[SEN-D] RG article misleading [Arlie corridor]

[Kevin Matthews]

Dear Ed,

I'm disappointed that your RG article...
   "Land deal could extend Ridgeline Trail"
    http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=90421&sid=4&fid=1

...did not appear in a more accurate and balanced way with regard to some important points.

First, this paragraph is flat-out misleading:

"Meanwhile, some south Eugene residents want the city to acquire two parcels totaling 66 acres near the Amazon headwaters to protect it from possible development. These residents hope that some of the bond measure, along with grants and other city funds, can be used for those purchases."

The Green and Beverly properties are _in_ the headwaters of Amazon Creek, or _around_ them, depending on your choice of usage - not just "near" them.

More important are the facts that, first, a majority of the Eugene City Council has voted repeatedly to press forward on those acquisitions.  That, second, the "Save Amazon Creek Headwaters" signs that can be seen all over town, including north, central, and west Eugene, give lie to the "some south Eugene residents" limitation in the published phrasing.

And that, third, in south Eugene itself, more than 97% of total neighborhood general meeting votes, held over a period of several years, have supported Amazon Creek Headwaters acquisition and preservation as the highest open space priority.

The facts show it is not just "some south Eugene residents", but a majority of Eugene elected officials, at the least "some" residents all across Eugene, and the great majority of residents in south Eugene, who favor city acquisition of the Green and Beverly properties.

The Mayor's Committee charged with facilitating successful acquisition of the Amazon Creek Headwaters properties includes representatives from all across our community, as well as cornerstone supporters from the headwaters area.

Also, it is being persuasive rather than balanced in reporting to compare per-acre prices between land outside the UGB and land inside the UBG, implying that one is a bargain while the other seems overpriced, without noting for your readers the relationship of each to the UGB which is the primary reason for the price disparity.

The same spin-by-omission is repeated in the coordinated editorial.

I don't know who wrote the headline, but once again the RG calls out a local story with a title that pushes beyond the facts.  Where the article body refers with reasonable accuracy to "expanding the Ridge­line Trail network", the headline saying, "deal could extend Ridgeline Trail" leaves the facts behind.  The fact is that any trail along the proposed corridor would be mostly perpendicular to the actual main ridgeline of the south Eugene hills, dropping away from the actual Ridgeline Trail, hundreds of feet downward in elevation into the LCC bowl.

While it is nice to quote a county resident, living far outside the city, it would have also been nice for you to note or acknowledge that south Eugene is the part of the city of Eugene that lies closest to to the proposed Arlie Corridor acquisition.  After all, the acquisition is proposed to be made with city resident funds, not by the county.

In fact, the city neighborhood most adjacent to all of these proposed acquisitions, having discussed a range of similar proposals in several duly-convened general meetings, over several years, has consistently held the critical Headwaters protection as our highest priority.

Protecting the biological integrity of Eugene's primary watershed, from the headwaters of Amazon Creek, through the Amazon greenway, and on out to the West Eugene Wetlands, is a fundamental and community-wide priority.  The RG does our community a real disservice by repeatedly attempting to portray dedicated environmental stewardship as some kind of backyard self-interest, playing up largely-imaginary geographic divisions along the way.

We're long accustomed to Register Guard electioneering in the guise of local news.  I suppose it at this point is still a testament to the eternal springing of hope that the RG still manages to disappoint.  But hope we do.

Sincerely,

Kevin Matthews
President
Southeast Neighbors




--
Southeast Neighbors
Working together to preserve the livability of our most
immediate surroundings, for all the people and creatures 
therein, and for generations to come.

Please help save Eugene's threatened Pileated Woodpeckers
and Amazon Creek Otters!  Support headwaters stewardship
and upland wildlife habitat protection.

Please help stop destructive infill development.  Support
the South Hills Study, design standards, and design review.  

http://www.SoutheastNeighbors.org
Think globally - Act neighborly!   (tm)



----- Begin forwarded message -----
From: Kevin Matthews <matthews at artifice.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:36:41 -0700
To: Ed Russo <ed.russo at registerguard.com>
Subject: Re: Ridgeline Trail acquisition [Arlie corridor]

Thanks for the clarification.  Actually, I think the City really does have enough funds for both the Arlie &  Co. corridor and the Green/Beverly properties - especially if it fully optimizes outside grant opportunites for both.

If the City goes ahead and pays for either acquisition straight out, using only City funds, then it might have to tap into general fund or other accounts to complete the other.  That's certainly feasible, given the political will.   

But in the interests of getting the best possible value for citizens of Eugene, and given that we're talking about sharing some of the same pots, I think the proposed Arlie &  Co. corridor acquisition should get a similar level of funding creativity to what is being given, for similar cost levels, for either the Beverly or Green acquisition.  That means exploring all reasonable grant opportunities and various city accounts that might be applicable, while balancing appropriate priorities for each.

Others, not I, may assert that there aren't enough funds to accomplish both saving the Amazon Headwaters, and preparing for a future corridor to Mount Pisgah.  The thoughts below about prioritization are applicable to that perspective.

best wishes,

Kevin



On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:08:33 -0700 (PDT), Ed Russo wrote:
> Thanks, Kevin.
> You did not say specifically, but I'm assuming from your answer that 
> you don't believe the city has enough money to acquire both Arlie & 
> Co. corridor and the Green/Beverly properties.
> Is that correct?
> Ed 
> 
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Matthews" <matthews at artifice.com>
> To: "Ed Russo" <ed.russo at registerguard.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 3:00:49 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: Ridgeline Trail acquisition
> 
> Hello Ed,
> 
> 
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:54:14 -0700 (PDT), Ed Russo wrote:
>> Hello, Kevin.
>> 
>> I'm working on an article about the city's interest in buying 200 
>> acres from Arlie & Co. to extend the Ridgeline Trail to LCC.
>> 
>> I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the acquisition.
>> 
>> Do you think it's a good idea?
>> 
>> If so, why so?
>> 
>> If not, why not?
> 
> 
> In general, it is valuable to be thinking long-term about future park 
> and open space needs.  And in the abstract, I think it is a great 
> long-term idea to create and protect a new natural corridor that 
> would connect the Eugene ridgeline over to the Pisgah area.  To 
> comment on the specific site in play here, I'd much prefer to see 
> some biological work-up of the natural resource values of the site, 
> which I'm not aware has been made public at this point.  
> 
> From a practical perspective, however, I'm concerned that the City of 
> Eugene doesn't really have effective mechanisms in place to balance 
> priorities between a well-documented, highly biologically important, 
> urgently threatened, but relatively expensive property inside the 
> City and its UGB, versus a less-well-documented property outside the 
> UGB, which is at least theoretically protected from intensive 
> development at present, and largely for that reason, is much less 
> expensive per acre.
> 
> From a personal, Southeast Neighbors, and Friends of Eugene 
> perspective, it generally seems not prudent to pass over 
> highly-threatened, specifically irreplacable natural resource areas 
> to protect other much-less-threatened ones, even if they seem to be 
> available at bargain prices.  
> 
> Protecting the most threatened first, as long as they are savable, is 
> a well-established principle of triage, which seems very applicable 
> to our local upland habitats, as decimated as they have been by the 
> last decade of accelerated development.
> 
> In this specific case, given that the would-be seller is a major 
> backer of Mayor Piercy's opponent, one would be naive not to wonder 
> about electoral politics in the timing of such a large 
> outside-the-UGB acquisition offer.
> 
> The highest current priority for the City, for a whole host of 
> well-documented reasons, must be protecting the remaining, 
> highly-threated Amazon Headwaters properties, which are essential to 
> the health and safety of Eugene's own primary watershed, as well as 
> its residents.
> 
> If we can do it all, that would be great, and future generations 
> would thank us, much as we thank the park protectors who preceeded 
> us.  
> 
> But if we have to pick and choose, I can't see putting future 
> possibilities over immediate necessities.  
> 
> 
>> My deadline is  3 p.m. Tuesday.

> 
> ...
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> Ed 


Thanks for asking!

best wishes,

Kevin



--
Can you join with Friends of Eugene to help save our city's creeks
and ridges and rivers, for birds and fish and trees and otters and
people, too?  For affordable housing and urban place and green space
and greater health and happiness?

This special part of Oregon needs all our hope, help, and love 
together to create real solutions to West Eugene transportation 
concerns, to reach toward social and political and environmental 
equity, to support all the efforts for a safe, fun, sustainable, 
livable Eugene!

Please help, join, and contribute online: 
   http://www.FriendsofEugene.org