Dear Editors:

Eating disorders are prevalent in our “healthy” community and in American society at large. Approximately 5 to 10 million women and girls, and 1 million men and boys, suffer from anorexia and/or bulimia in the United States. The death rate for eating disorders is about 20 percent. In order to bring awareness to this important issue, local artists contributed to the “Emotional Expressions of Eating Disorders” exhibit displayed in the Durango Recreation Center Art Hall during September and October of this year.

During National Eating Disorder Awareness Week, Feb. 27-March 5, we are planning a series of exhibits, “Redefining Beauty,” and hope that our local community will participate. We proudly announce an open call to all artists in our fabulously creative community. Visual and performing artists, poets and other creative souls are invited to submit work, ideas and inspiration to this project. We hope to see an exploration of various themes reflected as we redefine traditional notions of beauty, including body image, emotional expression of eating disorders, recovery, healing, hope, and self-love. We are also seekg participants for a collaborative collage with the theme, “Body Image and Mass Media.”

We are also looking for resources and information regarding treatment plans for those in recovery from eating disorders, support groups, hotlines and other resources available to help those with eating disorders, and their friends and families.

Several organizations and businesses have come forth in strong support of this project, and we wish to publicly thank them here: Fort Lewis College, Remuda Ranch Eating Disorder Recovery Center, Maria’s Bookshop, The Steaming Bean, Namaste Health Center and the Durango Women’s Resource Center.

Work will be displayed in the Fort Lewis College Student Exhibit Hall; Namaste Health Center; and the Steaming Bean. Maria’s Bookshop has agreed to design a special window display incorporating related reads and the art of Molly Anderson-Childers.

Namaste Health Center will also host an artist’s reception and offers many resources for those hoping to heal mind, body and spirit from the ravages of an eating disorder. We are deeply grateful for the chance to bring awareness of this issue to our community and appreciate the support of all those who have agreed to participate.

For more information regarding these exhibits and related events, please contact Kathryn Catsman at (970) 385-7450.

– Sincerely, Kathryn Catsman and Molly J. A. Childers

Losing our in-town freedom

Dear Editors,

I have a concern about freedom, the freedom to choose our space requirements on our own property.

On Nov. 29, next Monday, the Durango City Council has called a “special” meeting regarding the re-zoning of Durango and adoption of the proposed infill standards.

This nonpolitical, nonactivist gal (that’s me) got personally involved when College Drive Lofts started construction in the lot next to my back yard between 7th and 8th avenues. Our dogs were escaping due to the tearing down of my fence, and my “peace to all” son was allowing workers to borrow our water and use our electricity and did not understand my adverse reaction to his generosity. Finally, the third story was added, and it loomed above my back yard space and blocked my blue sky. I could ignore the situation no longer. I became educated on the proposed infill standards.

I have attended a few City Council meetings and listened to the pros and cons on this issue. I have also spoken up and asked the council to do something. At the time I thought maybe these new regulations would be the answer. After listening to citizens concerned about this proposal and doing some math for my own property, I have changed my mind. Many of the voices speaking are in favor of them and the ones who will be affected adversely are not.  One thing I have learned during involvement in this issue, the council listens and considers any comment that any citizen has to make. These comments play a significant factor when a decision needs to be made.

Well, when the person with the smaller lot (that’s me, too) decides to add on a bedroom cause grandma cannot live on her own anymore, it may be unallowable in the proposed standards! The term is “lot coverage.” Under existing standards, a homeowner may cover 45 percent of his or her lot with structure/structures. Proposed is 35 percent of coverage. I would not be able to build a garage, keep my storage shed and add a bedroom under new standards. Looks like no grandma staying at my house if they adopt these standards!

But, the homeowner could possibly “go up.” Lot coverage may be OK but possibly not floor-area ratio, not to mention the foundation is not strong enough to “go up” anyway since it was built 100 or so years ago. With the new proposed standards, lot coverage and FAR standards, I will have to get rid of my custom-built 8-by-10-foot wood storage shed in my back yard if I add on. Where will I put my camping gear, skis, bikes and garden equipment?

In my situation, I am hoping my little home will be my home until I pass away. I have employment that keeps me in Durango – plus I love Durango, it is my home. I am able to live in Durango, raise my children here because I bought my home when it was affordable (1989. I realize I am one of the fortunate as I listen to those around me discuss their housing concerns with landlords. They never know if the landlord will sell the house or let someone they know live there instead. It is a year-to-year situation for many folks.) This is the home I pass on to my children. This is my security.

The theme that came out in these meetings from the public who support these new standards seemed to be, “What do we want our neighbor’s yard to look like?” We do not want to see too much house, we want trees and grass and landscaping. We want to see a dormer when we look out our window so we don’t see too much straight wood. We want design.” I cannot get this off my mind. If I choose to build my home 25 feet in length with no inset, why should there be a law against it? Where is my freedom?

I must speak up now, speak up for those in our community who do not have the energy to concentrate and study these issues but will be affected in the future by these new regulations.

I guess I must face the facts. This ex-Seattleite is officially a Coloradoan, and Coloradoans hate unnecessary legislations. That’s me. I’m just like that.

– Barbara Fleming-Grinnan, Durango

Keep roads out of roadless areas

Dear Editors,

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was adopted by the Forest Service during 2001 after an outpouring of public support in the most extensive public outreach process any federal agency has ever undertaken. Citizens from all points of the political spectrum wrote letters, made phone calls, and spoke at 600 public meetings the USFS held across America. Of the 1.6 million comments received, 95 percent favored protecting roadless areas.

The Forest Service also found that almost 80 percent of the traditionally conservative residents of states like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming favored the rule, and six Western governors – representing Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming – have criticized Bush’s plans to trash the rule. It’s also worth noting that these last unprotected roadless lands in our national forests contain less than 0.2 percent of the U.S. timber supply.

More than 36,000 Coloradans commented on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (with more than 90 percent in favor), which provided protection from logging, mining and energy development on more than 4.4 million acres of the last remaining unroaded lands in our state’s national forests.

Regardless, the Bush administration threw out the rule, without holding a single public meeting. The initial Clinton rule drew the most public comment of any such rule, and more than 90 percent of the comments were positive. The Bush rule drew nearly 1.8 million negative public comments, which Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey concedes constituted more than 95 percent of the response.

Coloradans should whole-heartedly support keeping all of our 4.4 million acres of remaining roadless areas roadless, just as God created them in the first place.

– David A. Lien, via e-mail

Cut the strings senators

(Editors’ note: The following letter was sent to U.S. Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar and submitted for publication in the Telegraph.)

Dear Senators Allard and Salazar:

Please join Sen. Lautenberg, D-N.J., in his call for the Justice Department to investigate big oil’s bizarre testimony before a joint Senate Committee last week. It seems none of the CEOs could quite remember meeting with Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force back in 2001. The administration has denied the public information about what went on in these meetings and who attended, citing executive privilege. However, recent digging by the Washington Post suggests that they did meet. It makes one wonder how such lackluster intelligence could cudgel together $100 billion in profits in the first three quarters of this year. Insider help may be the answer. And if they lied before Congress, it’s a felony punishable by up to five years in jail.

Sen. Salazar, you should have swag with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales since you helped shepherd him through the confirmation process with the promise that he was, despite the torture memos, a fair and honorable man. Perhaps like Judge Alito, Mr. Gonzales, was just doing what it takes to get ahead or staying atop the greasy pole as Benjamin Disraeli once described it. Here is a chance for your friend to prove your confidence in him.

You, Sen. Allard, must tire of being the administration’s marionette. After all, it is an unnatural marriage and might become unpardonable under your proposed marriage amendment to the Constitution. Separate yourself from the lies, particularly the vice president’s, for he says the administration does not torture; Osama bin Laden and Iraq were partners in 9/11; Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was about to use them on Cheyenne and points east; and that the war is about over. Cut the strings. Save yourself. The 2006 elections are nigh. 

– Phil Doe, via e-mail

Sex in a small town – Part V

Dear Editors,

It happened the other day as I was sitting at a local coffee shop. In walked a handsome man I had not seen before. He sat down next me at the computers. I flashed him my “Hey there, Buster” smile. My attempt worked, and he introduced himself. I told him my name and gave another girly smile. He raised an eyebrow, and it became clear that he was very uncomfortable. Slightly squirming, he said in a strained, high-pitched voice, “I know you.” He proceeded to tell me that it was “dangerous” to talk to me, that he just should save himself the heartbreak and leave immediately. He got up and walked out the door with out even telling the barista he was off the computer. I was left mouth open, eyes burning, cheeks turning an unnatural crimson. Shocked!

Dating in a small town is a dangerous, twisted game. Not because dating itself is scary, but because in the small town of Durango, everyone is directly or indirectly connected to everyone else. Durango is a tightly spun web, making it impossible for a girl to “date,” which in definition means getting to know others in a casual setting. This does not include casual sex by any means. Getting a cup of coffee is not sex. People keep telling me to keep my options open. “Date,” they say. “Get to know others before you commit to one person.” But it’s these same people who click their tongues and shake their heads when they see me with a few different men. I find myself hanging my head, with the weight of a large scarlet letter, creating an unseen gravity on my shoulders. Does this make my behavior scandalous? Am I truly a heart breaker? When asked out to coffee, should I reply, “Ya sure, I know a great place in Silverton.”

Is the solution to turn a deaf ear? Or widen the dating territory to the outskirts of Denver and Salt Lake?

You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you meet your prince.

– Sincerely, “Ella,” Durango