Bob reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Bob: The Charles River is being privatized, 2/3/06.
3. Response - We are getting trees and we still have a waterway, 2/5/06.
4. Marilyn from Reality, 2/5/06.
A. Trees
(1) Hundreds of Memorial Drive Trees to be Destroyed in Phases.
(2) Cambridge Conservation Commission shocked AND ALLOWED IT.
(3) All cherry trees to be destroyed.
B. Privatization.
(1) "Master Plan."
(2) Magazine Beach.
(3) Annual destruction of native vegetation for Charles River Regata.
(4) Destruction at Herter West in Brighton.
(5) Summary.
5. Bob, The ENF and Tree Destruction, 2/20/06.
6. Bob, RE Stopping People from Using the Charles River, 2/20/06.
1. Introduction.
Passing on an exchange elsewhere, starting on Feb. 3, 2006. In the original communication, I was responding to an email which questioned whether anything wrong was going on on Memorial Drive. I have sectioned Marilyn's comments. Subsections B(3) and B(4) were originally one paragraph.
My initial comments were probably directed at the various lovely proposals to put parkland between Harvard's holdings and the Charles River in place of highways. I believe there was a comment in the communication I was responding to that there were meaningful protections against highway projects. If I can find that one, I will add it.
It should be noted that the MDC/DCR is now refusing to provide its timetable.
2. Bob: The Charles River is being privatized, 2/3/06.
That dream land in reality makes the Charles River Harvard's personal property.
Trouble is that the MDC/DCR has already destroyed hundreds of parking spaces in the MIT part of Memorial Drive in the name of "improvements" which make it that much more of a superhighway / alternative to Storrow Drive (tunnel closing, private Mass. Pike exit so Harvard can expand on the Mass. Pike in Allston.
This is not a dream. Trees have already been destroyed with many more to come. They no longer call it a "highway project." They call it "park improvements."
And that portion of Memorial Drive is now denied to people who need their cars and do not happen to be part of the MIT community or people physically capable of biking.
This is not a pipedream. Phase I is in place on the public dole.
3. Response - We are getting trees and we still have a waterway, 2/5/06.
While I do not dispute Bob's statement that Phase I of the highway project appears to be underway, I feel I should report that I have been traveling down Mem Drive every morning for the last month and have seen with my own eyes many new trees. Also, last summer, while some construction was underway, the existing trees were protected rather well to protect them from injury.
In addition, I would suggest that the Charles River or any major waterway used for commerce and recreation cannot be owned by a private entity. I do not know the legal status of waterways, but possibly clarification is available from some state agency.
In studying the possible plans for the Urban Ring and/or new rail or bus transportation through Cambridgeport, it is important that we stick to what appear to be the facts so that we can better direct our energies to the seriously important planning for tunnels, rail/bus routes, etc.
4. Marilyn from Reality, 2/5/06.
A. Trees
(1) Hundreds of Memorial Drive Trees to be Destroyed in Phases.
The tree cutting on Mem Drive is to be in phases. So we can't read the protections around trees as proof the trees won't be cut down later. The Mem Drive Environmental Notification Form shows all trees to be eliminated. I have a copy if anyone would like a look at it. And if anyone would like to join me to inventory tree-felling to date, that would be useful.
(2) Cambridge Conservation Commission shocked AND ALLOWED IT.
At the Cambridge Conservation Commission hearing on this project I attended, members were shocked at the number of trees to be eliminated, noted the replacements promised would not begin to attain the stature of the existing trees in our lifetimes, and voted to approve the plan anyway.
(3) All cherry trees to be destroyed.
I believe all cherry trees on that section of Mem Drive are to be eliminated because they weren't part of the original plan for what the DCR is calling the Cambridge Esplanade. In addition of course the cherries are a "non-native species."
B. Privatization.
(1) "Master Plan."
Regarding privatization of the Charles, the DCR's Master Plan calls for greater numbers of (private) boat houses, presumably in place of the public swimming pools and skating rinks it suggests should be removed as not "water-dependent activities."
(2) Magazine Beach.
At Magazine Beach the DCR's agreement with Cambridge privileges Cambridge uses there. Magazine Beach would remain open to the public, but it would be a restricted public. A similar arrangement with Harvard for its Allston riverfront campus doesn't seem impossible.
(3) Annual destruction of native vegetation for Charles River Regata.
The DCR has an agreement with a private organization to devolve so-called maintenace, e.g., clear-cutting the riverbank for the Head of the Charles Regatta.
(4) Destruction at Herter West in Brighton.
In one project at an urban wild on the Boston side of the river, private funding of this private organization allowed the DCR to avoid the required Boston Conservation Commission review. The work included the felling of major trees on a public way and was blatantly illegal. The DCR argued it had no connection to the private entity's illegal work, whereas in fact it had permitted the project.
(5) Summary.
I read all comments--and there are many nowadays--about "creative public-private partnerships" in our public parklands as code for such privatization.
How changes in the parklands reflect plans for roads and buildings is of course the question. The first hint of a resurrected Inner Belt was the change of the DCR's policy toward the White Geese, whose habitat is just at the Cambridge end of the Inner Belt's river crossing. I think that when the DCR argues it must further devolve responsiblities for the Charles River lower basin to private entities and Harvard volunteers to help, we can expect major changes in the Allston and Cambridge riverfronts to the benefit of those private entities.
Marilyn Wellons
5. Bob, The ENF and Tree Destruction, 2/20/06.
The ENF is ominous not just for what it says but for what it does not say.
It says that something like 85 out of 100 trees across from the Hyatt are to be destroyed. The apologists explain this on the grounds that they are in the way of their park.
Additionally, however, in the area between the BU Boat House and the BU Bridge, the ENF shows one tree in a locations which holds hundreds.
6. Bob, RE Stopping People from Using the Charles River, 2/20/06.
MIT is not "stopping" people who want to use Memorial Drive from using Memorial Drive.
All they are doing is taking away their parking so people who need to drive can't come.
They can use the Charles River. They just can't get there.
And the practical results? Private property of MIT.
And how dare anybody blaim the people who did these things and are making things much worse for doing the things they do.
And how dare anybody call these unfair people unfair.
