Whitman Mission Administrative History

Chapter Seven:
NEIGHBOR RELATIONS

Certainly, no one in the community has closer contact with Whitman Mission than the neighbors. This administration's relationship with the neighbors reflects how the park is perceived and predicts, to a certain extent, how successful its programs will be. Neighbor relations is a very subjective topic given that each party feels their point of view is justified whenever a debate or controversy arises. Although Whitman Mission's relationship with its neighbors has at times been rocky, overall, it has a good history. The following lists park neighbors and their approximate dates:

1940:	Enos B. Miller Ray Shelden Ella Coffin Howard Reser William C. Smith
1953:	Glen Frazier Ray Shelden Ella Coffin Howard Reser Earl Smith
1960:	Ray Shelden Ken Wasser Ella Coffin Howard Reser Earl Smith
1975:	Neil Shelden Richard Bughi Molly Coffin Hanebut Howard Reser Marna Smith
1987:	Neil Shelden Richard Bughi Molly Hanebut Yancey Reser Marna Smith

An examination of Whitman Mission's neighbor relations history will be instructive to current administrators as they continue negotiating the same sensitive issues that have troubled managers since 1941.

Enos B. Miller

Of all the park neighbors, the relationship with Enos B. Miller is the most colorful. Miller lived just north of the park (his driveway was next to the Great Grave) from 1948-1953. Although he was a neighbor for a relatively short time, Custodian Garth and Superintendent Weldon both had their share of problems with Miller. He tested their public relations skills. The main issues included disputes over property lines, water and grazing rights, and Miller's right-of-way to his property. If it weren't for the import of these disputes, Miller's antics would be mere anecdotes. However, he raised water and grazing issues that are pertinent issues today.

Custodian Garth had his share of difficulties with Miller; perhaps more than his share. In 1949, Garth wrote a detailed memorandum to Superintendent Preston describing Miller's infractions, including destruction of government property (cutting trees), trespassing, and blocking the water from the irrigation ditch that served the millpond, particularly important since Marcus Whitman's grist mill timbers were visible under the water. Garth continued:

While I was working on the ditch Miller took two shots at me with his shot gun. The buckshot rattled all around me. Of course I was on his property at the time, but I had to be to repair the ditch. When I remonstrated with him, he again threatened me, saying he would shoot me anytime he saw fit. [80]

After referring this incident to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorney in Spokane warned Miller that such conduct was intolerable; Garth was told to stay off Miller's property. [81]

Relations with Miller frustrated Superintendent Weldon, too. Miller claimed that neither the mission nor neighbor Ray Sheldon had any right to "his" water. As a result, water was frequently diverted back and forth between Miller's fields and the park. In response to sharing the water, Superintendent Weldon reported that Miller was "really up in the air about it and wants to know 'what the ----- there is to see at the monument anyhow!' " [82]

The park's northern boundary line jumped back and forth between Miller's place and the park almost as frequently as the water. Dr. Cowan, a local physician who held a controlling interest in the Miller farm, opposed the monument development and never accepted any of the boundary surveys. Several times Superintendent Weldon found the government boundary markers damaged or gone. Finally, he said of the whole subject, "I've just dropped the matter of a Miller boundary fence until the greater issue of land purchase is solved." [83] Thus, the real issue was that Miller had something the National Park Service wanted: land. Superintendent Weldon tried to foster good relations with Miller hoping he would be more amenable to selling his property. Therefore, in 1950, Weldon granted him a special use permit for grazing five head of cattle on the three-acre "church tract," located near the base of Shaft Hill. In addition to improving the appearance of this "unkempt weedpatch" that had "little historic significance," Weldon hoped to encourage friendly relations with Miller:

It is my opinion that if we can keep the good will between the Service and Mr. Miller which at this moment apparently exists . . . we will have a better chance of some day acquiring additional land from him. Granting a grazing permit will show that the Service can at times cooperate with individuals and that we are not trying to run Mr. Miller out of the farming business, a point he may have felt was true at times. [84]

Superintendent Weldon's plan only partly succeeded: Miller's cattle kept down the weed growth but the special use permit did not create goodwill between Miller and the park. [85] Miller discontinued the permit in 1952, the same year he was approached about selling 15 acres of his property. Miller insisted on selling all of his 90 acres or nothing. Since the Whitman National Monument was not authorized to buy one square foot of land in 1952, let alone ninety, negotiations halted almost before they began. The next year, 1953, Miller sold his farm, moved, and Superintendent Weldon breathed a sigh of relief. While the issues did not disappear with Miller, at least the confrontations ended.

While Miller certainly provoked arguments between himself and Custodian Garth and Superintendent Weldon, his complaints were based on a perceived threat to his farming operations. Whether the issue was water rights or access to his property, Miller felt threatened by the park and as a result, opposed its expansion and operation. Living next to the park, Miller tolerated several annoyances: visitors parking in his driveway, late-night parties near the Great Grave, and difficulty getting to his field on the east side of shaft hill. While neither Miller nor Weldon had an easy six years, they managed to coexist in spite of a difficult situation.

Glen Frazier

Superintendent Weldon was optimistic about future neighbor relations when the Fraziers bought Miller's farm in 1953. During Weldon's last three years Glenn Frazier cut grass from "the church tract" under a special use permit, similar to the arrangement with Miller. This permit was renewed each year until 1960.

Superintendent Kennedy had the responsibility of approaching the Fraziers about selling their land in 1956. The Fraziers were willing to sell, but their asking price was higher than park personnel thought the property was worth. As a result, Frazier's attorney and Assistant U. S. Attorney Ronald H. Hull spent the next two years haggling over price. Negotiations broke down in 1958 and the property was purchased as a result of public domain proceedings in 1960.

During the property negotiations, Superintendent Kennedy tried to keep friendly relations with Glen Frazier. The following 1958 memorandum from Kennedy to Regional Director Merriam is quoted in its entirety because, although amusing, more importantly it illustrates Kennedy's dedication to the Park Service.

You may recall that about a year ago the superintendent had trouble with Buster, Glen Frazier's Guernsey bull. Old Buster kept breaking out of the pasture and violating the sacred precincts of Whitman National Monument, much to the annoyance of the superintendent. So troubled was he one day by the presence of Buster that he most hurriedly climbed over the fence of the Great Grave to take refuge with the other Whitman victims while Buster ranted outside. The superintendent later had words with Glen but as usual, Glen did nothing.

A few days later . . . glancing toward the Great Grave he noticed that Buster was loose again and that there were visitors in that area. This was an intolerable situation . . . .

The superintendent drove over to the Frazier's yard, jumped out of the pickup, and started for the backdoor . . . [The Fraziers' dog] Stuffy heard the loud knocking. Waking from his slumber he came tearing around the corner, grabbed a bite of the superintendent's trousers and leg, and kept on going. Believe me, friendly neighborly relations were put to the breaking point then!

Glen came to the door and wanted to know what the trouble was. He was told. He was also told what would happen if that d--- bull was not kept out of the Monument . . . . He phoned his father, Lyle Frazier, and together the two that day repaired the fences and the bull, Buster, did not break out again . . . .

And just a couple of weeks ago Glen Frazier asked the superintendent if he had heard about Buster. It seems that Buster had begun to get a little mean and one day Glen mentioned to two of his cowboy friends that he was going to call a vet and have him dehorned. They said there was no need for that; they could do the job if Glen had a meat saw. Glen got a saw. The cowboys threw the bull. Then they tied a rope around his neck and feet and tied it to a tree. While one kept the line tight the other began to saw. For awhile Buster struggled and then seemed to give up. Glen, who was watching the work, looked at Old Buster and saw that he wasn't kicking any longer and told the men to hold up. Sure enough, the line around his neck was too tight and he had run out of air. So that was the end of the Frazier's bull. And in the hope that it would be remembered at the time of the negotiations for the Frazier's land, the superintendent shook Glen's hand and said it was sure too bad about Old Buster.

We superintendents will do most anything for our areas. [86]

Although the Frazier property negotiations were long and drawn-out, the National Park Service had the advantage all along. Although the specifics are explained in chapter four, it is evident that Kennedy had access to goad legal advice and was supported by all the resources the government could provide. When the National Park Service accepted Frazier's $44,000 offer, they acted on advice that a jury award would likely be higher. [87]

The Frazier property was essential to the park's development. Had it not been purchased, development could have been postponed for any number of years. Given its import, Superintendent Kennedy's eagerness to reach an agreement in whatever way possible is understandable. However, harmonious neighbor relations suffered because of his zeal to complete the Mission 66 development.

Molly Hanebut

Mrs. Hanebut's claim to the property adjacent to the park's east boundary, behind Shaft Hill, dates back almost as long as the Sheldens claim. Her grandfather Coffin settled the area in 1884 and her father built the house where she currently resides in 1911. At 85 years of age, Mrs. Hanebut remembers that in her childhood she attended Sunday school at the Whitman-Eells Memorial Church and that she and her classmates used to slide down Shaft Hill. Although they had fun, they always felt the shaft was special: "We never thought of going over that fence to that Monument; that was precious." [88] She remembers "there wasn't much done" until the National Park Service took over. "I think everybody has enjoyed it more . . . . Each man that has been there has been enthusiastic about it and it's a lot nicer." [89] Although Superintendent Kowalkowski remembered that "Mrs. Hanebut has been quite a vocal neighbor over the years," [90] and Superintendent Amdor remembered one disagreement that provoked her query, "What the ----- good are you?" [91] relations have mellowed with time. Mrs. Hanebut considers her relationship with the park good and is supportive of its programs.

Living alone, next to the park's remote east entrance, Mrs. Hanebut expressed concern about late night entrance-users. "I really don't think they should allow cars in that way . . . you never know what to expect." [92] Mrs. Hanebut's concern is worth noting given that this entrance is difficult for park personnel to monitor, far from the park residence. Although this walk-in entrance was initially opened for the convenience of College Place residents, it would be useful to reevaluate whether the shortened distance is worth the maintenance and policing difficulties, especially before the new entrance sign and landscaping is completed.

Ray and Neil Shelden

The Shelden family, Ray and his son Neil, claim the longest continuous relationship with the park of any family living next to Whitman Mission. The Sheldens' land claim dates to 1880 when Charles Swegle purchased the property from Montraville Fiske. [93] After Swegle died, the 640 acres was partitioned to his heirs in 1888 (see map, Appendix A). The Sheldens own the property west of the park, their claim resulting from May Swegle Dicus, formerly May Swegle Shelden. The other portion of the Swegle land is owned by the U. S. government (see map, Appendix O).

Given that the Sheldens lived on their farm before the national park was established, they have seen many changes in park operations. Neil Shelden has a keen sense of this past and many of his letters reflect his knowledge of park management precedents. For example, Shelden opposed Superintendent Amdor's attempt to run water down the Oxbow channel, because, he claimed, it contaminated his well and because "None of the previous National Park Service superintendents, since its origin in 1940, ever ponded water in the oxbow area." [94 ] Shelden is also aware that previous superintendents relied on his family, especially his father. Whether it was storage for Garth's archeological specimens or lending his tractor to Superintendent Weldon, Ray Shelden was often called upon to assist the park's basic operation. Thus, in recent controversies with Superintendent Amdor, Neil Shelden noted that, "It has certainly been convenient and speedy to call for the assistance of a tractor from the Sheldens those few times [y]our equipment has been stuck in the mud or ditch." [95]

The Sheldens, like most of us, are sensitive to change. Sharing a boundary line with the park, as they do, any changes at the park are evident. Oftentimes, whenever Ray or Neil felt a problem warranted the park staff's attention, it was due to some change that they perceived affected them. Both Ray and Neil wanted reassurance that any changes at the park would not harm their operations. For example, Neil submitted a copy of his income tax statement to Superintendent Kowalkowski and reiterated to him that, "Average estimated farm size for Walla Walla county is 650 acres--Sheldens 80 acres." [96] These actions reflect the same feelings of E. B. Miller almost thirty years ago: the park threatens his small farm. [97] Whether completely justified in their fear or not, the Sheldens' attitudes influenced their negotiations with the various superintendents over the two issues of principal concern: grazing rights and water rights.

Grazing

The basis for Sheldens' cattle grazing on Whitman Mission land predates government control of the property. From 1937-1941, Ray Shelden maintained the small, grassy area near the Great Grave and also after the Monument was established, during World War II, from 1943-1945. Shelden's cooperation was beneficial to both parties; in exchange for safeguarding the government's property during the war, Shelden was allowed to pasture his cattle on park grounds [98] even though grazing was prohibited in national parks at the time. [99] A formal special use permit was drafted the next year, 1944, for 50 head of cattle and 12 horses on the 37-acre tract south of the county road in exchange for Shelden performing "the duties of watchman . . . to see that no prowlers or marauders do damage to any of the monument area." [100]

After Superintendent Weldon's assignment to the monument in 1950, Shelden's caretaker services were no longer required. Instead, a new special use permit allowed Shelden to graze cattle for a $5.00 annual fee. [101] Mount Rainier Superintendent John Preston gave Shelden first chance for the permit because "Mr. Shelden has been a very cooperative neighbor at Whitman and should have first choice of the opportunity." [102] When Assistant Regional Director Herbert Maier questioned the nominal $5.00 fee, Superintendent Weldon based his defense upon Shelden's past cooperation:

I have the use of his tractor when needed for heavy hauling. We dig ditch, fix fences, weed control work etc. often together, Mr. Shelden giving of his time and services cheerfully. Because of the lack of equipment it is often found necessary to use some of his farm things and he mows the Mission Tract when needed in the summertime. All these things, though difficult to put a value on, really amount to considerable monetary value. [103]

Although the next year the cost of Shelden's permit rose to $97.50, the Forest Service rate, and his cattle reduced from 50 to 25, Superintendent Weldon established the precedent that Shelden's cooperation entitled him to special consideration, even if it was simply the opportunity to graze his cattle without having to bid for the privilege. Clearly, Weldon welcomed grazing, partly because cattle fit the historic scene and partly because cattle eliminated maintenance of the south pasture: "they maintain an area to the benefit and profit of the government which would otherwise be an unsightly area of obnoxious weeds . . . ." [104] Since grazing was convenient both for the National Park Service and the Sheldens, Ray and Neil pastured their cattle south of the mission site until 1983.

During the ensuing 33 years, the number of cattle, acres grazed, and cost of the special use permits varied (see Appendix Q). Each superintendent renewed Shelden's permit each year, negotiating price and acreage when necessary. Oftentimes, the conditions under which Shelden grazed his cattle depended as much on the personal perogative of the superintendent as it did on policy. For example, after 1964, Shelden's yearly fee for 20 cattle was $1.50 per animal unit month or $180.00 per year, figures based on the current Forest Service rate. However, in 1970, Superintendent Stickler reduced the permit cost from $180.00 annually, to $25.00 annually, because he placed great import on Shelden's aforementioned cooperation and his limited resources:

In my opinion, the permittee provides an excellent service to the government in maintaining the pastoral scene . . . . Considerable maintenance is necessary as spelled out in the permit and, in addition, the permittee puts his sprinkler system in operation during the dry season. The result is a much nicer appearing area than we would have if the pasture was not watered . . . .

We also enjoy other cooperation from the permittee and his family . . . . These include alerting us when potential poachers come into the area after the visitor center is closed. He also provides assistance with tractor and other farm equipment when we need it.

The small amount of revenue from the higher fee is inconsequential although quite important to a small farmer trying to scratch out a living on a few acres of land. [105]

Superintendent Stickler believed that Shelden deserved special consideration given his help and his financial concerns. He felt that fostering friendly and cooperative relations was more important than the grazing fee. By this decision, Stickler implied that the park was, in part, responsible for his farming operation. In sum, the National Park Service needed the south pasture maintained and both Superintendents Weldon and Stickler felt Ray Shelden was the best man, partly because of his proximity and partly because of the help he had given them. In addition, both Weldon and Stickler felt that Shelden's cooperation more than compensated for the small grazing fee.

Under the next administration, the Sheldon grazing issue became clouded because of staff error and second thoughts. In 1974, Superintendent Kowalkowski reexamined the special use permit he issued in 1972; his conclusions were very different from his predecessor. Based upon appraisals by the Washington State Cattlemen Association, the permittee, now Neil Shelden, owed $73.50 per year rather than $25.00. Current costs for grazing land stood at $5.00 per animal unit month making the Sheldens' fee $600.00; however, deducting maintenance costs resulted in the $73.50 figure. [106] Although Shelden agreed to the new price, new staff members failed to collect this revised fee and also failed to renew his permit. The entire situation was reviewed again, in 1978, and a new appraisal made by Reid Malin, Associate Appraiser from the Office of Quarters, Permits, and Utilities. Superintendent Kowalkowski agreed with the assessment that Shelden be held responsible for the previous three years and pay $73.50 for each year. [107] In addition, Malin advised Mr. Shelden that he could pasture more cattle but it would cost an additional $5.00 per animal unit month. Shelden agreed to the new stipulations although he implied that the new fee would be a hardship. [108] As a result, a special use permit was drawn up in 1980 for $294.00, Shelden's debt from 1977-1980. [109]

Clearly, it was Superintendent Kowalkowski's opinion that charging Shelden the "going rate" for his cattle was proper and fair regardless of the size of his farm or the cost of pasturing. Unlike Superintendent Stickler, he based his decision on policy and not on personal loyalty to the Sheldens.

Following Kowalkowski's lead, Superintendent Amdor took an even stricter approach toward the grazing issue. Utilizing both perogative and policy, Amdor chose to ignore Shelden's claims about financial difficulty and helping the park, and negotiate instead on the basis of National Park Service policy alone. As Shelden surely recognized, Superintendent Amdor deviated from the opinions and actions of past superintendents and followed his own course

In light of the fee-collection oversight from 1976-1980, Amdor took an aggressive stance in negotiations with Shelden. In fact, one of the park goals for fiscal year 1981 was to "maintain a proactive rather than reactive stand [with neighbors] on areas of mutual concern." [110] Therefore, Amdor quickly informed Shelden that another price change was likely: "the National Park Service will be evaluating the price element . . . ensure that an adequate sum is being charged per animal units of grazing." [111] Accordingly, he and Shelden negotiated the 1980 permit, the price of which was based on the land value rather than the number of cattle. This change was Shelden's suggestion:

I suggest we deviate from the norm and consider the pasture an individual land parcel--complete in itself. This approach would eliminate head count, simplify record keeping and free Park personnel for more productive work. [112]

This new permit also allowed Shelden to graze more cattle without the additional $5.00 per animal unit month and allowed him greater flexibility to rotate his cattle between the park's south pasture and his own. The resulting permit was valued eight percent of the tax assessed value of 28 acres, less any and all allowable amenities such as weed control and maintenance. [113] Again, Shelden agreed to the permit but maintained that the new price, $148.00 was too high. While Amdor acknowledged his concern, he remained firm that since the new fee was based on fair market value it would not place Shelden under undue hardship: "We are sorry that the permit costs for you have doubled, however we feel . . . our efforts to establish a fair and equitable method for determining the permit value were successful." [114]

Superintendent Amdor's principal concern was that the permit agree with other grazing practices in the area rather than agree with the precedent established at Whitman Mission. Amdor believed that Shelden's income and the cost of the special use permit were not related and should not be considered during negotiations: "One does not have anything to do with the other, they're all separate." [115]

Finally, the Sheldens' last special use permit was issued in 1983. The next year, in 1984, the park began implementing the Historic Property Leasing Program as directed by National Park Service Director Dickenson. [116] Under section 111 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U. S. C. 470 et seq) the National Park Service may lease historic properties and use the proceeds to maintain and preserve those properties. [117] Convinced that the south pasture was overgrazed, Superintendent Amdor exercised his right under the permit to have the pasture evaluated; he then placed it under the Historic Property Leasing Program. Neither Shelden's previously undisputed claim to graze the pasture nor his contention that the land was not overgrazed influenced Amdor. As a result, grazing bids were accepted in 1984, with David Corbett receiving the award. The park realized approximately $2,400.00 from this venture for the revegetation program recommended by the Oregon State University, Cooperative Park Study Program. [118] Thus, the park withdrew the 29 acres from the historic leasing program in 1986, and began revegetating. Acting Regional Director Briggle explained that the goal of the project

is to create a stable and historically appropriate vegetation covering . . . . The [Cooperative Park Study Unit] recommends that the new vegetation be firmly established before we allow animals on the land again. Thus we anticipate that the property will not be ready for a new lease until fiscal year 1989. [119]

The Sheldens, then, will not have another opportunity to graze cattle on the park's south pasture until 1988.

After examining 47 years of the grazing issue, clearly, the manner in which the Sheldens were treated and the provisions outlined in each permit depended upon each superintendent. Mr. Shelden agrees: "I assume each superintendent has the same job, job title, job description, but they can certainly handle it differently from each other." [120]

The Sheldens have dealt with seven superintendents, all with different personalities. "It's no different from any other neighbor as far as the varying personalities," says Neil Shelden. [121] Some chose to recognize the Sheldens' claims as valid, others did not. Custodian Garth and Superintendents Weldon and Stickler felt that Ray Shelden's relationship with the park warranted a lenient attitude toward the formal grazing requirements. Their attitudes were based on, and resulted in, a gentlemen's agreement rather than National Park Service policy. While this method of managing the south pasture ensured their cooperation, it resulted in a delicate management and public relations situation for Superintendents Kowalkowski and Amdor when they discovered the Sheldens had taken liberties with the special use permit. Not only did Superintendent Amdor monitor the grazing practices more carefully, he took a different management approach than his predecessors and dealt with the Sheldens in a strict business-like manner. Although Amdor tightened up on policy, he tended to blame the Sheldens for taking advantage of the superintendents when, in fact, the superintendents initiated the flexible grazing policy in order to benefit both the park and the Sheldens. Although strained neighbor relations were perhaps inevitable when Superintendent Amdor required full market value for the south pasture, in retrospect Shelden believes that "they have always given us a good price on the pasture." [122]

While the quality of relationship has, in the past, depended primarily on the superintendent, Shelden feels that there has been good long-term cooperation: "Over the forty years, with five superintendents, certainly the high majority were, I believe, favorable. I hope and assume that it was indeed mutual . . ." [123]

No doubt Superintendent Herrera's attitude will shape the next chapter in this park-neighbor relationship. Another issue that will very likely affect neighbor relations to a much greater extent is water rights.

Water Rights

A farmer's time-honored claim to his water--nothing is more important to his survival. Given that Whitman Mission is essentially a farm surrounded by other farms, disputes over water are inevitable. Particular sensitivity is required by park superintendents when negotiating rights that have been disputed intermittently since the park's inception. Unfortunately, the history of the 47-year old controversy is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, a brief mention of the issues will suffice to give park managers an indication of the import of water rights.

Like most issues, the water rights controversy began in the 1940s centering, then as now, on rights to Doan Creek. As already mentioned, neighbor E B. Miller complained about Superintendent Weldon diverting "his" water from Doan Creek for use at the Monument. In fact, neighbors Miller, Shelden, Harold Bowers, and the National Park Service all had legitimate claim to the water so a Doan Creek water use schedule was developed in 1952 for all four parties. [124] The schedule was updated in 1960 and 1962 for the park and neighbors Frazier, Shelden, and Ken Wasser.

In 1963 the watercourse changed when, as part of Mission 66, the park's irrigation ditch was relocated south of the Oregon Trail. Rights to Doan Creek's water is still the main point of contention. Whenever disputes arise, they usually include claims of unfair diversion or excessive usage of this water.

Since water for the downstream water users must flow through the park, maintaining the ditch, both on the grounds and before it enters the mission, is important. At least since 1950, all parties that benefitted from the water cooperated and periodically cleaned the ditch. [125] A formal agreement signed in 1963 stated that the park staff was responsible for keeping the ditch clean to ensure maximum flow to the neighbors. [126] Current neighbor Richard Bughi, who has lived near the park since 1971, explained that "several times a year we get together to work on the ditch," [127] at the point before it enters the park boundary. Indeed, Molly Hanebut, owner of this property, remembers that her principal business with the park concerned the overflow from this ditch:

They had to keep the ditch clean so that the water wouldn't overflow . . . . Having stock in a pasture, they're going to drink water wherever they can get to it . . . they stick their heads through and break the fence. Oh, my husband and I built so many fences it makes me sick to think about it. [128]

Although the ditch is cleaned each year, disputes still arise over which section of the ditch is the government's responsibility and which section is the neighbors' responsibility.

Of any controversy at Whitman Mission, the water rights is one of the most complicated and continuous, and of major concern to the neighbors. Bill Vollendorf of Walla Walla, an appraiser and park supporter, wrote a brief chronology of the controversy in 1984; an expanded water rights study would facilitate future management of this issue.

Most of the nearby farmers have been neighbors of the park for many years: current neighbors, the Sheldens and Mrs. Hanebut, had their farms before the park's establishment, while the "new kid on the block," Richard Bughi, has lived west of the park for 16 years. At the very least, when administrators understand the controversial issues involving the neighbors and how they have been managed in the past, chances are good that they can manage them fairly in the future.