Announcement

**Dignann** · 11-29-2007, 08:15 AM

Re: Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

Public must speak out to create a Fort Monroe National Park

Editorial

The Daily Press [Hampton Roads, Va.]
November 28, 2007

If Virginia somehow came to own Monticello and Mount Vernon, no one would dream of donating them to Charlottesville and Alexandria for narrowly envisioned exploitation. Yet in 2005, politicians, unhindered by the media, began planning just that fate for a comparable national treasure on the Chesapeake Bay: Fort Monroe.

That this Army post ranks with the estates of presidents was made clear by the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Robert Nieweg in the Norfolk PBS station's documentary (available online at www.whro.org) about the Hampton Roads area's passionate debate over Fort Monroe's future.

In 2011, the Army will leave the post, which occupies all 570 water-surrounded acres of Old Point Comfort, just east of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel's Hampton end. The site offers spectacular views across the harbor and over the bay. But more important, it is a window into four centuries of American history, including events at both the dawn and the demise of slavery.

The post also offers beaches, live oaks, fishing, biking, a deepwater marina, a windsurfing cove, fine old residences, a wealth of campus-like buildings, a Tiffany-windowed chapel, an 1802 lighthouse and a moated stone citadel that Lt. Robert E. Lee helped build. From Fort Monroe's seawall promenade, you can almost touch the passing aircraft carriers.

It also makes the developers who bankroll Virginia politics drool. That's why all the debate has done so little to secure for the public any of the power seized in 2005 by a handful of influential Hamptonians. They deftly exploited mindless federal base-closing processes that can't distinguish a national treasure from a Fort Drab.

And it's why the Civil War Preservation Trust and APVA Preservation Virginia list Fort Monroe as in danger of inappropriate development.

University of Pennsylvania professor Robert F. Engs, author of "Freedom's First Generation," calls Fort Monroe the place where freedom for all Americans finally and truly, if haltingly, began. Early in the Civil War, Frank Baker, Sheppard Mallory and James Townsend escaped enslavement and found sanctuary there. Thousands followed. Engs says the repercussions turned the conflict into a war for freedom.

Perhaps the day will come when the courage and initiative of these self-emancipators will seem crucial to the history of liberty itself. Will today's estimation of the homes of slaveholders such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson then seem too high?

Four centuries ago, the first ship importing Africans landed at Old Point Comfort en route to Jamestown. A half-century ago, all of that land comprising Fort Monroe was designated a national historic landmark.

Yet a powerful handful in Hampton, so far supported by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, seek to develop much of the post for narrow, parochial purposes. The absurdity of it calls to mind those threats that casinos would mar the Gettysburg battlefield.

Nieweg calls for everyone to come together "at the table." He specifically includes the "national park people," meaning those of us who advocate an innovatively structured, financially self-sustaining Fort Monroe National Park for general enrichment in several senses, starting with the economic one.

But we have no place at the table. Last winter, in Richmond, the Kaine administration thwarted our lobbying in the General Assembly for a representative composition of Virginia's Fort Monroe planning panel, which remains dominated by the Hampton City Council.

That's why it's important to declare that by rights, Fort Monroe is really a national issue anyway. And that, in turn, is why it matters that under Section 106 of federal historic-preservation law, the Army must consider citizens' opinions in setting general guidelines for Virginia's planning panel.

This Thursday, Washington gets to have its say. Army officials will listen, starting at 6 p.m., at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., in Washington, D.C. (You can also comment by e-mail: monr.106public@us.army.mil.)

Citizens can empower the Army to instruct Kaine and the Virginia panel to respect all of Fort Monroe as what it is: a national historic landmark ranking with � and maybe someday outranking � Monticello and Mount Vernon.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-ed_park_1128nov28,0,233453.story

Eric

**Michael Comer** · 11-29-2007, 09:09 AM

Re: Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

I sent my email. How about the rest of you?

**Stonewall_Greyfox** · 11-29-2007, 10:00 AM

Re: Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

While I agree that Fortress Monroe (Old Port Comfort) is a signifigant National Treasure (and needs to be preserved as such)...I don't see how this news article draws ties to Mt. Vernon or Monticello...both of these are owned and operated by Private foundations, much like the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation (also in Virginia) and are not run by the State (Commonwealth) or Federal Governments.

I would hate to see Casinos and a mass of additional "new" residences/hotels polute the island.

The real question is: who will pay to preserve and operate the site?; be it funded by national, state, local or private agencies/departments. It's not just the preservation of the site, but the maintenance and upkeep of the site as well.

Paul

**Dignann** · 01-24-2008, 07:49 AM

Re: Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

Cost of closure quadruples
Latest Army estimate of $288 million doesn't include bill for cleanup

By BILL GEROUX

Richmond Times-Dispatch [Richmond. Va.]
January 23, 2008

HAMPTON - A state redevelopment plan would turn the Army's stately Fort Monroe into a community of homes, offices, businesses, public parks and museums -- including the fort's distinctive star-shaped inner fortress with granite walls and moat.

Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources L. Preston Bryant Jr., chairman of a state panel whose job is to determine Fort Monroe's future, said in an interview that the outlines of the plan are becoming clear.

Bryant said some key issues are still under debate, including whether part of the 180-year-old fort will become a national park and how much new development should be allowed on the property once the Army turns it over to the state in 2011.

Local members of Congress and city officials, meanwhile, have raised concerns over ballooning Army estimates of how much it will cost to close Fort Monroe. The latest estimate of $288 million -- up from $72 million three years ago -- does not include the cost of painstakingly clearing the fort grounds of buried, unexploded shells, some of them dating to the Civil War.

"No one knows what that cleanup is going to cost," said Ross Kearney, mayor of neighboring Hampton, which has a huge stake in what becomes of Fort Monroe. "I'm scared the Army's not going to have enough money to do it."

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said Fort Monroe is one of many bases whose closure or realignment is likely to cost far more than the Pentagon originally estimated. The GAO said most of the cost increases are due to rising construction costs, though it offered no specifics about Fort Monroe. The realignment of two other Virginia bases -- Fort Lee and Fort Belvoir -- also figures to cost far more than the original estimates, the GAO said.

Fort Monroe, currently the headquarters of TRADOC, the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, is a garden spot of military posts. It occupies a barrier spit at the entrance to Hampton Roads harbor. The fort's modern amenities include sandy beaches, a marina and handsome red-brick buildings on streets lined with live oaks and crape myrtles.

Long a target of budget-cutters at the Pentagon, the fort finally fell to the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. TRADOC operations are to be moved to Fort Eustis in Newport News. Fort Monroe's 570 acres -- the 63-acre inner fortress plus surrounding land the Army has annexed over the years -- will become the property of the state.

Immediately after the BRAC decision in 2005, Hampton officials spent a quarter-million dollars hiring a redevelopment consultant, who held public gatherings and devised plans for the base. Those plans included spreading residential development into open areas, and local preservationists rose up in protest.

Steve Corneliussen, a spokesman for a local preservation group, Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, called Hampton's ideas "preposterous." He said the core of Fort Monroe should become "a grand public place for everybody." The fort has enough lively history that it could be transformed into a fourth stop on the traditional Hampton Roads history tour that includes Williamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown, he said.

Kearney said preservationists overestimate the fort's potential as a historic draw. The Army has been spending $15 million a year to maintain it, he said, and "you're just not going to have that many tourists buying T-shirts."

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine created the 18-member Fort Monroe Federal Area Redevelopment Authority, heavy with Hampton residents, to consider the competing passionate viewpoints and produce a plan.

Bryant said the fort has strong potential for tourism but will need other revenue sources to not become a financial burden on Hampton or the state.

Preliminary surveys suggest many of the fort's historic buildings can be renovated into homes and office buildings, Bryant said, and the state most likely will allow a limited number of new homes and commercial buildings. Most of the fort's beaches and other natural areas would be open to the public, he said.

At the urging of the preservation groups, the National Park Service is conducting a study to determine whether the fort, or at least part of it, could become part of the National Park System. The service expects to finish the study this spring.

Bryant said he trusts that the Army will close the fort on schedule and perform whatever environmental cleanup is necessary to clear the way for redevelopment. But others with stakes in Fort Monroe's future expressed alarm at a recent report by the GAO.

The report concluded that the base closings ordered by the 2005 commission would not save nearly as much money as the Pentagon had claimed in advocating them. In particular, it said, the estimated cost of closing Fort Monroe has risen in three years from $72 million to $288 million.

The report made it clear that the new total does not include environmental cleanup costs at the fort, which were estimated a decade ago at $201 million but have not been updated since.

The GAO report irked U.S. Reps. Robert C. Scott, D-3rd, and Thelma Drake, R-2nd, partly because they had argued in 2005 that closing the fort would not save nearly as much money as the Pentagon claimed. The legislators sent a letter calling on the Army to explain the growing costs, but they haven't heard anything back yet, said Larry Dillard, a spokesman for Scott.

File not found

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-01-23-0161.html

Eric

**Dignann** · 03-27-2008, 09:36 AM

Re: Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

State, federal officials forming the future of Fort Monroe

By Kate Wiltrout

The Virginian-Pilot [Norfolk, Va.]
March 26, 2008

FORT MONROE

Transferring ownership of an Army fort is a complex task, especially when the place boasts as much history � and as much valuable real estate � as Fort Monroe.

Almost three years after the federal government announced that the Army would exit Fort Monroe, state and federal officials are beginning to hammer out specifics.

They aim to sign an agreement by August that would specify how the 570-acre peninsula will be managed after 2011.

A draft of the agreement released this week is 45 pages long. Kathleen Kilpatrick, the state historic preservation officer, warned that it�s only going to get longer.

Kilpatrick is one of the state officials most closely involved in the transfer. The bulk of the property would revert to state control when the Army moves its personnel to Fort Eustis and Fort Knox, Ky.

The agreement will be revised to reflect public input and comments from more than 30 �consulting parties� involved in the process, Kilpatrick said. But she emphasized that the principles at its core are sound and won�t change.

�It�s a very strong agreement,� Kilpatrick said. �It�s very preservation-friendly, while recognizing that preservation depends on creating economic sustainability to support your culture.�

The three guiding principles are to respect the fort�s historic assets, provide public access and cover the cost of running what�s essentially a small town.

The agreement divides the fort into five zones, each with its own rules for demolishing buildings and constructing new ones. The strictest rules would apply to everything within the moat-encircled stone fort built in the 1830s. Development at the grassy, eastern end of the base would be permitted, if it maintained the same scale, density and characteristics as its surroundings.

Beyond that, the agreement states that the Army would facilitate negotiations for a long-term loan of the collections at the Casemate Museum. The museum, built inside the cavernous stone halls of the fort, preserves the cell where Confederate President Jefferson Davis spent months in captivity after his capture at the end of the Civil War.

Another facet of the fort�s history is its role in the crumbling of slavery. The Union general in charge during the Civil War decreed that escaped slaves be considered contraband of war, and granted them freedom inside the fort.

As part of the agreement, the Army would do more archaeological testing in search of the Freedmen�s Cemetery rumored to have existed on base.

H.O. Malone, a retired Army historian who heads Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, doesn�t disagree that finding revenue to support it is crucial to the fort�s future.

But he doesn�t like how fast the agreement is coming together. He thinks the Army and state officials should focus instead on exactly who gets jurisdiction after the Army leaves.

�They�re putting the cart before the horse,� he said.

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/state-federal-officials-forming-future-fort-monroe

Eric

**Dignann** · 06-20-2008, 10:13 AM

Re: Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

A national park for Fort Monroe

Editorial

The Virginian-Pilot [Norfolk, Va.]
June 8, 2008

FORT MONROE has outlived its usefulness as a military installation, according to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. But the 570-acre fort, whose history stretches back to the early 1600s and includes epic events in the formation and growth of our nation, has a bright and prosperous future as one of Virginia's premiere tourism attractions, education centers and recreational parks - if local, state and federal leaders do not let the opportunity slip away.

In recent days, several key reports have been released that are likely to play critical roles in determining what will become of Fort Monroe when the U.S. Army departs in three years.

Among them is a preliminary reuse plan generated by the Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority, an 18-member group composed primarily of officials from the city of Hampton and state government.

The plan contains good news for those who grasp the tremendous economic potential in the fort's historic and recreational assets. All but gone is the assumption - widespread in the months after the announcement of Fort Monroe's pending shutdown - that the base's open spaces must be heavily developed to pay for upkeep of the property and offset the effect of the base's closure on the Hampton economy.

The authority's consultants estimate annual maintenance costs would be about $4 million, far below the Army's initial projections of $14 million. The consultants also predict that Fort Monroe's history could attract 100,000 to 150,000 visitors annually and that its beachfront another 115,000 to 125,000.

There isn't quite as much cause for celebration in a long-anticipated "reconnaissance study" by the National Park Service. Not surprisingly, the agency concluded that the fort is "an exceptionally important portal" through which to examine our nation's history and is "worthy of preservation and protection." Equally unsurprising is the conclusion that the cash-strapped agency is in no hurry to take on the job of preservation and protection.

The Park Service's report recommends that Congress delay authorization of "a Special Resource Study," a more comprehensive review that could lead to national park designation, until a reuse plan is approved by the redevelopment authority and by others engaged in the process.

Two major challenges now face local, state and federal leaders who recognize Fort Monroe's rich but little-known history and can envision the day when it could join Colonial Williamburg, Jamestown and Yorktown as major attractions.

The obstacles, bluntly put, are (a) Fort Monroe is not likely to achieve its potential without the expertise, resources and reputation of the National Park Service and (b) the National Park Service is unlikely to become part of the project unless others contribute large sums of money.

In a meeting with The Pilot editorial board last week, Gov. Tim Kaine re-stated his administration's commitment to preserving the fort's historic assets, broadening public access to the site and laying the groundwork for a self-sustaining operation. He said "revenue maximization" - i.e., selling or leasing open spaces for development - "should not be goal one." That's good news.

Kaine, understandably, is unwilling to dip into the state's treasury to help Fort Monroe build a partnership with the National Park Service. But Kaine and the General Assembly should be willing to marshal support from a wide range of groups - the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Civil War Preservation Trust and the National Parks Conservation Association, among others - to begin building a permanent funding mechanism for Fort Monroe. A similar venture has succeeded at The Presidio, a former military installation added to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area almost 15 years ago.

Fort Monroe has many stories to tell - stories about, among others, Capt. John Smith, Chief Black Hawk, the Monitor and the Merrimac, Edgar Allan Poe, Jefferson Davis, Harriet Tubman and three enslaved men, Frank Baker, Sheppard Mallory and James Townsend, whose brave actions at the fort played a direct role in the Emancipation Proclamation.

But none of those stories will be told as effectively or reach as broad an audience unless the National Park Service is involved in the next stage of Fort Monroe's history, unless preservation groups commit resources to establishing a public trust for its protection, and unless local, state and federal leaders unite in the obvious - creating Fort Monroe National Park.

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/06/national-park-fort-monroe

Eric

**Dignann** · 08-21-2008, 10:02 AM

Re: Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

Kaine OKs Fort Monroe reuse plan, which will direct redevelopment

The future of the 570-acre Army post calls for preserving its history while building anew.

By MATTHEW STURDEVANT

The Daily Press [Hampton Roads, Va.]
August 20, 2008

FORT MONROE - � Gov. Timothy M. Kaine on Tuesday approved a broad reuse plan that will allow Fort Monroe to become a combination tourist destination, park, and community of homes, offices and retail businesses.

An 18-member Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority has worked with consultants on the delicate act of preserving the post, which is a nationally registered landmark, while coming up with a plan to have it bring in enough revenue to pay for maintenance, restoration and improvements. The authority approved the plan in June and it was submitted to the governor for final approval.

"I am pleased with the work of the FMFADA over the past 18 months to create a plan for Fort Monroe that ensures this spectacular and historic property will be enjoyed by many generations to come," Kaine said in a prepared statement. "I also am pleased that the process to create the reuse plan has included many community and regional leaders, experts in historic preservation and economic development, the city of Hampton, and the National Park Service."

Kaine will sign the reuse plan at 9 a.m. today at the Chamberlin Hotel on the historic military installation and he will tour the post. The event is open to the public.

The reuse plan divides the post into management zones. Each zone has a recommended way the land could be used: as open space for a park, in a way that adapts existing buildings for some nonmilitary use, or as a site for new development. The authority will market the property with the goal of getting contracts and leases so the post remains a financially sustainable community, said authority Executive Director William A. Armbruster. Only during the contracting and leasing phase will it be clear what the future of each particular building or lot.

The 570-acre fort is revered as a coastal defense site dating back to Colonial times, as a beacon of freedom to slaves who fled there to be deemed contraband of the Civil War, and as an artillery training base from 1824 through World War II.

In 2005, the Pentagon announced that Fort Monroe would be closed as part of a military realignment to cut costs and modernize the military. The Army is expected to move out in September 2011 and the land will revert to the commonwealth.

The transition has piqued interest from people who see it for its historic importance and as a great location to live, work or play, a waterfront settlement of brick buildings, well-manicured lawns and a giant moated fortress.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/hampton/dp-local_monroe_0820aug20,0,454478.story

Eric

Announcement

Announcement

Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

Fort Monroe Could Go To Virginia

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment