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 w