Thanks, Hampton City Council, for your August 8, 2012, resolution that moves toward fixing the split national monument. “Viewshed protection”? Amen! “Tourism, hospitality, recreation and open space concepts” for the bayfront acres between the two parts of the split national monument/park? Amen! But Council, if you seek to avert the overdevelopment danger to the green heart of Old Point Comfort as shown in the red area in the accompanying illustration, why in the world only a “significant green connection”? If the most sensible -- including economically most sensible -- disposition is as you say, then why not stand up and lead on the obvious need to unify the national monument? And what about the rest of the land shown in red? Another phrase from your resolution also merits an Amen: “Foster economic sustainability.” The first step for doing that is to fix the split national monument by taking the missing land out of local politics in perpetuity, placing it instead in National Park Service stewardship. You have great power to lead and to do good in this matter. This issue, with its thousand-year implications, is way, way bigger than even so venerable a city as Hampton! I hope forum participants will read (and consider “seconding”) the closely related “idea” posting “Please unify nat'l monument by including missing bayfront acres,” which begins, “It's time for true friends of Fort Monroe -- and of American history, and of prospects for civic enrichment led by economic enrichment -- to reassert the need for swift unification of the two parts of the split national monument.” It’s linked below, alongside links to a larger version of the accompanying photo and map illustration and to the Virginian-Pilot’s editorial calling for unification. Thanks. Steven T. Corneliussen, August 9, 2012
6 Comments
|
|||||
