|
(1) US Army
*********************************************************************************
The US Army doesn't make decisions about whether Fort Monroe will become a
park or be developed, but it does set up some guidelines. Under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Army is going through
the process of writing these guidelines. There have been public meetings.
The public is encouraged to submit comments by e-mail or regular mail.
**********************************************************************************
All Comments are due
Jan
9, 2008
Submitted by
2. Mailing address:
Directorate of Public Works
Attention: Jennifer Guerrero
318 Cornog Lane
Fort Monroe,
VA 23651-1110
You can answer the questionnaire, which requires some familiarization
with the process as it is at this point. On the other hand, if you do
not feel comfortable with going through this questionnaire, then at
least make some brief comments in your own words. The most important
part is that you do make some kind of response.
For more information and electronic version of the questionnaire,
Visit the website at:
The suggestions below are from a member of
Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park:
Alternatively, recognizing that there are many demands on your time, I
would suggest the draft PA is in many respects a quite protective
document. But it has certain shortcomings to those who believe
all 570 acres at Fort Monroe (i.e.,
not just the 63 acres constituting the moated fort) are
special and should remain public, with any development
determined by and under the supervision of a public entity
significantly insulated from day-to-day (i.e.,
developer-dominated) politics and with a fiduciary
duty to protect and enhance the entire property while over
time making property economically self-sustaining. So CFMNP is
suggesting citizens who are sympathetic to these concerns do at least
the following in their comments:
·
In Questions 1.A and B., answer
“No”, citing PA’s failure to address protecting Fort Monroe’s 570
acres as a whole (not just the 5 zones and two other cited assets).
·
In Questions 1.E, 1.F and 1.G, state that
you would expand upon the management responsibilities and
mechanisms/limitations shown, to (i) prohibit sales of any public land
to private entities (in favor of leases with usable termination
clauses) and (ii) require establishment of a public entity (e.g.,
trust) insulated from day-to-day politics with a board dedicated to
protecting all of Fort Monroe for American people and effective
control over all development and use of 570 acres, perhaps in
partnership with National Park Service.
·
In Question 2.A, repeat PA’s failure to
address protecting Fort Monroe’s 570 acres as a whole, and in 2.B,
answer “Yes.”
·
In Questions 2.C.2) and 2.D.2), indicate
that future use of Zone B should be with reference to its historic
pre-World War II use as predominately open space, not its post-World
War II use for housing and other service functions for Army.
Thank you for your help, which could well make a difference in causing
Fort Monroe to become a “grand public place” for next 400 years in
contrast to another nice private waterfront neighborhood with an
interesting old fort as a centerpiece. Responses are due to be
received by the Army by Wednesday, January 9, so
I urge you get your responses in the mail by [Monday].
[or e-mail by Wednesday, January 9]
******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************
(2) National Park Service
We were told at the NPS public meeting held on December 6 that comments
should be mailed to
Terrence Moore
National Park Service
200 Chestnut
Street
Philadelphia , PA 19106
The "Criteria for Parkland " can be found at:
The National Park Service is undergoing a reconnaissance survey, which may
be done before the end of spring 2008. No specific deadline for comments
has been given yet, but it is important to submit comments early in the
process. The study will either conclude that a more in depth study is
desirable, or recommend against further study.
Below are some excerpts from the NPS website which should be kept in
mind when arguing for a Fort Monroe National Park :
Suitability and Feasibility
"An area that is nationally significant also must meet criteria for
suitability and feasibility to qualify as a potential addition to the
National Park System. To be suitable for inclusion in the System an area
must represent a natural or cultural theme or type of recreational
resource that is not already adequately represented in the National Park
System or is not comparably represented and protected for public enjoyment
by another land-managing entity. Adequacy of representation is determined
on a case-by-case basis by comparing the proposed area to other units in
the National Park System for differences or similarities in the character,
quality, quantity, or combination of resources, and opportunities for
public enjoyment.
To be feasible as a new unit of the National Park System an area's natural
systems and/or historic settings must be of sufficient size and
appropriate configuration to ensure long-term protection of the resources
and to accommodate public use. It must have potential for efficient
administration at a reasonable cost. Important feasibility factors include
landownership, acquisition costs, access, threats to the resource, and
staff or development requirements."
"Many units of the national park system have been established to recognize
their important role in providing recreational opportunities. The
potential for public use and enjoyment is an important consideration in
evaluating potential new additions to the National Park System. However,
recreational values are not evaluated independently from the natural and
cultural resources that provide the settings for recreational activities."
Please recognize the importance of these two ways of providing comments.
Your input is valuable.
Thanks so much for your involvement,
Adrian
A brief response is better than no response at all. We need
to show the Army and the National Park Service that we want a park and not
another development!
|
