TO THE EDITOR
SEXUAL ANIMALS
Steven Sawada missed an important op-
portunity in his article “Naked Women and
Male Bonding” (Weddings issue, 1/13) —
the chance to engage in a real dialogue about
sexuality. I admit, at first I was just pissed. I
wasn’t mad because he suggests that my
soon-to-be-husband should have one “last
opportunity to see another woman in the
nude.” (By the way Steven, how many bach-
elor party attendees are already married?)
No, I was upset because his article implies
that only men are concerned that getting mar-
ried might impair their sex lives. Most
women I know have serious issues regarding
committing sexually to one person for the rest
of their lives. Even though the majority at-
tempt monogamy, let’s be honest here, both
men and women like to play the field.
He quotes Hot Body Club’s Rico saying,
“It’s their last shot at freedom.” Do women
not relish this freedom as well? Um, I can say
we do, big boy, we really do.
After being pissed, I realized I was gen-
uinely disappointed. Sex and sexuality are
big issues for most couples and Sawada
missed a rare opportunity to talk about sex in
a “professional, controlled environment.”
How do couples confront issues of pornogra-
phy, fidelity, flirting, and sexual diversity in
the bedroom and beyond?
Sawada glosses over the wife-to-be who
“sometimes begrudgingly” says yes to her hus-
band’s strip club bonanza. Unfortunately
Sawada doesn’t ask, why is she hesitant? A sit-
uation like this is a chance for couples to ex-
plore what a good sex life means to them.
However couples define a good sex life, it
doesn’t end once we say, “I do.” Committed
sexual relationships are an opportunity for us
to communicate and sometimes, compromise.
Sawada’s article doesn’t succeed in telling
his readers why “bachelor parties and strip-
pers just go together.” Instead, he uses the
pretext of male bonding to write an article
that puts forth the same old bullshit we’ve all
heard before: Men are sexual animals whose
appetites can’t be fulfilled. Well I don’t know
about you ladies, but I’m feeling pretty hun-
gry myself.
Heather Heater
Eugene
STILL HERE
On Jan. 7, Craig “Critter” Marshall, my
co-defendant, walked out of prison after serv-
ing 4-1/2 years. I can only imagine what that
felt like. Back in the day Critter was one of
my closest friends, and while many are aware
that he and I have had a falling out, I am truly
glad his time is done and he has gone home.
(My old friend if you are reading this, I wish
you all the best.)
Now that Critter is out I can’t help but
wonder why I am still here. We were arrested
at the same time, charged with the same of-
fenses. Up until the very end he and I refused
to cooperate with the state. Yet, the state in
Critter’s case decided that the exact same fire
was only “conspiracy to commit arson” and
“possession of destructive devices.”
I have half a dozen theories as to why
things played out the way they did. The one
fact I know is not once did the state offer to
treat my case as Critter’s. I’m doing 17 years
more for the same actions and same evidence
— 22 years for actions that hurt no one and
caused less than $50,000 in damages.
Critter is home now where he belongs.
I’m counting on you to bring me home. I
can’t win this fight alone. I need your sup-
port. I need your agitation. Make the impossi-
ble reality. Free all political prisoners and
prisoners of war.
We are in prison because we believe in
dreams. We are in prison because we believe
in freedom. We are in prison because we be-
lieve these things are worth fighting for. Dare
to believe. Dare to resist.
Jeffrey “Free” Luers
#13797671, OSP
Salem
BY LISA WARNES AND KATHLEEN LEONARD
Worth More than Money
The struggle to save a local forest
I
n the southeast hills of Eugene lies a 38-acre forest bounded by Dillard Road to the
east, Nectar Way to the west and city parkland (part of the Ridgeline Trail system)
to the south. This forest contains Amazon headwaters, wetlands, creeks, upland
wildlife habitat and significant acreage for several plants that are federally listed species
of concern and endangered at the state level.
Eugene’s Parks and Open Spaces Department wants to acquire this land to add to the
Ridgeline Park network. In the spring of 2004, city officials reached a verbal agreement
to buy the 38 acres, then owned by DDA Oregonia, for $300,000. But before the deal was
formalized, DDA Oregonia sold the parcel to Portland developer Joe Green for $325,000.
When local residents, who had been trusting the city’s process, learned of the sale and of
Green’s plans to build a 77- to 115-home subdivision, they formed a neighborhood com-
mittee to save the plot from development. This group now stands at about 100 house-
holds and has joined forces with the Southeast Neighborhood Association. Determined
to conserve this treasure for all of Eugene, they have been raising funds to pay for envi-
ronmental studies and an attorney.
After the sale, Parks still wanted to buy the property and Green indicated that he
would sell it to the city for $600,000. The city had $300,000 to spend on the land and
went to the state Parks Department to apply for a matching grant. The state granted the
money, clearly recognizing the importance of preserving this irreplaceable habitat. But
there was one catch: The city was required to get an appraisal that supported the pur-
chase price in order to use the state funds. The appraisal came in at $430,000. The city
then offered Green $430,000 and an open book to all their surveys and engineering re-
ports. He turned down the offer and began his own surveying. Green is very near com-
pletion of wetland determination and natural features assessment.
T
hose of us who care deeply about keeping this forest intact for its own sake, for
all of Eugene and for future generations, must now attend to politics. Green has
every intention of having his proposal submitted by spring of 2005, before the
scheduled finalization of the city’s Goal 5 inventory in July. Goal 5 is a state planning
guideline that requires Oregon cities to conserve open space and protect natural re-
4 JANUARY 27 2005
sources by taking regular inven-
tory of their lands and working to
protect the most environmentally
valuable.
City staff members started the
most recent inventory process for
Goal 5 last year, but they grossly
overlooked the plot on Nectar Way,
listing only one creek as upland
wildlife habitat. But a study con-
ducted by a biologist hired by the
neighborhood committee shows
that the plot contains at least
three acres of wetlands and many
seasonal creeks.
At this point, one of the city’s
options is to condemn the prop-
erty and have the courts set a fair
price. With condemnation, the de-
veloper must sell the land to the city for preservation.
The willingness of local neighbors to give their time and money toward preservation
of this property indicates that there are many who believe that the beauty of this pre-
cious ecosystem is a great deal more valuable than another housing development which
may make a Portland developer a little bit richer. While the neighborhood recognizes that
this plot is private land, it is also important wildlife habitat, a key component of the Upper
Amazon Creek watershed, and contiguous with the Ridgeline Trail system. Protecting the
property will provide long-term benefits to the city and its residents.
There are several things you can do if you would like to support the city in purchasing
and protecting this land. To stay updated, get on the e-mail list devoted to this project by
sending your e-mail address to ksl@efn.org. Also, the neighborhood committee needs
donations to pay for legal fees, environmental studies, printing, etc. Another way to help
is to send a personal e-mail to the mayor, city manager and City Council members telling
them why it is important to preserve this land.
Lisa Warnes is the official spokesperson for the effort to preserve the Nectar Way forest. She can be reached by phone
at 484-2210 or by e-mail at ksl@efn.org