Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
More from AOL Travel:
Airline tickets,
Hotel reservations,
Rental cars,
Vacation packages,
Discount cruises,
Travel deals
Travel Guides:
New York City,
San Francisco,
Las Vegas,
Boston,
Chicago,
Washington, DC,
London,
Venice,
Beijing,
Dubai,
Rio de Janeiro,
Bangkok,
Costa Rica
Travel Ideas:
Adventure,
Asia Travel,
Beaches,
Cruises,
Europe Travel,
Foodie Travel,
Healthy Travel,
Holiday Travel,
International Destinations,
National Parks,
Skiing,
Travel Blogs,
Travel Tips,
Travel Photography,
US Destinations,
Weekend Getaways
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | Advertise With Us | About Our Ads
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-22-2011 @ 3:02PM
Steven T. Corneliussen said...
You report that the president designated Fort Monroe a national monument, but in fact he only did that for the parts of the 565-acre former Army post that no one ever intended to ruin anyway. About 1/5 of Fort Monroe contains a moated, star-shaped stone citadel, but that "Fortress Monroe" is only part of the overall historic landscape. Almost all of this precious land, which goes back to the time of Jamestown in American history, was designated a national historic landmark a half-century ago. For six years here in Virginia, many of us have struggled for the principle that this precious place in its entirety belongs to the public, not to the private interests that the president -- sadly, amazingly -- has now privileged. He has joined Virginia's leaders, including certain journalists, who persist in a grim determination to treat Fort Monroe merely as big-time real estate. President Obama now countenances that theft. Please note that _after_ the president's announcement, a November 3 editorial in the Daily Press, a Tidewater newspaper, enthused about devising "an ambitious plan to develop Fort Monroe as a mixed office and residential area." That's how Virginia's leaders see this supposed national monument. Now, all agree that some development is to be desired -- but not where it harms the sense of place. In particular peril is the sense-of-place-defining bayfront beside and to the east and northeast of the moated citadel (i.e., to the right of the moated citadel in your aerial photo, which by the way doesn't show the upper part of Fort Monroe). It's a shame that the national media are paying so little attention to what's actually happening. What's actually happening is akin to inviting subdivisions onto a Monticello hillside or casinos to encroach on the Gettysburg battlefield. For a good discussion, see the November 3 Fort Monroe article and comments at the Web site of The Root, the Washington Post's African American perspective online magazine. The article is called "Mixed Reactions to Fort Monroe Monument," http://www.theroot.com/blogs/fort-monroe-and-designated-national-monument/mixed-reactions-fort-monroe-monument Thanks for the chance to comment. Steven T. Corneliussen, SaveFortMonroe@gmail.com
Reply