The Virginian-Pilot
©
FORT MONROE
For months, state officials, congressional staffers and National Park Service bureaucrats have made steady progress on the future of Fort Monroe, with the groups sharing a general vision for park service involvement.
The Army will vacate the waterfront post in September, the result of a 2005 base-closing decision. Control and management of the historic 570-acre property, which includes a moat-encircled stone fort and some 170 historic buildings, will shift to the state.
Many local residents and leaders want to see the property managed by the park service.
On Thursday, the chairwoman of the board of trustees overseeing the fort's transition to state control voiced caution about moving too fast and expecting too much from the park service.
"It's not a slam dunk," Terrie Suit told 11 fellow members of the Fort Monroe Authority's board of trustees and a few dozen citizens. "It could be a four- to five-year process."
She also urged restraint in seeking too large a role from the federal government, which has maintained that it doesn't have the money to manage the entire property.
Doug Domenech, a board member and the state's secretary of natural resources, also expressed concerns.
"I think we need to be careful how much we put on the table for the park service, because once they're there, they're never going to go away," Domenech said.
During a public comment period, Steve Corneliussen, a member of Citizens for Fort Monroe National Park, told the board that people want the park service to be involved for the long haul.
"Yes, indeed, sir, the National Park Service never goes away. That's the point," Corneliussen said. "It gives a certain stability."
After the meeting, the authority's historic preservation officer and a consultant with long experience in the park service said Suit doesn't need to be overly concerned with how long it may take to iron out an agreement.
"This is not like putting a 'normal' national park together," said Cherilynn Widell, the authority's historic preservation officer. The park service has acknowledged that Fort Monroe merits special attention because of the Army's deadline to leave.
There are two ways a property can be added to the National Park Service: through a congressional vote, or a presidential proclamation. Congressional approval is much more common than having the president invoke the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create a new park, said John J. Reynolds, a consultant for the authority.
The board deferred voting on a specific vision for the park service's involvement until its legislative committee, chaired by board member and Hampton Mayor Molly Ward, has a chance to discuss options with state and federal officials.
"I would like to see us expand what we're expecting from the NPS in their primary area of interest," Ward said. "I don't think we should stop here and say, 'This is all we could get, or all we should get.' "
Kate Wiltrout, (757) 446-2629, kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
National Park?
There are National Parks and there are National Military Parks; is there a difference in regulation and status or is it just a name?
I think there should be discussion on using the buildings that have no or very limited historical value in a way that generate revenue but maintaining the park-like setting and visitor appeal. Whether it is a sail loft or a 'modeling and simulation' contractor, having some commercial leasing of the building space on site would generate income with little impact to the site.
This will take significant federal, state, local, and private sector cooperation to do this right. We all need to be patient but continue to let our opinions be heard. And be open to other ideas.
There is far too much history
that is "stored" within the Fort for Americans to risk its being turned over to any private group. From the initial settling by the colonies, to the Revolutionary War, to the Civil War, to WW I and II, etc., Fort Monroe has served an important role in our country's history. If it doesn't "deserve" to be protected by being placed in the National Park Service, what does?
Ok preserve, it's wonderful,
Ok preserve, it's wonderful, history and everything, just great. But the history of what? A broke nation! We have to seriously reconsider our land plan. The government simply owns and maintains too much of our land. The rest they tightly regulate through the EPA and a myriad of other agencies. The only way to determine whether the balance of citizens truly wants such a property preserved is to let the market determine this. I'm doubtful. Any government ownership / maintenance amounts to a subsidy and will prove expensive. Can we really afford this?
I'm guessing
I'm guessing that you would have objected when they created Yellowstone National Park, etc.
Preservations of a piece of America's early history
I am not from the Tidewater area, but I have been on that base several times. It's a spectacular piece of property, but in the hands of private developers it would quickly be reduced to a private preserve for folks living in McMansions and so many outrageously overpriced condos that a person would wonder what keeps the island from sinking into the bay. Its historic value alone justifies its preservation as a public preserve, and only public ownership can keep the property from going the way of all privately held waterfront property.
The main focus....
Park Service or no Park Service, I think the main goal should be to keep it, ALL of it, out of the hands of the developers who will chop it up into tiny little plots and wack up as many sub-standard over priced units as they can cram into the area.
The Park service IS struggling with money right now and that may limit what they can do with the Fort site. The rest of the area is historical and would be great as an open Park, accessable to all (for a small fee??)instead of being walled off by the condo builders.
Hampton and the State of Virginia hav a unique oppertunity here, will they blow it?? We will see.........
I agree it DOES remain to be seen whether they will Blow it
First, I don't see how this state or City or Federal property ends up in the hands of developers unless the state/city/feds are stupid enough to sell this gem for a one time gain. Again, I am glad that all concerned are going slowly to really map out a public interest. Ideally this would become a state/city park with attractions open to the public with no federal oversight. Unfortunately according to what I've read the island has maintenance of 11 to 15 million a year just to keep the historic parts from falling into disrepair. The sea and salt air and storms take their toll. So the main concern of the state and City is how to generate revenue of 10 million a year. That is why they want the Park Service involved to get federal funds.
State Park
Why not turn the whole thing into a state park, that would keep out the high rises that surely going to be there within 5 years!. The rest could be turned into a College where the buildings and dorms could be utilized, Hampton U is close by, The community college system could utilize the shop areas for vocational courses. Some of the facilitys could be leased out, ie bowling alley,runway. Think outside the box people!
park partnership makes sense
Actually, this is a good idea.
I'm not familiar with the fort's footprint, but if some buildings could be demarked from the fort itself and leased to HU or CNU, it would make sense. I think a National Monument akin to Fort Sumter would be a bigger draw and fold nicely into the Jamestown/Yorktown theme, but a state park would achieve the same thing.
Without the National Park Service involved
Without the National Park Service involved, the state could easily, via a financially-encouraged legislature, the fort could end up completely sold to developers. A quick look at California and how they are handling their state parks should clarify the point.