Topic Name Feedback on the Planning Advisory Group (PAG) Presentation Idea Title FMA and planners need to think regionally. Presentation showed only FM, Phoebus, and Hampton as important in planning. Ways to bring Norfolk and Portsmouth visitors to the fort should be included in plans. Existing, as well as newly implemented passenger ferries and tour boats, should be Idea Detail encouraged to make stops at FM. A great restaurant near the docking point would attract many. A reliable and frequent pick up tour bus could help circulate these visitors around the fort and to local cities. Quality tourism attractions at FM, in Phoebus, and Hampton would almost guarantee many visitors. Idea Author Ron W Number of Seconds 0 Number of Points 3 Number of Comments 0 Idea Title A trolley run from the Fort to downtown Hpt and Pen Town Center Need revenue generating draws to the Fort. Also groceries, restaurant, period type housing, camping. Too much open space is Idea Detail NOT a draw there. It has few trees and little character outside of the existing homes, Casemate and Batteries. The 'been here' folks have a false sense of how wonderful Hampton is compared to the rest of the country. Idea Author Pat W Number of Seconds 0 Number of Points 2 Number of Comments 0 Idea Title "Escape from Fort Monroe" Duathlon and/or Triathlon event The Fort would make a unique destination venue for a multisport race in the sprit of the annual event at Alcatraz and the duathlon previously held at Fort Story. The site could host a 5k running course in and around the fort itself, and a 20 mile looped cycling course around the island and nearby areas such as Phoebus and Buckroe Beach. While I doubt the moat would be suitable Idea Detail for swimming, the beaches could certainly host a swimming or even kayak racing event in the bay. Local race management & timing company Mettle Events has experience running these types of events. Also, J&A Racing has been running several very popular running events at the VB Oceanfront for years. Idea Author Mark A Number of Seconds 0 Number of Points 2 Number of Comments 0 Idea Title Economic considerations As in past presentations, this one concentrated on economic needs for FM. Very little thought and consideration has been given to the idea of a truly open (undeveloped) Wherry Quarter. That is a problem! There is overwhelming public support for an undeveloped Wherry Quarter. There is an overwhelming need in the Hampton Roads Region for an undeveloped Wherry Quarter. In fact, the area may be the last chance in Hampton Roads to create a large open area for the benefit of the public. Developing Idea Detail the acreage only to raise money for the operation of the fort, is short sighted at the least, and a continuation of the planning disaster seen as local and state governments allowed most all beach front and open land to be developed. It is very possible that tourism related fees and support by local and the state government could close the economic gap created by not developing the acreage and over time, removing the existing building at the end of their service life. Idea Author Ron W Number of Seconds 0 Number of Points 0 Number of Comments 1 We need to develope the land at the fort . Bring in the money to pat for its self. Have summer concerts like in the past . You have Comment 1 all that open space on the creek side lets use it. Just look at other cities. like va. beach | By John W Topic Name Share your feelings about Fort Monroe Idea Title Please unify nat'l monument by including missing bayfront acres It's time for friends of Fort Monroe--and of American history, and of prospects for civic enrichment led by economic enrichment-- to reassert the need for swift-as-possible unification of the two parts of the split national monument. This forum's first round's two top vote-getting (i.e., most "seconded") ideas--by far--called for unifying the split national monument/park by incorporating the missing, sense-of-place-defining bayfront land shown in red in the accompanying illustration. (See link below.) The idea "Let's make a REAL national monument/park!" (link below) came from the conservative politician Tom Gear, honored formally this year by the nonpartisan citizens committee Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park for years of Fort Monroe Idea Detail leadership. The idea "Virginian-Pilot calls for including missing bayfront Wherry land" reported an editorial (link below) in Tidewater's leading daily newspaper that began, “The Wherry Quarter, roughly 100 acres of state-owned waterfront land dividing two sections of the new Fort Monroe National Monument, should be permanently set aside as open space and added to the park as soon as possible." The editors declared, “Protecting the waterfront from development--any development--is critical to securing the integrity of the new national monument. Its value as a historic site, a natural resource and tourist attraction will be degraded if the Wherry Quarter is not preserved.” Please note that word "degraded." The editors ended by advocating adamant insistence: “Various state and federal officials have said they've heard that message Idea Author Steve C Number of Seconds 91 Number of Points 0 Number of Comments 58 I will add to Sandra C's comment below that not only residential development is unwise in the WQ, so is business development. Comment 1 In fact new development on any part of FM is unwise. The WQ is no lower in elevation than most of developed area of FM. | By Ron W The idea of making the WQ a part of the National Monument is outstanding and one I fully support. I hope it will happen. However, given the financial condition of this country and the poor treatement of NPS financial needs it may never happen or not Comment 2 happen for many years. That makes it important for the public to let the FMA know we want them to keep the area open and undeveloped and that it needs to provide the recreational activities and management that it would receive under NPS management. | By Ron W Ron W's comment falls in step with comments by Hampton city officials who in today's paper admit FM does have a flooding problem and evacuations would be difficult. What isn't mentioned are the flood-related damages and expenses Hampton already incurs from flooding throughout other areas in the city. Hampton taxpayers do not need to foot the bill for more over- development in Hampton's low-lying areas, and FM's Wherry Quarter is one of those areas. Hampton's flood-related expenses Comment 3 already are high enough, and they keep occuring over and over again. Keep the Wherry Quarter open and undeveloped, and let it provide the recreational activities the public and the vets, if need be, can enjoy until the area receives the management it should have under NPS management. Hampton taxpayers only will incur more horribly high flood-related expenses if residential housing is permitted within Wherry Quarter, something Hampton officials didn't mention when they said FM has a flooding problem. | By Sandra C “Let the FMA know...to keep the area open and undeveloped.” Yes! But with respect, that phrasing has failure potential built in. Ron and others in the dedicated but public-excluding committee Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park--which I cofounded (and which is treated by reporters as speaking for the public)--think carefully about strategy. But I question some of their judgments. One is their unwise recurring failure to follow the Pilot editors’ advice to be persistently forthright about unification. Now, if Comment 4 unification must be delayed for practical reasons, fine. But as one CFMNP leader has declared, the FMA should all the same develop a solid plan for swift-as-possible unification, on whatever schedule circumstances demand. Yes! And by its own founding principles, the committee should consistently say so. Public question for CFMNP: Though this idea posting is smashing all the vote records, you’re not saying much, and now Ron is expressing what’s almost a reservation. What gives? | By Steve C Steve, the reality of Federal funding of the NPS, as it is today, may delay NPS acceptance of any additional land into the National Monument. If that happens, the public needs to continue pressure on the FMA to not develope the WQ until such time the Feds Comment 5 will once again begin to fund NPS units the way they need to be funded. You mention the CFMNP in your comment. I am speaking for myself and not for the Citizens group. I am expressing not a reservation, but a potential reality. | By Ron W Ron, I understand that reailty and don't disagree with you about it -- as far as it goes. The problem, though, is that the Fort Monroe struggle is so complex and lasts so many years that it's important not to let first principles be obscured. I believe that that that's why the Pilot editorial (http://hamptonroads.com/2012/04/next-step-fort-monroe) urges forthright, consistent, persistent and above all simple and clear insistence on unification. Let me ask either you or CFMNP or both another question: Why not Comment 6 simply insist on swift-as-possible unification (as the present idea posting does) since doing so *inherently* means that the omitted land shouldn't be developed? Then you'd be standing up plainly and clearly for what's needed, but also granting that practical realities may mean, as you say, that maybe it can't happen next week or next month.