Responses to Citizen Questions
about the Future of Fort Monroe
During the Center for Regional Citizenship town hall meeting, “After BRAC: What Now for Fort Monroe?,” held at The American Theatre on February 23, 2006, panelists responded to questions and comments from the audience. Please click on the “Watch on Demand” link to view the entire town hall meeting.
Not all citizen questions were addressed during the hour long program. Below are additional questions and responses from the Hampton City Planners and from our telecast's panelist Steve Cornelisussen, who has helped to form an organization called Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park.
Many of the citizen questions were similar. We have shortened and condensed the questions by topic. Click here to read the original citizen questions and comments.
To stay apprised of the Fort Monroe planning process and opportunities to participate, the Hampton City Planners invite you to sign up for Hampton’s e-News service at www.enews.hampton.gov. Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park also invite you to sign up for email updates via the "Suscribe" link at their home page www.createfortmonroenationalpark.org.
Citizen Question: Fort Monroe must be open for all citizens to enjoy. Why not turn it into a national park?
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: When The Virginian-Pilot profiled Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park on June 7, 2006, it also asked its readers, "Should Fort Monroe be turned into a national park modeled after the Presidio in San Francisco?" Over 2500 people answered. That's more than a comparable recent question about Oceana Naval Air Station. And 86% said yes.
That's not a scientific measure of public sentiment, of course. But it certainly shows that the national park question requires far more serious public attention than it received before June 2006.
Obviously, "yes" is our organization's answer too, as can be seen not only in our name but in our Web site's name, CreateFortMonroeNationalPark.org. A Fort Monroe National Park would improve the quality of life for everyone and would enhance the Hampton Roads region's prosperity.
It's true that serious practical problems must be overcome. That's been emphasized for good reason by those who see Fort Monroe as primarily an economic asset for one city, rather than as a national treasure and a strategic opportunity for Tidewater and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
But those practical problems have solutions. Our Web Site went on the air in early June 2006, and will be evolving as a source of public information about those solutions and about a future Fort Monroe National Park.
Hampton Planners' Response: A key priority in the reuse planning process is to assure that Fort Monroe continues to be open and accessible to the public. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this, however turning it into a national park may not be the most feasible.
The Army has said that it presently costs $14.9 million per year to maintain the historic structures at Fort Monroe.
As we look for ways to preserve this historic treasure, it’s important to keep in mind that it would be a challenge to get either the State or Federal park services to provide continued necessary funding to accomplish this. Here’s some background:
The National Parks Conservation Association, a national watchdog for our national parks for 86 years, has compiled the following figures on the National Parks Service:
- Operating budget has been under-funded by over $600 million per year for many years.
- The National Park Service has over $4 billion worth of deferred maintenance projects.
- Additionally, approximately two-thirds of the historic structures in the National Parks system are in need of repairs.
- These budget challenges at the Federal level are presently leading to plans to sell off some of our national parks.
The situation in our State parks is not much better according to the Virginia Association for Parks. Consider these facts:
- Virginia Parks have over $200 million in deferred maintenance projects.
- Over the past decade, the State’s general fund has contributed between $10 - $14 million to the state parks service per year.
- The Virginia Association for Parks says another $15 million is needed each year.
- The Virginia Parks Service had an opportunity to take Fort Monroe in the federal screening process required under BRAC and did not – probably because of the high maintenance costs.
Adding Fort Monroe to their books would double the State’s General Fund contribution to Virginia’s parks.
Based on this data, it appears that State or Federal funding for historic preservation could be a significant challenge. By the same token, it would not be fair or practical to pass the costs of Fort Monroe’s historic preservation on to Hampton tax payers.
That’s why it appears that some economic initiatives must take place, to generate the funds needed for historic preservation. The Federal Area Development Authority is committed to finding a way to do that, while meeting other desires the community may have such as respect for historic interpretation, access to parklands, enjoyment of public beaches, etc. These kinds of details will be worked out, with extensive public input, in the coming year.
Citizen Comment: Please try to keep the Casemate Museum intact.
Hampton Planners' Response: Fort Monroe has long been the home to the Casemate Museum and the great history that the museum has to share. Thousands of citizens, over the years, have enhanced their knowledge of the Fort's unique history by visiting this museum. The City feels strongly that the Casemate Museum should remain at Fort Monroe, and is presently in discussions with the Army on this important issue.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: On many questions concerning Fort Monroe's future, we agree with Hampton. This is an example. Yes, the Casemate Museum is important and should be enabled to flourish. In fact, we see the museum as so important that it should be administered by a national entity. That's one reason we advocate a national park managed by a national trust.
Here's an important question for the Casemate Museum's friends to ask during the planning for Fort Monroe's future: Would the Army, which has lots of museums, entrust treasured artifacts to the care of one municipality?
Citizen Comment: Please develop a beach with access from Buckroe Beach and leave several acres of green grass for recreational purposes. The picnic shelters are built to last for centuries. It wouldn't make sense to destroy them.
Hampton Planners' Response: Citizens who have expressed their ideas about Fort Monroe reuse have stated three primary desires:
- Maintain the historic structures
- Keep the Fort open and accessible
- Retain or enhance the economic impact of Fort Monroe
There are obvious benefits to connecting Buckroe Beach with the northern beach sectors of Fort Monroe, and to create a continuous beachfront for citizens to enjoy. It is also obvious that preserving open space and picnic areas would be in keeping with the public’s desires at this juncture of the planning process. These options will be further explored and defined during the planning process in which the public is encouraged to participate.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: In Hampton Roads, developers are busily transforming private bayfront into congested private bayfront, often by erecting multi-story condos. But Fort Monroe's beaches and green space belong to all citizens, and should stay that way.
Our organization recommends that a national trust be charged with deciding how to use Fort Monroe's assets to finance and administer all of Fort Monroe as a national park. Following the model of San Francisco's Presidio, such a trust would not just preserve the beaches and green space for all citizens, but would enhance those irreplaceable, publicly owned assets.
And please note: any square foot of public bayfront land that becomes private will be lost to its present owners -- that is, would be lost to all of us -- forever.
Citizen Comment: It goes without saying that everything within the old fort surrounded by the moat should remain untouched to development. This is our history.
Hampton Planners' Response: The top issue identified to date in the City’s public outreach process has been to protect the historic resources at Fort Monroe and existing historic resources are protected by federal law. While all options for protecting historic properties will be considered, the key issue that will need to be addressed is how to fund the historic preservation. Experts agree that one of the most reliable ways to preserve historic structures is to keep them in use and, therefore, the reuse of historic structures is likely to be a key consideration in the reuse planning process.
Additionally, should other development occur in an historic area, it is required to assume the same architectural tone and style as the existing structures.
No decisions have been made regarding how best to preserve the historic resources at Fort Monroe at this time. All options will be further explored and defined during the upcoming planning process in which the public is encouraged to participate.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: We agree with the city of Hampton on this one: the financing questions are centrally important, "adaptive reuse" is a great way to preserve historic buildings, and any new structures that a Fort Monroe trust might conceivably see fit to erect should be built in the spirit of Fort Monroe's existing architecture.
Citizen Question: What will become of the Chapel of the Centurion?
Hampton Planners' Response: While no decisions have been made at this time it is hard to imagine any use for the Chapel of the Centurion other than as a church or historic attraction. Additionally, the Federal Area Development Authority recognizes that the Chapel has an active congregation that would like to remain active at the Chapel and this option will be considered in the planning process. The congregation is also encouraged to participate in the planning process.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: Here too we agree with Hampton.
Citizen Question: What federal initiatives are available to support a reuse planning project of this magnitude?
Hampton Planners' Response: The federal Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has approved an initial grant of $540,000 in Community Adjustment Assistance to the City, in response to the closure of Fort Monroe. These funds are primarily being used in the retention of a planning firm who will work with the Federal Area Development Authority to engage the public in the reuse planning efforts for Fort Monroe.
These federal funds will also help the City use a consultant to study its key economic clusters and develop a roadmap on how to stimulate further economic growth. This is in response to the fact that Fort Monroe’s closing could have up to a 7 percent negative impact on the city’s economy.
OEA is the Department of Defense’s office that assists cities that have been impacted by the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
From a funding standpoint, the United States Army is also legally obligated to administer an environmental cleanup of the Fort, at an estimated cost of $200 million.
Looking ahead, the Hampton Federal Area Development Authority will be looking at other potential revenue sources, including Federal and State grants, private foundations, revenue from the sale or lease of property, City funds, and other funding options to be considered.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: Here we agree with Hampton that the federal government can't simply walk away from its responsibilities at this unique, nationally significant Army post. But we also believe that at the moment, the most important federal initiative must come from Congress, which should authorize the National Park Service to conduct a study concerning Fort Monroe's future as a national park. The city of Hampton quite rightly emphasizes that people should voice their opinions about Fort Monroe. We believe that citizens should in particular voice their opinions to members of the Virginia's congressional delegation about a Fort Monroe National Park.
Citizen Question: Since Fort Monroe has been important to Hampton Roads as a whole,
shouldn't there be at least a regional advisory group of some kind making
recommendations about what to do with it?
Hampton Planners' Response: The Hampton Federal Area Development Authority (FADA) has named the participants on its Planning Steering Committee which will ultimately make a recommendation to the Authority on the future use of Fort Monroe. Through this committee’s diverse composition, it will ensure a significant regional, state and even a national voice in determining the future of Fort Monroe.
In the coming year Dover-Kohl, the firm that will guide the community through the planning process, will work closely with the Steering Committee as they evaluate public input and other data associated with the reuse plan.
Following is a list of appointees to the Fort Monroe Planning Steering Committee.
Virginia Governor's Office: Patrick O. Gottschalk,Secretary of Commerce & Trade; Preston Bryant, Secretary of Natural Resources; Robert P. Crouch, Assistant to the Governor for Commonwealth Preparedness
Virginia Senate: Senator Mamie Locke; Senator Marty Williams
Virginia House of Delegates: Delegate Tom Gear; Delegate Jeion Ward
U.S. Congressional Delegation Members: Rick Sanford, Senator Warner's Office; Jim McNider, Congresswoman Thelma Drake's Office
Hampton Federal Area Development Authority (FADA): Robert R. Harper, Jr., Chairman; John Quarstein
Hampton City Council/Housing Authority: Ross A. Kearney, Mayor; Charles N. Sapp, Council Member
Hampton Planning Commission: James Young
Hampton Industrial Development Authority: John Ishon
Hampton Citizens (6 Appointments): Tanya V. Boone - at Large; Kevin W. Grierson - at Large; Thomas N. Hunnicutt, III - at Large; Thomas O. Southall, Jr. - at Large; Robert F. Shuford, Jr. - Phoebus; Wayne D. Lett - Buckroe
Regional Representation: Art Collins, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission; Dana Dickens, Hampton Roads Partnership
National Trust for Historic Preservation: Robert Newig
Owners of Chamberlin Hotel: Wendy Drucker - Drucker and Faulk
Hampton University: To Be Determined
Hampton Veterans Administration Medical Center: Joseph A. Williams, Director Hampton City Manager: Jesse T. Wallace, Jr.
Starting on July 21, 2006, all citizens from throughout the region and beyond will have an opportunity to participate in a weeklong series of public meetings and discussions regarding the future of Fort Monroe. These meetings will be advertised well in advance.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: Our organization looks constructively toward the future. We advocate a congressional study leading to the future establishment of a national trust that would manage Fort Monroe as a national park, on the model of San Francisco's Presidio.
This question, however, requires a look back at how we got to the present situation. We believe that the planning process that was defined in 2005 for and with Hampton is, frankly, way too parochial. Just to take one example, no private citizens except those who live in Hampton could be appointed to the steering committee.
Things will work out, though. The planning for Fort Monroe has only just begun. Hampton's unique stake will be duly respected -- but so will the stake of the majority of Fort Monroe's actual owners, all the citizens of the United States, including those who live in Hampton.
Citizen Question: What are the future plans for the marina?
Hampton Planners' Response: The Federal Area Development Authority is committed to working with the community to determine the best uses for the marina and other amenities at Fort Monroe. These kinds of details will be determined with extensive public input, in the coming year.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: Recreation is an important dimension of Fort Monroe's future as a national park for everyone. Besides the marina, Fort Monroe offers -- or could offer -- family beaches, picnic and camping grounds, bike trails, green space for nature trails, windsurfing in Mill Creek and in the Chesapeake Bay, playing fields, indoor fitness and recreational facilities, and deep-water fishing piers. We think that a Fort Monroe National Trust should decide how recreation at Fort Monroe can best evolve to serve all of us.
Citizen Question: I’d like to know more about the credentials of the members of the Federal Areas Development Authority. What qualifies them to make this great decision?
Hampton Planners' Response: The members of the Federal Area Development Authority, appointed by the Hampton City Council, are civic leaders in our community, each with strong professional credentials. They each have extensive background in the public participation and planning arena, having served the community and the City of Hampton in a variety of capacities. To read the specific background and credentials of the Federal Area Development Authority members, click here.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: Indeed the FADA members are well qualified to contribute to important civic deliberations. There's much in all of this that we might disagree about with some FADA members, but we respect and value the civic contributions and good will of everyone involved.
Citizen Question: What is the action or direction regarding the future of Fort Monroe from the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance (HREDA) and the Hampton Roads Partnership (HRP)?
Hampton Planners' Response: A representative from the Hampton Roads Partnership sits on the Fort Monroe Reuse Steering Committee. This Committee will advise the Federal Area Development Authority during the planning process. The Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance will be apprised and invited to participate during the planning process.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: We're glad that Hampton Roads regional organizations are participating. For good reasons, they have special clout with Virginia's congressional delegation. We hope that they see that the region's long-term interests and future are not well served by merely "developing" the publicly owned post to match the increasingly congested private sections of Hampton Roads' bayfront. We hope that they agree that "developing" the publicly owned Fort Monroe would be like "developing" Monticello or Mount Vernon.
Citizen Question: The U.S. Army Presidio in San Francisco was closed a number of years ago as part of the BRAC process. That city has transitioned the land into public use in a variety of ways. Fort Monroe and the Presidio are similar pieces of land with waterfront, open space, parkland and are highly desirable for housing development. Have you evaluated or looked at the "Lessons Learned" related to the transition of the Presidio to public use?
Hampton Planners' Response: There’s no question that the Federal Area Development Authority will be called upon to think out-of-the-box in coming up with a solution for funding the maintenance of Fort Monroe. One model that has been explored which has some promise is the Presidio model in San Francisco where the properties there are held in trust and leased. The lease revenue then funds the Trust’s efforts to maintain the property.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: We're delighted to see Hampton express willingness to consider the Presidio model (though if the question is implying that it's appropriate to build new housing developments on either Fort Monroe or the Presidio, we would disagree strongly).
Citizen Question: Is Big Bethel Reservoir part of the Fort Monroe closure process?
Hampton Planners' Response: Big Bethel Reservoir, located on Big Bethel Road near Bethel Manor, served as the drinking water supply for Fort Monroe many years ago. The Fort is now connected to Newport News Waterworks, and so this water source is no longer necessary –although it is still officially a part of Fort Monroe.
During the Governor’s Peninsula Working Group Committee organized to assess the local economic impacts related to the Fort’s closure, the topic of Big Bethel Reservoir was discussed. Representatives from York County, Newport News, and Hampton served on that committee. The Federal Area Development Authority has also reached out to Newport News and York County to engage them in determining the best course of action for the Big Bethel Reservoir property.
Almost all of the property included in the area known as the Big Bethel Reservoir is either under water or is wetlands. From an administrative standpoint, the area is still officially a part of the Fort Monroe reuse planning process and must be included as such. There is an approximately 50-acre parcel that, by long standing agreement with Fort Monroe, is used by Langley AFB as a recreational area. Under the BRAC process, the Air Force has requested the Army to convey that parcel to them. The FADA has requested to be involved in the Army decision regarding the Air Force request. According to information currently available, the remaining land is not suitable for development. The City has asked the Army to provide any additional information it may have researched regarding the Big Bethel Reservoir area.
The area also includes the site of the first land battle of the Civil War, and there is a strong interest to see that this area is protected and preserved for future historic interpretation.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: We believe that the big Vethel reservoir and its recreational area should remain publicly owned.
Citizen Question: When will the Army start and finish vacating Fort Monroe? This is an operative question for any future plans.
Hampton Planners' Response: The Army is scheduled to vacate Fort Monroe in 2011. Some portions could be vacated earlier than that, which may create some opportunities for incremental reuse as that occurs.
Citizen Question: What entity owns Fort Monroe, and if that entity isn't the city of
Hampton, has it already officially given Fort Monroe to the city?
Hampton Planners' Response: Portions of Fort Monroe are presently owned by the United States Army, while other portions are owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia. There are also some areas where the ownership is still being defined. The majority of the historic structures on Fort Monroe are on the Commonwealth’s property. The cost of maintaining historic structures is estimated to be $14.9 million per year, and this obligation would fall to whoever has ownership of the land.
The Federal Area Development Authority, the City of Hampton, the Commonwealth and the Army will need to work together to untangle the various property ownership and disposition issues. No decision has been made by any group to give any property to the City of Hampton.
It’s obvious that some economic initiatives must take place, to generate the funds needed for historic preservation. The Federal Area Development Authority is committed to finding a way to do that, while meeting other desires the community may have such as respect for historic interpretation, access to parklands, enjoyment of public beaches, etc. These kinds of details will be worked out, with extensive public input, in the coming year.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: Indeed the politics and legalities of the land ownership question are complex. But in the most important sense they are also beside the point. Fort Monroe belongs to all the citizens of the United States. For Virginians it's a public trust.
Virginians' responsibility -- not just Hamptonian's responsibility -- is to handle that trust as well as we can. That's why it's crucial to focus on something Hampton says in the answer above: "It's obvious that some economic initiatives must take place, to generate the funds needed for historic preservation."
Economic initiatives? We agree that it's obvious that Fort Monore must not drain taxpayers. That's why we advocate a national trust to manage Fort Monroe in a financially responsible way.
But in much of the discussion about Fort Monroe from mid-2005 to mid-2006, something else was also obvious: an assumption by some, including many in positions of power and influence, that "economic initiatives" must mean treating Fort Monroe as just another property to be "developed." If that view prevails, Virginia will have failed in handling this public trust.
Citizen Question: What will be the disposition of Building 183, currently a post office/yacht club facility (the back two rooms)? This building is contiguous to the southern edge of the marina parking lot.
Hampton Planners' Response: All options will be further explored and defined during the upcoming planning process in which the public is encouraged to participate.
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park Response: We believe that the Fort Monroe National Trust that we're advocating should decide how best to use Fort Monroe's buildings.
Citizen Question directed to Dr. Joseph Bouchard, Executive Director of the Center for Homeland Security and Defense: A concept for Fort Monroe revitalization would be to create a Maritime Center of Excellence. This training center would provide instruction to all Federal, DOD, and Civil security forces that have a Maritime Security responsibility in this country. I believe it would be an easy concept to development because of the location on the water. We at Tactical Solution Partners, Inc. have a concept if there is interest.
Dr. Bouchard’s Response: There is a wide range of potential uses for the Fort Monroe property. The challenge facing the Federal Area Development Agency and the City Of Hampton is to develop a strategy for reutilization of the property that reconciles a number of competing goals and objectives, including historic preservation, open space and beach access, and minimizing the economic loss to the City and region resulting from closure of Fort Monroe. A maritime security training center is an option that could be considered, but with several important caveats. First, if any Federal agency had desired Fort Monroe property for such a training center or any other Federal purpose, they would have submitted a request for it to DOD. The period for that to happen has expired with no requests from any other Federal agency for Fort Monroe property, so it appears unlikely that DOD or DHS would be interested in a proposal for a maritime security training center at Fort Monroe. Additionally, the Federal agencies involved in maritime security already have a number of training facilities devoted to this purpose, including multiple facilities in Hampton Roads. A new training facility at Fort Monroe would be viewed by those agencies as redundant with their existing facilities and in some respects would be inferior to those facilities despite its waterfront location. Finally, such a maritime security training center would have to be compatible with other uses for the property contained in the reutilization plan being developed by the Federal Area Development Agency and the City Of Hampton. I encourage you to submit your concept for a maritime security training center to the Federal Area Development Agency for consideration; but as I pointed out above, there does not appear to be much Federal interest in such a center.