Hampton says the Presidio model is potentially controversial among national park purists, as it risks turning national treasures into high-profile development communities. Is this a concern?
A. To start with, if one is not a national park puristand Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park involves no such puriststhis is not a problem. Beyond that, we think the national park system is multifaceted, and that we have already gone well beyond a single model for a national park. In any case, the entire 500-plus-acre Fort Monroe property would likely not be operated by the National Park Service (see Q2), but rather primarily by a trust. The Park Service would probably be limited to operating all or part of the old fort and certain key waterfront, natural, historical and recreational portions of the property, thus obviating to a large extent the concern that major development would occur in National Park Serviceoperated property. We do worry about what Hampton has in mind by a high-profile development community this is why a trust is needed to protect the fort from unsuitable development pressures.
Related Questions
- Hampton says the Presidio model is potentially controversial among national park purists, as it risks turning national treasures into high-profile development communities. Is this a concern?
- 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?
- How does the Rothiemurchus Concordat stand in terms of being seen a model for Cairngorms National Park?
