Washington Examiner
June 21, 2008
Page 3

Golfers, museum fight over Belvoir

By William C. Flook
Examiner Staff Writer

A site favored for the U.S.Army?s national museum would wipe out half of a Fort Belvoir golf course touted as one of the region?s only affordable facilities for many military retirees, prompting the vets to push for saving the endangered holes.

The Gunston Course, one of Belvoir?s two 18-hole courses, is the top candidate to be home to the National Museum of the U.S. Army, planned to contain about 150,000 square feet of exhibits and cost $200 million.

Patrons of Belvoir?s recreational facilities are distressed by the expected destination of the museum, especially after they lost the base?s South 9 course to construction of a new military hospital.

?There are many retirees who go to the golf courses ? they consider it a way of life,? said Ronald Snyder, a retired Army colonel and member of Concerned MWR Patrons, a group seeking to preserve the course.

?When the South 9 course was lost, there were many people that were very disturbed, very up in arms over it,? he said. ?We just feel that to take and erode military benefits when there is a viable alternative is not the right thing to do.?

Both sides say they?re working together toward a mutually beneficial resolution that could involve moving the lost 9 holes at Gunston to an adjacent spot. But it?s unclear exactly who would carry out the relocation and pay for it.

?We?re just trying to build a museum,? said museum spokeswoman Lt.Col.Diane Varhola.?We consider the golfing community. We?re just kind of limited in what we can do.?

The Army is considering three sites at Belvoir for the museum, though the Gunston site is considered the best. A report detailing all three is expected by the end of July.

The museum was once slated to sit across the street from the South 9 course. But after a scandal involving shoddy outpatient care broke at Walter Reed Hospital, Congress ordered construction of the medical facilities that would replace Walter Reed at its 2011 closure to be expedited.

That meant the Army needed to find a quick, suitable spot for the new DeWitt hospital, and chose the South 9 course.

Mr. Carr,

I used to be skeptical that you are the REAL Don Carr. Members of my family have fought in wars from pre-Revolution through Korea. Without going into more personal details , we've sacrificed a lot. Fort belvoir is near DC - it should be a refuge and destination for veterans from all over the USA.

You have living WWII Veterans.

Fairfax County owns the Islamic Saudi Academy site near Fort Belvoir. FX receives only about 2 million annually. It's a nice site and architecturally attractive traditional building. Time for a new tenant.

Put that on a referendum in this county.

No, really, I'm me. But, there were times growing up when even my Mother apparently had doubts, like when I'd been out late on a school night. Sometimes I would try to sneak in through the window into my bedroom, only to find Mom sitting on the end of my bed, waiting for me. I would then get lectured with oratory befitting even the finest of judges, speeches which sometimes ended, "There's no way the son I raised would be this rude to his own Mother!"

Saudi Academy building ... Hmmmmmm ...

When the new DeWitt is built and all services are moved into the new facility, tear down the old DeWitt and put the museum there.

If Belvoir has a shooting range, put the new hospital for wounded Iraq veterans next to it....like they did at Ft Bragg. It helps soldiers suffering from PTS to hear shooting!

The greatest oxymoron on earth is "military intelligence"!

The golf course has more visitors than the museum will.

Why the controversy?

Actually, it was Fort Benning, not Fort Bragg. See, "Nearby Firing Ranges Complicate Soldiers' Recovery From Stress," in the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202983.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2008 05:55AM by Don Carr.

Tigger Wrote: "The golf course has more visitors than the museum will. Why the controversy?"

-----------------------------------------------

The Army Historical Foundation (formerly the Army Museum Task Force that lobbied the Army to put the museum at Belvoir) expects a million visitors a year to the museum. To be completely fair about that point, however, one must understand that the million-a-year is not a figure the Army originated. It's the figure Mount Vernon community leaders and others have always used as the number of annual visitors to Mount Vernon Estates and other destinations in our historic district. In making their case to Army leadership about why the museum should be at Fort Belvoir, community leaders and others emphasized that the Army will benefit from some of those visitors dropping by the Army Museum.

That said, the bottom line now is that the museum got caught up in the BRAC announcement when it became the Army's priority to get those mission facilities sited before site selection for the museum could be finalized. For whatever reasons(s), a site for the museum on post had not been selected.

After the Walter Reed issues arose last year, the Administration and Congress expedited medical facility construction at both Bethesda and Fort Belvoir. That made it imperative to select a site for the hospital with the least amount of environmental challenge that would hold up construction. Of the very few possible sites where a hospital might fit, the South 9 site was determined to be the best for being able to start the hospital sooner rather than later.

Selection of the South 9 site for the hospital made it virtually impossible that the museum could go to the originally desired site, which is just across the street from where the hospital will go. Key point here is traffic. That spot on Richmond Highway just can't be reasonably expected to handle both the hospital and the museum with the traffic each is expected to generate. (Ironic note here: HAD the originally desired site just inside Pence Gate been finalized and shovels in the ground by the time of the BRAC announcement, the new hospital would have been located somewhere else.)

There are few sites left at Belvoir where the museum can possibly go without the Army having to actually look at putting it at another installation altogether. That's certainly not a preferred option, since there are so many reasons of history that make Belvoir the logical place for the museum.

The draft Environmental Assessment the Army expects to put out for public comment by the end of July will include discussion of the suitability of the Gunston site for the museum. Certainly among the things that make it worth considering are its proximity to I-95/Fairfax County Parkway/Richmond Highway, and its proximity to the Mount Vernon Historic District. The EA's discussion of the Gunston site will include material about how any any holes of the golf course that are DISplaced can be REplaced if that site is chosen.

The museum expects 2740 visitors/day? Assuming it is open 365 day/yr?

I don't buy that.

tigger Wrote: "The museum expects 2740 visitors/day? Assuming it is open 365 day/yr? I don't buy that."

---------------------

The expectation is not the museum's. Again, the number was originally promoted by the community's elected and other influentials who lobbied the Army to put the museum at Fort Belvoir. They base the number on visitors already coming to the region to visit Mount Vernon, Woodlawn Plantation, & Gunston Hall.

Addendum, June 23, 6 a.m.: Thought I should find a couple quotes with reference to "million visitors a year."

“Fort Belvoir would certainly draw many of the one million tourists who visit George Washington’s home annually.” -- U.S. Senator Chuck Robb, reported in Mount Vernon Gazette, May 4, 2000

“I am pleased that Fort Belvoir has been chosen as the site, as it is easily accessible by millions of tourists and veterans who visit Virginia and Washington each year.” -- U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond, reported in the Belvoir Eagle, Oct. 18, 2001

“The museum will be a multi-million dollar project that is expected to draw thousands of visitors each year to southern Fairfax County.” Congressman Jim Moran,reported in the Belvoir Eagle, Oct. 18, 2001

The National Army Museum would be a significant economic boost to Fairfax County and “a major plus” for the revitalization of the Richmond Highway Corridor, said Hyland. He expected that it would draw one million tourists annually, about the same number who visit Mount Vernon Estate just a few miles away. -- Mount Vernon Supervisor Gerry Hyland, reported in Mount Vernon Voice, July 3, 2003



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2008 06:10AM by Don Carr.

Don Carr-

Why does Fort belvoir only deal with Storck-Hyland and company? This is Fairfax County not Mount Vernon County so you should have broader horizons with those who pay taxes. Some Fairfax County residents are in Frank Wolfe's Congressional District - Reston is in Moran's.

Schools and county srvices cross magistrial districts and so does our money.

The National Marine Corps Museum barely has any visitors and it is right off of I-95. Does anyone really think people are going to go up Route 1 to an Army Museum at Fort Belvoir???

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The National Marine Corps Museum barely has any
> visitors and it is right off of I-95. Does anyone
> really think people are going to go up Route 1 to
> an Army Museum at Fort Belvoir???

You're right. It takes longer for the usual DC tour bus type to get to Quantico area than Udvar hazy[?]. That has "big toys" so unless you have "drive a tank" most will opt for Air and Space. Just kidding on the tank- but you could have mini paintball course and mini tank or jeep go cart style stuff for kids. No disrespect intended but the DC tourists would welcome a stop at your museum if it had active venues for their children. Stick a night vision laser room with fake woods.

Don't know your age but people from all over the DC metroplitan area take their kids to paintball:

http://www.hogback.net/thebiggames-view.asp?id=4


How many at Willimsburg go to Yorktown?

what could happen is DC tour busses that go to Mount Vernon might stop. but how many of those stop at Woodlawn? How many go over to Gunston? Whenever we've been to Woodlawn it was really pretty empty. If tour bus operations add an army museum nearby in Alexandria why would the army want all those people traipsing through the base?

How much more does it cost in security to have it on v off or adjacent to the base?

Gerry hyland and Dan Storck of the SE FX dev. Overall their recent escapades have negatively impacted this county. A marketable DC 1/2 day tour is a bus down the parkway. Better to put your museum on route 1.

For many years, I would take out-of-town(and country) guests around town and show them the sights. NO MORE! Especially if it has anything to do with the military or the US Capitol.

Since 9-11, it's just too much hassle. It's not worth having jack-booted thugs waving guns around and talking to American citizens like they're pieces of shit.

This museum (what a colossal waste of money!) should be located off base if they want the greatest number of visitors. But the museum employees would probably be too afraid for that. You never know, Osama bin Laden might come strolling into the joint!

no more Wrote:

"Since 9-11, it's just too much hassle. It's not worth having jack-booted thugs waving guns around and talking to American citizens like they're pieces of shit."

You have never had that happen to you at Fort Belvoir, nor have you ever encountered a guard here that could be described in any way like that.

no more Wrote:

"This museum (what a colossal waste of money!) should be located off base if they want the greatest number of visitors."

Those paying attention know that one of the first prerequisites for siting the museum is that it be publicly accessible - that its visitors NOT have to enter Belvoir proper to get to it.