regional economic planning, heritage tourism, or conservation and recreation.

In other words, the Kaine-Williams bill perpetuates the notion -- long since discredited among nearly everybody who looks seriously at the Fort Monroe question -- that Hampton somehow rightfully owns this national treasure.

But in fact Virginia, not Hampton, will own the important bulk of Fort Monroe, not only by rights, but by property deed. That's why Del. Gear's bill envisions a broadly representative Virginia Fort Monroe Reuse Authority.

The panel Gear envisions would include the same five administration officials and the same two legislators as in the Kaine-Williams vision, but would also have two Hampton citizens, eight other Virginia citizens including a representative of the Civil War Preservation Trust, and four nonpolitical citizen professionals in historic preservation, regional economic planning, heritage tourism, and conservation and recreation.

This Virginia Fort Monroe Reuse Authority would be charged with looking fairly at all the options -- one of which is a national park -- and with recommending to the governor and the legislature a reuse plan and an operating entity for post-Army Fort Monroe. That recommendation process is important. It underlines the principle that the Commonwealth of Virginia itself must do the final deciding.

At Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, we believe that the superiority of the Gear vision is slam-dunk obvious, and we hope to see vigorous civic debate about these two visions before the General Assembly acts further. Please ask a reporter or a news editor to see that this public debate takes place soon. The developers can only win in the dark. In the sunshine, they lose. PLEASE CALL THE MEDIA.

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

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-49287sy0feb07,0,7805470.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
Bills offer plans for Monroe's future
Two measures regarding the Army post offer different ideas about the decision-making process.
By Jim Hodges
247-4633
February 7, 2007

Somewhere between bills sponsored in the General Assembly by state Del. Tom Gear and Sen. Marty Williams lies the future of Fort Monroe.

Finding that compromise point could prove difficult, though, because the bills have some key differences.

Fort Monroe will cease to exist as an Army post in September 2011, and most of the property reverts to the state.

A bill authored by Gear, R-Hampton, to establish a body to consider reuse of the fort was passed 70-26 by the House on Tuesday and goes to the Senate. The bill calls for a 21-person group to review potential uses for the fort. That body would include a wide array of people, including those with expertise in historical preservation.

The group, which would be called the Fort Monroe Reuse Authority, would replace the two-year-old Federal Area Development Authority. [[THE GROUP WOULD BE CALLED THE _VIRGINIA_ FORT MONROE REUSE AUTHORITY. THAT FIRST WORD, VIRGINIA, IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE FORT MONROE BELONGS TO VIRGINIA, NOT JUST TO ONE CITY.]]

A bill offered by Williams, R-Newport News, was passed 37-0 in the Senate last week and went to the House of Delegates.

The bill, which originated with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, doubles the size of the existing seven-person authority, adding Gear and Williams along with five members of Kaine's cabinet or their designates.[[IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS KAINE-WILLIAMS PANEL WOULD INCLUDE NO CITIZENS FROM OUTSIDE HAMPTON AND NO NONPOLITICAL EXPERTS IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, REGIONAL ECONOMIC PLANNING, HERITAGE TOURISM, OR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION.]]

Gear's bill would not allow the governor to give Fort Monroe to the Federal Area Development Authority. Critics say that provision, which is in Williams' bill, would be tantamount to the governor giving the post to Hampton.[[THOSE CRITICS INCLUDE MOST PROMINENTLY THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE DAILY PRESS.]]

Williams disagreed, pointing to the new authority that would include people from around the state and to the requirement that 75 percent of the body agree on any reuse of the fort.[[CONTRARY TO WHAT THE SENATOR IS REPORTED HERE TO HAVE SAID, THE KAINE-WILLIAMS VISION SIMPLY DOES _NOT_ INCLUDE "PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE STATE." MAYBE HE MEANS THE FIVE PEOPLE FROM THE KAINE ADMINISTRATION, WHICH FAVORS THE DISCREDITED HAMPTON-OWNS-IT PRESUMPTION.]]

"My bill is pro-Fort Monroe," Williams said. "His bill is anti-Hampton."

Or not.

"My bill is pro-Fort Monroe," said Gear. "The 570 acres of Fort Monroe is the most valuable piece of property on the East Coast. We've got one chance to do this right."

He and Williams agree on that. The question, though, is what constitutes "right."

Gear's bill requires that no Fort Monroe Reuse Authority decision can be made until the National Park Service has been asked for its input.[[AGAIN, IT'S THE _VIRGINIA_ FORT MONROE REUSE AUTHORITY, AND THAT WORD "VIRGINIA" MATTERS.]]

Williams scoffs at the idea, noting the park service has already had input as part of the federal process that led to a decision to close Fort Monroe.[[IN FACT THE PARK SERVICE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE ABOUT FORT MONROE AS A NATIONAL PARK. THAT'S A PROFOUNDLY POLITICAL DECISION, REQUIRING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP.]]

"There's going to be a $5, 6, 7 million hole in the budget when the fort closes, and that's going to have to be made up by the people, either through increased real estate taxes or cutting services, like schools," Williams said.[[ALL THE MORE REASON TO START THINKING NOW ABOUT ECONOMICALLY STRATEGIC WAYS TO MAKE FORT MONROE INTO A GRAND PUBLIC PLACE -- AS OPPOSED TO MAKING THE HEART OF IT A GATED COMMUNITY WITHOUT THE GATE, WHICH IS THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF THE PLAN THAT HAMPTON ANNOUNCED LAST YEAR, AND PAID A HALF-MILLION FEDERAL DOLLARS TO GENERATE. THE DAILY PRESS HAS CRITICIZED THAT PLAN VIGOROUSLY FOR LACKING VISION.]]

"We need to find a way to replace that," he added, "whether it's having a park at the fort or whatever."

Feb. 2, 2007:

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). On Thursday evening in Richmond -- thanks in no small measure to efforts that many of you made -- the General Laws Committee sent Del. Tom Gear's House Bill 3180 forward to be considered by the full House of Delegates. If this bill becomes law, it will enable stakeholders from across the commonwealth to have a say in Fort Monroe’s future.

That's great, of course, but it's also crucial to note what else happened on Thursday. In the Senate, Sen. Marty Williams's bill (SB1392), offered in coordination with Governor Kaine, passed 37-0 and was sent to the House. This Kaine-Williams bill would restrict control of Fort Monroe's future to a severely limited group: seven Hamptonians, five members of the Hampton-favoring Kaine administration, and Sen. Williams and Delegate Gear, who have Fort Monroe in their districts.

Therefore we ask that true friends of Fort Monroe take yet another opportunity to exert a positive influence: please telephone the office of any House member or members, and say that you hope to see the Gear bill (HB3180) passed. This bill Is likely to be considered on Friday, Feb. 2, and certainly by Monday, Feb. 5, so please act today.

CONTACT INFORMATION: The "Delegate" line in the box at the upper left of http://legis.state.va.us/ leads to a listing of delegates (http://dela.state.va.us/dela/MemBios.nsf/MWebsiteTL?OpenView), where you can see the delegates' party affiliations and capitol phone numbers, and where you can click on names to get e-mail addresses.

Here's a summary of Del. Gear's bill (HB3180):

(Again, please note that on the General Assembly's Web site, information about the bill's actual contents is useless.)

The bill establishes a body that will enable stakeholders from across the commonwealth to have a say in Fort Monroe’s future.

This Virginia Fort Monroe Reuse Authority would be charged with:
* looking in depth at all the options (including the option of a self-sustaining national park, maybe something similar to the Presidio in San Francisco),
* recommending to the governor and the legislature a reuse plan for Fort Monroe, and
* recommending what entity or entities should own and operate all of Fort Monroe -- not just the old stone fortress, but the whole Army post, which means all of Old Point Comfort.

The 21 members of the Virginia Fort Monroe Reuse Authority would include:
* The senator (Marty Williams) and the delegate (Tom Gear) whose districts include Fort Monroe, same as in the Kaine-Williams bill that has passed the Senate.
* The same five Kaine administration officials asked for in the Kaine-Williams bill.
* Two nonlegislator citizen residents of Hampton.
* Four nonlegislator citizen residents of the Senate and House districts containing Fort Monroe.
* Four nonlegislator citizens from outside the Senate and House districts containing Fort Monroe.
* Four more nonlegislator citizen members to be appointed by the 17 listed above: a professional in historic preservation, another in regional economic planning, a third in heritage tourism and a fourth in conservation and recreation.

February 1, 2007:

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). Today's Daily Press full-page editorial bears directly on legislation being considered this afternoon in Richmond.

Here's a particularly important pair of paragraphs from near the end of the editorial:

There are signs that Kaine is preparing to hand over to the city the most critical parts of Fort Monroe -- the 391 acres that contain virtually all the historic properties and developable land. He should not, and a review of Hampton's track record will tell him why. This extraordinary property will revert to the state when the Army leaves, and the state cannot shuck responsibility for it off on a local government that cannot furnish persuasive evidence, based on actual achievements, that it has the vision, resources, expertise, experience and discipline to do it justice.

This is legacy-making stuff. Kaine can leave office having overseen a fabulous plan for a fabulous asset owned by all the people of Virginia, a plan that will be a boon to this entire corner of the state. Or he can leave having made the wrong call, one that will compromise a never-again opportunity. There's plenty of evidence to help him make a decision. He just has to pay attention.

For those who would like to know more: Following are, first, a full copy of the editorial and then, for any who might want to know how it bears on today's work in Richmond, a hastily written comment.

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

http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-39017sy0feb01,0,2071743.story?coll=dp-opinion-editorials
Don't do it

Some advice for the governor about Fort Monroe

February 1, 2007

Daily Press editorial

As Gov. Tim Kaine considers whether he should sign over hundreds of acres of prize waterfront land and historic properties to Hampton, he needs to go to www.hampton.gov and watch the video for the council meeting on Jan. 24. It will help him decide whether he can entrust the city with overseeing the redevelopment of Fort Monroe.

Here's what he'll see.

WHAT ABOUT FOLLOW-THROUGH?

The city has problems - significant problems - carrying through on a formally adopted plan. In this case, it's the master plan for downtown Hampton. As people lined up to try to persuade the City Council to go ahead with retail development in Carousel Park, they repeatedly reminded the council that it had failed with the first major project birthed under the plan: the apartment complex across the street from the carousel. It should have had lots of retail - the entire first story; it will have zero. The speakers referred to the council members' admission of responsibility for that failure. They urged the council to stay true to the master plan by going ahead with the recommended retail at Carousel Park. But they were treated to a "no" vote and comments that suggested council has a flawed grasp of what's needed to make an economic success of downtown.

One mistake - the lack of retail in the apartment complex - can be explained, but a second, intentional departure from an excellent plan - far better than any yet produced for Monroe - can't be comforting to the governor. Especially since developing and implementing a plan for Fort Monroe will be more complex, more controversial, more costly, more sensitive, on a scale that dwarfs the downtown project and with consequences that will be enormous.

CRUMBLING CREDIBILITY

He'll see evidence of a governing body whose credibility is fraying. As speakers reminded the council, many citizens devoted many hours and lots of energy to helping craft the downtown plan. Seeing the council ignore that plan as projects evolve, why should any resident have confidence that participation in civic projects is time well spent, or that they can trust the council to carry through on the promises embedded in adopted plans?

The public watched as a developer who had been selected by the city for Carousel Park, who had worked with city staff to negotiate a deal whose main points had been run by the council, pleaded, unsuccessfully, to save the deal. What kind of impression does that leave with the private sector whose participation and confidence will be essential to success at Fort Monroe?

SCARCE SUCCESS

He'll see evidence of a city with a long-standing problem producing success from redevelopment efforts. One of the reasons the council is struggling with Carousel Park is that options downtown are constrained by past decisions that are now regretted. In earlier and unsuccessful efforts at revitalization, city councils lined the waterfront with massive brick buildings. The result is that this spot, distinctively Hampton, potentially lovely and historically significant, has a look that from the waterside that is more bunker than balm and that from the street side blocks the view of the waterfront.

The council now faces the challenge of working around some past actions and undoing others. This track record with significant waterfront and historical assets can hardly make the governor confident about the city's handling of the fabulous assets at Monroe, and whether today's strategy would be tomorrow's regret.

WHERE'S THE HISTORY?

He'll see evidence of a historic city with precious little history evident. The city has a sad record for preserving historic structures and has stood back while some of the last have been compromised. Given the rich history of Fort Monroe, and the expertise and resources required to care for it, Kaine can't feel good about what might happen if he turns it over to the city.

WATCH THE WATERFRONT

He'll see evidence of a troublesome approach to waterfront property. Much of the meeting was given over to what to do at Buckroe. One of the reasons there is pressure to ensure access to that beach is because the last time the city approached a public beach project, at the Salt Ponds, it turned it into a private enclave of the affluent. And the council continues to effectively deny the public access to that public beach by banning parking on the adjacent public street. This history should give the governor pause, given the recreational areas at Fort Monroe that must welcome the public.

SACRIFICING A LEGACY

There's more Kaine should consider. If he checked out some earlier council meetings, he'd see evidence of a recurring inability to translate high hopes for economic development projects into reality. The Power Plant is nowhere near the lively money-maker officials dangled before citizens. The convention center lacks the retail component that was dubbed essential to making the project economically viable. And he'd hear about the city's failure, over many decades, to build schools when needed or adequately maintain existing schools. That hardly speaks well of its stewardship of public assets.

There are signs that Kaine is preparing to hand over to the city the most critical parts of Fort Monroe - the 391 acres that contain virtually all the historic properties and developable land. He should not, and a review of Hampton's track record will tell him why. This extraordinary property will revert to the state when the Army leaves, and the state cannot shuck responsibility for it off on a local government that cannot furnish persuasive evidence, based on actual achievements, that it has the vision, resources, expertise, experience and discipline to do it justice.

This is legacy-making stuff. Kaine can leave office having overseen a fabulous plan for a fabulous asset owned by all the people of Virginia, a plan that will be a boon to this entire corner of the state. Or he can leave having made the wrong call, one that will compromise a never-again opportunity. There's plenty of evidence to help him make a decision. He just has to pay attention.

POSTSCRIPT: CHEAP SHOTS. Another thing Kaine would see in the video of that Jan. 24 council meeting is evidence of dysfunction that could undermine the city's effectiveness. Two council members took time to lob potshots at city staff. Particularly alarming was Councilwoman Angela Leary's attack on Planning Director Terry O'Neill, for he is an excellent planner who handles the messy process of public input with grace, enthusiasm and impressive results.

This isn't the first time individual staff members have been subject to ridicule by council members, but for the sake of a healthy city, it ought to be the last. Why would the kind of employees Hampton wants - capable and creative - choose to work for a body whose members might belittle them in public? Insulting city employees in public is inexcusable.

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

Hastily written comment by Steve Corneliussen on behalf of CFMNP:

On the Jan. 24 edition of "HearSay," the noontime talk show on WHRV 89.5 FM, Cathy Lewis began to ask Governor Kaine a question about some Virginians' energetic disagreement with the presumption that somehow Hampton is meant to own Fort Monroe. (You can hear the interview at http://www.cfmnp.org/multimedia.htm . Please go to the Jan. 24 entry.)

When Cathy mentioned that the Daily Press had said the governor was working to secure the early transfer of Fort Monroe to Hampton, he interrupted her and said that the envisioned transfer would not be to Hampton, but to a reconstituted version of a special panel that Hampton appointed.

Many of us believe, of course, that that's a distinction without a difference. Control by Hampton is control by Hampton.

It's complex, but the governor was referring to the panel proposed in the Senate bill sponsored for the governor by Sen. Williams, the senator whose district includes Fort Monroe. That panel would either replace or reconstitute -- it's not clear -- a panel containing seven Hamptonians, originally appointed by the Hampton City Council.

This Kaine-Williams Senate bill calls for a panel of 14: seven Hamptonians, five members of the Kaine administration, and the delegate (Tom Gear) and senator (Marty Williams) whose districts contain Fort Monroe. The bill has no provision for broad representation involving Virginians' best imaginations and expertise. In other words, it omits us -- you -- the actual owners of Fort Monroe. Yet the Kaine-Williams panel would have substantial control over Fort Monroe's future.

That's why the special update that I sent out last night calls for supporting Del. Tom Gear's bill House bill (HB3180), which will enable all stakeholders from across the commonwealth to have a say in Fort Monroe’s future. I hope you make some phone calls this morning, or at least send e-mail. Please be sure to tell politicians what the Daily Press says: Don't give Fort Monroe to Hampton.

Thanks.

This is yet another in a flurry of special updates from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). Please indulge the flurry. With the General Assembly in session, and with your contacting of politicians absolutely helping Fort Monroe, it's necessary to ask for another round of calls and contacts -- and very quickly on Thursday morning. We think the message is simple: Del. Tom Gear's bill HB3180 will enable all stakeholders from across the commonwealth to have a say in Fort Monroe’s future. (Note: The General Assembly's Web information about this bill is incorrect.) Louis Guy, president of the Norfolk Historical Society and treasurer of CFMNP, tells more in this note:

Friends of Fort Monroe:

Things move very fast when the General Assembly is in session. The rush to judgment can be very dangerous. Especially for a 500-year decision like this one!

Last night Delegate Gear’s Fort Monroe Study bill (HB 3180) was reported unanimously to the House Committee on General Laws from its subcommittee, ably chaired by Del. Cosgrove (Chesapeake). Voting with us was Del. Barlow from Isle of Wight.

The next key test is tomorrow afternoon in the Committee on General Laws. We need support from all 22 members, but most influential will be Cosgrove, Barlow and these others from Hampton Roads, for whom I've listed Richmond office phone numbers:

Chris Jones - Suffolk

(804) 698-1076, DelCJones@house.state.va.us

Terrie Suit - Virginia Beach

(804) 698-108, DelTSuit@house.state.va.us

Melanie Rapp - Yorktown

(804) 698-1096, DelMRapp@house.state.va.us

Glenn Oder - Newport News

(804) 698-1094, DelGOder@house.state.va.us

Jeion Ward - Hampton

(804) 698-1092, DelJWard@house.state.va.us

We need any contacts you can make NOW to encourage their support for Del. Gear’s bill to study the possibilities for Fort Monroe, and to oppose Sen. Williams’ bill (SB 1392) to let the Governor give the Virginia Fort Monroe rights to Hampton for FAST redevelopment, without a (free to Virginia) National Park Service study.

Thanks.

From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, this is a special General Assembly update -- and a request for you to make a brief, easy contact or contacts with politicians right away.

Senate bill SB1392 calling for a handover of Fort Monroe to Hampton -- and, in effect, to Hampton's developers -- has passed out of committee. It has momentum because the governor is for it and its sponsor is Sen. Marty Williams, whose district includes Fort Monroe. Please contact any senator or senators, preferably with brief, polite phone calls, or if not that, then by e-mail. (It's easy to get Senate contact information in either of a couple of ways offered at http://legis.state.va.us/ .) Please tell them what you think of Sen. Williams's bill.

Meanwhile, positive legislation offered by Del. Tom Gear is being considered in the house. (The legislature's Web information on this legislation is incorrect.) Key delegates for this legislation are listed just below. Please contact any or all of them, preferably with brief, polite phone calls, or if not that, then by e-mail. Please tell them that you support Del. Tom Gear's efforts to do right by Fort Monroe.

Delegate John A. Cosgrove, (804) 698-1078, DelJCosgrove@house.state.va.us
Delegate Jeion A. Ward, (804) 698-1092, DelJWard@house.state.va.us
Delegate William K. Barlow, (804) 698-1064, DelWBarlow@house.state.va.us

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). Please come talk to Congresswoman Drake.

Virginia's congressional delegation can seek congressional legislation to mandate a National Park Service study of the prospects for a Fort Monroe National Park.

That study is vital to making Fort Monroe a grand public place for everybody.

For the study, Congresswoman Thelma Drake matters crucially. Her district includes Fort Monroe.

Please come to Congresswoman Drake's town meeting and tell her what you think:

Tomorrow, Saturday, January 27, 3 to 4 (maybe 4:30)

Room B, ground floor, Hampton Public Library

4207 Victoria Boulevard

(near the intersection with Kecoughtan Road)

You might want to comment to the congresswoman on some closely related breaking news: the Norfolk Preservation Alliance has just nominated "Old Point Comfort with Fort Monroe" to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. That makes all of Fort Monroe a candidate possibly to be named one of America's most endangered historic places. The Norfolk Historical Society wrote in support of the nomination. Please watch the Web site (CFMNP.org) for more news on this -- and please see especially another letter of support, a moving testimonial by Fort Monroe's most recent past post commander, Col. Perry Allmendinger, U. S. Army, Ret.

This is a special update from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org).

The Daily Press editorial board is disputing the new plan recently put forth by Senator Marty Williams and Governor Kaine. Being posted this morning at CFMNP.org, as shown just below, is a blurb for the home page containing a link to the editorial's text (with a few minor annotations inserted), as shown further below. We thank the editorial board for going beyond mere criticism and suggesting a constructive path.

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

NEW (1/25) GREAT NEWS: DAILY PRESS EDITORIAL: "WHAT'S NEEDED: A BETTER PLANNING GROUP, NOT COVER FOR A BAD DECISION." Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park will be respectfully requesting that Governor Kaine, members of his administration, Senator Marty Williams, the Virginia Senate leadership -- and indeed all in both houses of the General Assembly -- closely consider what these editors are saying.

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

STEVE CORNELIUSSEN OF CITIZENS FOR A FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK HURRIEDLY ANNOTATED THIS IMPORTANT EDITORIAL SO AS TO GET IT POSTED FAST THIS MORNING, THURSDAY, JAN. 25, 2007. PLEASE SEND COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS TO Contact@CFMNP.org .

Fort Monroe

What's needed: A better planning group, not cover for a bad decision

January 25 2007

One of the biggest determinants of whether the conversion of Fort Monroe to civilian life is successful is the quality of leadership.

Do the people in charge of planning have what it takes to turn this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity into a spectacular success? For it is, in truth, the chance to fashion the future of a fabulous piece of waterfront land, with the kind of developable acreage that cities dream of.

It is also true that the new incarnation of Monroe must be a spectacular success, because so much of Hampton's future is riding on the outcome. [[THIS IS A GREAT EDITORIAL AND NO ONE WANTS TO GET TOO PICKY ABOUT IT, BUT THE FACT IS THAT FORT MONROE IS NOT JUST A HAMPTON CONSIDERATION, UNIQUE THOUGH HAMPON'S STAKE MAY BE.]] It needs to make up for the thousands of jobs and residents that will depart with the Army. And many eyes will be watching, because the site has historic significance spanning four centuries and well-loved beaches and green spaces.

The people charged with planning are the members of the Federal Area Development Authority, chosen by the City Council when the group was formed in 2005, originally to help the military speed up construction of new facilities. When the military asked Hampton to designate the group to take the lead on Monroe, the city tapped the FADA. [[AND THERE'S A BIG PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM: THE PENTAGON, WHETHER OR NOT CONSTRAINED BY A BAD BRAC PROCESS, MEDDLING IN VIRGINIA'S DECISION ABOUT WHAT WILL BE VIRGINIA'S, NOT HAMPTON'S, PROPERTY.]] The members' willingness to serve is laudable.

But it is clear that the FADA is flawed. It was designed for a purpose much more straightforward than the high-stakes, complex job of transforming a historically, environmentally, economically sensitive property. Its collective membership does not appear to have the expertise and experience to turn this opportunity into a spectacular success. That is evident in both the process and the product developed so far.

First, process. Hampton and the FADA have put the cart before the horse by hiring planners to draft a concept of what could be at Monroe, before there's any clarity about who will call the shots, who will decide what the concept will be.

The state, not the FADA or Hampton, should call those shots, because the state has claim to most of the base, 392 acres that include the vast majority of the developable land. It would be a grave mistake for Gov. Tim Kaine to hand it over to the city. Hampton simply lacks the resources, expertise and political structure required to shape the fate of this incomparable state asset and ensure that historic and environmental resources are properly protected and shared. Its track record is not encouraging.

Second, the product. The concept put forward is so ordinary, so uninspiring, that it does not do justice to this site or this opportunity. It does not suggest that adequate attention is being given to the economic component, to the need to offset the losses the Army's departure will heap on the future.

The FADA is too small - seven individuals. And too narrow in composition. All members are Hampton residents, mostly long-time local businessmen, while the future of Monroe has regional, state and national implications. The FADA needs more expertise in historic preservation, to help the group discern which old properties are worth saving. It needs expertise in economic development that looks beyond building homes. It needs members who bring a broader variety of perspectives and demonstrable histories of overseeing projects that are as wonderful as the reinvented Monroe must be.

Legislators should resist Kaine's approach to fixing the FADA. He wants to double its membership, adding two legislators in whose districts the base falls and five members of his staff and Cabinet. He wants to require a supermajority before decisions can be taken, to assure that his representatives have influence. But adding political appointees with no particular expertise isn't the solution.

You don't have to be a skeptic to see in this approach a move to give Kaine cover so he can do something he should not do: turn the state's prized land and historic assets over to the FADA. The governor is asking the legislature for explicit authority to do just that.

Del. Tom Gear and state Sen. Marty Williams have introduced bills that would do what the governor wants, but Gear plans to offer a substitute. If well designed, it could fix some of the FADA's problems by adding more experts and more citizens. But even that wouldn't make handing over the state's property any wiser.[[DEL. GEAR SHOULD SIMPLY REMOVE THE PART ABOUT THE HANDOVER.]]

Gear is also proposing a joint legislative subcommittee to study the future of Fort Monroe. But to what end? Gear would stock the panel with too many legislators, who would hold a majority of the seats and both leadership positions, with the rest going to Hampton citizens [[IN FACT, THE DELEGATE IS CHANGING THAT CLERICAL ERROR, AND IS ASKING FOR CITIZENS MOSTLY FROM OUTSIDE HAMPTON.]] picked by politicians. What expertise would legislators bring? What likelihood of impressive success? One need only consider the legislature's failure to come up with effective plans for transportation, its dubious track record on environmental issues, to realize that adding politicians to the mix won't get us where we need to be.

What's needed is a decision by Kaine not to convey the state's land to Hampton, and not to give the FADA authority over it. What's needed is a FADA that's more broadly based, more expert, more visionary and capable of working with the state to plan a future that is fabulous - for both city-owned and state-owned portions of the base. [[THE PORTIONS THAT THE CITY COULD COME TO OWN ARE MINOR BUT IMPORTANT. WITH WISE LEADERSHIP, ALL OF FORT MONROE COULD BECOME A GRAND PUBLIC PLACE.]]

This morning I hurriedly composed and then sent the following to CFMNP Webmaster Dave Gurganus for posting at CFMNP.org. First is a blurb for the top of the home page; second is the annotated news article to which the blurb will link. I apologize in advance for any errors or misjudgments, but the basic meaning of today's new is unmistakable: the governor of Virginia has chosen unwisely. You can tell the governor your opinion at http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Contact.cfm . Thanks.

Steve Corneliussen

NEW (1/23) TERRIBLE NEWS: GOV. KAINE SEEKS "EARLY TRANSFER" TO HAMPTON TO "SPEED THE PROCESS OF REDEVELOPING FORT MONROE." After months of mostly silence and lots of secrecy, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has finally revealed his choice for this national treasure that is being inherited by all Virginians. He has chosen profoundly unwisely. But at least we now finally know where we stand. Read a Daily Press article hurriedly annotated by CFMNP's Steve Corneliussen. True friends of Fort Monroe -- as well as people who simply want the best for Hampton Roads and Virginia -- will be hearing more soon.

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

STEVE CORNELIUSSEN OF CITIZENS FOR A FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK HURRIEDLY ANNOTATED THIS IMPORTANT AND ALARMING ARTICLE SO AS TO GET IT POSTED FAST THIS MORNING, TUESDAY, JAN. 23, 2007. PLEASE SEND COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS TO Contact@CFMNP.org.

Gov. Kaine seeks help from senators

Sen. Marty Williams submits a bill from the governor to expand a board that will deal with the post's future.

By Jim Hodges

jhodges@dailypress.com
247-4633

January 23, 2007

FORT MONROE -- After being spurned by Del. Tom Gear, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has turned to state Sen. Marty Williams to help with legislation to steer Fort Monroe's future. [[IN FACT DEL. GEAR WANTS TO WORK WITH THE GOVERNOR IF POSSIBLE. THE APPARENT PROBLEM IS THAT THE GOVERNOR DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THAT FORT MONROE BELONGS TO ALL VIRGINIANS, NOT JUST A POWERFUL HANDFUL OF PEOPLE IN HAMPTON.]]

Williams, R-Newport News, is shepherding a bill for Kaine that would double the size of the seven-member Federal Area Development Authority, adding five members of the governor's cabinet - or people appointed by those members - plus Williams and Gear. [[THE PEOPLE THE CABINET MEMBERS WOULD APPOINT ARE ALSO FROM THE KAINE ADMINISTRATION.]]

It would take approval of 75 percent of the reconstituted board to adopt a final re-use plan for the fort. The legislation was filed near the deadline Friday. [[SEN. MARTY WILLIAMS, WORKING WITH THE GOVERNOR, FILED THE LEGISLATION LATE ON THE DEADLINE DAY -- AFTER DEL. GEAR, TRYING TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND CONSTRUCTIVELY, HAD FILED THE SAME LEGISLATION FOR THE GOVERNOR, WITH A MIND TO TRYING TO FIX THE LEGISLATION LATER. PLEASE SEE NEXT PARAGRAPH.]]

With a partial change of heart, Gear, R-Hampton, also filed a similar bill, but he said Monday that he was going to alter his submission, probably to include more people.

"We might add more people from (the General Assembly)," Gear said. "People have told me that there is a need for more input." [[WHAT'S NEEDED IS SOME SORT OF MECHANISM THAT REPLACES THE PAROCHIALISM OF THE HAMPTON HANDFUL WITH A STRATEGIC APPROACH ON BEHALF OF -- AND WITH SENSIBLE, JUST REPRESENTATION FOR -- ALL VIRGINIANS.]]

Fort Monroe is to close in September 2011, after being included in Base Realignment and Closure legislation in 2005. Its property is to revert to the state, which can then give it to Hampton, if it so wishes. The existing authority was created two years ago and includes seven Hampton residents. Kaine's desire is for more input and to wrest control from Hampton. [[NOTHING IN THE KAINE-WILLIAMS BILL HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH "MORE INPUT" IN THE SENSE OF ALL VIRGINIANS' BEING REPRESENTED CONCERNING THIS NATIONAL TREASURE THAT IS REVERTING TO VIRGINIA OWNERSHIP.]]

"The governor and Sen. Williams are working together on an approach that will allow the early transfer of the property and speed the process of redeveloping Fort Monroe," [[IF VIRGINIANS LET THEM, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WILL TRY TO CEMENT HAMPTON'S OWNERSHIP OF FORT MONROE WELL BEFORE 2011. THAT'S WHY THIS IS TERRIBLE NEWS.]] said Kaine spokesman Kevin Hall. "Del. Gear has a similar bill that differs only in the number of appointees to the reconstructed ... board." [[DEL. GEAR'S OUTLOOK, WHEN I LAST DISCUSSED THIS WITH HIM ON SUNDAY, WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT MR. HALL DESCRIBES.]]

Earlier in the session, Gear submitted a resolution to form a study group to consider Fort Monroe's future and another resolution to ask Virginia's congressional delegation to persuade the federal government to study the post as a possible national park. [[THE NATIONAL PARK RESOLUTION IN PARTICULAR IS VITALLY IMPORTANT. IT GAINS VIRGINIA INFORMATION WE NEED AND COSTS VIRGINIA NOTHING.]]

From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, this is a special General Assembly update -- and a request for you to make a brief, easy contact or contacts with politicians in the next 48 hours. Further below are two specific contact requests followed by a note. It's possible to combine your contacts, if you like.

* To find contact information for your Virginia state delegate and your Virginia state senator, please see http://legis.state.va.us/ and use the "Quick Link" for "Who's My Legislator?" (Polite, very brief phone calls to legislators' Richmond offices would be especially effective, but there are other contact options too.)

* For ways to contact Governor Kaine, please see http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Contact.cfm . (The link that says "Want to e-mail Governor Kaine? Use our handy Web form" is convenient, easy, and effective.)

++++++++++++++++

First request: Please support Del. Tom Gear's Fort Monroe National Park resolution.

Del. Tom Gear of Hampton has introduced House Joint Resolution 689, "Requesting the Virginia Congressional Delegation to direct the National Park Service to study the feasibility of creating a Fort Monroe National Park." (You can read the resolution at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+ful+HJ689 .) We hope true friends of Fort Monroe will contact Virginia state senators, delegates, and Governor Kaine to express strong support. Right now the resolution is in the House Rules Committee, whose members are listed, along with links to their contact data, at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+com+H20 . We think the main message about this resolution is simple: GREAT POTENTIAL FOR VIRGINIA; GETS US INFORMATION WE NEED; CAUSES NO EXPENSE TO THE COMMONWEALTH.

++++++++++++++++

Second request: Please oppose Sen. Marty Williams's alarming, last-minute bill that would advance the prospects for irresponsible development at Fort Monroe.

Sen. Marty Williams, apparently working with the Kaine administration, offered at the eleventh hour Senate Bill #1392 -- which is complex and arcane and amounts to an attempt to advance the prospects for irresponsible development at Fort Monroe. It's predicated on the widely discredited presumption that somehow Hampton should own Fort Monroe. It would facilitate the donation of Fort Monroe by its actual owners -- all of us -- to Hampton. It calls for an unjust narrowness of representation on a new planning panel, with most of Virginia excluded. Its passage into law would represent an abdication of Virginia's responsibility for the commonwealth, not just one city, to decide Fort Monroe's future. It'd be great for true friends of Fort Monroe to contact any senator or senators plus the governor. The bill has been assigned to the Senate's Committee for Courts of Justice, whose members are listed, along with links to contact data, at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+com+S3 . (Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr., is especially influential.) We think the main message about this bill is simple: PLEASE REPLACE THIS BILL WITH MEASURES THAT RESPECT THE  PRINCIPLE THAT FORT MONROE BELONGS TO ALL.

++++++++++++++++

Note:

There's other legislation in process as well, including another bill and another resolution offered by Del. Gear -- but discussing those would be premature, because we have reason to believe they're going to be changed.

++++++++++++++++

Comments? Please use reply e-mail. I submit this special update message on behalf of CFMNP.

-Steve Corneliussen, Vice President for Communications

This is a special update, and reminder, from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). If you can contribute even one sentence about Fort Monroe by e-mail to the drafters of the next Virginia Outdoors Plan, you have a good chance of making a difference. The deadline is Friday, Dec. 15 -- and thank you to the many friends of Fort Monroe who have already commented.

We've been told by experienced conservationists that public comments in this process can have a big effect. Moreover, you can simply e-mail your comment to vop@dcr.virginia.gov .

Please note a draft recommendation that's being considered: "Consider the significant statewide historical, cultural and scenic values of Fort Monroe in future plans for this historic site."

One couple submitted this comment about that draft recommendation: "This excellent recommendation would be even better if it referred also to Fort Monroe's recreational importance in an urban area with too little beach access and too little open space -- and better still if it called for the entire post to become a national park."

What's your comment? If you send it in, we believe it will be recorded, considered, and useful in the effort to save Fort Monroe from land developers.

More information: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/prr/vop.htm

Fort Monroe National Park update 15
25 November 2006
From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park
CFMNP.org

Contents of this update message:

* BIG EFFECT: YOUR COMMENT ON VIRGINIA OUTDOORS PLAN

* "CONTRABAND" FREEDOM STORY AT DEC. 2 HAMPTON EVENT

* BUCKROE BEACH DECISION RELEVANT FOR FT MONROE

* "ON THE RECORD" FT MONROE DISCUSSION ONLINE

* NOT TOO LATE TO CONTACT GOVERNOR KAINE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* YOU CAN HAVE A BIG EFFECT IF YOU COMMENT ON THE 2007 VIRGINIA OUTDOORS PLAN. Some people treat the Fort Monroe question as if it had only to do with history, but especially given Tidewater's lack of bayfront green space and public beaches, another important dimension is recreation. Public hearings have begun statewide concerning the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan, the state's official document for land conservation, outdoor recreation and open-space planning. Tomorrow, for example, public hearings will be held at 3 P.M. and 7 P.M. at 723 Woodlake Drive in Chesapeake.

We've been told by experienced conservationists that public comments in this process can have a big effect. Moreover, you don't have to attend the hearing; you can e-mail your comments to vop@dcr.virginia.gov (or you can mail them to the address announced on the Outdoors Plan Web page, http://www.state.va.us/dcr/prr/vop.htm ).

Please note that the process already incorporates this draft recommendation: "Consider the significant statewide historical, cultural and scenic values of Fort Monroe in future plans for this historic site." In my own comment, I plan to encourage their adoption of that draft recommendation -- but I also plan to ask them to rewrite it to include the word recreation and to include a mention of Tidewater's lack of beaches and bayfront green space.

Whatever you have to tell them, at CFMNP we hope you'll write that e-mail message. As I say, we have good reason to believe that there's a payoff for the few minutes it would take you to send a brief comment. Deadline for comments is Dec. 15.

* FORT MONROE "CONTRABAND" CIVIL WAR FREEDOM STORY TO BE HIGHLIGHTED DEC. 2 AT PUBLIC EVENT IN HAMPTON.  Contraband Historical Society President (and CFMNP Vice President) Gerri Hollins has organized a public discussion with panelists including Prof. Robert F. Engs of the University of Pennsylvania, author of Freedom's First Generation: Black Hampton, Virginia 1861-1890. The other panelists are Dr. Tommy Bogger of Norfolk State, Norfolk Historical Society President (and CFMNP Treasurer) Louis Guy, and Dr. Edward Longacre of Langley Air Force Base. The moderator is Dr. Bill Wiggins, former Hampton University professor.

The event, called "From Whence They Came," will take place at the Hampton History Museum (not at a nearby church, as previously announced to a few people), 120 Old Hampton Lane in downtown Hampton from 1 P.M. to 4 P.M. For more information, please see http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/pdfs/ContrabandEvent2Dec06ReleaseRev1.pdf and please watch the CFMNP Web site, CFMNP.org.

* BUCKROE BEACH DECISION RELEVANT FOR FORT MONROE. Sandra Canepa, a true friend of Fort Monroe, is a leader of the bayfront-green-space preservation effort next door to the post at Buckroe Beach. It's quite possible that many readers of this newsletter will want to act on her request to the public in this letter to the editor of the Daily Press:

'Purists' about Lots B

Nov. 23, 2006
    Reference two different points in two recent editorials; in "Reading tea leaves," Nov. 10, the paper points out that the message of E. T. "Tom" Meree's recent victory in Poquoson is that high-density development doesn't belong in Poquoson. In "Buckroe. . . ," Nov. 13, the paper states "purists" who want to take all three Lots B off the drawing boards are not being "realistic," and "compromise" is the only way to go.
    The "purists," to include 12,000 Hampton residents who signed a petition, want all three Lots B to remain on the drawing boards and to be redesigned as a world-class city park. Currently, a public opinion survey is being conducted for citizen input on four proposed design options (Options A, B, C and D) for Buckroe's Lots B.
    Design Option D shows Lots B can be developed into a magnificent waterfront city park with ample off-street public parking. By choosing Design Option D, no "compromise" is needed.
    The values of any housing surrounding the park will be greatly increased, just as is the value of any property surrounding magnificent parks throughout the world, to include New York City's Central Park. Meree's position against high-density growth and his victory in Poquoson should be no different than our position for a people's victory for Buckroe's Lots B.
    To view the four design options and submit input or comments to the city of Hampton, visit www.buckroebeach.org. Do not delay. The Hampton Planning Department will make its recommendation before the Planning Commission on Dec. 11, and public opinions will play a role in their recommendation.
Sandra Canepa
Hampton

* "ON THE RECORD" FT MONROE DISCUSSION ONLINE -- CFMNP TREASURER LOUIS GUY and others discussed Fort Monroe's post-Army future recently on WVEC TV-13. That discussion can be viewed online at http://www.wvec.com/otr/index.html# under the "Latest Episodes" category at the center of the page.

* PLEASE CONTACT GOVERNOR KAINE ABOUT HIS IMPENDING DECISION AND THE NOV. 22 DAILY PRESS EDITORIAL. Last Wednesday's special update asked true friends of Fort Monroe to e-mail Governor Kaine and ask him to ponder the editorial ( http://www.cfmnp.org/kaines_decision.htm ), which explains the context and the stakes for Fort Monroe decisions the governor is apparently about to announce. It's not too late to visit the contact page ( http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm ) on the governor's Web site. There you can post a brief note. We hope you urge the governor to consider what the editorial says before he acts.

Note from Steve Corneliussen: I write these updates myself (and they're archived at http://www.cfmnp.org/updates_archive.htm ), but I try to make them reflect the general outlook of the CFMNP directors, a diverse group of citizens from Williamsburg to Norfolk listed at http://www.CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org/BoD.htm . If you shouldn't be receiving the updates, or if you have a comment, please let me know by reply e-mail. Thanks.
Steve Corneliussen
Vice President, Communications
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, CFMNP.org

This is a special update -- and plea -- from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org). There's excellent news. A lengthy editorial in today's Daily Press, the hometown newspaper for the area around Fort Monroe, explains the context and the stakes for Fort Monroe decisions now being made by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. For some unexplained reason the editorial still, as of 7:50 A.M., hasn't been posted at DailyPress.com. Nevertheless at CFMNP we believe that true friends of Fort Monroe, even those who don't get the paper version of the Daily Press, will want to consider visiting the contact page at the governor's Web site,
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm . There they can post brief notes simply urging the governor to consider the editorial before he signs an important, and reportedly imminent, agreement with Hampton. We know from first-hand experience that notes posted on this contact page are read and taken seriously, and we think this is an important opportunity for doing that. Thanks very much.

Steve Corneliussen

Vice President, Communications

Please send comments by reply e-mail.

Fort Monroe National Park update 14
17 November 2006
From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park
CFMNP.org

Contents of this update message:

* SATURDAY: HAMPTON DELEGATE SEEKS VOTERS' FT MONROE VIEWS

* SUNDAY: LOUIS GUY DISCUSSES FT MONROE ON "ON THE RECORD"

* MONDAY: UPSCALE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION FOR FT MONROE?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* SATURDAY: HAMPTON DELEGATE SEEKS VOTERS' FORT MONROE VIEWS. Virginia Delegate Jeion A. Ward will hold a town-hall meeting 2:30-3:30 Nov. 18 at the West Hampton Community Center, 1638 Briarfield Road, Hampton. She wants to know what her constituents and others think about Fort Monroe, among a few other topics. If you think Fort Monroe should become a national park, you might want to urge Del. Ward to press for the practical steps that are needed. The General Assembly needs to ask Virginia's congressional delegation to cause the Congress to authorize a National Park Service resource study. (For more about that, please see the op-ed by Dr. H. O. Malone and Mark Perreault at http://www.cfmnp.org/Malone_Perreault.htm .) Hampton taxpayers might also want to speak up if they think Hampton's present course will place city taxpayers at risk for paying transition costs when Fort Monroe goes from Army to post-Army status. (Note from Steve Corneliussen: I'm not a constituent of Del. Ward, but I'm going to this event. I'll be wearing glasses and a dark blue corduroy jacket, and I'd love to talk to you.)

* SUNDAY: FORT MONROE ON "ON THE RECORD." Together with a representative from Hampton, CFMNP Treasurer Louis Guy -- who is also president of the Norfolk Historical Society -- will appear at 10:30 A.M. Sunday, Nov. 19, on Joel Rubin's Channel 13 interview show to talk about Fort Monroe's future.

* MONDAY: HAMPTON RE-INTRODUCES ITS PLAN FOR "REDEVELOPING" FORT MONROE WITH UPSCALE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. The city of Hampton will hold a public meeting on Monday, Nov. 20, at 7 P.M. in the Hampton Roads Convention Center, 1610 Coliseum Drive, to present refined versions of plans first introduced in July.

Is it a gated community without the gate? Last summer Hampton sought to attract city residents, and to some extent outsiders, to attend a July week of public planning sessions about the future of this national treasure that actually belongs to all Americans. Afterwards, the city presented three versions of a plan that consigns land at the heart of the post to upscale residential construction. The plan permanently deletes that land from the potential green space of a Fort Monroe National Park -- and permanently sequesters a major portion of a National Historic Landmark District.

City officials claim that the public asked in July for this construction. But representatives and friends of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park attended the July meetings and kept close tabs on comments and progress. The public did not ask for this upscale residential construction at Fort Monroe. For more about what actually happened in July, and about what the public actually said, please see Scott Butler's white paper report at http://www.cfmnp.org/white_paper.htm and the archival copy of Fort Monroe National Park update 9 (23 July 2006) at http://www.cfmnp.org/updates_archive.htm .

In fairness, it must be said that some Hampton leaders occasionally mention the idea of moving toward a national park solution sometime in the future. However, none can explain how that conjecture could be consistent with planning extensive upscale residential construction before the jurisdiction for Fort Monroe is even settled, and before any high-level form of stewardship for the post has even been defined.

Care to comment? Hampton says it will be accepting public comments on Monday evening, and you can always write a letter to the editor ( http://www.cfmnp.org/LTE.htm ).

Note from Steve Corneliussen: I write these updates myself (and they're archived at http://www.cfmnp.org/updates_archive.htm ), but I try to make them reflect the general outlook of the CFMNP directors, a diverse group of citizens from Williamsburg to Norfolk listed at http://www.CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org/BoD.htm . If you shouldn't be receiving the updates, or if you have a comment, please let me know by reply e-mail. Thanks.
Steve Corneliussen
Vice President, Communications
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, CFMNP.org

Fort Monroe National Park update 13
21 October 2006
From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park
CFMNP.org

Contents of this update message:
* CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST ENDORSES NATIONAL PARK

* HAMPTON'S CONTROL WANES AS HAMPTON-RICHMOND RIFT WIDENS

* FT MONROE = CAMPAIGN ISSUE: CORNELIUSSEN OP-ED

* FT MONROE = CAMPAIGN ISSUE: VIRGINIAN-PILOT EDITORIAL
* FT MONROE = CAMPAIGN ISSUE: CANDIDATES COMMENT ON "HEARSAY"

* LOUIS GUY ARGUES IN PILOT FOR STATE ACTION
* GREEN SPACE: ECONOMIC LEADER HIGHLIGHTS FT MONROE

* GREEN SPACE: HAMPTON MAYOR DEFENDS PLAN FOR UPSCALE HOUSES

* PLEASE DEDICATE YOUR ON-THE-AIR PBS PLEDGE TO CFMNP.ORG

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST ENDORSES NATIONAL PARK. With a membership of over 70,000, the CWPT is the nation's largest organization devoted to preserving Civil War battlefields. Following a visit by CFMNP's Mark Perreault and Sam Martin, the CWPT adopted a resolution (http://www.cfmnp.org/pdfs/1014040630.pdf) supporting establishment of a national park at Fort Monroe.

* HAMPTON'S CONTROL OVER FORT MONROE'S FUTURE CONTINUES TO WANE AS THE HAMPTON-RICHMOND RIFT WIDENS. Today's news added more to what was reported in a pair of Oct. 10 news articles (http://www.cfmnp.org/rift_articles.htm) about the "rift" over Fort Monroe's future between Hampton and Gov. Kaine's administration.

"Rift between city, state threatens Fort Monroe plans," said the Oct. 10 Daily Press headline. "Officials struggle over a pact about how Hampton and Virginia will work toward the future of post," said the subheadline.

Above the fold on today's Daily Press front page appears Kimball Payne's latest report, "Who will get what on Monroe? A state legal opinion adds to friction as officials try to decide how much Hampton and the state will get of the Army post after 2011." The article is available temporarily at http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-58599sy0oct21,0,354810.story?coll=dp-widget-news , but we'll be posting a copy on our "Articles & op-eds" page, http://www.cfmnp.org/news.htm .

For true friends of Fort Monroe, today's article is important for three reasons.

First, it shows that Norfolk Historical Society President Louis Guy, CFMNP's treasurer, is onto something in his recent warnings that Fort Monroe could be split up into bits and pieces before some sensible arrangement can be made for the entire post to become what it ought to become.

Second, today's article shows that the Commonwealth of Virginia might hold even more of the trump cards than had been thought. The conventional wisdom had been that about half the land -- the most important acreage -- would revert to Virginia when the Army leaves, with the other half going to Hampton by way of a powerful handful of Hamptonians centered in a Pentagon-supported "redevelopment" committee. Now a state legal opinion holds that more like two-thirds of the post might revert to the state, including some land near the marina and some land north of the moat.

Third, the most important news is what's not there. Kimball Payne's Oct. 10 article described the Hampton-Richmond "rift" over how to proceed. His article today ends by reporting that although Hampton's leaders met this week with the governor to try to smooth things over, the meeting was "private" and no one who was there will talk.

"Private"? A "private" meeting of public officials planning the future of a national treasure belonging to all of us?

That's the word Payne chose, and he's a careful wordsmith.

The Commonwealth of Virginia must soon decide whether it really, truly intends simply to donate a national treasure to one city for exploitation as an economic plum. Many of us believe that in the end, neither the governor nor the General Assembly can conceivably countenance anything so obviously unwise. Therefore many of us believe that, in today's article, the news that's not there is that neither the administration nor Hampton's leadership is yet ready to publicize just how wide the rift is.

Today's article's three ending paragraphs speak for themselves:

The information compiled by the attorney general's office occurred on the heels of a private meeting between Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and Hampton Mayor Ross A. Kearney II and City Manager Jesse Wallace.

That meeting was designed to iron out problems with an agreement between Hampton and the state that would outline the rules for working together as the Army leaves the post. The few staffers who attended the meeting would not say much about it -- even how long it lasted.

"It was a cordial and constructive meeting in the spirit of partnership," said Bob Crouch, an assistant to Kaine. "I'm not at liberty to characterize the specifics of the discussions."

* STEVE CORNELIUSSEN ARGUES IN THE DAILY PRESS FOR FORT MONROE AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE. The rift between Hampton and Richmond over Fort Monroe's future calls out for discussion by the candidates in this fall's campaign, says this op-ed (http://www.cfmnp.org/candidates_answers.htm) from last Saturday's Daily Press.

If you'd like to press Fort Monroe as a campaign issue, you can attend a political event and ask a candidate about Fort Monroe, or call a talk show when a candidate is taking questions, or write a letter to the editor (http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/LTE.htm), or raise the Fort Monroe issue in one of Virginia’s scores of political blogs (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=110064&ran=195216).

* VIRGINIAN-PILOT ADVOCATES FORT MONROE AS CAMPAIGN ISSUE. In an editorial (http://www.cfmnp.org/hampton_is_alone_on_fort_monroe.htm), the Norfolk paper observed that "none of the candidates for U.S. Senate or the 2nd Congressional District, in which the fort is located, have taken a position" on Fort Monroe. The editorial also noted that "Hampton, or any city, is unsuited for the task of leading this project" -- as did the Pilot's important editorial of July 5 (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=107059&ran=80134 , or just use the link from our "Articles & op-eds" page).

* CANDIDATES THELMA DRAKE AND PHIL KELLAM DISCUSSED FORT MONROE with talk-show host Cathy Lewis on Thursday. Their congressional district contains Fort Monroe. Here's one key excerpt from the transcript (http://www.cfmnp.org/drake_transcript.htm) we made of Rep. Drake's interview's Fort Monroe portion: "What I’ve told the group who came to see me about Fort Monroe as a national park is since it is state-owned property I think it is very important that the state have this discussion, and the state ask." (That group, of course, was from CFMNP, which -- as I reported last time -- is continuing quietly to see politicians at all levels of government.)

At Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park -- a strictly nonpartisan organization -- we may not agree with every single thing the congresswoman said, but we admire her for engaging this issue forthrightly during the height of her election campaign. We also appreciate her strong interest in a good future for Fort Monroe, and we hope to have the privilege of continuing to work with her if she is re-elected.

Cathy Lewis also interviewed her opponent, Mr. Phil Kellam -- and if he is elected, we hope as well to have the privilege of working with him. We were disappointed, though, that he seemed quite interested in preserving Fort Monroe at least in part as a mere economic plum for Hampton. But maybe we misunderstood. If he would like to comment on that in a brief statement no longer than the Drake transcript we posted, we'll post that comment too -- in a nonpartisan, equal-time spirit.

* LOUIS GUY ARGUES IN THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT FOR STATE ACTION and for Fort Monroe to be engaged as a campaign issue. Louis is president of the Norfolk Historical Society and CFMNP's treasurer. At http://www.cfmnp.org/clock_is_ticking.htm , please see his op-ed "Fort Monroe National Park: The Clock is Ticking."

* ECONOMIC LEADER HIGHLIGHTS FORT MONROE GREEN SPACE OPPORTUNITY. On Cathy Lewis's Oct. 9 "HearSay" on WHRV 89.5-FM, Old Dominion University president emeritus James Koch said, "Once something is built up, almost never is it turned back into parkland, and so we have a unique opportunity now with Fort Monroe and some other space within the region to essentially preserve that forever, for posterity. ... In the case of Fort Monroe, I think it might be possible to do some things that are commercial there along with some things that are parklike and preserving open space, and I'd hope that our decision makers would look at it that way, because that is really ... priceless, terribly valuable oceanfront land that could be just an absolutely magnificent public open space."

To learn more about Tidewater's need for green space -- a need plainly related to the Fort Monroe question -- please see "Open Space and Parks in Hampton Roads" (http://www.odu.edu/bpa/forecasting/sor2006_ch4.pdf), mentioned in the last update message. It's a chapter in the latest state-of-the-region report produced by an ODU team that Dr. Koch leads. That chapter calls out for inclusion in Virginia's civic discussion of Fort Monroe.

* HAMPTON MAYOR ROSS KEARNEY HAS DEFENDED UPSCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE HEART OF FORT MONROE'S GREEN SPACE in a continuation of an op-ed-page debate between Hampton's leaders and CFMNP's Steve Corneliussen. Please see our "Articles & op-eds" page, http://www.cfmnp.org/news.htm -- the Oct. 20 entry and the entries for Sept. 30, Oct. 7 and Oct. 14.

Hampton's leaders are continuing to defend their discredited claim that at July's public planning meetings, the public actually asked for upscale houses to be built on land that could otherwise be the heart of a Fort Monroe National Park's green space. True friends of Fort Monroe who were there in July might want to write letters to the editor (http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/LTE.htm) about that claim, just as some of them have done in the past.

* PLEASE CONSIDER DEDICATING YOUR ON-THE-AIR PUBLIC BROADCASTING PLEDGE to Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, CFMNP.org.

Note from Steve Corneliussen: I write these updates myself (and they're archived at http://www.cfmnp.org/updates_archive.htm), but I try to make them reflect the general outlook of the CFMNP directors, a diverse group of citizens from Williamsburg to Norfolk listed at http://www.CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org/BoD.htm . If you shouldn't be receiving the updates, or if you have a comment, please let me know by reply e-mail. Thanks.
Steve Corneliussen
Vice President, Communications
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, CFMNP.org

Fort Monroe National Park update 12
8 October 2006
From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park
CFMNP.org

Special note: I apologize for the long interval since the last update, but won’t bore you with the various causes. (I should say, though, that at CFMNP we’ve continued anyway to meet quietly with a range of state and national politicians and their staffs in Tidewater, Richmond and Washington.) I write these updates myself (and they're archived at http://www.cfmnp.org/updates_archive.htm), but I mean them to reflect the general outlook of the CFMNP directors, a diverse group of citizens from Williamsburg to Norfolk listed at http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/BoD.htm . If you shouldn't be receiving the updates, or if you have a comment, please let me know by reply e-mail. Thanks.
Steve Corneliussen
Vice President, Communications
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, CFMNP.org

Contents of this update message:
* HELP MAKE FORT MONROE A CAMPAIGN ISSUE
* TWO RECENT FORT MONROE OP-EDS
* "WHITE PAPER" ON JULY PUBLIC PLANNING MEETINGS
* HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENFORCEMENT BEGINS

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* HELP MAKE FORT MONROE A VIRGINIA CAMPAIGN ISSUE. Cathy Lewis was the first Virginia journalist to take the question of post-Army Fort Monroe seriously. In February, she moderated a TV discussion about it on WHRO, Norfolk's PBS station.

In July, on her WHRV (NPR) 89.5 FM noontime talk show "HearSay," she interviewed Presidio executive director Craig Middleton, who urged Virginians to settle the Fort Monroe jurisdiction question. (Here's my own phrasing of that question: Will Hampton actually control post-Army Fort Monroe, or will there be stewardship at an appropriate national level?)

In September on "HearSay," following NBC’s "Meet the Press" debate between Senator Allen and candidate Webb, Cathy said that there "are two really important issues that face this community that a lot of people believe could stand some federal involvement and intervention, and one is transportation, and the other is, frankly, jurisdiction for Fort Monroe, and what's going to happen to that, and who's in charge, and it seems that nobody really knows, or it seems pretty murky at the moment about a clear and definitive guideline about who has responsibility for Fort Monroe ... admittedly that's probably not interesting conversation for a national audience, but it is interesting conversation for the voters of Virginia ... ."

If you agree with Cathy that candidates ought to take stands on Fort Monroe, you can help by pressing the issue yourself, directly. You can:

* Attend a political event and ask a candidate about Fort Monroe.

* Call a talk show, especially when a candidate is taking questions. (When I phoned Tony Macrini’s morning talk show on WNIS AM 790 one day last week, I got a brief chance to plug Fort Monroe as a campaign issue -- and Tony said he’d start asking candidates about it on the air.)

* Write a letter to the editor. (Please see http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/LTE.htm -- and if you do write a letter, I’d be grateful if you’d e-mail me a bcc copy of it. In most cases I’ll post such letters at CFMNP.org.)

* Raise the Fort Monroe issue in one of Virginia’s scores of political blogs. (For an introduction to those, please see the Virginian-Pilot’s Aug. 30 editorial "Bloggers remaking Va. political rules": http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=110064&ran=195216 .)

By the way, I’m told that on Monday, Oct. 9 -- tomorrow -- the subject on Cathy Lewis’s "HearSay" on 89.5 FM will be the latest state-of-the-region report from Old Dominion University. One chapter in that report -- "Open Space and Parks in Hampton Roads" (http://www.odu.edu/bpa/forecasting/sor2006_ch4.pdf) -- calls out for inclusion in Virginia’s civic discussion of Fort Monroe.

That chapter observes, for example, that "of all the factors that currently challenge the availability of open space and parks in Hampton Roads, it is the progressive and almost relentless conversion of these areas to residential and commercial use that is most ominous, for once unsettled land has been urbanized with residents and structures, it seldom reverts to open space or park status."

Maybe on Monday, some people will want to call "HearSay" about the Fort Monroe parks-and-green-space aspect of the state of our region.

* TWO RECENT FORT MONROE OP-EDS. On our Web site’s "Articles & op-eds" page (http://www.cfmnp.org/news.htm) you can read Scott Butler’s recent Virginia Gazette piece explaining why Fort Monroe is important even for Virginians who don’t live near Hampton Roads harbor.

You can also read my own Sept. 30 op-ed obituary for the Hampton-owns-Fort-Monroe presumption -- an op-ed explaining how recent major developments in Virginia’s Fort Monroe conversation have finally killed the strange old presumption, held by too many for too long, that Hampton must naturally and inevitably own Fort Monroe.

Please don’t misunderstand, though. Hampton might still come to control Fort Monroe, and could still foster misuse of that national treasure -- though ideally, Hampton could also choose to help lead the way toward a fitting solution. The death of the Hampton-owns-it-presumption is a real advance, but by no means is it the overall victory. Not even close. We all still have work to do.

Soon to be appended to that obituary op-ed is an Oct. 7 op-ed response by two Hampton officials. Some readers of this update might be especially interested in their claim that Hampton’s July public planning meetings revealed a strong desire in the public for "allowing new development within strict limitations" at Fort Monroe.

Huh? At those big round tables, when we drew on those maps with those markers, we were asking for precious land in a bayfront national historic landmark district to be used for new, upscale private housing?

It’s true that that’s what Hampton’s consultants reported after the meetings ended. It's true that that's what the consultants drew onto their planning maps. But I don’t know anybody who was there who remembers any such expression of public sentiment.

I do know plenty of people who have good reason to suspect that upscale residential development, and plenty of it, is what many powerful people in -- and connected with -- Hampton really want for Fort Monroe.

In the "white paper" report described in the next item in this update, Scott Butler debunks this claim that the public wants Fort Monroe to be developed with upscale housing. Others who attended those meetings might want to debunk the claim as well, maybe in letters to the editor (http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/LTE.htm).

* "WHITE PAPER" ON JULY PUBLIC PLANNING MEETINGS. Scott Butler -- prolific these days; he came up in the previous item, and comes up in the next item too -- has assembled CFMNP’s various views about Hampton’s July public planning meetings in a "white paper" report (http://www.cfmnp.org/white_paper.htm). We were asking the right question: A Fort Monroe National Park, or a Hampton "redevelopment" project?

* HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENFORCEMENT BEGINS. Last month at Fort Monroe’s Bay Breeze Center, a bureaucratic process began for making sure that the post's transformation complies with federal historic preservation requirements. The process, called "Section 106" because it stems from a section of federal law, applies even if Hampton really does manage to gain control of Fort Monroe. I could only attend part of the session, so I asked Scott Butler to recap it. Scott wrote:

"Along with a number of other consulting parties, Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park participated in the Army’s Section 106 consultation process for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and reuse of Fort Monroe. The purpose of Section 106 is to assess the potential adverse effects of closure on the property, and to address these concerns with the future owners. But as CFMNP and other consulting parties pointed out, the issue of ownership has not yet been settled. Moreover, since one of the presenters represented Hampton, the designated Local Redevelopment Authority (also known as the Federal Area Development Authority), there was the strong implication -- just as there was in Hampton’s own public planning process -- that the city was considered the future owner. Participants reacted to this implication by criticizing the redevelopment aspects of all three of Hampton’s plans for the property, by pointing out that both of the area’s major newspapers have come out against a Hampton-owned Fort Monroe, and by expressing the opinion that the city has failed to tell the story of its own importance to American history. The last observation was greeted with applause."

Fort Monroe National Park special update

2 August 2006

From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park

CFMNP.org

This morning the Newport News Daily Press published its follow-up to the editorial-page survey on whether Fort Monroe should become a national park. The results are extremely gratifying.

"The great majority -- 80 percent -- favor national park status," the editors wrote. "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."

The editorial appears below, followed by four reader comments that appeared as a sidebar. The paper received about 80 letters, and published about a dozen more of them on the op-ed page. Those other letters are available at the "opinion" link at DailyPress.com under the headline for the first of them, "Protect from council."

What do you think?

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

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. A much larger selection of comments appears on the newspaper's letters page, available at the "opinion" link at DailyPress.com under the headline of the first letter, "Protect from council."

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.

Fort Monroe National Park update 11

1 August 2006

From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park

CFMNP.org

Contents:

* Wednesday morning, 9-10: H. O. Malone on WNIS AM 790

* Your Daily Press letters: "Should Fort Monroe become a national park?"

* Scott Butler's recap of Hampton's July 2006 public planning meetings

* WEDNESDAY MORNING FROM 9 TO 10 ON WNIS AM 790: TONY MACRINI WILL INTERVIEW CFMNP PRESIDENT H. O. MALONE. Now that Hampton has had its say about Fort Monroe merely as a "redevelopment" project for that one city's narrow benefit, CFMNP and Dr. Malone hope to begin moving the public conversation toward how best to preserve and enhance Fort Monroe for all Americans. ALSO, coming up early Sunday morning: You can catch "Inside Hampton Roads" on Sunday, Aug. 6, at 6:30 A.M. on STAR 94.1 FM. The half-hour discussion aired earlier on four other stations. Interviewer Mark Rawlison did a great job of letting CFMNP representatives tell the Fort Monroe National Park story. We'll try to post both the Macrini/Malone and Rawlison/CFMNP interviews later on our multimedia page, http://www.cfmnp.org/multimedia.htm .

* AT http://www.cfmnp.org/To_The_Editor.htm , CFMNP WEBMASTER DAVE GURGANUS HAS POSTED COPIES YOU SENT OF LETTERS answering the Daily Press editorial page's survey question, "Should Fort Monroe become a national park?" When the editors print selections from all the letters they've received, presumably along with another editorial, we'll link to all of it on CFMNP.org.

* AT http://www.cfmnp.org/HptPlanRecap.htm , SCOTT BUTLER'S RECAP OF HAMPTON'S JULY 2006 PUBLIC PLANNING MEETINGS appears along with photos of color drawings showing Hampton's first-draft "redevelopment" vision for Fort Monroe. Note the extent of the "redevelopment," mainly in the tan-colored areas between the moated fortress and the green space at Fort Monroe's north end.

Fort Monroe National Park special reminder

30 July 2006

From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park

CFMNP.org

WE HOPE YOU'VE ANSWERED -- OR THAT YOU'LL ANSWER BEFORE THE MONDAY DEADLINE -- THE DAILY PRESS EDITORIAL PAGE'S SURVEY QUESTION: "Should Fort Monroe become a national park?"

Hampton's public planning sessions have ended. Hampton has now had its say, and has done so under the presumption that Hampton itself owns, or will own, Fort Monroe. Call that the Hampton-owns-it presumption.

Hampton's town-planning consultants have operated under a closely related presumption: that substantial public acreage at Fort Monroe should be "redeveloped," for Hampton's benefit, into way-upscale private neighborhoods. Call that the "redevelopment" presumption.

Nothing in law, common sense or most Virginians' actual views requires our accepting either presumption. The twin presumptions stem in large part from the thoughtless inertia of the bureaucratic process for closing Fort Monroe as an Army post.

That process mandates a "local redevelopment authority." It doesn't distinguish Fort Drab or Camp Swampy from a national historic, cultural, scenic and recreational treasure like Fort Monroe.

But most citizens easily make that obvious distinction.

Yet no political, business, civic or opinion leaders came out against the thoughtless inertia until the Virginian-Pilot published its full-page editorial on July 5 (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=107059&ran=80134).

Now, however, everyone has a chance not only to come out against Hampton's "redevelopment" of land that belongs to all of us, but for an innovative, self-sustaining Fort Monroe National Park.

In the editorial pasted in below, the Daily Press's editorial page editors survey readers with the question "Should Fort Monroe become a national park?" The editors are seeking brief comments. They ask also that you send your name and tell where you live. E-mail letters@dailypress.com.

(If you send CFMNP a copy -- maybe by replying to an update message or via the "Contact" button on the home page -- we'll post it on a special page. We'll probably wait, though, until after the editors have published their synopsis, their opinion and a sampling of comments. That way we won't risk diminishing your letter's chance of appearing in the Daily Press.)

WE HOPE YOU'LL PARTICIPATE AND RECRUIT OTHERS TO DO SO AS WELL. THE DEADLINE IS MONDAY. Thanks very much.

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

HERE'S THAT DAILY PRESS EDITORIAL:

What do you think?

Should Fort Monroe become a national park?

July 25, 2006

It's a question that's on a lot of minds this week, as work is under way -- literally -- on a plan for Fort Monroe's civilian future.

And so, to reiterate a question that has been raised in many corners of late: Should Fort Monroe become a national park after the Army leaves, which will happen by 2011?

That question begets others: What is the best way to protect Monroe's heralded historic core, which is centered in the moat-encircled stone fort? What is the best way to protect the natural assets that lie outside the moat, including a wonderful stretch of Chesapeake Bay beach and open land? What's the best way to ensure public access to these public assets?

Is making it a national park the way to go?

What do you think?

Maybe your answer is a straight-up yes or no. Maybe it's a "yes, but ..." -- as in yes, part of the base should be a national park but other parts should have a different custodian. Maybe it's "no, but ..." -- as in no, not a national park, but specific decisions you think are important should be made about the base's future. Maybe you think the state should step up to own and operate this historic site, as it does others.

Whatever your answer, we'd like to hear from you. No matter whether you live in Hampton or somewhere else. [[[Why must the editors stipulate that non-Hamptonians may answer? Answer: because so many people buy the Hampton-owns-it presumption. In fact, however, national treasures belong to nations, not cities. Of course we all have a say.]]]

Please send your comments -- keep them brief -- by Monday and include your name and city or county of residence. We'll respond with an editorial summarizing the views of our readers and the position of the Editorial Board. Along with it will be a collection of comments submitted by readers.

There are few questions so significant right now for the city of Hampton or, arguably, the region.

So, what do you think?

Fort Monroe National Park update 10

26 July 2006

From Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park

CFMNP.org

Contents:

* Daily Press editors ask you: a Fort Monroe National Park?

* Update on Hampton's public planning

* Coming up: Sunday morning radio interviews with CFMNP representatives

* DAILY PRESS EDITORS ASK YOU: A FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK? In the editorial pasted in at the bottom of this update message, the Daily Press's editorial page editors survey readers with the question "Should Fort Monroe become a national park?" We're delighted about the survey, of course, and will be even more delighted if you'll respond to it and ask others to respond as well. The editors are asking for replies that include brief comments. They ask also that you send your name and tell where you live. E-mail letters@dailypress.com. (If you send CFMNP a copy by replying to an update message or via the "Contact" button on the home page, we'll post it on a special page -- after the editors have published their synopsis, their opinion and a sampling of the comments they receive.) WE HOPE YOU PARTICIPATE AND RECRUIT OTHERS TO DO SO AS WELL.

* UPDATE ON HAMPTON'S PUBLIC PLANNING: Tomorrow night, Thursday, July 27, Hampton's consultants will present the week's results at the Hampton Convention Center from 6:30 to 9. "Sketches and visualizations will be presented," says Hampton's Web site, "illustrating the long-term community vision of Fort Monroe." Unfortunately, what some of us saw as slightly inaccurate news coverage this week may have tended to defray memory of the obviously green consensus among the citizen working groups at last Saturday's map-marking tables. Most Americans simply do not share the presumption that Fort Monroe is a development opportunity for Hampton -- though they'll listen gladly concerning sensible, limited development to make Fort Monroe self-sustaining. Anyway, there'll still be plenty of green, even in the worst case.

Please note that thanks to CFMNP Secretary Sam Martin and Webmaster Dave Gurganus, we've posted photos of last Saturday's marked-up maps at http://www.cfmnp.org/images_charette.htm. Please be sure to see the special one at the top by Christine Gergeley, a "native Hamptonian's vision of Fort Monroe National Park" (http://www.cfmnp.org/images/Charette/Native_Hamptn_vision_FMNP(2).jpg) as well as its author's write-up (http://www.cfmnp.org/pdfs/2006-07-23_Fort_Monroe_Map_Presentation.pdf). Thanks, Ms. Gergeley. (And please note that she had no prior connection to CFMNP.)

* COMING UP: SUNDAY MORNING RADIO INTERVIEWS WITH CFMNP REPRESENTATIVES. Led by Contraband Historical Society President Gerri Hollins (who is also a CFMNP vice president), several of us were interviewed for "Inside Hampton Roads." The tape will air early on the coming two Sunday mornings. It's scheduled to air on Sunday, July 30, on

* 92.9 FM "The Wave" at 6:30 A.M.

* 100.5 MAX FM at 6:30 A.M.

* Eagle 97.3 FM at 6:30 A.M.

and on

* ESPN 1310 AM. at 7 A.M.

And it is also scheduled to air on Sunday, Aug. 6, on

* STAR 94.1 FM (time of day to be announced)

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

HERE'S THAT DAILY PRESS EDITORIAL:

What do you think?

Should Fort Monroe become a national park?

July 25, 2006

It's a question that's on a lot of minds this week, as work is under way - literally - on a plan for Fort Monroe's civilian future.

And so, to reiterate a question that has been raised in many corners of late: Should Fort Monroe become a national park after the Army leaves, which will happen by 2011?

That question begets others: What is the best way to protect Monroe's heralded historic core, which is centered in the moat-encircled stone fort? What is the best way to protect the natural assets that lie outside the moat, including a wonderful stretch of Chesapeake Bay beach and open land? What's the best way to ensure public access to these public assets?

Is making it a national park the way to go?

What do you think?

Maybe your answer is a straight-up yes or no. Maybe it's a "yes, but ..." - as in yes, part of the base should be a national park but other parts should have a different custodian. Maybe it's "no, but ..." - as in no, not a national park, but specific decisions you think are important should be made about the base's future. Maybe you think the state should step up to own and operate this historic site, as it does others.

Whatever your answer, we'd like to hear from you. No matter whether you live in Hampton or somewhere else. [[[Why must it even be stipulated that non-Hamptonians may answer? Answer: because many people simply assume that Hamptonians have a special claim on Fort Monroe. That false presumption also colored last Saturday's public design session. It all stems from the BRAC process. In fact, however, national treasures belong to nations, not cities. Of course we all have a say. -Steve Corneliussen]]]

Please send your comments - keep them brief - by Monday and include your name and city or county of residence. We'll respond with an editorial summarizing the views of our readers and the position of the Editorial Board. Along with it will be a collection of comments submitted by readers.

There are few questions so significant right now for the city of Hampton or, arguably, the region.

So, what do you think?

This is the ninth general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP), CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org. I'd like to report my own general observations from the second day of Hampton's public planning meetings, the Saturday design discussions. I've tacked on two news reports at the end. I don't claim to be reporting comprehensively. Please send comments by reply e-mail -- and please check the Web site for other news, especially the note at the top of the home page about what's still to come in Hampton's public meetings.
-Steve Corneliussen
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park

"THE CONSENSUS IS CLEARLY GREEN." All the evidence that we've seen confirms this overall judgment of my friend Gwyn Williams, a Jefferson Lab photon scientist relatively new to Tidewater. Gwyn took part in Saturday's hands-on, map-marking Fort Monroe design discussion at one of the sixteen tables where citizens spoke with pencils and colored markers about how they'd like to see Fort Monroe evolve.

Scientists like to gather data and then boil things down to simple, elegant statements. After his table finished early, Gwyn toured the room and observed at other tables. "The consensus is clearly green," he told me.

Later, the table spokespersons' oral reports confirmed Gwyn's judgment. Support was high in the room for some kind of national park approach, though it was hard to say just how high, since in many cases the design discussions focused on what Fort Monroe should look like more than how it should get to look that way.

Green, however, is not a "how" thing; it's a "what" thing. Hampton's planning meetings are showing that Virginians want a green Fort Monroe.

Both local dailies' reports about Saturday's citizen design sessions appear below in this message. Both seem to see that conclusion for green.

"The familiar tracks of the day," wrote Daily Press reporter Kimball Payne, included "historic preservation in the old stone fort, park space in the north and public beachfront."

"There was general consensus during the five-hour session that the fort's historic assets -- including the nation's only moated stone fortress -- must be preserved, and that the 570-acre base and its beaches should remain accessible to the public," Kate Wiltrout wrote in the Virginian-Pilot.

I mentioned "all the evidence that we've seen." What I mean is that CFMNP had someone at almost every table. We know from first-hand, direct observation that the national park idea was broadly popular.

But "national park" was defined to some extent that day as a "how" issue, not a "what" issue. In fact, I had asked a public question about "how" vs. "what" at Friday evening's kickoff meeting, and I got what I thought was a fair answer. But on Saturday morning, first thing, Hampton brought up the how vs. what question again, and seemed in some degree to be going back on the answer from the night before.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm glad to talk about the "what." In fact, having been married 29 years ago in the chapel at Fort Monroe, I pushed hard for the "wedding chapel" idea mentioned in one of the news reports below. That's a "what." And I got to draw green "what" stuff on the map at my table. Nevertheless it was my sense that the national park concept -- a "how" issue -- didn't get enough discussion around the room.

But it did get a lot. In fact, pervasive support for a national park approach was a big part of that generalization that Gwyn Williams gathered data for: the consensus was clearly green.

So maybe private, high-rise condos on the public waterfront of a McFort Monroe have become less of a threat. But there's still plenty to worry about -- and on the positive side, there's still plenty to advocate for.

At Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, we'd like to know what you saw on Saturday, if you were able to attend -- or what you saw on any of the other days, for that matter.

Please send comments by replying to this message. Thanks very much.

--------------------------------------
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-81570sy0jul23,0,424939.story
So many tables, so many Fort Monroe plans
kpayne@dailypress.com 247-4765

July 23 2006
Daily Press

HAMPTON -- J.T. Kelley walked into the Hampton Roads Convention Center a skeptic Saturday morning.

How could a stack of maps and a handful of colored markers churn out legitimate ideas and debate about the future of Fort Monroe?

Three hours later, Kelley was spokesman for his table, presenting his team's design to more than 160 people spread across a hangarlike conference room

"You stir people's emotions, and you get passion," said Kelley, who works at Jefferson Lab in Newport News. "Then you present them (the ideas), and it's all in writing."

The slew of schemes drummed up Saturday will help guide the professional planners tasked with forming three visions for the waterfront post, which the Army is scheduled to leave by 2011. None of the proposals is guaranteed to make the final cut, and the unique plans to be offered Thursday are designed to be flexible.

But a sampling of the concepts produced by 16 clusters of people illustrates the dominant themes for the future of the 570-acre post. Each team was given a plastic bag of colored markers, a huge map of Fort Monroe and a couple of hours to hash out the future.

"Argue if you must, but argue with your pencil," said Victor Dover, town planner for Dover, Kohl and Partners, the Coral Gables, Fla.-based firm leading the weeklong input meetings. "Resist the temptation to completely erase what your neighbor just drew."

Teenagers from the Hampton Youth Commission were leaning over table 11, balancing on their elbows and fighting for airtime. Their map followed the familiar tracks of the day, including historic preservation in the old stone fort, park space in the north and public beachfront.

There was, however, a twist on the backside of the post, where Mill Creek was transformed into a water sports haven - complete with snorkeling, scuba diving and water skiing. Just a few feet away, the red marker came out early at table five, where a column of block letters listed some basic ground rules for the post's face-lift.

"No development on the waterfront, safeguard the wetlands, public access (and) open space," the directions read.

Burt St. John told the table that the overwhelming focus on historic preservation should be coupled with a marketing campaign for unique spots, such as the Casemate Museum cell where Confederate President Jefferson Davis was held after the Civil War.

"If we were coming in from Missouri, we would never hear of this stuff," the Virginia Beach resident said.

Hardly any white space survived on the map at table 27, where brightly colored paragraphs detailed a balance between preservation and development. The group was hoping to attract unusual tenants into the post's historic buildings.

"If Jacques Cousteau's agency wanted to come out and lease a building, that would be wonderful," Karen Detweiler said.

The open session conjured a wide spectrum of models that ran the gamut from clusters of homes to casinos to wildlife preserves. Some folks want to turn the post into an educational enclave boasting a law, business or medical school.

Others suggested designing space for corporate retreats or research centers. An expanded marina dominated the conversation at one table because the post's existing slips could bring in money and tourists.

One table wanted a ferry linked to downtown Hampton. Another group thought that the post should be crisscrossed with a network of bike and walking trails.

York County resident Bob Wood watched themes emerge at table 15.

"There are big parts that we want to be a park, but we don't want it to be static," Wood said.

"There have to be trade-offs, and there have to be compromises."

---------------------------------------
Ideas fly at session on Fort Monroe's future
By KATE WILTROUT, The Virginian-Pilot
July 23, 2006

HAMPTON - Suggestions for what to do with Fort Monroe were all over the map Saturday - literally.

Groups of about a dozen people each huddled around table-sized maps at the Hampton Roads Convention Center, markers in hand, to scribble down their vision for the historic, waterfront base after the Army pulls out in 2011.

There was general consensus during the five-hour session that the fort's historic assets - including the nation's only moated stone fortress - must be preserved, and that the 570-acre base and its beaches should remain accessible to the public.

From there, visions varied widely among the 200 or so participants.

Ideas included a youth hostel, bed-and-breakfasts, restaurants, an amusement park and thousands of homes. Others pitched a living history museum dedicated to telling the story of American Indians, expanding the 300-slip marina, and turning the base's two churches into wedding chapels.

"Do well, and history will judge you well," said Victor Dover, whose planning firm ran the workshop and will develop scenarios for the base's reuse. "Do poorly, and history will judge you harshly."

Some in attendance advocated a self-sustaining national park that leases out buildings to bring in money. Others talked of bringing in restaurants and shops to lure visitors, or making it a vacation destination by selling time-shares in what is now housing for military officers.

"I don't envy the people who are going to have to bring all this together," said Simon Gaskill, a retired pilot who moved back to his native Hampton after 40 years. "We must preserve the historic flavor. From there, there are so many different avenues."

Last year, the government announced it would close the post, which is home to the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. About half of the acreage is to revert to the state's control, but it's unclear who will ultimately own the land. The city of Hampton has taken the lead in the planning, establishing a development authority that will work with the Department of Defense to oversee the transition.

The development authority - a seven -member board appointed by the Hampton City Council - hired Dover, Kohl & Partners to gather public input and develop a number of scenarios for the base. Designers and planners from the Coral Gables, Fla., firm will spend much of this week distilling the ideas from Saturday's session into three proposals it will present Thursday evening.

Curtis Morris, a Suffolk resident and member of the base's yacht club, advocated middle ground: Put the buildings to use so they don't decline and decay, but don't let "cheap development" ruin the site's character.

"You're going to have to accommodate the interests of many, and make it self-sustaining in the long run," Morris said.

Steve Corneliussen of Poquoson said he was heartened to hear so many people emphasizing a "green" approach - walking and biking trails, fishing piers, water sports. He was also pleased that most of the audience believed the fortress and the buildings on the southern end of the J-shaped base should be preserved.

The big question is what to do with open space on the quarter-mile-wide stretch of land in the middle and northern end of the base, Corneliussen said. "It seems to me that's what we're really debating."

Bob Harper, chairman of the Hampton Federal Area Development Authority, said he hopes the authority will adopt a comprehensive re use plan by mid-2007.

"This is only a step in the process," Harper said.

Reach Kate Wiltrout at (757) 446-2629 or kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com.

This is the eighth general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP), CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org.

* PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT THAT NEWSPAPER AD THAT MANY OF YOU PAID FOR. We hope it will help you and us recruit people to come for all or part of Saturday's public planning meeting from 9 to 2 at the convention center next to the Hampton Coliseum. Please see http://www.cfmnp.org/Daily_Press_Ad.htm .

* THE POSSIBILITY OF A FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK HAS BECOME A HOT TOPIC IN TWO OF VIRGINIA'S LEADING NEWSPAPERS. Please see our "News articles" page (http://www.cfmnp.org/news.htm) for links to contributions from public figures, editorial boards and CFMNP's Scott Butler, Louis Guy, H. O. Malone and Mark Perreault.

This is the seventh general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP), CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org.

* WILL YOU ADVOCATE FOR A FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK THIS SATURDAY AT THE CONVENTION CENTER IN HAMPTON? Here's the text of a large newspaper ad that will appear -- thanks to many of you -- on Friday about that, followed by a bit more information:

A NATIONAL PARK AT FORT MONROE OR A HAMPTON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT?

The fate of Fort Monroe is in your hands.

Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park urges all Hampton Roads residents who care about the future of Fort Monroe to attend Hampton's public workshop at the Hampton Convention Center (next to Hampton Coliseum) on Saturday, July 22, from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Everyone is welcome, from in or out of Hampton, to stay one hour or five.

Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park believes that Fort Monroe should not be regarded as an "economic engine" for Hampton. Fort Monroe is an icon and a precious symbol for the entire nation. The July 22 workshop offers citizens the opportunity to express their desire for a national park preserving for all time Fort Monroe's deep historical significance, and maintaining for public use its green spaces, seawall walk, and beaches. Designation as a national park by Congress will secure the future of this national treasure and strengthen Hampton's economy and that of the region.

For more information about OUR VISION OF A NATIONAL PARK AT FORT MONROE and about the Hampton planning process, see the web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP.org).

* SOME THINGS ATTENDEES MIGHT WANT TO KEEP IN MIND:

- Saturday is a hands-on design session involving group work at tables.

- We hope not only to see you, but others whom you've recruited.

- If we all spread out rather than clustering at only a few tables, we'll persuade more people.

- For a nutshell summary of the case for a national park, please see http://www.cfmnp.org/talking_points.htm.

- For a more in-depth summary, please see http://www.cfmnp.org/FAQs.htm.

- We'll have those and other materials available as handouts -- not just a single copy for you, but copies for you to share with people you talk to at the meeting.

* SOME EXTRA THINGS WE HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER DOING AT SATURDAY'S MEETING:

- Poll your table (or tables) at some appropriate time with this simple question: How many want to see a Fort Monroe National Park?

- Collect new e-mail addresses for the CFMNP updates list.

- Give me or e-mail me any poll results, e-mail addresses, comments or observations. (I'll be in a green long-sleeved shirt with a tie, or e-mail Corneliussen@nfx.net or reply to any update message.) I'll post a report right away on the Web site.

* ONE SPECIAL NOTE THAT WE HOPE IS NOT NECESSARY: The facilitators plan to keep things focused on what should go where on the ground at Fort Monroe; they plan to discourage talk about how Fort Monroe should be administered and funded. That could mean discouraging discussion of Fort Monroe as a self-sustaining national park in the spirit of the Presidio precedent. We hope, though, that there'll be plenty of time to discuss all of the issues. Please let us know if problems arise. (If they do arise, we don't advocate any energetic protests.)

* SATURDAY'S MEETING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE TO ATTEND, but Hampton's week of public planning meetings at the convention center begins Friday evening. Here's the full schedule, copied directly from Hampton's Fort Monroe Web site:

July 21, 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm Kick-off presentation with citizens
July 22, 9:00 am - 2:00 pm Hands-on design session with citizens
July 23, 1:00 pm - 7:00 pm Refine the plan with community input
July 24, 9:00 am - 7:00 pm Refine the plan with community input
July 25, 9:00 am - 7:00 pm Refine the plan with community input
July 25, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm Informal open house: Citizens review work in progress
July 26, 9:00 am - 7:00 pm Refine the plan with community input
July 27, 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm "Work in Progress" Presentation

This is the sixth general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP), CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org.

(Special note to those who have contributed so far in response to that "special update" the other day: Thanks very much. I'll be reporting on the newspaper ad soon, in part by sending its text in an update.)

* DAILY PRESS ADVANCES VIRGINIA'S FORT MONROE DISCUSSION WITH THREE MAJOR OPINION PIECES -- STARTING WITH ONE BY CFMNP PRESIDENT H. O. MALONE AND VICE PRESIDENT MARK PERREAULT.  On the front of the Sunday, July 16, commentary section, in "The future of the fort: National park status is the proper way" (http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-72015sy0jul16,0,6724830.story?coll=dp-opinion-editorials), H. O. and Mark explain the national-scale opportunity that Fort Monroe represents.

Also on the commentary front page, however, is a different view of that opportunity: "The future of the fort: This is an opportunity for both preservation and development" (http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-71976sy0jul16,0,948475.story) by John V. Quarstein of Hampton's Federal Area Development Authority, which was established by the Hampton City Council. Concerning Fort Monroe's "unique blend of beaches and history," historian Quarstein asserts: "How to utilize these resources effectively to enhance our region's economy becomes the major question."

Enhancing our region's economy is the major question?

At Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, we believe the major question is how best to realize the national-scale opportunity that Fort Monroe actually represents. Ironically, treating Fort Monroe as a national treasure, not as a local "economic engine," will actually maximize the narrow goal of profit for Hampton -- though that's still not the main question. Please see the Malone/Perreault commentary reported above.

The Daily Press's Sunday commentary section also includes a lengthy, comprehensive editorial (http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-68335sy0jul16,0,6064879.story) calling Fort Monroe a "national treasure" that "belongs under the federal or state mantle." Now both of the region's major daily newspapers -- first the Virginian-Pilot and now the Daily Press -- have come out strongly for the principle that a national treasure must not be entrusted to any single municipality.

The Pilot's July 5 editorial appears at http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=107059&ran=80134. If you care to contribute a letter to the editor of either newspaper on the Fort Monroe discussion -- and debate -- please see http://www.cfmnp.org/LTE.htm.

* HAMPTON'S WEEK OF PUBLIC PLANNING MEETINGS BEGINS FRIDAY EVENING. THE MOST IMPORTANT TIME FOR PARTICIPATION BY TRUE FRIENDS OF FORT MONROE IS SATURDAY FROM 9 TO 2 (OR ANY PART OF THAT FIVE HOURS). I'll send an update about that soon, and there's a blurb on our home page about it now. For the moment, though, please consider a paragraph from that opinion piece by CFMNP President H. O. Malone and Vice President Mark Perreault:

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.

* CFMNP's MAIN MESSAGE ABOUT THE PUBLIC PLANNING MEETINGS: We hope all true friends of Fort Monroe will attend and will work constructively to see a national park concept for all of Fort Monroe emerge as the heavily preferred choice.

This is the fifth general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP), CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org.

ASSISTANT TO GOVERNOR TIM KAINE: HAMPTON "HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THE LEAD" ON FORT MONROE'S "REDEVELOPMENT." Following are

* a timeline presenting certain facts, and

* a letter from Saturday's Virginian-Pilot.

In 2005, with almost no public discussion, some of Virginia's leaders decided to donate Fort Monroe -- a national treasure belonging to all Americans -- as an economic plum for a Hampton "redevelopment" process.

On August 25, 2005, in a Richmond Times-Dispatch article headlined "Hampton looks to new uses," a prominent Peninsula civic leader expressed one "redevelopment" vision for Fort Monroe: "I can see it being developed as a very upscale business and residential community."

In June 2006, in an unscientific but nevertheless revealing online poll (http://home.hamptonroads.com/pollNews/pollresults.cfm?id=4831&vote=no), 86% of nearly 2600 citizens appeared to see things differently. They endorsed making Fort Monroe into a national park something like California's Presidio, a historic former Army base at the foot of the Golden Gate bridge that is comparable to Fort Monroe as a national historic, cultural and recreational treasure.

On July 5, a Virginian-Pilot editorial (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=107059&ran=80134) endorsed calls for a congressionally mandated National Park Service study of the prospects for a Fort Monroe National Park. The editorial criticized state leaders and expressed deep skepticism "that a process so heavily influenced by local economic urgency can do justice to the fort's legacy." It asserted that "local governments in Virginia are not equipped with the tools" for assuming jurisdiction over "a gem of Fort Monroe's character."

On July 11, on Cathy Lewis's noontime 89.5 FM talk show "HearSay," Presidio executive director Craig Middleton urged Virginians to settle what the jurisdiction actually is for Fort Monroe (http://www.cfmnp.org/multimedia.htm).

Now Robert P. Crouch, Jr., an assistant to Governor Tim Kaine, has published a letter in the Pilot under the headline "Local approach works for Fort Monroe." Please see below. (Scott Butler of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park will be submitting a response; a future update will include a copy.)

True friends of Fort Monroe: What do you make of this letter from Mr. Crouch? (Reply e-mail messages welcome.)

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Local approach works for Fort Monroe

Your July 5 editorial, "Hampton in corner on Fort Monroe," pointed out that the complex task of converting a historic military installation into another, quite different community asset is a formidable undertaking.

Last year, at the urging of Hampton city leaders, the General Assembly passed legislation allowing the city to create a local redevelopment authority. Hampton's City Council subsequently created the Federal Area Development Authority (FADA), which has rightly taken the lead on the redevelopment process of Fort Monroe.

The commonwealth, the city of Hampton and the FADA share similar goals, objectives and vision for the redevelopment of Fort Monroe. It is commendable that the FADA has adopted an aggressive approach and has assembled a comprehensive team of experts from around the country to deal with legal, environmental, engineering, historic, commercial and residential real estate development issues.

The commonwealth has met with city leaders and FADA representatives on numerous occasions to discuss the redevelopment process. Additionally, the commonwealth has four representatives on the FADA Planning Steering Committee. It would be counterproductive for the state to establish a separate planning process for Fort Monroe.

We will continue to work with the city and the FADA to further the necessary regulatory evaluations and contribute to the planning process, and we look forward to helping ensure that the future of Fort Monroe meets or exceeds all expectations.

Robert P. Crouch, Jr.

Assistant to the governor for

Commonwealth Preparedness

Richmond

This is the fourth general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP), CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org.

* FORT MONROE NATIONAL PARK DISCUSSION ON 89.5 FM RADIO, 12 NOON, TUESDAY, JULY 11. Cathy Lewis will interview me, Steve Corneliussen of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, on her call-in show, HearSay, during the first half of the hour. I don't yet know whether Fort Monroe is the topic for the full hour, but apparently the city of Hampton will be represented too, and the producer also said something about getting someone to talk about the Presidio precedent. We'll update the blurb at the top of the home page when we find out. After the show, we hope we'll be able to link to a recording.

* WE URGE ALL TRUE FRIENDS OF FORT MONROE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY'S UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARINGS. Our Web site's home page has begun to engage the hearings in earnest, and you'll be hearing more from us on this in the coming days.

This is the third general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park (CFMNP), CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org.

* THE NORFOLK VIRGINIAN-PILOT HAS ENDORSED THE KIND OF NATIONAL PARK STUDY that we've been calling for, and has emphasized that no national treasure of Fort Monroe's stature should be entrusted to any single municipality.  You can read the Pilot's comprehensive and immensely encouraging editorial at http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=107059&ran=80134 .

* FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) DISTILL CFMNP'S POSITIONS. For people who really want to understand what we're advocating, Mark Perreault has prepared several pages of FAQs. Please see http://www.cfmnp.org/FAQs.htm.

This is the second general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org.

I mean these updates to reflect the general outlook of the CFMNP directors, a diverse group of citizens from Williamsburg to Norfolk listed at http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/BoD.htm. If you shouldn't be receiving the updates, or if you have a comment, please let me know by reply e-mail.

-Steve Corneliussen

* CASEMATE MUSEUM ARTIFACTS DEPARTING? The Daily Press's Kimball Payne has a front-page article today: "Casemate vulnerable: Jefferson Davis' post-Civil War prison cell isn't going anywhere, but other artifacts at the museum in the fort might be up for relocation." The article appears online at http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-62440sy0jul01,0,4427227.story?coll=dp-widget-news.

Kimball's article implies a specific question that reflects an underlying fundamental one.

The specific question: The Army has other important museums. When the Army departs, will it leave its treasured historic artifacts -- with their national significance -- in Hampton's care?

The underlying fundamental question: Does it really make sense to entrust a national treasure, Fort Monroe, to any single municipality?

* RECENT NEWS ABOUT PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS also reflects that underlying fundamental question.

The Daily Press has been covering Hampton's continuing debate about Buckroe Beach, just above Fort Monroe on the Chesapeake Bay. Thousands of Hamptonians believe the city's political and economic powers starkly favor bayfront homeowners' privileged access to what was once one of Virginia's best public beaches. Many advocate preserving Buckroe's public green space.

Most recently, the debate has focused on no-parking signs near private residences on a public Buckroe street. A June 25 Daily Press editorial called that situation "the equivalent of creating a gated community without the gate."

I hope the editorialists got that line from Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park's Mark Perreault on WNIS AM 790. From http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/multimedia.htm you can download either a broadband or a dial-up version of that June 15 debate between Mark from CFMNP and Ed Novi from the city of Hampton.

Mark used the line to illustrate the worry that whoever controls post-Army Fort Monroe will favor the privileged over the public. After all, Fort Monroe is not only a national historic, cultural and architectural treasure. It's also a national scenic, environmental and recreational treasure, with some of Virginia's best beaches and bayfront green space.

So here's the point. The Daily Press editorialists and Hampton Mayor Ross Kearney know that Hampton's record at Buckroe bears directly on the question of Fort Monroe's future. Hampton will have to gain many others' trust if it is to succeed in making a national institution into a merely local one.

That's why the editorial ended by noting that only the mayor argued against keeping that Buckroe parking prohibition, saying -- as the editors paraphrased him -- that "it threatens the city's credibility and feeds people's fears that they can't trust the city."

All cities have parochial, local squabbles. That fundamental question again: Does it really make sense to entrust this national treasure, Fort Monroe, to any single municipality?

* IF YOU WANT FORT MONROE TO REMAIN A NATIONAL INSTITUTION -- in our view, it should become a self-sustaining national park something like California's Presidio -- please consider attending Hampton's July 21-27 public hearings (http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/HptHearings.htm). We hope that Fort Monroe's true friends can find sensible, constructive ways to participate. We'll soon be offering some recommendations to you about all of that.

More later, and thanks very much --

Steve Corneliussen

This is the first general update from the Web site of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org.

Most recipients asked for the update via the Web site's "Subscribe" link. If you should not be receiving updates, please let me know by reply e-mail.

CFMNP in the subject line works as an abbreviation for the organization's formal name and also as a short form -- CFMNP.org -- of our Web address.

CFMNP updates might later take on a higher-tech look and feel, but for now, here in plain e-mail text in a personal message are some recent highlights:

* HEAR A FORT MONROE RADIO DISCUSSION. >From http://www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org/multimedia.htm you can download either a broadband or a dial-up version of the 46-minute Fort Monroe National Park discussion held June 15 on "Macrini's Morning News Team" radio show on WNIS AM 790 in Norfolk. Guests were Mark Perreault, a vice president of Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, and Ed Novi, a communications official from the city of Hampton. Both had a lot to say about vital Fort Monroe questions.

* READ THE NORFOLK VIRGINIAN-PILOT'S FRONT PAGE ARTICLE about the national park effort. On June 7, the Pilot's Kate Wiltrout profiled Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park in "The Hampton conundrum: What to do with Fort Monroe?" at http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=105602&ran=214426. Because we believe this article portrays our national park effort especially well, we were glad to see it picked up by the Associated Press and posted elsewhere, including at the Richmond Times-Dispatch (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149188304432).

* 86% OF OVER 2500 PEOPLE SAID YES to a Fort Monroe National Park in an informal poll (http://home.hamptonroads.com/pollNews/pollresults.cfm?id=4831&vote=no) by the Virginian-Pilot. Over 2500 people answered the question "Should Fort Monroe be turned into a national park modeled after the Presidio in San Francisco?" That's more than responded to a comparable recent question about Oceana Naval Air Station at the center of the Pilot's own distribution area. To have 86% say yes is not a scientific measure of public sentiment, of course. But a "yes" rate of nearly 9 to 1 certainly shows that the national park question requires serious attention.

* READ THE NEWPORT NEWS DAILY PRESS'S June 10 article "Seeking advice" by Kimball Payne at http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-45192sy0jun10,0,1181750.story?coll=dp-news-local-final .

* SIERRA CLUB FORUM ON FORT MONROE'S FUTURE: [I received this information second-hand from an excellent source, but couldn't confirm it via a Google search.] The Sierra Club is said to be convening a public forum on Fort Monroe's future this Wednesday evening, June 21, at 7 P.M. at Sandy Bottom Park in Hampton. The panel will include David Johnson of Fort Monroe's Casemate Museum (who is president of the Historical and Archaeological Society of Fort Monroe), Hampton City Councilman Charlie Sapp, the Hampton Federal Area Development Authority's John Quarstein, FADA Chairman Robert Harper, and Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Vice President Gerri Hollins, who is also president of the Contraband Historical Society.

Please note: I'd be especially grateful -- and so would CFMNP's Webmaster, David Gurganus -- to hear of any technical problems with the Web site (or for that matter, with this e-mail update). I'll send more highlights when there's more to report -- maybe a day from now, maybe a week from now. Thanks very much.

Steven T. (Steve) Corneliussen

Communications Director

Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park

http://www.CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org

(HOME)