Bob:
Thanks to Marilyn for her synopsis of an exchange from a list in Cambridgeport.
I did a Google search on "Charles River" and "Cambridge,MA" and "swimming" and "Magazine Beach". The first thing that came up was:
http://www.charlesriverconservancy.org/projects/swimming/news/last_whistle.html
The Charles River Conservancy is monstrously funded by developers and other destructive Boston area types.
The particular link brags about this entities fight to save the Charles River, but neglects to mention that the CRC has run around poisoning every goose egg it could get away with for the past three years.
The CRC bragged about a photo op swim the CRC participated in at Magazine Beach. This was followed up the current bizarre project at Magazine Beach in which designer plants are being planted in place of wetlands and are being used to starve the local animals including the Charles River White Geese. The CRWG's eggs were never poisoned until the CRC started poisoning goose eggs.
Now the CRWG are being starved by a heartless project supported by the CRC in the first year of the last three that their eggs were not poisoned. They were just starved, both at Magazine Beach and at the other half of their 25 year food source, the grass across from the Hyatt Hotel.
Across from the Hyatt, the City of Cambridge did a sewerage project. They were done in September 2004, exactly when they started the starvation project at Magazine Beach.
The City of Cambridge, supported by the CRC and the like, left starvation walls barring the white geese from grass they had been eating for 25 years.
So ALL their food was suddenly denied to them.
And the CRC puts out press releases, and nine Cambridge City Councilors, NINE HEARTLESS, RUTHLESS CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCILORS, join them by calling themselves environmentalists.
And the "swimming" the CRC did a photo op about at Magazine Beach?
Those designer plants prevent it.
Well, we can go further down the Charles River. The DCR/MDC and Cambridge are destroying more than 440 to 660 trees between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach, but the CRC brags about its supposed environmental sanctity.
From my point of view the CRC is a very major part of the sickness, along with nine very destructive, very heartless Cambridge City Councilors who are paying the bill for the sickness at Magazine Beach.
But fake environmentalist keep on running around patting themselves on the back and calling the destroyers environmentalists too.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Swimming in the Charles River
Two Cambridge residents considered the issue of swimming in the Charles River at Magazine Beach. In a late November, 2005 e-mail exchange, Marilyn wrote that
The Charles is swimmable right now (but not in this season, obviously) near the Charles River dam at the Museum of Science. This news was folded into a Globe editorial this past summer.
Swimming in the Charles at Magazine Beach isn't safe because the sediment there, from long-gone tanneries and other industries upstream, is toxic. A clean-up or technical fix may not be possible, or if it is, possible within a reasonable budget.
There is swimming at Magazine Beach, of course, in the DCR pool. Like skating rinks and other assets, it has suffered from the MDC-DCR's neglect. The front-page article in today's Globe addresses the most glaring example of this problem, the Longfellow Bridge. Ordinary maintenance suffers while fancy projects like the Memorial Drive "Historic Restoration" ($7.5 million) get funded.
The Magazine Beach pool is also subject to MDC-DCR budget hold-ups, e.g., "we can't open this summer/we have to close it in August because we don't get enough money to operate it." Communities have to mobilize to get their legislators to give the agency more money for such specific purposes. However, at one public hearing I attended, a legislator complained that the MDC-DCR diverts even earmarked money to what it pleases.
At Magazine Beach it pleases the DCR to close the pool and build up demand for swimming in the river, even if that means some experimental and costly fix. It doesn't please the DCR to keep the pool open, to keep condoms out of the kiddie pool, the trash picked up, and the snow plowed.
One thing environmental science has done is to alert us to the problems of swimming in water with heavy metal sediment. The designer plants and "swimming lagoon" now at Magazine Beach, part of Cambridge's $1.5 million contribution to this vision of swimming in the river, will do nothing to make these problems go away.
And if the idea's to swim in the river rather than a pool, it's already perfectly safe and much, much less expensive to swim in the Charles farther downriver, by the Museum of Science. The Globe reported the water temperature in June (or July?) was perfect.
Kathy responded that
Recent testing under the Western Ave bridge confirms that the water this far up-river is unclean, and not fit for swimming.
"Poor folks," used to be "steered" to Magazine Beach for swimming, while "other" folks took the Blue Line, or their '56 Chevy, to Revere.
Magazine Beach, and other "fresh water" swimming holes were finally closed as a result of the polio "scare", and repeated pollution.
The reality of swimming at Magazine Beach is just as you say, money. The Charles "River" is not a River at all, but a partially filled "Estuary." It drains thousands of acres of land, and is filled, therefore, with sediment, contaminated, or otherwise unpalatable. The tides, which Mother Nature used to send "upstream", have been blocked by the dam. The "River" is not "clear", nor should it be, as an estuary it should continue to do the work it was designed to do. It is a treasure, and should be protected from development!
The money for the pools should be ensured by taxpayers, well in advance. The "folks" on [Beacon Hill] should stop toying with the pools, like a cat with a mouse. If the goal of ending the "malaise" at the MDC was to be achieved by renaming this agency the DCR" it obviously did not work. A rose by any other name...
The Charles is swimmable right now (but not in this season, obviously) near the Charles River dam at the Museum of Science. This news was folded into a Globe editorial this past summer.
Swimming in the Charles at Magazine Beach isn't safe because the sediment there, from long-gone tanneries and other industries upstream, is toxic. A clean-up or technical fix may not be possible, or if it is, possible within a reasonable budget.
There is swimming at Magazine Beach, of course, in the DCR pool. Like skating rinks and other assets, it has suffered from the MDC-DCR's neglect. The front-page article in today's Globe addresses the most glaring example of this problem, the Longfellow Bridge. Ordinary maintenance suffers while fancy projects like the Memorial Drive "Historic Restoration" ($7.5 million) get funded.
The Magazine Beach pool is also subject to MDC-DCR budget hold-ups, e.g., "we can't open this summer/we have to close it in August because we don't get enough money to operate it." Communities have to mobilize to get their legislators to give the agency more money for such specific purposes. However, at one public hearing I attended, a legislator complained that the MDC-DCR diverts even earmarked money to what it pleases.
At Magazine Beach it pleases the DCR to close the pool and build up demand for swimming in the river, even if that means some experimental and costly fix. It doesn't please the DCR to keep the pool open, to keep condoms out of the kiddie pool, the trash picked up, and the snow plowed.
One thing environmental science has done is to alert us to the problems of swimming in water with heavy metal sediment. The designer plants and "swimming lagoon" now at Magazine Beach, part of Cambridge's $1.5 million contribution to this vision of swimming in the river, will do nothing to make these problems go away.
And if the idea's to swim in the river rather than a pool, it's already perfectly safe and much, much less expensive to swim in the Charles farther downriver, by the Museum of Science. The Globe reported the water temperature in June (or July?) was perfect.
Kathy responded that
Recent testing under the Western Ave bridge confirms that the water this far up-river is unclean, and not fit for swimming.
"Poor folks," used to be "steered" to Magazine Beach for swimming, while "other" folks took the Blue Line, or their '56 Chevy, to Revere.
Magazine Beach, and other "fresh water" swimming holes were finally closed as a result of the polio "scare", and repeated pollution.
The reality of swimming at Magazine Beach is just as you say, money. The Charles "River" is not a River at all, but a partially filled "Estuary." It drains thousands of acres of land, and is filled, therefore, with sediment, contaminated, or otherwise unpalatable. The tides, which Mother Nature used to send "upstream", have been blocked by the dam. The "River" is not "clear", nor should it be, as an estuary it should continue to do the work it was designed to do. It is a treasure, and should be protected from development!
The money for the pools should be ensured by taxpayers, well in advance. The "folks" on [Beacon Hill] should stop toying with the pools, like a cat with a mouse. If the goal of ending the "malaise" at the MDC was to be achieved by renaming this agency the DCR" it obviously did not work. A rose by any other name...
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
City of Cambridge to Destroy Wooded Park at Porter Station?
11/22/05, Sent to Cambridge Day and Chronicle (with edits):
Last evening, the Cambridge City Manager sent to the Cambridge City Council a message which informed the Cambridge City Council that he had the MBTA's permission to thin trees in the treed plaza at Porter Station.
This almost certainly forebodes massive destruction.
A brief review of the record will indicate what is coming up.
The City Manager has twice in the last year proposed the destruction of this fine park. The first time was in fine print sneaked into a developers proposal for Porter Station air rights.
The second time is fine print sneaked into the pending proposal by the City Manager for upzoning of that portion of Mass. Ave. from Harvard Law to Porter Station.
The past record of the city manager and nine city councillors seems to indicate the worst.
Since September 2004, they have been heartless starving the Charles River White Geese as part of a bizarre project destroying wetlands at Magazine Beach and by a starvation wall barring access to grass accross from the Hyatt Hotel.
With the last year or so, the City of Cambridge desroyed 8 to 12 trees below the Inn at Harvard to replace them with 8 to 12 saplings.
The City of Cambridge destroyed the woods in Vellucci Park at Inman Square to replace it with a barren plaza. They said the trees were too dense.
The City of Cambridge destroyed a grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees next to the Squirrel Brand affordable housing to replace them with grass. They said the trees were the wrong pedigree.
The City of Cambridge is on the verge of destroying 9 healthy trees on Clark Street just north of the Washington Elms affordable housing. They say the trees are in the way of their park.
The City of Cambridge and their associates are in the process of destroying 449 to 660 trees on Memorial Drive from Magazine Beach to the Longfellow Bridge. They give all sorts of lovely reasons. The real reason is to clear the way for a new off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Memorial Drive to allow Harvard to build on the current off ramp from the Mass. Pike Brighton and Cambridge.
Will the City of Cambridge destroyed the wooded park at Porter Station?
Exactly the wrong answer is: "They would never stoop so low."
Last evening, the Cambridge City Manager sent to the Cambridge City Council a message which informed the Cambridge City Council that he had the MBTA's permission to thin trees in the treed plaza at Porter Station.
This almost certainly forebodes massive destruction.
A brief review of the record will indicate what is coming up.
The City Manager has twice in the last year proposed the destruction of this fine park. The first time was in fine print sneaked into a developers proposal for Porter Station air rights.
The second time is fine print sneaked into the pending proposal by the City Manager for upzoning of that portion of Mass. Ave. from Harvard Law to Porter Station.
The past record of the city manager and nine city councillors seems to indicate the worst.
Since September 2004, they have been heartless starving the Charles River White Geese as part of a bizarre project destroying wetlands at Magazine Beach and by a starvation wall barring access to grass accross from the Hyatt Hotel.
With the last year or so, the City of Cambridge desroyed 8 to 12 trees below the Inn at Harvard to replace them with 8 to 12 saplings.
The City of Cambridge destroyed the woods in Vellucci Park at Inman Square to replace it with a barren plaza. They said the trees were too dense.
The City of Cambridge destroyed a grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees next to the Squirrel Brand affordable housing to replace them with grass. They said the trees were the wrong pedigree.
The City of Cambridge is on the verge of destroying 9 healthy trees on Clark Street just north of the Washington Elms affordable housing. They say the trees are in the way of their park.
The City of Cambridge and their associates are in the process of destroying 449 to 660 trees on Memorial Drive from Magazine Beach to the Longfellow Bridge. They give all sorts of lovely reasons. The real reason is to clear the way for a new off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Memorial Drive to allow Harvard to build on the current off ramp from the Mass. Pike Brighton and Cambridge.
Will the City of Cambridge destroyed the wooded park at Porter Station?
Exactly the wrong answer is: "They would never stoop so low."
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Photo and History: Bumpy, Junior, Buddy and Buddy's mate; the killing and Iowa's part; "neutrality" and heartless starvation.
This photo was taken in Spring 2001. It is copied from the website of the Charles River White Geese and is copyright 2001 Friends of the White Geese, copied by permission.
The gander to the right is Bumpy, long time the leader of the gaggle. He is clearly a China Goose and had a lot of class.
The other two geese are his son Buddy and Buddy's mate.
The baby is Junior. Junior was orphaned at a tiny age as part of the killings in 2001. He was adopted by Buddy and Buddy's mate. The threesome are the way the adults protect the babies. The adults very subtly create a wall beyond which humans very nicely are kept.
Bumpy is fulfilling a role commonly done in the gaggle. Three adults care for each baby, the mother, the father and the baby sitter, Bumpy in this case.
Junior imprinted on Bumpy and followed him everywhere.
In July 2001, I was doing a visibility at the entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area. Two youths came yelling to me that they had found an injured goose. She had been stabbed. I called Marilyn to get help.
During the confusion, I realized that Junior was standing next to me and that there was no wall protecting him. I looked around and I realized that Bumpy was not to be seen.
Bumpy's abused and very dead body was pulled out of the Charles River with taping by a Channel 4 camerman on the scene. This report led Channel 4's Evening News.
A number of other members of the gaggle had been beaten including Brown Beauty.
The goose who had been stabbed, Iowa, was missing for several days.
During the memorial service for Bumpy a friend showed me the injured goose on the water next to the BU Bridge in the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Iowa hopped around on one leg at least until the following November when she started to use the injured leg. She must have been quite young at the time, perhaps a year old. She is an Emden, not distinguishable from other Emdens except that, for several years, we could identify her by her hurt leg.
She is probably by now fully healed.
Junior was orphaned for the second time during a very young life.
The memorial service was headlined in the Cambridge Chronicle.
The Cambridge City Council was belligerently "neutral" in spite of pleas for humanity. In December 1999, the Cambridge City Council had voted for a starvation attack against the Charles River White Geese which attack started at Magazine Beach with the walling off for use as food in September 2004.
The starvation attack was conducted on two fronts. Before September 2004, the City of Cambridge did a sewerage project in the other half of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese. They left walls barring access from the river after that project, so that as of about September 2004, all food in their habitat was denied the Charles River White Geese by a heartless City of Cambridge and a heartless DCR/MDC.
Robert J. La Trémouille
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139-0015
617-491-7181, Cell: 617-283-7649
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Harvard Square Wasted Expenditures
Sent from Marilyn to Cambridge Chronicle, 10/28/05, printed in Chronicle's 11-3-05 Edition:
To the Editor:
Regarding the $3.5 million redo of Harvard Square reported in the October 27 Chronicle, I remember a meeting of the Harvard Square Design Committe I attended several years ago. It was held by the Cambridge Development Department in Harvard Square at my dinnertime, but I made a point to eat early and attend.
The artist chosen to provide "world-class" public art on Palmer Street spoke, as did Susan Clippinger, Assistant City Manager for Traffic and Parking. The upshot was that Harvard Square needed a New York artist with an international reputation for Class, and that all traffic needed to be rethought because of safety reasons.
When I asked Ms. Clippinger about statistics on accidents in Harvard Square she said they were available but she didn't trust them. Since she immediately backpedaled, and since the Harvard Square intersections don't show up on the Chronicle's annual "most dangerous intersections" list, I assume the safety statistics are inconvenient for the city's purposes here: the glossy redo is to boost further the Square's ascent to Very Upscale. With the loss of establishments like Brine's and the Brattle Theater because of rent increases, it's hard to sympathize with property owners who will benefit from $3.5 million of our tax dollars.
What most struck me about the meeting, though, was the groaning board of sandwiches of all sorts, cookies, drinks supplied by the Development Department, possibly part of that $3.5 million budget, possibly part of the Department's regular operating expenses. Accustomed as I was to dinnertime meetings at the high school, where parents supplied bags of chips and bottles of soda, I completely missed the cue to wait and get my free dinner while listening to the best way to subsidize the Harvard Square property owners.
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
To the Editor:
Regarding the $3.5 million redo of Harvard Square reported in the October 27 Chronicle, I remember a meeting of the Harvard Square Design Committe I attended several years ago. It was held by the Cambridge Development Department in Harvard Square at my dinnertime, but I made a point to eat early and attend.
The artist chosen to provide "world-class" public art on Palmer Street spoke, as did Susan Clippinger, Assistant City Manager for Traffic and Parking. The upshot was that Harvard Square needed a New York artist with an international reputation for Class, and that all traffic needed to be rethought because of safety reasons.
When I asked Ms. Clippinger about statistics on accidents in Harvard Square she said they were available but she didn't trust them. Since she immediately backpedaled, and since the Harvard Square intersections don't show up on the Chronicle's annual "most dangerous intersections" list, I assume the safety statistics are inconvenient for the city's purposes here: the glossy redo is to boost further the Square's ascent to Very Upscale. With the loss of establishments like Brine's and the Brattle Theater because of rent increases, it's hard to sympathize with property owners who will benefit from $3.5 million of our tax dollars.
What most struck me about the meeting, though, was the groaning board of sandwiches of all sorts, cookies, drinks supplied by the Development Department, possibly part of that $3.5 million budget, possibly part of the Department's regular operating expenses. Accustomed as I was to dinnertime meetings at the high school, where parents supplied bags of chips and bottles of soda, I completely missed the cue to wait and get my free dinner while listening to the best way to subsidize the Harvard Square property owners.
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
Saturday, November 19, 2005
City of Cambridge, MA and Dogs in Context
August 1, 2005 (Bob) to Cambridge Chronicle, not certain if published.
The City Council’s sudden interest in rights for dogs and dog owners attempts to hide the fact that the problem is artificial attacks on animals by the City of Cambridge in the first place.
Cambridge’s restrictions on dogs are draconian and inexcusable.
Cambridge’s mistreatment of dogs is part of a pattern of contempt for living beings by the City of Cambridge.
Cambridge has poisoned birds in our public squares.
Cambridge destroyed the bird sanctuary which used to be located on the City Hall front lawn. This was done by cutting down the bird’s trees and vines. Those birds conducted a 365 day happy chorus. That beautiful chorus was casually, heartlessly destroyed.
Cambridge routinely and needlessly destroys mature trees in its public works projects.
Cambridge is heartlessly starving the Charles River White Geese by denying them access to most of their 25 year, mile long habitat and feeding grounds.
Cambridge on Magazine Beach has destroyed the most important wetlands, wetlands vegetation and animal habitat.
Cambridge is installing a wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles River. Cambridge is isolating Magazine Beach from animals and from the Charles River as much as possible.
Cambridge, as part of the sewer project across from the Hyatt has created another wall of vegetation starving free animals, especially the Charles River White Geese.
All wetlands, wetlands vegetation, animal habitat and more than 449 to 660 trees are being destroyed on the Charles River.
Animal habitat at Alewife is being flooded because the City of Cambridge is spending too much money on environmental destruction and "cannot afford" to responsibly handle the water in question.
Freely running dogs under control of their owners should not be barred from parks unless there is a good reason.
Exactly the opposite is the current policy.
City councilors with open contempt for animals are bragging about dribs and drabs they are proposing to create. These dribs and drabs modify their own draconian dog restrictions which are so irresponsible they should not even exist.
The solution of the dog issue is the same as the solution for all attacks on free animals by the City of Cambridge.
We need a city council we can be proud of, not a city council which is as destructive of living beings who are not human beings as it can get away with.
We need to get rid of nine city councilors.
The City Council’s sudden interest in rights for dogs and dog owners attempts to hide the fact that the problem is artificial attacks on animals by the City of Cambridge in the first place.
Cambridge’s restrictions on dogs are draconian and inexcusable.
Cambridge’s mistreatment of dogs is part of a pattern of contempt for living beings by the City of Cambridge.
Cambridge has poisoned birds in our public squares.
Cambridge destroyed the bird sanctuary which used to be located on the City Hall front lawn. This was done by cutting down the bird’s trees and vines. Those birds conducted a 365 day happy chorus. That beautiful chorus was casually, heartlessly destroyed.
Cambridge routinely and needlessly destroys mature trees in its public works projects.
Cambridge is heartlessly starving the Charles River White Geese by denying them access to most of their 25 year, mile long habitat and feeding grounds.
Cambridge on Magazine Beach has destroyed the most important wetlands, wetlands vegetation and animal habitat.
Cambridge is installing a wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles River. Cambridge is isolating Magazine Beach from animals and from the Charles River as much as possible.
Cambridge, as part of the sewer project across from the Hyatt has created another wall of vegetation starving free animals, especially the Charles River White Geese.
All wetlands, wetlands vegetation, animal habitat and more than 449 to 660 trees are being destroyed on the Charles River.
Animal habitat at Alewife is being flooded because the City of Cambridge is spending too much money on environmental destruction and "cannot afford" to responsibly handle the water in question.
Freely running dogs under control of their owners should not be barred from parks unless there is a good reason.
Exactly the opposite is the current policy.
City councilors with open contempt for animals are bragging about dribs and drabs they are proposing to create. These dribs and drabs modify their own draconian dog restrictions which are so irresponsible they should not even exist.
The solution of the dog issue is the same as the solution for all attacks on free animals by the City of Cambridge.
We need a city council we can be proud of, not a city council which is as destructive of living beings who are not human beings as it can get away with.
We need to get rid of nine city councilors.
Liberalism in Cambridge, MA
Writeen 8/19/05 for submittal to Cambridge Chronicle, not certain if published (Bob):
RE: Letter: Liberalism in Cambridge
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The report calling Cambridge not even in the top five of America’s most liberal communities comes as no surprise.
On housing and the environment, Cambridge, on matters solely within its powers, is the opposite of liberalism.
We have one of America’s most densely populated cities but we have twice the jobs we should have.
As a result of this, first, a lot of people have to commute to their jobs in Cambridge and drive as part of that commute.
Secondly, that disproportion of jobs gives us two times the people looking for housing in Cambridge we should have. Our bizarrely overpriced housing stock is a direct result of this vast disproportion of jobs.
And our city’s development policies are exactly wrong.
The city initiatives for Mass. Ave. between Harvard University and Porter Square are the wrong thing being done yet again.
The "planners" are trying to provide extreme incentives for first floor commercial use at the expense of housing and first floor open space. The "planners" are fighting to destroy the neighborhood retail block at the Three Aces and fighting to destroy the plaza at Porter Station.
The city manager has an equally bad proposal for Alewife Brook Parkway and west.
The shopping center proposal is so dense the "planners" keep their goals secret. The fine print translates as 50% denser than Harvard Square or more. The manager says that he would not be so irresponsible as to implement what he is asking for.
Housing zoning at a reasonable scale should be replacing industrial and other commercial zoning.
The area across from Fresh Pond on Concord Avenue should be neighborhood scale housing. Housing should be required for the railroad tracks west of Alewife Station, at the same density and construction type as the Inn at Harvard in Harvard Square. The Alewife shopping centers should be downzoned to neighborhood business districts.
Cambridge is flooding Alewife because they "don’t have the money" to do it right after spending open space money on Lincoln. They don’t have the money after destroying wetlands and starving the white geese on the Charles River.
They don’t have the money after putting up a wall of introduced vegetation in place of the Magazine Beach wetlands.
Cambridge’s real policies leave me wondering how we got found to be in the top ten of the most liberal cities in the country. Reality is strikingly different from lovely claims.
RE: Letter: Liberalism in Cambridge
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The report calling Cambridge not even in the top five of America’s most liberal communities comes as no surprise.
On housing and the environment, Cambridge, on matters solely within its powers, is the opposite of liberalism.
We have one of America’s most densely populated cities but we have twice the jobs we should have.
As a result of this, first, a lot of people have to commute to their jobs in Cambridge and drive as part of that commute.
Secondly, that disproportion of jobs gives us two times the people looking for housing in Cambridge we should have. Our bizarrely overpriced housing stock is a direct result of this vast disproportion of jobs.
And our city’s development policies are exactly wrong.
The city initiatives for Mass. Ave. between Harvard University and Porter Square are the wrong thing being done yet again.
The "planners" are trying to provide extreme incentives for first floor commercial use at the expense of housing and first floor open space. The "planners" are fighting to destroy the neighborhood retail block at the Three Aces and fighting to destroy the plaza at Porter Station.
The city manager has an equally bad proposal for Alewife Brook Parkway and west.
The shopping center proposal is so dense the "planners" keep their goals secret. The fine print translates as 50% denser than Harvard Square or more. The manager says that he would not be so irresponsible as to implement what he is asking for.
Housing zoning at a reasonable scale should be replacing industrial and other commercial zoning.
The area across from Fresh Pond on Concord Avenue should be neighborhood scale housing. Housing should be required for the railroad tracks west of Alewife Station, at the same density and construction type as the Inn at Harvard in Harvard Square. The Alewife shopping centers should be downzoned to neighborhood business districts.
Cambridge is flooding Alewife because they "don’t have the money" to do it right after spending open space money on Lincoln. They don’t have the money after destroying wetlands and starving the white geese on the Charles River.
They don’t have the money after putting up a wall of introduced vegetation in place of the Magazine Beach wetlands.
Cambridge’s real policies leave me wondering how we got found to be in the top ten of the most liberal cities in the country. Reality is strikingly different from lovely claims.
Capuano Representative Confirms Possible Mass. Pike Exit To Cambridge, MA
As Published in Cambridge Chronicle, September 2005, with paragraphing edits (Bob)
A representative of U.S. Rep. Mike Capuano has confirmed a possible change to the Mass. Pike.
The representative told the Dana Park Neighborhood Association that the turnpike is considering, but not currently acting on, a plan that would allow westbound traffic to change directions at the Allston-Brighton tolls.
City Council candidate Bob LaTrémouille said this is one step closer to a full off ramp from the Pike to Cambridgeport on the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge to allow Harvard to build on the existing Allston-Brighton off ramps which Harvard owns.
"The MBTA proved the Cambridgeport off ramp viable for traffic coming from the west," said LaTrémouille. "Turning around traffic coming from the east at Allston-Brighton would allow the Pike to use the Cambridgeport off ramp as a full off ramp. Hundreds of trees are being destroyed and the Charles River White Geese being starved to prepare for this off ramp."
A representative of U.S. Rep. Mike Capuano has confirmed a possible change to the Mass. Pike.
The representative told the Dana Park Neighborhood Association that the turnpike is considering, but not currently acting on, a plan that would allow westbound traffic to change directions at the Allston-Brighton tolls.
City Council candidate Bob LaTrémouille said this is one step closer to a full off ramp from the Pike to Cambridgeport on the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge to allow Harvard to build on the existing Allston-Brighton off ramps which Harvard owns.
"The MBTA proved the Cambridgeport off ramp viable for traffic coming from the west," said LaTrémouille. "Turning around traffic coming from the east at Allston-Brighton would allow the Pike to use the Cambridgeport off ramp as a full off ramp. Hundreds of trees are being destroyed and the Charles River White Geese being starved to prepare for this off ramp."
Cambridge MA Taxes and the Environment
Bob, 10/21/05
People concerned about taxes need look no further than environmental expenditures to see just how bad a government we have.
Cantabridgians voted to tax ourselves when we voted the Community Preservation tax increase. One of three purposes was to increase public open space in Cambridge. This year nine city councilors have raided our open space tax money to buy land in Lincoln, MA.
The expenditure was to protect our water supply. If the expenditure had been made with water money, it would have been a perfectly proper expenditure, but we have nine city councilors with contempt for our environment in Cambridge and contempt for the public will. The money we voted for in the Community Preservation Tax open space fund was raided to keep the water rate down. The improper expenditure was $1.1 million.
Waste of money and public property is the norm in public space expenditures. The city manager does work in a park, the first thing he does is destroy trees. He works in the more natural areas, the Charles River and Alewife, and he destroys animals and animal habitat.
The 20 year old woods at Vellucci Park in Inman Square were destroyed to install a barren plaza. A grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees at Squirrel Brand was destroyed to be replaced with grass. 8 to 12 twenty year old trees were destroyed in Brattle Square to be replaced with essentially the same number of saplings. The bird sanctuary on city hall front lawn was destroyed by destroying trees and vines.
The Charles River White Geese are being heartless starved as part of the bizarre project at Magazine Beach in which wetlands are being replaced with designer shrubs walling off the Charles River. Two votes have been recently taken to destroy vegetation to which the White Geese’s nesting was moved. A starvation wall remains across from the Hyatt from a sewer project which ended a year ago.
More than 449 to 660 trees are being destroyed between Magazine Beach and Longfellow Bridge.
A flood control project is destroying Alewife which should be placed several hundred feet to the south.
Nine city councilors tell their voters to look at all the fancy light bulbs they are buying, not at the environment which they are destroying that is their sole responsibility.
Waste and destruction, misuse of taxes: this the environmental policy of Cambridge.
I object.
People concerned about taxes need look no further than environmental expenditures to see just how bad a government we have.
Cantabridgians voted to tax ourselves when we voted the Community Preservation tax increase. One of three purposes was to increase public open space in Cambridge. This year nine city councilors have raided our open space tax money to buy land in Lincoln, MA.
The expenditure was to protect our water supply. If the expenditure had been made with water money, it would have been a perfectly proper expenditure, but we have nine city councilors with contempt for our environment in Cambridge and contempt for the public will. The money we voted for in the Community Preservation Tax open space fund was raided to keep the water rate down. The improper expenditure was $1.1 million.
Waste of money and public property is the norm in public space expenditures. The city manager does work in a park, the first thing he does is destroy trees. He works in the more natural areas, the Charles River and Alewife, and he destroys animals and animal habitat.
The 20 year old woods at Vellucci Park in Inman Square were destroyed to install a barren plaza. A grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees at Squirrel Brand was destroyed to be replaced with grass. 8 to 12 twenty year old trees were destroyed in Brattle Square to be replaced with essentially the same number of saplings. The bird sanctuary on city hall front lawn was destroyed by destroying trees and vines.
The Charles River White Geese are being heartless starved as part of the bizarre project at Magazine Beach in which wetlands are being replaced with designer shrubs walling off the Charles River. Two votes have been recently taken to destroy vegetation to which the White Geese’s nesting was moved. A starvation wall remains across from the Hyatt from a sewer project which ended a year ago.
More than 449 to 660 trees are being destroyed between Magazine Beach and Longfellow Bridge.
A flood control project is destroying Alewife which should be placed several hundred feet to the south.
Nine city councilors tell their voters to look at all the fancy light bulbs they are buying, not at the environment which they are destroying that is their sole responsibility.
Waste and destruction, misuse of taxes: this the environmental policy of Cambridge.
I object.
Fields in Flux
Kathy Podgers provides the following, which I assume originated with Helen Doran (Bob):
Patches of green space are essential for the survival of our wildlife in a shifting climate, says Helen Doran from English Nature. Bumblebees in March, blackberries in June? This year’’s Springwatch and Autumnwatch surveys confirmed the trend of British seasons arriving earlier and earlier. Ripe blackberries were seen on 27 June this summer in some parts of the country, and bees and butterflies are being spotted an average of three weeks earlier than they were 30 years ago.
Climate change presents a series of important and immediate challenges to scientists, policy makers and the public. There is already clear evidence to show that wildlife is being affected by climate change. This includes changes in populations, ranges, migration patterns, and seasonal and reproductive behaviour of certain species.
The RSPB says that last year was the worst breeding season on record for many breeding seabirds on UK shores. This, its ecologists believe, is likely to be linked to the effects of climatic shifts further down the food chain. Sandeels, which are the birds’’ main source of food, are in decline because their own diet of plankton appears to be abandoning our warming coastal waters.
From protected areas through agricultural land to the wildlife habitat in our towns and cities, there are innovative ways of managing resources that can help habitats and species cope better with the inevitable climate change. One of the best solutions is to develop ‘‘ecological links’’ and create a network of river corridors, woodlands, grasslands, parks, allotments and gardens throughout the country to allow species to move between protected sites.
In rural areas, farmers and land managers are already being encouraged through the government’’s Environmental Stewardship Scheme to conserve wildlife and provide them with ecological links by leaving hedgerows and buffer zones around fields, protecting trees, and looking after ditches.
But in towns and cities it is open green space, often managed primarily for recreation, which allows much urban wildlife to survive. English Nature and the London Wildlife Trust are promoting a network of green space in London to help achieve the targets for the long-term protection of species such as the stag beetle and the water vole set out in the London Biodiversity Action Plan and the Mayor’’s Biodiversity Strategy, and to protect the city from the impacts of climate change. We hope to see green roofs, ponds, reedbeds, and ditches to store water to prevent localised flooding, and well designed landscaping schemes to reduce extreme weather conditions by providing shade and shelter.
Wildlife-rich green space is also important for our own health and wellbeing, reducing stress levels and providing opportunities for exercise and recreation. English Nature recommends that no one should have to live more than a five-minute walk from a green space. The new developments associated with the government’’s Sustainable Communities Plan are a great opportunity to design in green space for new communities to provide nice places for people to live and the ecological links needed by wildlife to adapt to a changing climate.
Helen Doran is a sustainability adviser at English Nature. 01733 455206, www.english-nature.org.uk
Patches of green space are essential for the survival of our wildlife in a shifting climate, says Helen Doran from English Nature. Bumblebees in March, blackberries in June? This year’’s Springwatch and Autumnwatch surveys confirmed the trend of British seasons arriving earlier and earlier. Ripe blackberries were seen on 27 June this summer in some parts of the country, and bees and butterflies are being spotted an average of three weeks earlier than they were 30 years ago.
Climate change presents a series of important and immediate challenges to scientists, policy makers and the public. There is already clear evidence to show that wildlife is being affected by climate change. This includes changes in populations, ranges, migration patterns, and seasonal and reproductive behaviour of certain species.
The RSPB says that last year was the worst breeding season on record for many breeding seabirds on UK shores. This, its ecologists believe, is likely to be linked to the effects of climatic shifts further down the food chain. Sandeels, which are the birds’’ main source of food, are in decline because their own diet of plankton appears to be abandoning our warming coastal waters.
From protected areas through agricultural land to the wildlife habitat in our towns and cities, there are innovative ways of managing resources that can help habitats and species cope better with the inevitable climate change. One of the best solutions is to develop ‘‘ecological links’’ and create a network of river corridors, woodlands, grasslands, parks, allotments and gardens throughout the country to allow species to move between protected sites.
In rural areas, farmers and land managers are already being encouraged through the government’’s Environmental Stewardship Scheme to conserve wildlife and provide them with ecological links by leaving hedgerows and buffer zones around fields, protecting trees, and looking after ditches.
But in towns and cities it is open green space, often managed primarily for recreation, which allows much urban wildlife to survive. English Nature and the London Wildlife Trust are promoting a network of green space in London to help achieve the targets for the long-term protection of species such as the stag beetle and the water vole set out in the London Biodiversity Action Plan and the Mayor’’s Biodiversity Strategy, and to protect the city from the impacts of climate change. We hope to see green roofs, ponds, reedbeds, and ditches to store water to prevent localised flooding, and well designed landscaping schemes to reduce extreme weather conditions by providing shade and shelter.
Wildlife-rich green space is also important for our own health and wellbeing, reducing stress levels and providing opportunities for exercise and recreation. English Nature recommends that no one should have to live more than a five-minute walk from a green space. The new developments associated with the government’’s Sustainable Communities Plan are a great opportunity to design in green space for new communities to provide nice places for people to live and the ecological links needed by wildlife to adapt to a changing climate.
Helen Doran is a sustainability adviser at English Nature. 01733 455206, www.english-nature.org.uk
Environmental Destruction Extends to Porter Square
Published in Cambridge Day, 11/14/05, by Bob:
Editor
Cambridge Day
forpublication@cambridgeday.com
The Day has, quite properly, given good reporting to the situation in the Porter Square area.
Regrettably, the most important things going on are kept as quiet as possible.
The heavily treed plaza at Porter Station is under attack by the City Manager and the developer/contractor community.
Fine print was included in the last air rights proposal for Porter Station to destroy this plaza for retail. Fine print is included in the city manager’s pending zoning change for North Mass. Ave which is intended to exactly that as well.
The city manager’s North Mass. Avenue zoning proposal would do a lot more than that. The North Mass. Ave. zoning proposal fights to destroy all first floor housing from Wendell Street to Porter Square and to destroy as much first floor open space, private yards, as the city manager can get away with. The zoning proposal even prefers construction of dormitories to construction of market housing.
Even worse, incorporated in the proposal is language to reward destruction of the Three Aces block just north of Harvard Law as well.
The common denominator in this initiative as in so many other city manager zoning initiatives is secrecy. Lovely words, lovely packaging, and secrecy on very destructive things sneaked in.
The city needs more treed plazas such as at Porter Station. The city manager keeps destroying trees.
The city needs to protect its neighborhood businesses such as the Three Aces block. The city manager keeps helping developers/contractors destroying them as well.
The city council should defeat the city managers north Mass. Ave. upzoning to protect the environment of our city.
Editor
Cambridge Day
forpublication@cambridgeday.com
The Day has, quite properly, given good reporting to the situation in the Porter Square area.
Regrettably, the most important things going on are kept as quiet as possible.
The heavily treed plaza at Porter Station is under attack by the City Manager and the developer/contractor community.
Fine print was included in the last air rights proposal for Porter Station to destroy this plaza for retail. Fine print is included in the city manager’s pending zoning change for North Mass. Ave which is intended to exactly that as well.
The city manager’s North Mass. Avenue zoning proposal would do a lot more than that. The North Mass. Ave. zoning proposal fights to destroy all first floor housing from Wendell Street to Porter Square and to destroy as much first floor open space, private yards, as the city manager can get away with. The zoning proposal even prefers construction of dormitories to construction of market housing.
Even worse, incorporated in the proposal is language to reward destruction of the Three Aces block just north of Harvard Law as well.
The common denominator in this initiative as in so many other city manager zoning initiatives is secrecy. Lovely words, lovely packaging, and secrecy on very destructive things sneaked in.
The city needs more treed plazas such as at Porter Station. The city manager keeps destroying trees.
The city needs to protect its neighborhood businesses such as the Three Aces block. The city manager keeps helping developers/contractors destroying them as well.
The city council should defeat the city managers north Mass. Ave. upzoning to protect the environment of our city.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)