Jeanne Lundell Interview

NARRATOR: Jeanne Lundell INTERVIEWER: Troy Reeves DATE: July 9, 1998 LOCATION: PROJECT: Greenbelt Pioneers START INTERVIEW TR: Okay, the 9th of July 1998. I’m here at Idaho State Historical Society interviewing Jeanne Lundell. JL: Right. TR: This interview is for the Boise Parks and Recreation Greenbelt and Pathway Committee project. Jeanne, when did you first become involved with the Greenbelt and Pathway Committee and why did you choose to become involved? JL: Well, as I reiterated just a moment ago, I was on the Park Board and at the time Park Board commitment ran out, they felt possibly that I had something to contribute to the Greenbelt Committee. And I’m not sure of the year. It was in the early ‘90s. TR: What was your first impression of the Committee? JL: Very dedicated. TR: Do you recall your first thoughts about the idea of a Greenbelt, and did you think the Greenbelt would help or hinder the city or community? This is even before your time on the Greenbelt Committee in general. JL: I had always been impressed with the idea that the city cared enough about the river. I moved to Boise when I was in the eighth grade, and I can remember the river after the Corps of Engineers went down it with a V8 Cat and made a channel out of it, and I thought that the idea of an ordinance to keep the riverbanks open to the general public was a good idea. TR: So, you remember the river when it was what some people have called a dumping ground— JL: Right. TR: Where cars— JL: Right, the airport, my father took me for a ride in a tri-motored airplane off of the—we flew off over the old Broadway Bridge, the red bridge. And, yes, the edges of it were pretty much a dumping ground, and I have friends in the bottle club who loved to go down to the [laughs] riverbanks and dig. And hunt Boise’s artefacts. TR: About how long did you serve on the Committee? Approximately. JL: Oh, I should have looked it up. TR: You said from the late ‘80s— JL: Well, no, I believe the early ‘90s when I went off the Park Board. Four or five years. TR: Okay. During your time on the Committee, of what accomplishment or accomplishments are you the most proud? JL: Well, that’s hard to say. Just the overall, I suppose, we were the overall watchdog to try and keep it the general intent of the ordinance, to make it open to the public, and there were lots of—no, I won’t say lots, there were some encroachments that were done and then, because of the size of them, they were allowed to the exception and other people asked for exceptions, and we tried not to make too many of them. I don’t know that there is any one thing that I’m most proud of, just the fact that there is a Greenbelt, and I was able to serve on the Committee. TR: Were there any decisions that you felt or feel reticent about today or compromises that you wish could have been done differently? JL: I don’t believe so. TR: Why did you decide to leave the Committee? JL: I didn’t leave the Committee; it left me. [Laughs] TR: So, are you talking about the disbanding— JL: The disbanding of the Greenbelt Committee was when I left, and I immediately went to this formative group that is now going to work on Ada and Canyon County trails. TR: Could you talk a little bit about this formative committee? I know we talked about it a little bit while the tape was off, so if you could— JL: Well, there was—there was an original foundation of, and I can’t remember the original name of it, but one of the Parkinsons was involved in it and it gradually disintegrated. And Judy Peavey-Derr asked me at the last meeting of the Greenbelt Committee to come to the formative meetings of what is now going to be FACTS. It’s the Foundation for Ada-Canyon Trail Systems. And we’ve been meeting once a month at the Idaho Parks and Recreation Office, and I believe the next meeting is to be held at St. Luke’s West out toward Meridian. And I have the membership here. TR: So, basically, is this, as you see it, is this a new— JL: Oh, here it is. TR: Okay. JL: There are members from the Idaho Transportation Department, Boise City Parks Department, the Ridge-to-Rivers Trail coordinator, Judy Peavey-Derr, the Ada Planning Association, Ada County Parks represented by Donna Griffin, Leo Hennessy of the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation; Sharon Hubler, Idaho Parks and Recreation; Tony Maestas, M-a-e-s-t-a-s, Garden City Parks and Waterways; Don Stockton Idaho, Department of Lands; Nancy Merrill, Eagle Pathway and Parks representative; Mike Harnett, Eagle Island State Park; Connie Vaughn, Idaho Department of Parks; Jim Kalbus, who served with me on the Greenbelt Committee; William Gigray the III—he’s the Greenbelt’s Civic League of Caldwell representative; Sandra Ford of the Idaho State Garden Clubs, and Stephen Bright of the City of Kuna. And there was the mayor of Middleton was there. His name is Lee Claggert. There was a representative from Canyon County, Shane Webson, and another Department of Parks and Recreation person. And they come together to promote using the trails—not necessarily the Greenbelt along the river, but trails that help people get to the river. And Mr. Gigray has done work with different irrigation boards in order to use the canal banks, which is something that we tried for a long, long time to work on. TR: Do you recall any person or persons you thought of as being particularly important in promoting the Greenbelt concept during your time on the Committee? JL: Oh, my. Earl Reynolds was a very dedicated member. Don Belts. There was an architect, and I can’t think of his name. Maybe you’ve interviewed him, grey-haired gentleman. He worked with his ex-partner at Boise State to—and we all lost the Greenbelt along Boise State property because there had been a conflict over the years of, you know, whether the City or the State was dominant in that particular area. And we’ve had some—I won’t say problems, just some things that had to be ironed out there. I’m sure you’ve heard about it from Nancy. You’re going to edit all of this, aren’t you? TR: [Laughs] JL: Because I have a tendency to turn my mouth on and go off and leave it running. TR: Well, I don’t know how much editing will need to be done [unclear at 10:16]. JL: Well, years ago, long years ago, when Jack, the previous Park director of Boise— TR: Jack Cooper. JL: Jack Cooper was there, we had a, I guess you’d call it an old-timer’s luncheon, and people that had served on the Park Board and on the Greenbelt Committee, we all had lunch at what was then the Hotel Boise. And I—Governor Smylie was there, and I didn’t remember, I don’t know whether he was on the Greenbelt Committee at one time or whether he just was interested in it as the governor, but he was there. TR: It must have just been an interest [unclear at 11:21]. JL: You do have a good list of— TR: Yeah. JL: The membership list. I’d be interested to see the complete list. The original concept was begun by a group of people with horses that wanted, you know, wanted a place to ride along the river. And they would run across fences and places where people, you know, had taken the public area and turned it into private property. There was one place down, oh, off of, off of—down by Gary Lane. And they had built a stone patio and a deck and everything, and that was one of the reasons that the Lake Harbor section of the Greenbelt had such a time getting finished, the pathway. And that’s the thing—they laugh about it. “Jeanne’s always talking semantics.” People say the Greenbelt. They mean the pathway. They say, “When are they going to finish the Greenbelt?” Well, the Greenbelt was accomplished when the ordinance passed. The pathway on the Greenbelt [laughs] wasn’t. And I feel it’s sort of a proprietary interest because of the years on the Park Board, when it went along through our park, and it was part of our concern. TR: Yes. One question I’ve asked all of the people who were there at the end: Why did the Committee disband? JL: I think Earl Reynolds would probably be able to give you a better answer than I could. I really don’t know. There seemed to be, according to what I heard from people on staff, that there was a duplication of meetings and clerical work. They did it for the Greenbelt Committee. Then they had to turn around and repeat it for the Park Board. And, as I said, the Park Board felt that there was a micro-managing where we should have been more interested in the overall concept. But the micro-managing was where the protection came. We worked for hours and hours with the people that built the Ram to—he originally wished to build on the south side of the river, on that piece of property right next to the mirror building, just west. And he worked out what I felt was a great plan, and we did allow—at that time, it was an eight-foot balcony that was twelve foot above the grass bordering the pathway, which I felt did not infringe. The building itself and the mirror building and its deck and patio, they encroached without asking permission and grassed it in. And then [laughs] turned around and took the grass out and made a parking lot out of it. And I felt that it worked—the proposal for the first Ram worked along with the mirror building and [unclear at 15:36] all of the parking space. And Chili’s threatened to go to court over it because of the parking. And, consequently, they built on the other side of the river and did some things that weren’t quite right, and it was too bad that they couldn’t be allowed to build where they were. I was disappointed. I’ve known, oh, the young man that manages it and then everyone that we dealt with— TR: [Unclear at 16:18] JL: Yes. Kevin. For some time, and I was disappointed in what he did with the Rock House. He said it would be restored and would be available for small meetings, which is a desperate need in the city for, you know, meeting space. But he made it into a pool room and it’s pretty garish; it’s not restored. It utilized [laughs]—I don’t know whether I answered your question. TR: I think you [unclear at 17:00]. Was there any adverse public reaction to any purchase of land or other decisions made by the Committee? JL: Oh, golly, we didn’t—let me go back a little ways to the Park Board when I [unclear at 17:27]. The year I went onto the Park Board, they passed the One Percent, and the City of Boise was hamstrung as far as buying any land. I was impressed with the foresight of the previous Park Board members in purchasing land and—for example, the Flying Hawk Reserve, which is south of Boise, where also they, we surrendered [unclear at 17:51] part of that to the Peregrine Fund. But that land was purchased years and years ago for, I don’t know, twenty-five cents an acre or a dollar an acre or something like that. And they had a great deal of foresight. They bought land when that One Percent passed. We were completely closed down from purchasing land for parks. And it really has cost the City thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars because, by the time they got back to where they could purchase land, you know, the subdividers were right there with bigger bucks, and so, actually, the Greenbelt Committee as such would recommend trades or purchases, but we didn’t really make any purchases that I remember. TR: That leads me to another question that I’ve asked, particularly people who served during the [unclear at 19:06]. Did you find it—or how did you find it being just an advisory committee? A couple of people I’ve talked to have expressed frustration on just being able to say something but not really have any— JL: Have any power. Well, that was what I felt about it. When, we would, we felt that we were studying the situations and the problems and the proposals that came up for the City concerning the Greenbelt. We studied them in depth, then worked it out and voted on it. And sent that recommendation to the Park Board. And I think part of the frustration with some of these people came about—Joe LaMarche was the man I couldn’t remember a while ago, and he was one of the ones who felt most frustrated by, you know, we, and I can’t remember any specific item that we studied, but we sent our recommendation to the Park Board, and they did not pass it on. And when—it really felt like, you know, they disregarded the study and the time that we put in. It really created some problems. TR: What are your feelings—this kind of goes back to the question I have about your first thoughts about a Greenbelt. What are your feelings about today’s Greenbelt? I mean, do you think it’s a benefit or a detriment to Boise, and why do you feel that way? JL: I feel it’s a definite benefit. I’ve been involved with the River Festival now for the full eight years. I have been on the—I don’t, I used to walk a lot, but I don’t as much anymore, but I do get onto the Greenbelt during the River Festival. And I feel that it’s a great link between the parks. In visiting with Tim Breuer about bike trails and bike lanes and the safety, I know that some people, probably older people or people with small children, feel that the people that use it for transportation, that there is a conflict there, and that’s where the speed limit and the green lane, or the line down the middle and that sort of thing came from. But I feel that it’s, it’s definitely an asset. I don’t know of any really big problems or detriments that you could assign to the Greenbelt. TR: What do you—how do you feel about the future of the Greenbelt and pathway? Do you have any ideas of where it may go, any problems? JL: I don’t, I don’t really think so. TR: [Unclear at 22:49] JL: I went to school with Earl. TR: Oh, really? JL: Yeah, he graduated from Boise High School a couple years ahead of me. TR: Oh, really? JL: Is he seventy-nine? TR: Seventy-nine. JL: Oh, well, I’ll be seventy-eight in December. TR: We were talking about the future of— JL: The future—I feel that if we can keep the bigger developments, keep them set back—I live in Southeast Boise. I drive Parkcenter Boulevard all the time, and while most of the buildings on Parkcenter, on the north side of Parkcenter, are quite attractive, it hurts me to see the cottonwoods and the trees and all of that go down. I would like to see as wide a band of greenery kept on the river. We spent hours and hours and hours with the developer on the—up in the [laughs] Harris Ranch. TR: Okay. JL: We spent hours and hours and hours there, trying to keep that, you know, back as far from the river as possible. But it’s not going—if it goes as it is laid out, the only thing that will be moved back from the river is [unclear at 24:40] [laughs]. There will be people and dogs and children and that sort of thing much closer to the natural river than it should be. Just as it is on the south side. Have you, have you ridden, walked the— TR: Not all of it, but most of it. JL: Have you been up by Wood Duck Island and up in there? TR: [Unclear at 25:06] JL: There’s a heron rookery that is very interesting, but you—and the only way you can get to it now is to walk that gravel path. I took two elderly women from one of the nursing homes and drove—used to drive down in there. Now it’s one of those locked communities and you can’t get close enough for them to really appreciate it, and I think that’s too bad. And it’s a giveaway, it really is. TR: [Unclear at 25:50] I’ll try to ask again. As I feel as I go through interviewing people and getting some background, it seems to me that the major priorities and the conflicts of the Greenbelt are trying to balance several things—public access, development, not only housing development but business development, and later on, probably around the time you were starting to serve actually, the idea of trying to promote wildlife habitat was a major issue. JL: Yes, yes. TR: How do you see this balance? JL: I think there’s an imbalance. If this, if the intent for the Greenbelt was to allow the public to get to the river, then it should—the river should be, I feel the river should be as natural as possible. You should allow people to get down and dunk a worm or, you know, whatever. But if it’s a people place, I feel that the businesses have kind of overshadowed the people places. Restaurants, there are not that many on both sides, for, say, the casual person that just walks a ways and then decides, “Oh, it’s getting towards lunchtime,” or, “It would be nice to have an early dinner.” And there are not that many places that you can do that. And it’s, it’s a tough decision because the big money, the business money, you know, they can buy the space. And I think the Albertson—what do they call it? The Albertson building--it’s what, kind of an office, library, museum, whatever—is a nice building. And the new one going in is attractive. But, there again, acres and acres of asphalt close to the river. TR: What were the Committee meetings like? I can read the minutes and get [unclear at 28:26] about the issues you talked about, but being there--? JL: Well, it, it, Tom Governale and Deb Bauden Bower were the people who sat in on the meetings from the staff of the Parks Board or Parks Department. They brought to us what needed doing, the issues that needed confronting or ideas that needed to be passed around and chewed on. And they were very informal. We did try to stick to the Robert’s Rules of Order. We did a pretty good job at that. We worked together pretty well. There were, there was, most of the time, there was consensus--most of the—of the motions passed, either completely aye or completely nay. [Laughs] There were not many divisions. A great way to serve. TR: What role did City leaders or staff play in supporting the Greenbelt Committee? JL: I would say they were very supportive. They—we felt free to call them, ask questions, dig deeper if we had a, if we had a request, they would do their darndest to get [Tape interrupts at 30:25.] TR: Okay, we were talking about City leaders and staff? JL: They were very, they were very efficient. I felt they were very efficient. And usually you could, you could, if you had a real concern, you could call any of the City Council people. The City Council had a liaison person that usually came to the meetings, and they worked well with us. I felt they did. TR: Can you talk a little bit more—you mentioned a little bit earlier about the relationship between the Committee and Boise State University. They hold a very vast area of the Greenbelt on their— JL: Well, the concern was, and I don’t know whether you’ve interviewed Nancy or not, but she may have voiced some of it. The question was, did Boise City have control of the setback or did the State of Idaho have control of the setback? And the gentleman who was the architect—and I can’t think of his name, he was a partner at one time of Joe’s, Joe LaMarche--and they built the corner of a building out into the setback. They had a tendency to go ahead and do things and then ask permission [laughs], and I’m on the Alumni Board of Boise State and a staunch supporter, so I was sort of torn between the two. But I didn’t feel that they should be treated any differently than any other person coming before the Committee to ask permission. They—I don’t know how often you go along there, use it—there has been, between the staff, who has to maintain it, and the maintenance people at Boise State, there’s been some problems. And I don’t know the details. They wanted to put in some light poles. They didn’t ask; they put them in near the little church and the underpass under Broadway, and then, come to find out, they had, they were, the staff of the Parks Department and the Greenbelt were redesigning that and where the lights were put was where they were going to have to dig it up. [Laughs] TR: Yes. JL: And little things like that. I mean, well, little--thousands of dollars. But it, there was always something—neeck, neeck, neeck, neeck, neeck—between the two. And when the Committee and Boise State’s architect, they, after Joe went off the Greenbelt Committee and he went off unhappy, he resigned, Vic, Vic Hostra is the Parks [unclear at 34:06], I was trying to remember. And I can’t remember if Boise State hired Joe LaMarche, but anyway, he was hired to design the south side of the Greenbelt from Broadway to Capitol Boulevard. The underpass, going west, under Capitol Boulevard was a dangerous hill and people coming up out of it and people would jump down over the bank and all sorts of things. And then there was the question of why didn’t the Park Department do a better job of keeping the roots out of the asphalt path and not making a washboard to ride on. And all of these things—so, the whole thing has been redesigned, and Boise State—I drove past there yesterday afternoon and they are now building this Memorial Plaza, you know where the footbridge comes across? TR: Yes. JL: That’s going to be a kind of a vista, a plaza, with seating and all sorts of things. Right now it’s dangerous because there was—you come down off of that and the sharp angle when you came to the right and to the left, and then there was a marker of some sort right smack-dab in the center, and it wasn’t a safe thing. And, of course, the City has to be careful with, you know, access for handicapped and all sorts of things. TR: I’ve got a couple more questions and I apologize if they’re redundant. Was there a most memorable challenge or project while you were on the Committee? JL: I guess maybe finishing, getting the finished, the Lake Harbor area. They dealt, we dealt with three different developers and bankruptcies and all sorts of things, and what one developer would agree to and we’d come to the conclusion, “Yes, we’ll do this if you’ll do this,” then we’d have to go back to square one. And so, finally, when we began to see daylight at the end of the path, it was a real sense of relief. And it isn’t quite finished yet—the path. TR: What is your strongest memory about the Greenbelt Committee or the Greenbelt? JL: I had a friend come to Boise for the River Festival, and one afternoon we walked from over near Broadway down the path clear to the far end of Ann Morrison Park and he was fascinated by the number of people using it. And I told him that this was an unusual activity, but he still said, he lives in Spokane, and he still says, “We haven’t done near as much with our river as you’ve done with yours.” And I think, I think that’s generally how I feel about it. I think it’s a rare thing we’ve done, and I admire the people that, really the people that got it started and served on the early years. The few years that I worked on it—I had contact with it all during the time I was on the Park Board, and on the time I was on the Park Board, the Greenbelt Committee, there were some readjustments that the Greenbelt Committee went out from under the Park Board and went directly to the committee, but then it, with another adjustment, it slid back under. And we just sort of cleaned up the details, and the people early on that wrote the ordinance and worked with the, oh, the people, the river plans, the different river plans, I felt that they did a huge job on it. TR: Was this committee different than others you’ve been on? I ask that because you guys could see a project finish, and sometimes committees don’t have that opportunity. JL: Well, we got to see things finished, but we didn’t get to see things finished [laughs] because, as I said, it’s still not complete. You cannot walk to there. And there was a sense of accomplishment when we would, when we would deal with, say, like the buildings, the Albertson Building, or with other things, individual things. But I would lump together my service on the Park Board and on the Greenbelt Committee was very similar. And different friends have asked me why in the world I would spend that length of time doing it, and I said, “Well, I just felt it was a way of giving something back.” But the accomplishment has been so gradual that it’s almost hard to say, you know, “Look what we did,” because it’s just, it’s just grown, and that’s kind of the, that’s kind of the way it is. TR: So, was this committee different than other committees you’ve been on? JL: No, no. Very, very much like the Park Board. We had excellent clerical help. You know, we had full reports on things. We had people come before us that would state their cases, “This is why we want to do this.” We had people who gave us the opposite side of the coin. Then we were able to draw conclusions. We had plenty of time to do the work, even though we met once a month. Sometimes they’d call a special meeting, and it was, it was pretty much like most committees. And I think, I think, like you say, you asked the question, it became frustrating when—and it became more common for us to be, not ignored, but just overridden. Our decisions. And when you spend, you know, four or five hours, we’d meet at—they used to meet at noon and it would be one-and-a-half or two, two-and-a-half hours. Then these were, I was one of two or three retirees, but a lot of these people were young men-- I worry about him [laughs]out in traffic. TR: He seems to make it—he only lives a couple blocks away. JL: Oh, good. TR: He lives in that big town— JL: Oh, the Imperial Plaza? TR: Yeah. JL: Oh, good. Good. He used to live out in South Boise. TR: Yeah. JL: Where was I? TR: Young people meeting. JL: Oh, they, they were businesspeople, and they couldn’t—it cut into their day so to come to a meeting at 11:30 or twelve o’clock and then the afternoon was shot by the time they got back to their office. So, we started meeting at four. Well, that cut us loose past dinnertime. We’d sit there with our stomachs growling. And they moved it up then to 3:00 or 3:30, and many times we were there till six. And it was—I could see where it was difficult for people, you know, in business, earning a living, to give that much time, and I felt—and I’m sure that Jim Kalbus felt the same way. He was retired and he felt that we could contribute as retired people and we had a history in the town, we grew up here. That’s what we could, we could do. TR: I’ll look at my card that I have on you before I ask the last question. JL: Okay. TR: I’m not sure I’ve touched on everything. It says here that you were a board liaison in the late ‘80s, maybe between the Park Board and the— JL: I don’t know what they mean. TR: Well, I just wrote it down. I may not know what I mean. It might have been—were you ever a liaison between the Park Board and the Committee before you came on the Committee? JL: Oh, each— TR: And I think it must have struck me as [unclear at 45:00]— JL: Oh, oh, I see—7/13 of ‘89. Okay. TR: Yeah. So that [unclear at 45:02] mentioned at that meeting that you were a liaison of some type and unfortunately— JL: Well, I was probably the Park Board member attending the Greenbelt Committee meeting. TR: Okay. JL: Yeah, yeah. TR: And so, you were probably just at the meeting as a member of the Park Board to kind of add input [unclear at 45:21] to see how things were going. JL: Yes. Yes, we, you picked that up out of the minutes? TR: Yeah. JL: Oh, yeah, and if, yeah, you’d go to the Greenbelt Committee meeting and then you’d go back at the next Park Board meeting and you’d report on how they seemed to be working and what the current projects were and that sort of thing. And then, a little later, they started, they started giving us copies of the minutes of the Greenbelt Committee meetings. TR: [Unclear at 46:11] one last question: How did your time, not only on the Greenbelt Committee but on the Park Board, fit into your life? By that I mean, when people start to look back on [unclear at 46:24]— JL: [Unclear at 46:28] Well, it sort of tied in with I’m a garden club member. I’ve been a local officer. I’ve been a state officer. I’ve been a regional committee chair. In ’72, I went to a garden club conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by Shell Oil. They paid all of our expenses. And then we got to have all these wonderful speakers, and it was on land planning use. And that’s where I first became interested in how they used the property around here. And then in ’87 I was water conservation chairperson and I got to go back to Washington, D.C., to another conference and it was on water conservation, and it had to do also with land-usage. When, you know, when everything’s paved over, our aquifers don’t percolate like they used to. And so, I felt that it all tied together with my interests. My tie-in with the River Festival—I was on the committee, I was on the Park Board when the Peregrine Fund came to the Park Board to see if we would swap acreages up on the Flying Hawk Reserve. Have you ever been up there? TR: No, I haven’t. JL: You need to go up there. It’s gorgeous. TR: I’ve been meaning to go. JL: It’s, it’s, you get the whole Boise Front from up there, and the Flying Hawk Reserve, if you go to the Park offices, they can give you a topographical map that shows you the Flying Hawk Reserve and it was lots and lots of acres on the south front. And we agreed—the Park Board agreed—to swap land to the BLM and then the BLM would give us different land for that. And then the BLM would deal with the Peregrine Fund. It took almost eleven years for us to get the land swap completed. I couldn’t believe it. And then when the River Festival people came before the Park Board, there was some dissension, if you will, about using the parks and the river. The history of the River Festival—it’s a completely commercial thing in that the big corporate entities in the city and the state sponsor it, and it’s free, everything’s free, except your food and your souvenirs. The first three years, they floated the floats down the river at 10:30 at night. Then the uproar came to the Greenbelt Committee and the Parks Department, “They’re ruining our river and they’re ruining our parks. They’re trampling down everything.” And the canoe club would go down the river beforehand and clean up and then they would go down the river after the River Festival and clean up, and in ten days’ time you could not tell that there’d been anything there. And, so, all of that is part of the sense of accomplishment I have in serving. TR: So, it all revolves around the river. JL: Yes, yes. They took it off the river. There was, there was rumbling about the wetlands and people trampling down the riverbank and that sort of thing, but, like I say, in ten days’, two weeks’ time, you couldn’t even tell. The river heals itself pretty much if you let it. And the parks the same way. They leave the grass long and in ten days or two weeks you’ll never know that there’s been anything there. And the River Festival has contributed funds to put in underground electricity and that sort of thing so that different functions can go in the parks, which I think is a benefit. TR: I believe that’s all I have. JL: Okay. TR: Thank you very much for your time. JL: You’re welcome. You’re welcome. END INTERVIEW Transcribed by: Marlene Fritz Completed: 9/3/2019