Questions

Questions

Raised

To the editor: The article entitled “Park Trades Rappahannock Land" by Daphne McCullough (Rapp. News, 25 May 19781 raises two questions in my mind that have not been directly addressed in other letters to the editor.

First, it appears that the three owners of private land who arranged the land trade after almost four years of negotiations with the Park Service are public officials who exercise power and influence in their respective communities. For such persons to consummate a land trade such as this, without any public notice or discussion and without the discipline that would otherwise have been afforded by open competition in the marketplace, inevitably raises the specter of ijipropriety,-that (is. an ap‘ pearafice that insiders in gotem* meet gained a special advantage by reason of their favored position. The impropriety, or appearance thereof, could easily have been avoided had the principals insisted on appropriate public notice of the proposed transfer before it became a fait accompli. Their apparent failure to do so betrays an insensitivity to the interests of this community and suggests that their sole concern has been to insure the consummation of the trade.

Second, the Park Service appears to have given “final approval" to the trade after considering only the relative merits, for Park purposes, of the several parcels of land involved. This is too narrow a test. The Park exists in a context—it has adjacent landowners and communities to which it has a duty, as a governmental entity, to relate openly and fairly. It is well known that few issues are of greater concern to local governments than those involving xoning and land use. By its failure to open the proposed trade to timely public discussion, the Park Service has shown that it is motivated by a narrow self interest. More regrettably, it has demonstrated a callous disregard for the interests of its neighbors and neighboring communities that is unworthy of its trust.

Washington

LEE BjRD