You mentioned the recent National Park Service Reconnaissance Study (see Q5) had concluded Fort Monroe was both significant enough and suitable to be a national park. But didnt the National Park Service in that Study also decline to endorse a Special Resource Study (see Q7) at this time?
A. Yes, the National Park Service, after affirming that Fort Monroe was superbly qualified for national park status, recommended deferring the Special Resource Study until it could better understand what reuse Virginia envisioned for the site, so as to insure that NPS was not involved in a site where inappropriate activities would impair its mission of preservation and interpretation. It noted that a sensible arrangement at Fort Monroe would probably “require a non-traditional form of management that would rely on a range of partnerships to be successful”. This is quite analogous to what we have been saying for nearly three years, focusing on the precedent at San Francisco’s Presidio. We think there’s an explanation for the park service’s hesitancy, and that it lies not with understandably cautious federal bureaucrats, but with Virginia’s leaders. Virginia’s leaders have scanted the national park option even though Virginia law calls for investigating it, and even though four nationall
Related Questions
- You mentioned the recent National Park Service Reconnaissance Study (see Q5) had concluded Fort Monroe was both significant enough and suitable to be a national park. But didnt the National Park Service in that Study also decline to endorse a Special Resource Study (see Q7) at this time?
- Some say the National Park Service is a poor steward of its properties and we would be better off if Hampton operated Fort Monroe. How do you respond?
- What Is the National Park Service Doing to Help?
