1. Introductory
a. Initial.
b. Second Thought.
c. Third Thought.
2. [Deleted] writes.
3. Karen Parker's Response.
4. Marilyn Wellon's Response.
5. Mr. [deleted] responds.
6. Your Editor.
Editor: Bob La Trémouille
1. Introductory.
a. Initial.
The first thing to be aware of with regard to this post is that the writer is writing concerning Canada Geese, not the Charles River White Geese. That being said, here are his thoughts and those of Marilyn and Karen.
The writer responds to Marilyn and Karen. I toss in a final word. I am of mixed feelings as to whether this post will remain. As of this writing, I have no use for further additions except, as appropriate, to tweak my comments.
Nothing that the three other contributors provide is edited except for capitalization type of matters.
I have gotten a comment that the c.sativa which he claims to be defending translates as marijuana. I am increasingly leaning toward just pulling the comment.
Responses should be directed to me at boblat@yahoo.com.
b. Second Thought.
I did a google search on the writer. Very few articles, including this one.
I checked out one of the articles, twice.
I got a program which claimed to be a free sample of a testing program from Microsoft. It proceeded to claim to be checking my computer for evil software without my permission.
Looks to me like a trap.
I am deleting the name of the writer to keep people out of the trap.
c. Third Thought.
I have spent two hours checking out my computer.
This persons's initial comments generated some valuable responses from Marilyn and Karen. I have provided a general comment at the end, in part responding to him.
This person's name is out of the blog. He insisted on responding to Marilyn and Karen.
I do not like what I have seen with regard to that trap. This person's name is out of this blog.
To the extent there is any good faith here, he has nothing to gripe about. The second writing was quite long. It is gone.
2. [Deleted] writes.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: [deleted] [email deleted]
Subject: goose transport
To: charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com, boblat@yahoo.com
Hey there Bob,
My name is [deleted], like the cookie, yes, I get razzled all the time for that, so please no jokes. I was searching the internet for information on "how to get rid of unwanted geese" and I came across your website. I read some of your blog and I thought you might be a good person to contact about the geese that are destroying my property since you seem to have a plethora of knowledge about these wild creatures.
Here it is almost November and the geese are still here. What happened to migrating south for the winter? I have been praying to Jesus every night that when I wake up, the geese will be gone, but every morning, as I step out onto my front walkway and I step in goose feces. My shoes are ruined. I have to buy a new pair everyday to abstain from shlepping the refuse into my home.
The geese ate my nectareous licopersicon esculentum (tomato plants) that I grow in mass production every summer and they also have gotten into the crop of wild c.sativa that is growing in the rear of my property.
Now I am a true believer in the after life, so I would not want to bring harm in any way to these caustic creatures. I just would like your thought on how to rid the unwanted guests.
Thanks very much.
[deleted]
Peabody, MA
3. Karen Parker's Response.
Why cant he just wash his shoes off, his poop goes into the Boston harbor too.
An idiot as usual. The geese's poop is never as bad as people make it out to be, its just their hatred of nature.
Karen
These people exaggerate and show their true colors in their letters. He really showed his utmost hatred for animals. If you love animals, you tolerate and respect their existence regardless of anything.
I guess this guy doesn't have bowel movements
4. Marilyn Wellon's Response.
Can he ask them what happened to their usual winter
home? Could they be refugees?
Maybe their winter habitat was turned into something
for humans only. Maybe they think it's ok for them to
turn his lawn into something for them only.
And I understand it's been a very warm fall there.
Maybe it's not cold enough for them to move on yet.
You could pass on the word that goose poop isn't
toxic, doesn't attract flies, and nourishes the grass.
5. Mr. [deleted] responds.
[deleted, some of the below comments refer to this package]
6. Your Editor.
One of the most difficult things to find among "animal protective" organizations are organizations which are concerned with animals for their own sake, as valuable beings in our world.
Most people approach the situation from this direction. Most "animal protective" organizations do not.
The two types of visible "animal protective" organizations are the activist vegetarians and the anti-animal lobby under false colors.
PETA is a vegetarian front organization. The vegetarian-fronts have no interest in animals, as far as I can see, except as forbidden goods. I recall participating in one's list serve (not PETA) and finding that any and all comments about protecting animals as valuable parts of our world for their own sake were censored.
The MSPCA is an excellent example of the other category. The MSPCA's hospitals do some good work. The activism of the MSPCA is contemptible.
The activism of the MSPCA approaches animals as problems and the approach toward animals as problems is EXACTLY the way humanity is destroying our world - by driving animals into smaller and smaller enclaves if they are not killed outright. And all the time, the MSPCA spouts non-stop pieties about how great they are. PETA supports the MSPCA types.
In August 2000, the MSPCA, together with then State Rep Barrios put a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle in which they offered "humane" treatment for the Charles River White Geese. I put out a sarcastic flier explaining what he had done and offering "humane" treatment for Barrios.
Barrios went on Cambridge Cable indignantly insisting I proposed to assassinate him.
The MSPCA proposed to move the Charles River White Geese to a "happy farm." Marilyn checked out the "happy farm." Its water for swimming consisted of a child's wading pool. The MSPCA proposed to let out the members of the gaggle for "adoption." They would not ask if "adoption" included Sunday dinner. Marilyn on questioning determined that geese who were not quickly "adopted" would be killed.
The MSPCA on behalf of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Charles River Conservancy has been active for four years now poisoning as many goose eggs as they can get away with on the Charles River.
During the first two years, the poisonings included the eggs of the Charles River White Geese. We yelled. The last two years only the eggs of the Canadas were poisoned. This last summer I saw exactly ONE baby Canada Goose.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
The Contractor-Developer Lobby and Others on Cambridge Destructiveness
Bob La Tremouille Reports:
1. Well meaning person responds to my comment, October 18, 2006.
a. Well meaning person.
b. Your editor.
c. Your editor further.
2. Contractor Lobby on Cambridge Destructiveness, October 18, 2006.
a. Contractor lobby.
b. Your editor responds, October 19, 2006.
c. Councilor Kelley's position(?), October 19, 2006.
I posted my preceding (October 15, 2006) report on the Cambridgeport listserve with a number of responses including the following two. My responses on the listserve to these responses are also included, plus one added comment.
Note that my posting on this blog and the listserve was of an edited letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. I did not send my letter to the paper in time for their deadline for today's paper. The Cambridge Chronicle did run several interesting responses to the report to which I was responding.
1. Well meaning person responds to my comment, October 18, 1006.
a. Well meaning person.
The following was posted by Sarah Ruth Bernard:
***********
While the driver wasn't ticket and the student was jaywalking, I think the larger problem is the lack of safe crossing spots along Mem Drive and the general speed of the drivers. If you go the speed limit (35) along Mem Drive other drivers honk at you and make not nice hand gestures.
I would love for cyclists to get tickets too, as I 've been nearly knocked over by cyclists running red lights, traveling down one way streets the wrong way and not stopping for marked crossings even though the cars have.
Also could someone explain to me how putting money aside for open space is environmentally destructive? Open space improves our quality of life, especially when we all live in condos/apartments or houses with very small yards.
b. Your editor.
In most cities, open space money would be spent for open space.
The City Manager objects to NEW open space with a vengeance. NEW open space takes money off the tax rolls.
The City Manager does not create NEW open space if he can help it. ZERO open space is being created with open space tax money at Magazine Beach. Wetlands are being destroyed. Animals are being deliberately starved. SWIMMING in the Charles, in spite of the media event is being prevented by the wall of designers being installed walling off the Charles. The LIE "native vegetation" is used to sell these designer bushes which are so very non-native to the Charles River that they kept dying.
Wetlands was deliberately destroyed. Wetlands were described as a "water problem."
Purple loosestrife has been planted as part of the these "improvements. " This is an excellent example of a highly destructive, invasive species. It was not there before the "improvements. " It is there now.
Acres of perfectly good playing fields are being wastefully dug up to, once again, starve the local animals. They will also replace the wetlands which should not have been destroyed with sprinklers.
Perfectly good ground under the playing fields will be replaced with new ground, and POISONS to keep away insects. If those poisons do not work, you will see REALLY powerful poisons AS THE MDC did at Ebersol Fields between the MGH and the Museum of Science, the project which preceeds this outrage. Those poisons are labeled "Do not use" near water.
THE DAY AFTER application of these poisons, you saw a dead Charles River between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Harbor.
At the same time as the outrage of the rebuilt playing fields, more starvation will be accomplished by moving the parking lot with tree destruction.
ZERO increase in open space. Plenty of environmental destruction. Plenty of money to the contractor lobby.
More than 449 to 660 mature healthy trees are being destroyed between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. The contractor lobby brags about the saplings and how great it will look in 40 years. The fact that these healty trees look great now is irrevelant. They are making money.
Fresh Pond. Thousands of healthy trees being destroyed. One thousand saplings replacing needlessly destroyed trees.
ZERO increase in open space. Plenty of money for the contractors.
Squirrel brand. 8 12 healthy four story trees destroyed. Grass replaces it. And less trees in the total, already existing lot.
ZERO increase in open space.
Vellucci Park at Inman Square. Three quarters of the healthy trees simply destroyed.
ZERO increase in open space.
Brattle Square next to the Harvard Square Hotel. A 20 year park destroyed with all its trees, approaching maturity excellently.
Replaced with an equal number of saplings and an inferior (but pretty) bike rack.
NINE CITY COUNCILORS. I repeat NINE. NINE city councilors are very happy to talk fancy light bulbs.
NINE city councilors will not discuss outrageous and needless destruction of our environment.
Why man is destroying our world by destroying our back yard.
NINE city councilors are destroying our back yard and heartlessly destroying the animals.
If you are pro-environment.
If you are pro-animal.
You have no choice but to oppose NINE city councilors.
PS: The jaywalking and bicycle situation continues a century of contempt for public safety on our highways. The beligerent expectation is that cars have a duty to save fools who deliberately and in clear violation of law jump in front of moving vehicles.
The only sane response to such ingrained nuttiness is massive ticketing.
c. Your editor further.
Ms. Bernard comments on the deceased jaywalking as if the collision occurred in the open highway.
The hotel being used as a dormitory for the deceased's school, Boston University, has a signalized intersection with protected crosswalks directly in front of it.
The first report on WBZ radio gave the impression that the driver was proceeding on a green light. That would rather clearly say that the deceased was in the protected crosswalk crossing in violation of her responsibilities on a protected crosswalk.
It is highly common for Boston area jaywalkers doing this sort of thing to jump in front of cars in such intersections with the car moving on the light. The jaywalkers expect the drivers to refrain from hitting them.
Failure to give a ticket under these circumstances could indicate that the deceased demanded to protected from beligerant indifference to her own life, and that the driver did not notice her.
2. Contractor Lobby on Cambridge Destructiveness, October 18, 2006.
a. Contractor lobby.
The following entry appeared on the Cambridge Neighborhood Association listserve in apparent response to my immediately preceding blog entry. The name used was Ohiomeister.
A few caveats are in order. Ohiomeister is a constant contributor to this listserve. Ohiomeister's comments fit the developer-contractor lobby script to a T, right down to the tone of voice and to the constant denials of having anything to do with the Contractor - Developer lobby.
I have long since stopped believing self-serving proclamations of people of this ilk in Cambridge. I believe what they sound like. I am not silly enough to believe their denials and their nonstop proclamations of neutrality.
******************
I support open space in Cambridge, support Craig Kelley's efforts, and trust his judgment completely on the open space issue. He is a dedicated and caring member of the Cambridge City Council, unlike some of the other members. I am not an architect, builder, developer, etc., just a resident and observer. Some issues require balancing competing demands, and I trust him to exercise good judgment in striking the correct balance.
I'd far rather see the Cambridge Police Dept. enforce the no murdering and no shooting people laws than the no jaywalking law or the no riding your bike through a red light law. The costs of strictly enforcing the jaywalking law and bike riding laws are prohibitive. Cambridge has a massive jaywalking rate, and the pedestrian right-of-way law can make things tricky for drivers. This girl's death is tragic and sad, but I would imagine that thousands and thousands of dollars spent on jaywalking enforcement would not have made a difference. Enforcing the speed limit on Mem. Dr. may well have made a difference, however. They could also put in additional traffic lights to slow things down.
b. Your editor responds, October 19, 2006.
He whose name shall not be mentioned is to be commended.
Since the ceilings started to fall on the big dig, the people who have fought highway safety for a century in the Boston area with this argument have kept mercifully silent. Responsible members of society would have contempt for them.
The same sort of slogan is non-stop from the developer-contracto r lobby: "We can’t afford normal maintenance of our parks."
In both cases, there is a kicker. The outrageous waste of money, waste of the environment and waste of free animals at Magazine Beach was pitched with this combination.
The argument goes: We can’t afford normal maintenance, but your friendly developers and contractors would love to provide assistance for the trash on MDC property. Pay us to destroy wetlands. Pay us to starve beautiful animals. Pay us to instal bizarre designers plants to block swimming on the Charles. We are calling those designer plants "native." How dare you call us liars. How dare you point out the fact that our designer plants can’t live where we sold them to be put. How dare you point out the fact that we are walling off the Charles and preventing swimming by our designer plants. Don’t they look beautiful?
Somebody somewhere was talking about some sort of lovely designer-contractor lobby project to "improve" highway safety on the Charles. How dare you talk meaningful enforcement of laws against belligerently lawless jaywalkers and bicyclists. We can’t afford to resolve the real problem. We can afford to repeatedly pay millions and millions of dollars to repeatedly "solve" a problem which amounts to normal maintenance. How much is repair of the "we cannot afford highway safety" pitch in those ceilings? How long have those highway safety opponents caused the big dig to be closed?
A very busy lobby makes big bucks out of repeatedly putting in massive highway "improvements. " They do not make money out of paying our salaried employees to do their jobs. They do not make money out of really solving the problem.
They use the same sales pitch on wasteful projects on the bank of the Charles. Part of the standard sales pitch, by the way, is the contractor-develope r lobby always denies being part of any organized lobby, and the lobby and its friends cry all the way to the bank.
Oh, by the way, again, the last I heard, tickets generate revenue in the form of fines, a very proper user fee for people with contempt for their own personal safety egged on by those who say "we can’t afford normal highway safety."
c. Councilor Kelley's position(?), October 19, 2006.
Councilor Kelley (mentioned favorably by the Developer-contractor lobby, above) comments as follows. Strictly a coincidence, of course.
**********
People should also feel free to let the City Council know their feelings via emails to Council@Cambridgema .gov.
I may be reached individually at Craig@Craigkelley. org or via phone at 617-354-8353 if people want to discuss the Council goals with me.
1. Well meaning person responds to my comment, October 18, 2006.
a. Well meaning person.
b. Your editor.
c. Your editor further.
2. Contractor Lobby on Cambridge Destructiveness, October 18, 2006.
a. Contractor lobby.
b. Your editor responds, October 19, 2006.
c. Councilor Kelley's position(?), October 19, 2006.
I posted my preceding (October 15, 2006) report on the Cambridgeport listserve with a number of responses including the following two. My responses on the listserve to these responses are also included, plus one added comment.
Note that my posting on this blog and the listserve was of an edited letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. I did not send my letter to the paper in time for their deadline for today's paper. The Cambridge Chronicle did run several interesting responses to the report to which I was responding.
1. Well meaning person responds to my comment, October 18, 1006.
a. Well meaning person.
The following was posted by Sarah Ruth Bernard:
***********
While the driver wasn't ticket and the student was jaywalking, I think the larger problem is the lack of safe crossing spots along Mem Drive and the general speed of the drivers. If you go the speed limit (35) along Mem Drive other drivers honk at you and make not nice hand gestures.
I would love for cyclists to get tickets too, as I 've been nearly knocked over by cyclists running red lights, traveling down one way streets the wrong way and not stopping for marked crossings even though the cars have.
Also could someone explain to me how putting money aside for open space is environmentally destructive? Open space improves our quality of life, especially when we all live in condos/apartments or houses with very small yards.
b. Your editor.
In most cities, open space money would be spent for open space.
The City Manager objects to NEW open space with a vengeance. NEW open space takes money off the tax rolls.
The City Manager does not create NEW open space if he can help it. ZERO open space is being created with open space tax money at Magazine Beach. Wetlands are being destroyed. Animals are being deliberately starved. SWIMMING in the Charles, in spite of the media event is being prevented by the wall of designers being installed walling off the Charles. The LIE "native vegetation" is used to sell these designer bushes which are so very non-native to the Charles River that they kept dying.
Wetlands was deliberately destroyed. Wetlands were described as a "water problem."
Purple loosestrife has been planted as part of the these "improvements. " This is an excellent example of a highly destructive, invasive species. It was not there before the "improvements. " It is there now.
Acres of perfectly good playing fields are being wastefully dug up to, once again, starve the local animals. They will also replace the wetlands which should not have been destroyed with sprinklers.
Perfectly good ground under the playing fields will be replaced with new ground, and POISONS to keep away insects. If those poisons do not work, you will see REALLY powerful poisons AS THE MDC did at Ebersol Fields between the MGH and the Museum of Science, the project which preceeds this outrage. Those poisons are labeled "Do not use" near water.
THE DAY AFTER application of these poisons, you saw a dead Charles River between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Harbor.
At the same time as the outrage of the rebuilt playing fields, more starvation will be accomplished by moving the parking lot with tree destruction.
ZERO increase in open space. Plenty of environmental destruction. Plenty of money to the contractor lobby.
More than 449 to 660 mature healthy trees are being destroyed between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. The contractor lobby brags about the saplings and how great it will look in 40 years. The fact that these healty trees look great now is irrevelant. They are making money.
Fresh Pond. Thousands of healthy trees being destroyed. One thousand saplings replacing needlessly destroyed trees.
ZERO increase in open space. Plenty of money for the contractors.
Squirrel brand. 8 12 healthy four story trees destroyed. Grass replaces it. And less trees in the total, already existing lot.
ZERO increase in open space.
Vellucci Park at Inman Square. Three quarters of the healthy trees simply destroyed.
ZERO increase in open space.
Brattle Square next to the Harvard Square Hotel. A 20 year park destroyed with all its trees, approaching maturity excellently.
Replaced with an equal number of saplings and an inferior (but pretty) bike rack.
NINE CITY COUNCILORS. I repeat NINE. NINE city councilors are very happy to talk fancy light bulbs.
NINE city councilors will not discuss outrageous and needless destruction of our environment.
Why man is destroying our world by destroying our back yard.
NINE city councilors are destroying our back yard and heartlessly destroying the animals.
If you are pro-environment.
If you are pro-animal.
You have no choice but to oppose NINE city councilors.
PS: The jaywalking and bicycle situation continues a century of contempt for public safety on our highways. The beligerent expectation is that cars have a duty to save fools who deliberately and in clear violation of law jump in front of moving vehicles.
The only sane response to such ingrained nuttiness is massive ticketing.
c. Your editor further.
Ms. Bernard comments on the deceased jaywalking as if the collision occurred in the open highway.
The hotel being used as a dormitory for the deceased's school, Boston University, has a signalized intersection with protected crosswalks directly in front of it.
The first report on WBZ radio gave the impression that the driver was proceeding on a green light. That would rather clearly say that the deceased was in the protected crosswalk crossing in violation of her responsibilities on a protected crosswalk.
It is highly common for Boston area jaywalkers doing this sort of thing to jump in front of cars in such intersections with the car moving on the light. The jaywalkers expect the drivers to refrain from hitting them.
Failure to give a ticket under these circumstances could indicate that the deceased demanded to protected from beligerant indifference to her own life, and that the driver did not notice her.
2. Contractor Lobby on Cambridge Destructiveness, October 18, 2006.
a. Contractor lobby.
The following entry appeared on the Cambridge Neighborhood Association listserve in apparent response to my immediately preceding blog entry. The name used was Ohiomeister.
A few caveats are in order. Ohiomeister is a constant contributor to this listserve. Ohiomeister's comments fit the developer-contractor lobby script to a T, right down to the tone of voice and to the constant denials of having anything to do with the Contractor - Developer lobby.
I have long since stopped believing self-serving proclamations of people of this ilk in Cambridge. I believe what they sound like. I am not silly enough to believe their denials and their nonstop proclamations of neutrality.
******************
I support open space in Cambridge, support Craig Kelley's efforts, and trust his judgment completely on the open space issue. He is a dedicated and caring member of the Cambridge City Council, unlike some of the other members. I am not an architect, builder, developer, etc., just a resident and observer. Some issues require balancing competing demands, and I trust him to exercise good judgment in striking the correct balance.
I'd far rather see the Cambridge Police Dept. enforce the no murdering and no shooting people laws than the no jaywalking law or the no riding your bike through a red light law. The costs of strictly enforcing the jaywalking law and bike riding laws are prohibitive. Cambridge has a massive jaywalking rate, and the pedestrian right-of-way law can make things tricky for drivers. This girl's death is tragic and sad, but I would imagine that thousands and thousands of dollars spent on jaywalking enforcement would not have made a difference. Enforcing the speed limit on Mem. Dr. may well have made a difference, however. They could also put in additional traffic lights to slow things down.
b. Your editor responds, October 19, 2006.
He whose name shall not be mentioned is to be commended.
Since the ceilings started to fall on the big dig, the people who have fought highway safety for a century in the Boston area with this argument have kept mercifully silent. Responsible members of society would have contempt for them.
The same sort of slogan is non-stop from the developer-contracto r lobby: "We can’t afford normal maintenance of our parks."
In both cases, there is a kicker. The outrageous waste of money, waste of the environment and waste of free animals at Magazine Beach was pitched with this combination.
The argument goes: We can’t afford normal maintenance, but your friendly developers and contractors would love to provide assistance for the trash on MDC property. Pay us to destroy wetlands. Pay us to starve beautiful animals. Pay us to instal bizarre designers plants to block swimming on the Charles. We are calling those designer plants "native." How dare you call us liars. How dare you point out the fact that our designer plants can’t live where we sold them to be put. How dare you point out the fact that we are walling off the Charles and preventing swimming by our designer plants. Don’t they look beautiful?
Somebody somewhere was talking about some sort of lovely designer-contractor lobby project to "improve" highway safety on the Charles. How dare you talk meaningful enforcement of laws against belligerently lawless jaywalkers and bicyclists. We can’t afford to resolve the real problem. We can afford to repeatedly pay millions and millions of dollars to repeatedly "solve" a problem which amounts to normal maintenance. How much is repair of the "we cannot afford highway safety" pitch in those ceilings? How long have those highway safety opponents caused the big dig to be closed?
A very busy lobby makes big bucks out of repeatedly putting in massive highway "improvements. " They do not make money out of paying our salaried employees to do their jobs. They do not make money out of really solving the problem.
They use the same sales pitch on wasteful projects on the bank of the Charles. Part of the standard sales pitch, by the way, is the contractor-develope r lobby always denies being part of any organized lobby, and the lobby and its friends cry all the way to the bank.
Oh, by the way, again, the last I heard, tickets generate revenue in the form of fines, a very proper user fee for people with contempt for their own personal safety egged on by those who say "we can’t afford normal highway safety."
c. Councilor Kelley's position(?), October 19, 2006.
Councilor Kelley (mentioned favorably by the Developer-contractor lobby, above) comments as follows. Strictly a coincidence, of course.
**********
People should also feel free to let the City Council know their feelings via emails to Council@Cambridgema .gov.
I may be reached individually at Craig@Craigkelley. org or via phone at 617-354-8353 if people want to discuss the Council goals with me.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Cambridge Chronicle shows how good guys get handled in Cambridge.
Bob La Tremouille reports:
In last Thursday's Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 2006, the Editor had an editorial praising an initiative by recently elected Councilor Craig Kelley. This initiative would reallocate moneys from the Affordable Housing portion of the "Community Preservation" Tax to Open Space. The voters of Cambridge imposed this tax on themselves by referendum. The Housing allocation of tax moneys is at the maximum allowed by law, the open space allocation at the minimum.
I very strongly want real open space improvements in Cambridge, as do the average voters. Trouble is nine city councilors, including Kelley, certainly look like they are destroying the environment in Cambridge in the name of "improvements."
Next to the editorial was an cartoon blasting Harvard for destroying ONE excellent tree in its project in a residential neighborhood between East Harvard Square and the Charles River.
This is a standard game by the nine environmental hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council. Yell like mad about one individual tree that SOMEBODY ELSE is proposing to destroy. DEAD SILENCE on the City of Cambridge's gross environmental irresponsibility and massive tree destruction.
The combination is the flat out lie that a city government, which is grossly and belligerently irresponsible when it comes to its own back yard, is in reality pro-environment.
The following is a letter I have submitted. This is version 2 submitted. The first version omitted a few short but key words.
I saw another omission or two which I have corrected below. I do not have the nerve to formally submit a third version.
Nothing in this letter or this report is intended to be at all derogatory to the Cambridge Chronicle editor. The combination of actions raises an excellent example of what gets done to well meaning people in Cambridge. In Cambridge, good people get shafted by these shell games.
The letter was printed by the Chronicle in its November 2, 2006 edition.
************
Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
It is ironic to see you editorializing in favor of more money for Cambridge's Community Preservation Act open space money and to see you post that editorial right next to a cartoon lambasting Harvard/Cambridge's destruction of ONE tree.
To see what Craig Kelly, the City Manager and the rest of the City Council mean by their expenditures of open space moneys, you only have to go to the area between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond. There is more than one big sign there which includes the name of Craig Kelley.
The first trees destroyed on Concord Avenue were mature, healthy trees. Tree destruction will easily run into the thousands by the City of Cambridge in this one project. Those healthy trees are in the way of saplings. Cambridge brags of saplings. Cambridge does not count massive slaughter of mature, healthy trees which are in the way of their saplings.
Go to Harvard Street at the former location of City Hall Annex, a supposed new park. Nine out of ten healthy, excellent trees in the first block of Clark Street were destroyed. Those excellent trees were "in the way" of the new park.
Go a few blocks to the west, Squirrel Brand. A grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees were casually destroyed to put in grass. There are not that many trees in the entire park.
Magazine Beach saw destruction of animal habitat and starvation of beautiful, valuable animals, to put in a wall of expensive designer bushes which have no business on the Charles River.
All the playing fields at Magazine Beach are slated to be dug up to be replaced with playing fields such as that between the MGH and the Museum of Science: new dirt, poisons to protect against insects (not currently needed) and sprinklers to replace wetlands. The entire Charles River from the Mass. Ave. bridge to the Dam was rendered dead the day after poisons were placed on that rebuilt field that are prohibited near bodies of water.
Or go to the area between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge: more than 449 to 660 trees slated to be destroyed and Kelley and the others do not want to know it.
Or go to Lincoln and look at the water resource property purchased with 1.1 millions of "community preservation" moneys.
Craig Kelley wants moneys to be spent with regard to the environment. So do I, but I do not want moneys for the destruction of the environment and I know the record of the people involved.
Taxidemists work on animals in the same way as the City of Cambridge works on the environment.
In last Thursday's Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 2006, the Editor had an editorial praising an initiative by recently elected Councilor Craig Kelley. This initiative would reallocate moneys from the Affordable Housing portion of the "Community Preservation" Tax to Open Space. The voters of Cambridge imposed this tax on themselves by referendum. The Housing allocation of tax moneys is at the maximum allowed by law, the open space allocation at the minimum.
I very strongly want real open space improvements in Cambridge, as do the average voters. Trouble is nine city councilors, including Kelley, certainly look like they are destroying the environment in Cambridge in the name of "improvements."
Next to the editorial was an cartoon blasting Harvard for destroying ONE excellent tree in its project in a residential neighborhood between East Harvard Square and the Charles River.
This is a standard game by the nine environmental hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council. Yell like mad about one individual tree that SOMEBODY ELSE is proposing to destroy. DEAD SILENCE on the City of Cambridge's gross environmental irresponsibility and massive tree destruction.
The combination is the flat out lie that a city government, which is grossly and belligerently irresponsible when it comes to its own back yard, is in reality pro-environment.
The following is a letter I have submitted. This is version 2 submitted. The first version omitted a few short but key words.
I saw another omission or two which I have corrected below. I do not have the nerve to formally submit a third version.
Nothing in this letter or this report is intended to be at all derogatory to the Cambridge Chronicle editor. The combination of actions raises an excellent example of what gets done to well meaning people in Cambridge. In Cambridge, good people get shafted by these shell games.
The letter was printed by the Chronicle in its November 2, 2006 edition.
************
Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
It is ironic to see you editorializing in favor of more money for Cambridge's Community Preservation Act open space money and to see you post that editorial right next to a cartoon lambasting Harvard/Cambridge's destruction of ONE tree.
To see what Craig Kelly, the City Manager and the rest of the City Council mean by their expenditures of open space moneys, you only have to go to the area between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond. There is more than one big sign there which includes the name of Craig Kelley.
The first trees destroyed on Concord Avenue were mature, healthy trees. Tree destruction will easily run into the thousands by the City of Cambridge in this one project. Those healthy trees are in the way of saplings. Cambridge brags of saplings. Cambridge does not count massive slaughter of mature, healthy trees which are in the way of their saplings.
Go to Harvard Street at the former location of City Hall Annex, a supposed new park. Nine out of ten healthy, excellent trees in the first block of Clark Street were destroyed. Those excellent trees were "in the way" of the new park.
Go a few blocks to the west, Squirrel Brand. A grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees were casually destroyed to put in grass. There are not that many trees in the entire park.
Magazine Beach saw destruction of animal habitat and starvation of beautiful, valuable animals, to put in a wall of expensive designer bushes which have no business on the Charles River.
All the playing fields at Magazine Beach are slated to be dug up to be replaced with playing fields such as that between the MGH and the Museum of Science: new dirt, poisons to protect against insects (not currently needed) and sprinklers to replace wetlands. The entire Charles River from the Mass. Ave. bridge to the Dam was rendered dead the day after poisons were placed on that rebuilt field that are prohibited near bodies of water.
Or go to the area between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge: more than 449 to 660 trees slated to be destroyed and Kelley and the others do not want to know it.
Or go to Lincoln and look at the water resource property purchased with 1.1 millions of "community preservation" moneys.
Craig Kelley wants moneys to be spent with regard to the environment. So do I, but I do not want moneys for the destruction of the environment and I know the record of the people involved.
Taxidemists work on animals in the same way as the City of Cambridge works on the environment.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Lois Reports from Magazine Beach
1. Lois Reports, October 9, 2006.
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10,2006.
1. Lois Reports, October 9, 2006.
The following is from Lois Martin on October 9, 2006. Her final comments are to my response to her at the end of the immediately preceding report.
Bob La Trémouille
***********
I was over to feed the geese this morning. Absolutely gorgeous out and the white geese were joined by some ducks and a few Canada geese. After most of the white geese were back in the water, a large group of pigeons appeared, swooped in and out several times and stopped and ate the residue of the cracked corn. During one of their swoops, one banged into my head (I was sitting on one of the rocks at the time) and evidently kept going. I didn't find any feathers in my head and no bird appeared disoriented around me or dead, thank goodness. From now on I am wearing a hat when I visit there.
I saw Daffy and Andrake [ed: the Charles River White Ducks, residing on the south, Boston, side of the Charles River] and there are several other ducks and geese over there with them. In fact some Canada geese swam over to their area while I was sitting there, which seems good to me. When I first got there a black man with a backpack walked by the geese and they just moved around slightly. They must know him. He went and sat on a bench on the other side of the park for awhile. A white man drove up with his maybe 3-year old little boy and golden retriever on a leash. They walked around, admired the white geese while they were in the water, the little boy walked over to some Canadas in the park area, etc. and the dog was always on his leash. I saw a state police car was sitting at the circle driveway further down Memorial Drive when I made my turn on my way to visit the geese. Later he drove through the edge of the area where I fed the geese but only Canadas were left and they moved away as he drove by. He then drove around the park and I guess out the other side. I took a picture. It seemed weird to me that he drove around the park.
By the way, Bob, you give me credit for something but actually it was Bill and me that got them to the water. Bill and his wife, whose name I can't remember, deserve most of the credit because they spent alot of time with them before I ever appeared. Hope you are well. Lois
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10, 2006.
Dear Lois,
Thank you so much for this report. I'm working updating the website and am at a hard part, the one about "native species." It's so good to get a sense of the beauty of the place there after all the rubbish about "native species."
Marilyn
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10,2006.
1. Lois Reports, October 9, 2006.
The following is from Lois Martin on October 9, 2006. Her final comments are to my response to her at the end of the immediately preceding report.
Bob La Trémouille
***********
I was over to feed the geese this morning. Absolutely gorgeous out and the white geese were joined by some ducks and a few Canada geese. After most of the white geese were back in the water, a large group of pigeons appeared, swooped in and out several times and stopped and ate the residue of the cracked corn. During one of their swoops, one banged into my head (I was sitting on one of the rocks at the time) and evidently kept going. I didn't find any feathers in my head and no bird appeared disoriented around me or dead, thank goodness. From now on I am wearing a hat when I visit there.
I saw Daffy and Andrake [ed: the Charles River White Ducks, residing on the south, Boston, side of the Charles River] and there are several other ducks and geese over there with them. In fact some Canada geese swam over to their area while I was sitting there, which seems good to me. When I first got there a black man with a backpack walked by the geese and they just moved around slightly. They must know him. He went and sat on a bench on the other side of the park for awhile. A white man drove up with his maybe 3-year old little boy and golden retriever on a leash. They walked around, admired the white geese while they were in the water, the little boy walked over to some Canadas in the park area, etc. and the dog was always on his leash. I saw a state police car was sitting at the circle driveway further down Memorial Drive when I made my turn on my way to visit the geese. Later he drove through the edge of the area where I fed the geese but only Canadas were left and they moved away as he drove by. He then drove around the park and I guess out the other side. I took a picture. It seemed weird to me that he drove around the park.
By the way, Bob, you give me credit for something but actually it was Bill and me that got them to the water. Bill and his wife, whose name I can't remember, deserve most of the credit because they spent alot of time with them before I ever appeared. Hope you are well. Lois
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10, 2006.
Dear Lois,
Thank you so much for this report. I'm working updating the website and am at a hard part, the one about "native species." It's so good to get a sense of the beauty of the place there after all the rubbish about "native species."
Marilyn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)