Voice your views on Fort Monroe ... now

June 7, 2008

Now is the time to speak up about Fort = Monroe's=20 future.

Comments are being welcomed this month by both the Army = and the=20 Fort Monroe Authority. Officially, that's the Fort Monroe Federal Area=20 Development Authority, or FMFADA =96=96 jargon spiked with the = presumption that this=20 national treasure automatically needs ordinary development, no matter = what its=20 actual owners think.

But things are improving. Those actual = owners,=20 declared the FMFADA's chairman, Preston Bryant, recently, are "the = American=20 people." And online, at http://www.fmfada.com/, the state panel has posted = not a=20 development plan, but a reuse plan. At Citizens for a Fort Monroe = National Park,=20 we're delighted with much in the plan. But although it's setting good=20 precedents, it's also cementing bad ones. So it merits = scrutiny.

We've=20 long believed at CFMNP that Fort Monroe should become "a vibrant and=20 economically self-sustaining, publicly accessible place where people = live, work=20 and visit." The quoted words came recently from the National Trust for = Historic=20 Preservation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Civil War = Preservation Trust, and APVA Preservation Virginia.

We think the = reuse=20 plan shows progress toward such a grand public place.

Some=20 examples:

=95 The plan mainly recognizes that all of Fort Monroe = =96=96 not=20 just the moated stone fortress =96=96 is a National Historic Landmark. = It appears to=20 respect the public's clearly expressed wish that pieces not be sold=20 off.

=95 It calls for increased green space. It tables = development of the=20 land northeast of the fortress that's crucial for respecting Fort = Monroe's=20 essential Hampton Roads character and setting. Some Hampton leaders had = sought=20 to blanket that land with upscale houses =96=96 a gated neighborhood = without the=20 gate.

=95 By showing that environmental cleanup is cheapest by = far for=20 reuse featuring green space, it acknowledges that to ask Americans to = pay for=20 maximum cleanup =96=96 as the plan unfortunately does =96=96 is to ask = them to subsidize=20 development that we believe isn't even desirable or economically=20 necessary.

=95 It corrects past overstatements of the Army = departure's=20 temporary negative economic effects on Hampton. It shows that Hampton's=20 taxpayers need to avoid shouldering unnecessary financial liabilities. =

=95=20 It acknowledges that although Hampton's unique stake requires respect, = the=20 opportunity and challenge confront all of us.

Great stuff. Yet = the plan=20 still disrespects the vision expressed nearly unanimously by hundreds of = Fort=20 Monroe's actual owners who commented earlier this year to the = Army.

Some=20 key problems:

=95 The plan leaves long-term jurisdiction = unclarified.=20

=95 By mischaracterizing and undervaluing the slavery-era = "Contraband"=20 story, the plan lacks vision concerning Fort Monroe's international = importance.=20

=95 The plan scants the issues of viewsheds =96=96 visual = settings =96=96 and the=20 cultural landscape.

=95 It continues to kowtow to a few Hampton = leaders'=20 unjustifiable sense of city entitlement.

=95 It envisions = development for=20 development's sake. In our view, any new construction should instead = answer=20 carefully established economic necessity for Fort Monroe's=20 self-sustenance.

Unaccountably, the four preservation = organizations,=20 previously mentioned, aren't yet opposing the plan's=20 development-for-development's-sake approach. But recently, FMFADA's = executive=20 director, Bill Armbruster, told WVEC-TV Channel 13's Mike Gooding that = the panel=20 doesn't want any more development than is "appropriate to make Fort = Monroe=20 economically sustainable."

Moreover, serious economic estimates = are=20 beginning to validate the potential for a self-sustaining grand public = place=20 that would enrich Hampton and the region in multiple ways, including=20 financially. We continue to think the best mechanism is an innovatively=20 structured national park.

At our Web site (CFMNP.org), we'll be = saying=20 more about the reuse plan and the Army's separate comment process. We = hope Fort=20 Monroe's true friends will seize these opportunities to speak.

Want to comment?
=95 The Army is holding a public forum in = connection=20 with federal historic preservation, Section 106, and Fort Monroe today = from 10=20 a.m. to noon at the Hampton Roads Convention Center. To comment = online, go to=20 http://www.monroe.army/.mil/Monroe. Follow the = links BRAC=20 information, Section 106 process, Public input questionnaire. E-mailed = questionnaires will be accepted until July 7.

=95 To = respond to=20 the Fort Monroe Reuse Plan, go to the FMFADA's Web site, http://www.fmfada.com/, and=20 scroll down to the public comment section. The deadline is June 15. = Comments=20 can also be mailed to FMFADA, Old Quarters #1, 151 Bernard Road, Fort = Monroe,=20 VA 23651.

Corneliussen is a vice = president of=20 Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park. Send e-mail to = Contact@CFMNP.org.

dailypress.com

Voice your views on Fort Monroe ... now

Want to comment?