Two replies to Lyle E. Browning: * He wrote: "Fortress Monroe is on the National Register of Historic Places." It's important to distinguish the moated stone fortress from the entirety of the 570 acres of Old Point Comfort, which is the entirety of Fort Monroe. And it's vital to note that all of Fort Monroe has been a national historic landmark for half a century -- as he rightly noted further down in his message. No one is seeking to ruin the moated stone fortress, but, as with those casinos that have been chased away from Gettysburg, plenty of people want to ruin its setting by blanketing a national historic landmark with upscale, multistory houses. The fort, not just the fortress, is at risk. * He wrote: "I find it extremely annoying that the objections boil down to fiscal expenditure as in: 'Dad-burned Federal Gummint' should not spend our tax dollars when the private sector should do it." Amen, but here again there's a vital clarification to be made -- and a deep irony to be noted. The clarification: Journalists and others, trapped in master-story bias, can't seem to understand, even after over two years of civic discussion, that nobody is asking for a traditional national park. The only serious proposals for any national park have been for an innovatively structured, self-sustaining, revenue-generating one akin to San Francisco's Presidio. The irony: Not only would such a hybrid national park save federal money by reducing cleanup costs, it would actually boost the local economy in multiple ways. (Push my button to hear more about that; I'm worried that I'm straying too far into politics and out of this forum's history topic.) Unfortunately, to look at it this way requires looking at Fort Monroe strategically, rather than parochially. It's getting easier to persuade people to do that, but it's still hard. ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html