FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park
CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org
Q1. What is so significant about Fort Monroe?
A. It is hard to overstate its significance. Its place in American history is of the first order, as is shown in the 27-minute film "Kingdom by the Sea," which can be viewed online at WHRO.org or via a link from our "What's New" web page (in that documentary, an official of the National Trust for Historic Preservation ranks Fort Monroe with Monticello and Mount Vernon). The fort’s site on Old Point Comfort close upon the main Hampton Roads shipping channel where it meets the Chesapeake Bay is extraordinary in itself. It was first visited by the Jamestown colonists in 1607, first fortified in 1609 when Fort Algernon was constructed to protect Jamestown, and the first African-Americans landed in Virginia here in 1619. Later, in the 18th century, Fort George was built here, only to be destroyed by the hurricane of 1749. Starting in 1819 Fort Monroe was constructed to protect Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay from a repeat of the military incursions experienced in the War of 1812 (when Washington, D.C. was burned by the British). When completed in 1834 the fort was referred to as the “Gibraltar of the Chesapeake.” Its role in the Civil War is unique. Shortly after the war began, three men,Frank Baker, Sheppard Mallory and James Townsend, escaped from slavery, made their way by boat to Fort Monroe , and asked for sanctuary. Union General Benjamin Butler designated them “contraband of war” and refused to return them to enslavement. That led to thousands more Contrabands fleeing to what came to be called “Freedom’s Fortress.” Some historians say the episode transformed a civil war into a war for freedom. Lincoln planned the Union attack on Norfolk from Fort Monroe’s ramparts, and numerous Union military operations originated here, including McClellan’s famed Peninsula Campaign. And of course Confederate President Jefferson Davis was imprisoned in one of the fort’s casemate after the war. The stone fort, with ramparts over a full mile in circumference, is completely surrounded by a water-filled moat. No fortification in North America can match it for its magnificence or its integrity, and the entire 570 acre post, including 181 historic buildings, both inside and outside the moat, was named a National Historic Landmark in 1960. Fort Monroe’s site at Old Point Comfort (with a still-operating 1802 lighthouse) is the rare place in the area where the public can fully appreciate the beauty of the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s maritime importance. And the two-mile paved promenade along the bay, a marina, fishing pier, open spaces, green space and beaches at Fort Monroe provide a wealth of badly needed public recreational opportunities.
Q2. Fort Monroe today includes not only the historic stone fort surrounded by a moat, but also 500 acres outside its walls. Would this area outside of the walls be part of the park?
A. Our vision is for all of the Fort Monroe property to be under the jurisdiction of a partnership between the National Park Service and a Congressionally-chartered trust, who together would be charged with operating the entire 570 acre Fort Monroe property for the benefit of the American people. The portion of the property to be operated by the National Park Service (NPS) would be determined in the future, but it would be expected to include direct management of at least the moated fort and the Endicott batteries, while portions of the waterfront and other key historical, natural and recreational assets outside the walls may also be managed by NPS, which would also have interpretation responsibilities throughout Old Point Comfort.
Q3. Why should Fort Monroe be a national park?
A. The foremost reason is that is how Americans designate, protect and operate places of extraordinary historical, cultural, architectural and scenic significance such as Fort Monroe. Fort McHenry, Gettysburg Battlefield, the site of the Wright Brothers first flight, the Delaware Water Gap, Booker T. Washington’s birthplace, the Cape Hatteras Seashore, Ford’s Theater and hundreds of other sites, many far less significant than Fort Monroe and Old Point Comfort, are in one form or another part of the national park system.
Second, a national park, including a federal trust charged with operating the entire property for the benefit of the citizenry, is the best way to assure that Fort Monroe will be preserved in perpetuity, that full public access will be maintained and that its use and development on the property will in all cases be consistent with the fort’s special value to the nation. A local or state government, however well intentioned, cannot be expected to long withstand the inevitable economic pressures to compromise Fort Monroe in order to generate revenue for local or state agendas as well as for the fort’s maintenance and operation.
Third, national park status is a means to continue a federal role in funding the maintenance and operation of this large complex, rather than imposing all these costs on the city of Hampton and/or the Commonwealth of Virginia . While a self-sustaining national park along the lines of the Presidio (see Q4) is envisioned, Fort Monroe’s historical, cultural, architectural, scenic and recreational value to the nation (we submit that it exceeds that of the Presidio) unquestionably merits a piece of the National Park Service’s $2.45 billion annual operating budget, if that is needed.
Finally, national park status would also be the best choice for the Hampton and Hampton Roads economy. National park status would for the first time put Hampton on the tourism map in a way comparable to the Yorktown-Williamsburg-Jamestown complex. Equally importantly, national park status and the assurance that Fort Monroe will be protected, accessible and operated in a suitable and high-quality fashion will attract investment and desirable business activity in areas surrounding the fort such as Phoebus, Buckroe and downtown Hampton.
Q4. What is the Presidio and why do you cite it as an example for Fort Monroe?
A. The Presidio is a historic former Army installation of 1491 acres in San Francisco just south of the Golden Gate Bridge, which Congress designated in 1972 for entry into the National Park system whenever the Army left. Four years after the Army’s departure in 1994, Congress designated the 400 coastal acres of the Presidio to remain as part of the Golden Gate National Recreational Area (operated by the National Park Service), and the interior 1168 acres were placed under a federal trust, the Presidio Trust, whose mission is to preserve and enhance the natural, cultural, scenic and recreational resources of the Presidio for public use, while achieving long-term financial sustainability. NPS retains historical interpretation responsibility throughout the entire 1491 acres of the Presidio. The trust has been active in developing its 1168 acres into a living and working community (there are today more than 2700 residents and more than 2500 workers on the Presidio), while preserving the Presidio’s 469 historic buildings, enhancing its natural areas (and building trails and promenades and otherwise promoting public enjoyment of this scenic refuge within a major urban area. The trust produced $64 million in revenues in 2007 and expects to be self-sufficient by 2013. Notably, 991 of the 1491 acres of the Presidio are open space, for the enjoyment of the American people.
Q5. Hasn’t the National Park Service discontinued establishing any new national parks?
A. The Bush Administration has certainly emphasized catching up on maintenance in existing parks, rather than creating new ones. Still several new parks have been created by this administration (e.g., Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park, Flight 93 National Memorial, Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site, Governor’s Island National Monument, Carter Woodson Home National Historic Site, African Burial Ground National Monument), and the creation of others is progressing through Congress (e.g., Raisin River Battlefield, Michigan and Newtonia Battlefield, Missouri ). The creation of a new national park is ultimately a political action, which must be pursued through Congress after the required feasibility study (see Q7). On its merits there can be no doubt that Fort Monroe easily satisfies the high standards for this recognition, as was confirmed in the recent National Park Service Reconnaissance Study that found Fort Monroe easily met both the national significance and suitability standards for a new national park unit.
Q6. Some say the National Park Service is a poor steward of its properties and we would be better off if Hampton operated Fort Monroe. How do you respond?
A. The National Park Service operates 391 properties on more than 84 million acres of land, so it should not be surprising that it has not always maintained all its buildings and other structures as we would like it to. Still it does a remarkable job overall subject to the funding available, and most Americans have a high regard for our nation’s parks and the Park Service. We can think of no more appropriate and qualified operator of the most historical portions of Fort Monroe than the National Park Service. And, if Fort Monroe is controlled by the federal trust we envision, the trust rather than the Park Service would likely have primary responsibility for assuring proper maintenance of Fort Monroe.
As to Hampton operating Fort Monroe, no locality could be expected to properly operate and fund a national icon of the fort’s size or significance for the long term—local political pressures and local needs would inevitably lead to compromising the fort. That is why the nation has the National Park Service, and why Gettysburg battlefield is operated by the Park Service, not Adams County, Pennsylvania, why Fort McHenry is operated by the Park Service, not the City of Baltimore, and why Yosemite is operated by the Park Service, not Mariposa County, California, just to name a few. As for the Commonwealth of Virginia operating all of Fort Monroe, it has ruled out a line item in the state budget going forward, meaning it is not prepared to finance the years of transition for Fort Monroe from an Army post to a self-sustaining grand public place. Thus state-only operation almost guarantees a sell-off of precious public land to developers to raise necessary funds. Further, Virginia is subject to similar short-term political pressures from Hampton and real estate developers to compromise this national treasure.
Q7. How do we get a national park at Fort Monroe?
A. The next step is for Congress to authorize a Special Resource Study of Fort Monroe for addition to the national park system. On our Web site’s Solutions page, we explain how you can help by asking members of Congress and Virginia leaders to pursue this authorizing legislation. Once the Study is authorized and conducted (the “Study” is in large part a negotiation with other interested parties, including Virginia, of the detailed means for establishing a national park at Fort Monroe), we can go to the next step of congressional authorization for such a park.
Q8. But isn’t Virginia already pursuing a process for determining what should occur at Fort Monroe?
A. Yes indeed. Under the BRAC process applicable to closing military bases and a Virginia law enacted in March 2007, the Commonwealth’s 18 member Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority (FMFADA) has been designated the Local Redevelopment Authority to develop a Fort Monroe reuse plan. Such a plan would then be forwarded to the governor of Virginia for his review and ultimately to the federal government for its approval. However, this process is concurrent with other legally required processes, under the Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, both of which require that all feasible alternatives for the Fort be considered. Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park has been (and many citizens have been as well) participating in all these processes, but none of these procedures preclude individual citizens and groups from directly calling on Congress, the governor, state legislators, and other political leaders to support a national park at Fort Monroe.
Q9. The FMFADA has recently developed a new reuse plan, which is reportedly a lot better than the 2006 plan developed by the old Hampton Federal Area Development Authority. Doesn’t this plan represent the way to go?
A. The new draft reuse plan, which FMFADA apparently intends to approve in next few months, is certainly an improvement over the 2006 plan (which emphasized new residential development on existing and reclaimable open space while submerging the historic properties in a sea of new privately-owned residences). It increases the amount of land designated as public open space, it redesignates the area immediately to the northeast of the stone fort (the “Wherry Quarter”, now occupied by non-historic buildings) as “undetermined” (pending further economic studies) and seriously considers tourism as a major potential for Fort Monroe. But it stops short of rejecting development for its own sake (as opposed to development needed to support Fort Monroe itself), fails to plan to any degree for any National Park Service presence or otherwise address what entity will operate Fort Monroe, does not preclude private sales of land, would use federal funds to clean up the Wherry Quarter for massive development and overall still is based upon a vision of Fort Monroe, in its words, as a “development of national importance” rather than a grand public place.
Q10 But isn’t there also a Programmatic Agreement being developed by the Army that will provide greater protection for Fort Monroe’s historic resources?
A. Yes, Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act require the Army to exercise maximum efforts to minimize harm to the historic resources at Fort Monroe. And, again, there are good things in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) (which may be finalized as soon as August 2008). It severely limits development within the moated fort, calls for all parties to make feasible efforts to preserve the National Historic Landmark status of Fort Monroe, requires the conduct of viewscape and cultural landscape studies by the Army, provides for development of design standards to apply at Fort Monroe, and requires Virginia to create and maintain a Fort Monroe Historic Preservation Officer with certain powers. Still the PA does not preclude private sell-offs of precious public land, allows new development in the Wherry Quarter, endorses using Fort Monroe as a profit center for the state and can seemingly be interpreted or changed at will by Virginia after the Army’s departure.
Q11. Does a national park mean no one will live at Fort Monroe?
A. Absolutely not! The federal trust would be charged with generating revenue to maintain and operate the park and to do so, as at the Presidio, would make as many historic buildings as would be consistent with the proper operation of the national park available as residences or businesses. As well, the trust would permit compatible new construction for residential or business use, again consistent with the proper operation of the national park. Thousands live at the Presidio, and a Fort Monroe National Park likewise would be a stimulating mix of residents, businesses, tourists and local citizens enjoying this incomparable site’s history, architecture, scenery and recreational assets.
Q12. Would Fort Wool be included in the new national park?
A. This certainly should be considered. Fort Wool, originally Fort Calhoun, was built on the Rip Raps shoal as an essential southern portion of the Hampton Roads defense system designed by French military engineer Simon Bernard after the War of 1812 (with Fort Monroe as the northern anchor). After the Army abandoned it, the Rip Rap shoal reverted to the Commonwealth, which passed jurisdiction (but not ownership) to the City of Hampton.
Q13. Doesn’t Fort Monroe revert to the Commonwealth of Virginia after the Army leaves? And doesn’t that mean we cannot get a national park there?
A. There is a reversion clause as to a portion of the property (including the old stone fort and most of the other historic properties) while as to other portions there is none. But in the end these legal documents say nothing about what can be done or cannot be done at Fort Monroe if all involved parties agree—deeds can simply be signed at the right time by the necessary parties conveying ownership to the appropriate party (e.g., a federal trust). Hampton’s unsuccessful effort in the winter of 2006 to persuade the Virginia legislature to convey Virginia ’s interests at the fort to Hampton , seem to have been part of an effort by the then Hampton government to try to reserve to itself influence over what happened at the fort. Obviously we think Hampton, FMFADA and Virginia leaders would be far better advised, for all of the reasons stated in these FAQs, to join in an effort with citizens and the commonwealth for a national park.
Q14. Doesn’t Hampton need to develop Fort Monroe to the maximum extent possible to replace tax and other revenues lost by the departure of the Army?
A. First and foremost, Fort Monroe’s value to the nation as a historic, cultural, architectural, scenic and recreational treasure, not Hampton’s revenue needs, should drive the discussion about the fort’s future. Further, it should be remembered that the Army activities at the Fort are not altogether leaving Hampton Roads, as significant activities will merely move to Fort Eustis in Newport News . In fact, recent economic studies prepared for the FMFADA downplay earlier predictions of a large economic hit to Hampton. Finally, and in any event, Hampton’s finances are best served by a national park at Fort Monroe as that would best assure a high-quality, self-sustaining Fort Monroe without burdening local taxpayers, significantly increased tourism and desirable spin-off investment and development in Phoebus, Buckroe and elsewhere in Hampton . Great things at Fort Monroe beget great things in Hampton (and in the region, and in the Commonwealth of Virginia)!
Q15. Would construction of new buildings be permitted in a Fort Monroe National Park?
A. In limited areas, yes, but only after great care is taken to assure their suitability and impact on preservation of the National Historic Landmark. Approval or disapproval of specific projects would be a decision for the trust, in consulation with the National Park Service (as custodian of our national heritage).. Given the trust’s mission of preserving the Fort’s historic, cultural, architectural, scenic and recreational value for the nation, new construction within the moated fort and in other sensitive areas should be either prohibited or very limited. In other areas the key would be establishing and following guidelines assuring appropriate uses, harmonious design and scale with the historic fort and buildings, and protecting and enhancing recreational uses. And the trust might well actually remove non-historic buildings, to create more green space.
Q16. San Francisco real estate values are significantly higher than those in Hampton. Doesn’t that mean a Fort Monroe Trust will be unable to produce revenues sufficient to make Fort Monroe self-sustaining using the Presidio model?
A. No. There are many differences between the two properties, including that Fort Monroe is smaller, its buildings and grounds are in better condition or more appealing in design/location in many cases than at the Presidio, and the costs of maintenance and construction in Hampton Roads are likely somewhat lower than in the Bay Area. Further, a Fort Monroe Trust would tailor a financial plan designed to generate sufficient revenues to meet its needs. Finally, if a totally self-sustaining financial plan ultimately cannot be developed, and if a relatively small supplement is needed, the importance to the nation of Fort Monroe justifies the fort’s getting a portion of the National Park Service’s $2.45 billion budget (or other federal monies) to balance the ledger.
Q17. Doesn’t the federal trust mean there would not be local control of Fort Monroe?
A. Yes and no. Local control, in the sense of unfettered control by the Hampton City Council or any other local government, would be avoided—and we think that is very desirable, as a local government would not be able over the long term to protect, fund and manage successfully a national treasure like Fort Monroe. The board of the federal trust would, similar to the Presidio board, have a fiduciary duty to preserve and enhance the natural, cultural, scenic and recreational resources of Fort Monroe for public use and would much more likely be successful in this mission. That is not to say, however, that there will not be significant local input in the control of the fort, as most if not all trust board members will be local area citizens suggested to the region’s Congressional delegation for appointment (as is the case at The Presidio). And the trust, to be successful, will have to work with local leaders, especially in Hampton, as well as with Virginia leaders.
Also, since local control necessarily means major local investment in Fort Monroe’s transition, it is doubtful Hampton taxpayers are interested in taking this on, even with a state partner that disclaims interest in funding Fort Monroe’s transition. Again, local and/or state control without an active federal partner seem to mean large scale sell-offs of land to developers, thus precluding creation of a grand public place at Fort Monroe.
Q18. Hampton says the Presidio model is potentially controversial among “national park purists,” as it risks “turning national treasures into high-profile development communities.” Is this a concern?
A. To start with, if one is not a “national park purist”—and Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park involves no such purists—this is not a problem. Beyond that, we think the national park system is multifaceted, and that we have already gone well beyond a single model for a national park. In any case, the entire 500-plus-acre Fort Monroe property, although under the control of a federal trust, might not be operated by the National Park Service (see Q2). Rather the service could be limited to operating the old fort and certain key waterfront, natural, historical and recreational portions of the property, thus obviating to a large extent the concern that major development would occur in National Park Service–operated property.
We do worry about what Hampton has in mind by a “high-profile development community”—this is why a trust is needed to protect the fort from unsuitable development pressures.
Q19. Rather than a national park, why not simply grant a trusted nonprofit organization a conservation easement over Fort Monroe in order to protect it?
A. We are not sure what form of conservation easement is envisioned, its geographical extent, or what organization would hold it, but in general we think such an easement a poor tool for protecting such a complex property as Fort Monroe. Easements are good where all development, or only very limited development is to occur, and may be appropriate on some portions of Fort Monroe. The difficult balancings that will have to be made at Fort Monroe in future years suggests to us that the federal trust/National Park is the best mechanism for assuring good things happen at Fort Monroe. The easement also does not give Fort Monroe the stature of a national park, any claim to future federal funding or the tourism and other economic benefits of this recognition (see Q3.).
Q20. Will a National Park increase the chances the Army will leave historic artifacts at the Casemate Museum?
A. Yes. The Army has not typically left artifacts of national significance under its control in a locally or even a state-controlled museum. We understand the Army would be much more willing to allow these artifacts to remain in a National Park Service–operated or -affiliated Casemate Museum.
Q21. What about the cleanup of buried munitions?
A. That’s a problem regardless of how Fort Monroe’s future is planned, except that it’s even more of a problem—a costly one—if there’s to be a lot of construction. A park, in other words, might be the cheapest option when it comes to the cleanup. In any case, the Army is responsible to clean up Fort Monroe.
Q22. How about the vulnerability of Fort Monroe to hurricanes and other storms? And what about global warming?
A. Fort Monroe occupies an exposed, low-lying sand spit along the Chesapeake Bay and has been battered many times in its history, most recently by severe flooding in Hurricane Isabel in 2003. Its vulnerability to storms and the effects of future possible global warming suggest new development should be limited to what is truly necessary, to limit costs of clean up and repairs after storms and concentrate public resources on protecting the historic resources on Old Point Comfort.
Q.23 You mentioned the recent National Park Service Reconnaissance Study (see Q5) had concluded Fort Monroe was both significant enough and suitable to be a national park. But didn’t the National Park Service in that Study also decline to endorse a Special Resource Study (see Q7) at this time?
A. Yes, the National Park Service, after affirming that Fort Monroe was superbly qualified for national park status, recommended deferring the Special Resource Study until it could better understand what reuse Virginia envisioned for the site, so as to insure that NPS was not involved in a site where inappropirate activities would impair its mission of preservation and interpretation. It noted that a sensible arrangement at Fort Monroe would probably "require a non-traditional form of management that would rely on a range of partnerships to be successful". This is quite analogous to what we have been saying for two years, focusing on the precedent at San Francisco's Presidio. We think there's an explanation for the park service's hesitancy, and that it lies not with understandably cautious federal bureaucrats, but with Virginia's leaders. Virginia's leaders have scanted the national park option even though Virginia law calls for investigating it, and even though four nationally respected preservation organizations, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Civil War Preservation Trust, the National Parks Conservation Association and APVA Preservation Virginia, have as well. In any event, again, it is up to Congress, with the support of Virginia leaders, to advance the Special Resource Study (see Q7).
Q24. In Virginia developers typically get their way, and former Hampton Mayor Kearney has said numerous developers called on him about Fort Monroe, some of them “richer than small countries.” Isn’t it futile to attempt to get a national park at Fort Monroe?
A. We don’t think so. We think Virginians see Fort Monroe as extremely special and primarily a public, not a private, place and like the national park idea (86% in a Virginian-Pilot poll). The Virginia congressional delegation successfully fended off an effort to close Fort Monroe in 1993 by arguing there would be no federal savings if the Army closed the fort, since of course it would have to become a national park. Of course Fort Monroe should be a national park, and if many citizens participate and speak out, their wishes will be followed. In fact, a Virginian-Pilot editorial recently endorsed a national park at Fort Monroe.
(Home)