1. General Introduction.
2. Neighborhood Association head says nice things - Cambridge Chronicle and fancy light bulbs. 11/17/06.
3. Laura Blacklow - Urban Ring, “Green” Group, Neighborhood Association, 11/19/06.
4. Kathy Podgers - Where does Green Port and Green Decade stand on the Urban Ring? 11/20/06.
5. Bad Guy responds to Your Editor. 11/21/06.
6. Your editor to Bad Guy. 11/21/06.
7. Kathy Podgers - Where does Green Port and Green Decade stand on the Urban Ring? 11/20/06.
8. Marco - Green Port Working Group - Help in any way possible. 11/25/06.
9. Kathy Podgers - Green Groups and Energy Conservation, 11/25/06.
10. Close associate of Green-Destructive City Councilor - Excellent example of the genre. 11/25/06.
11. Editor responding to bad guy, 11/23/06.
12. Editor: “Green” Group, 11/27/06.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. General Intro
As I have reported elsewhere, nine Green-destructive Cambridge City Councillors are poised to push the next SICK step in Cambridge’s attack on the Charles River and starvation attacks on the resident animals including the Charles River White Geese.
It comes as no surprise to see increasing visibility in a group which sounds pro-Green but which, with careful investigation turns out, in general, to be saying next to nothing about their real goals, but to loudly proclaim with NO MEANINGFUL SUPPORT: We mean well. Help us achieve goals which we really do not disclose but which SEEM to be going in the right DIRECTION.
As usual in Cambridge, the Devil is in the details.
And the details COMMONLY are bad from groups which fit this modus operandi.
Here is a sample of email exchanges on the matter. I have edited some of my points for clarification, but attempt to simply quote other positions. Correction of capitalization and spelling errors has been done wherever I deem appropriate without regard to the side that is talking.
Please note the repeated requests that the supposed Green group define its position on the issue of destruction of the Green. Please also note the total failure of the supposed Green group and its apologists to do so.
2. Neighborhood Association head says nice things - Cambridge Chronicle and fancy light bulbs. 11/17/06.
From Bill Augustus:
Neighborhoods Section in yesterday's Chronicle has good blurb on Greenport and our last CNA meeting and the discussions about neighborhood association helping to get it going.
Chronicle also has a great article on distribution of compact fluorescent bulbs, written by Susan Butler of Cambridge Green Decade. Chronicle seems to be very supportive of these issues.
3. Laura Blacklow - Urban Ring, “Green” Group, Neighborhood Association, 11/19/06.
I thought there really is a problem with phase 2 [of the Urban ring, ed.] (see craig's message below). I thought that what we suspect is that, once the urban ring backers get their polluting buses---most of which won't even stop in the port, right?---okayed, the powers-that-be will probably tell us that they have run out of money. we will be stuck with noxious fumes, no rapid rail, and busier streets to serve Harvard and MIT employees mostly.
So, again, I ask---what is the neighborhood association planning to do? and what about the Green group?
For those of you who praise Robert Healy, the city manager, please note that he has NOT responded to our plight. on the contrary, healy seems to support more gas guzzling traffic in
our neighborhood.
Laura
4. Your Editor responds to Laura. 11/20/06.
My understanding is that the green group follows the position of nine members of the Cambridge City Council.
Our world is being destroyed because people everywhere in our world are destroying their back yards. Nine members of the Cambridge City Council are aggressively destroying our back yard.
Their explanation is: "How dare you look at our destruction of our back yard and thus of our world. The important thing is our fancy light bulbs." Then they loudly call themselves environmentalists.
5. Bad Guy responds to Your Editor. 11/21/06.
[Ed. This individual has a long and very clear record.]
Why does every group have to take a stand on every issue?
6. Your editor to Bad Guy. 11/21/06.
It depends.
Is this a group which is concerned about our environment or a misnamed group selling fancy light bulbs?
There is very real problem about people who are concerned about things being persuaded to act against the causes they think they stand for.
The people I have seen who are most aggressively fighting for fancy light bulbs disclose their real goals with their contempt for fighting ongoing destruction of our back yards and thus standing up to destruction of our worlds.
People certainly have a right to sell fancy light bulbs, but to call themselves "green" if they have contempt for the real green around us which is being ruthlessly destroyed and thus our world ruthlessly destroyed.
I very strongly object to false statements of position / names of organization which mislead people from working for goals that they really want to work for and I very strongly believe that people who are totally indifferent to massive destruction of trees, wetlands and animals calling themselves "green" if that applies to these so-called "green" organizations.
If they want to call themselves the fancy light bulb people, let themselves call the fancy light bulb people.
If they want to call themselves the contractors coalition to sell fancy lightbulbs, let them call themselves the contractors coalition to sell fancy light bulbs.
The problem is not with the goals of the organization. The problem is with using a misleading name and not even approaching living up to that name.
7. Kathy Podgers - Where does Green Port and Green Decade stand on the Urban Ring? 11/20/06.
Laura makes a good point about the money "game" that's often played regarding transportation issues. Half measures, unfinished projects, dragged out construction (taking 2-4 years to complete a project that can be done in 6 months, lack of oversight, and too cozy relationships between our "representatives" with the "manufactures" of expensive "accessible busses" and other infrastructure items, and all mixed in with union employment demands.
Tell me true, Steve and Sue, where does Green Port and Green Decade stand on the Urban Ring?
Kathy
8. Marco - Green Port Working Group - Help in any way possible. 11/25/06.
Though I did not attend the session the Greenport group held a couple of weeks ago, I have heard enough about it from folks who are part of it and who attended to know a few things:
1. It's billed as a "working group," in other words, it's a group that functions as a satellite of the CNA for those in the community who are concerned with issues related to the environment and how to address them at the very local level, i.e. within Cambridgeport.
2. The Green Port working group is about brainstorming at this point. The initial discussion from what I understand was productive in this sense. I trust that any major issues they discuss and want to take action on as part of the CNA will be brought forth at CNA [Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association] meetings.
3. The positive direction taken by this group follows a passionate plea by a few key people in the community (Steve Morr-Wineman, Rosalie Anders, and Hubert Murray in particular) to address local solutions to global issues. And instead of characterizing what they and others have undertaken in a negative light, they ought to be supported (especially at such an early phase in their existence), if for no other reason than the fact that the environment has emerged over the past two decades as the decisive issue that is and will be affecting the entire world. We are connected to the environment at a local level. It connects us to energy policy and, ergo, foreign policy. It is the future of us all. And I know for a fact that the citizens and neighborhood leaders present at that meeting understand those connections. That's precisely why they were there.We should help them in any way possible.
Marco
9. Kathy Podgers - Green Groups and Energy Conservation, 11/25/06.
Hi, As one of the first to "form" or "join" Green Port I am not sure what is the purpose of "Green Port." I do not know what the relationship Green Port has with the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association. I do wish that could be answered by either the Board, or the membership.
Initially there were a few of us who were present at the meeting when "Green port" was formed. I had been under the impression that Herbert Murry and Steve Winman, (Erie St Neighbors) had come to the Cambridgeport neighborhood Association meeting for support of this "new" idea. Bill suggested they schedule the first meeting at the Community room at Woodrow Wilson for accessibility reasons.
However it was held at the private (and inaccessible) home of Rosalie Anders. Rosalie works for the City of Cambridge, and heads up the Pedestrian Committee. She is responsible for the City's Pedestrian Plan that was found by the MAAB to be non compliant last March. She announced this in the next Pedestrian Committee meeting, and that she would be working on it to bring it into compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts safety Code, but has informed me that this has not been done yet.
Rosalie Anders is on the Green Decade Cambridge Steering Committee. The Green Decade is a totally different organization. I attended one of their meetings and discovered that their model is to hold small meetings hosted by home owners, and for the purpose of raising money. They plan to write/rewrite legislation that will affect citizens as much as affect the "environment."
Green Decade is a chapter of the Mass Climate Action Network; a coalition of 27 local and four state environmental groups devoted to public education and influencing municipal governments to achieve local reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Bill August is a municipalities attorney, he has been president of the Dana Park Nighborhoos Asociation (now known as the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association?) for some 20 years now.
I care very much about the environment, and have been writing, raising awareness, and "educating" the public on this issue for some time now. However, none of the basic environmental issues raised at the Green decade meeting I went to were understood by the "leaders."
I would, therefore, like to know just what the relationship between the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, Green Port and Green Decade really is.
Take care
Kathy
10. Close associate of Green-Destructive City Councilor - Excellent example of the genre. 11/25/06.
It is time to stop all the negativism about a proposed energy conservation group for Cambridgeport that isn't even formed yet. A small group of Cambridgeport residents met this month to brainstorm ideas for what an energy conservation group for Cambridgeport would look like. The organizers have given this energy conservation group a provisional name: Greenport.
The group is in now way a legal entity yet. The group, as far as I know, has not filed papers with the Commonwealth to be a 401c3 or to be any other type of corporation under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Yet, already there are the dissenters, the mud-slingers, and of course, round up the usual suspects.
I believe in taking positive action and the power of positive actions. If anyone really cares about energy conservation, they should be trying to help the fledgling group, not destroy it by complaining about the intentions of the group or any of its actions while it is in a formative stage. Give them a break people!
LET'S STOP THE NEGATIVISM OR KEEP IT OFF THE CAMBRIDGEPORT NEIGHBORS LISTSERV. SEE THE WORD "NEIGHBORS" IN THE LISTSERV NAME? LET'S TRY TO BE NEIGHBORLY. IF YOUR WISH TO POSIT AN INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT, DO IT WITH A DOSE OF RATIONAL, POSITIVE, AND FACTUAL COMMENTARY. THANKS.
11. Editor responding to bad guy, 11/23/06.
It depends.
Is this a group which is concerned about our environment or a misnamed group selling fancy light bulbs?
There is very real problem about people who are concerned about things being persuaded to act against the causes they think they stand for.
The people I have seen who are most aggressively fighting for fancy light bulbs disclose their real goals with their contempt for objections to ongoing destruction of our back yards and thus destruction of our worlds.
People certainly have a right to sell fancy light bulbs, but to not call themselves "green" if they have contempt for the real green around us which is being ruthlessly destroyed and thus our world ruthlessley destroyed.
I very strongly object to false statements of position / names of organization which mislead people from working for goals that they really want to work for and I very strongly believe that people who are totally indifferent to massive destruction of trees, wetlands and animals calling themselves "green" if that applies to these so-called "green" organizations.
If they want to call themselves the fancy light bulb people, let themselves call the fancy light bulb people.
If they want to call themselves the contractors coalition to sell fancy light bulbs, let them call themselves the contractors coalition to sell fancy light bulbs.
The problem is not with the goals of the organization although the misleading method of presentation is very much wrong. The problem is with using a misleading name and not even approaching living up to that name.
12. Editor: “Green” Group, 11/27/06.
We have had a couple of comments that because people are interested in energy conservation products that it is destructive to expect them to have respect for the Green of the earth.
Last I heard, these people were calling themselves Green.
Every time I go to the Charles River since September 2004, I have been dramatically reminded of the CONTEMPT of nine members of the Cambridge City Council for the Green. Deliberate destruction of wetlands, cruel starvation of beautiful animals, needless destruction of trees, the walling off of the Charles River to PREVENT swimming in the Charles, the walling off of the shore to starve animals.
I see preparations for things to get much worse: a silly, wasteful project which will destroy more trees, which will make the DELIBERATE starvation that much worse, which will needlessly destroy the earth, and which will instal POISONS into a habitat which has been free of poisons.
People have been trying to find out from these purveyors of energy procucts what their position is on deliberate destruction of the Green.
This is not at all minor with regard to people who are running around calling themselves Green activists. The consistent refusal to answer these questions says EVERYTHING.
It is highly destructive of people with contempt for the Green to run around falsely calling themselves Green.
If these anti-Green people want to call themselves The Coalition for Energy Conservation, so be it.
If these anti-Green people want to call themselves The Coalition for Fancy Light Bulbs, so be it.
BUT HOW DARE THEY call themselves Green if they are not Green.
And HOW DARE ANYBODY call it destructive to expect self-proclaimed Green activists to be Green!
There is something very wrong here.
I am not at all amused by people claiming to be Green who consider environmental destruction normal.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Thanksgiving Weekend in the Habitat
Bob La Trémouille reports, November 25, 2006:
Preparation for environmental destruction looks more visible than before. It is more likely that I am just noticing more. Apparently more trees wrapped leaves me with a horrorible thought: are more trees being destroyed by the DCR and the destructive nine councilors than I was aware of?
"They would never stoop so low" has long been proven wishful. These people have stooped way low and are continuing with their practices.
The Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffne swam closer to Cambridge than I have previously seen, north of the midline of the river. The thing that is surprising about them is that, even with a long swim, I do not see their migratory four friends. Perhaps the four friends have migrated.
I did see a number of Mallards at the Goose Meadow, but, judging by their numbers, they look like the one large brood of Mallard babies hatched this season, and their Mommy and Poppy, just one very large duck family.
The Charles River White Geese were riding out the new chill in accordance with their policy of minimizing effort and saving up their fat to survive the winter. They were sleeping, but they happily greeted me when I checked on them.
We have had some quite strong wind and rain in the last few days. The larger vegetation looks it.
The situation is scary. The destructiveness of the DCR and the nine destructive city councilors is so great.
The destructive nine seem to be on the offensive in Cambridge with their lying version of conservation being pushed.
Groups which call themselves "green" but which have contempt for nature are being excessively vocal in Cambridge, and they stink of connection to the destructive nine city councilors. They brag of fancy light bulbs but have contempt for any objections to destruction of trees, wetlands, animals and animal habitat. But they love to call themselves "green."
Preparation for environmental destruction looks more visible than before. It is more likely that I am just noticing more. Apparently more trees wrapped leaves me with a horrorible thought: are more trees being destroyed by the DCR and the destructive nine councilors than I was aware of?
"They would never stoop so low" has long been proven wishful. These people have stooped way low and are continuing with their practices.
The Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffne swam closer to Cambridge than I have previously seen, north of the midline of the river. The thing that is surprising about them is that, even with a long swim, I do not see their migratory four friends. Perhaps the four friends have migrated.
I did see a number of Mallards at the Goose Meadow, but, judging by their numbers, they look like the one large brood of Mallard babies hatched this season, and their Mommy and Poppy, just one very large duck family.
The Charles River White Geese were riding out the new chill in accordance with their policy of minimizing effort and saving up their fat to survive the winter. They were sleeping, but they happily greeted me when I checked on them.
We have had some quite strong wind and rain in the last few days. The larger vegetation looks it.
The situation is scary. The destructiveness of the DCR and the nine destructive city councilors is so great.
The destructive nine seem to be on the offensive in Cambridge with their lying version of conservation being pushed.
Groups which call themselves "green" but which have contempt for nature are being excessively vocal in Cambridge, and they stink of connection to the destructive nine city councilors. They brag of fancy light bulbs but have contempt for any objections to destruction of trees, wetlands, animals and animal habitat. But they love to call themselves "green."
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Thanksgiving Eve at Magazine Beach
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The Charles River White Geese were asleep in their Destroyed Nesting Area.
The overnight temperature approached freezing. When that happens, the White Geese do a lot more sleeping, conserving their energy and using their goosedown jackets to the best effect.
I have not seen them at Magazine Beach for several days, but the temperatures have changed along with their habits. I very easily could have missed them.
The Charles River White Ducks can be seen on the Boston side of the Charles River perched on the pontoons. The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative is taking special attention to them. This is their first winter of freedom and very close watch is being taken for them. With winter's advent, their thick cover of green is gone, with help from the vile Charles River Conservancy. Their home is only feet from the quite busy Storrow Drive / Soldiers' Field Road.
They were true innocents last July when they were abandoned at Magazine Beach. At first, they quite belligerently stayed where they had been dropped, looking for their master.
Once CRUWI taught them to swim in the Charles River, they have been happy, at home.
Construction fences continue to accumulate.
The Charles River White Geese were asleep in their Destroyed Nesting Area.
The overnight temperature approached freezing. When that happens, the White Geese do a lot more sleeping, conserving their energy and using their goosedown jackets to the best effect.
I have not seen them at Magazine Beach for several days, but the temperatures have changed along with their habits. I very easily could have missed them.
The Charles River White Ducks can be seen on the Boston side of the Charles River perched on the pontoons. The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative is taking special attention to them. This is their first winter of freedom and very close watch is being taken for them. With winter's advent, their thick cover of green is gone, with help from the vile Charles River Conservancy. Their home is only feet from the quite busy Storrow Drive / Soldiers' Field Road.
They were true innocents last July when they were abandoned at Magazine Beach. At first, they quite belligerently stayed where they had been dropped, looking for their master.
Once CRUWI taught them to swim in the Charles River, they have been happy, at home.
Construction fences continue to accumulate.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Bad news for the Boston Esplanade?
Bob La Trémouille reports.
Last night, November 14, 2006, I attended a presentation by the Department of Conservation and Recreation entitled the “Granite Landings Restoration Project.:
Three things stood out in my mind:
1. They are going to clean up graffiti.
2. They say they are not going to destroy trees, BUT . . .
3. They changed the subject on application of poisons.
First of all, the project manager is Rick Corsi.
Corsi is the manager of the outrage on the Cambridge side of the Charles.
Corsi spent four years insisting he had no intention of harming the Charles River White Geese.
In September 2004, he and Cambridge proceeded to starve them by blocking off all food in their mile long habit from access from the Charles River. When Corsi was asked about his statements, he proclaimed that starving them was not harming them.
For few months, he has reduced the starvation attacks, but is poised to resume them with a bang.
1. They are going to clean up graffiti.
This is a major part of the work contractors whom they are hiring. The contractors are cleaning up graffiti
I asked when was the last time graffiti was cleaned up. They could not say.
I asked what the policy was on cleanup of graffiti, whether it is cleaned up as part of normal maintenance.
They could not say.
The nicest thing that can be said about this is that it is blatant incompetence.
Once again, as I have said many times, Corsi should be fired.
2. They say they are not going to destroy trees, BUT . . .
On direct questioning the contractors said they are working on their plans and are UNLIKELY to destroy trees unless for HISTORICAL reasons.
I pointed out the "native" vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach in place of destroyed wetlands. I point out that the "native" vegetation was unfit to grow on the Charles River and had no business on the Charles River.
I also pointed out that the "native" vegetation served a function exactly the opposite of the lies being put out by the DCR as to their plans. The DCR says they want to encourage swimming. A wall of bushes which have no business on the banks of the Charles has replaced an open meadow. Which do you think is more conducive to swimming?
3. They changed the subject on application of poisons.
I pointed out the Ebersol Fields project, a precursor of Magazine Beach located between Massachusetts General Hospital and the Charles River Dam.
Playing fields were installed with a large amount of poison intermixed to kill off bugs. That was not enough, so the DCR added poisons labelled "do not use" near water. The next day, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge, algae everywhere.
The guys who did these terrible things and are planning even more terrible things did not respond. One member of the audience, residents of Back Bay and Beacon Hill, did remember the poisons and commented on them.
A truly reprehensible government agency.
Last night, November 14, 2006, I attended a presentation by the Department of Conservation and Recreation entitled the “Granite Landings Restoration Project.:
Three things stood out in my mind:
1. They are going to clean up graffiti.
2. They say they are not going to destroy trees, BUT . . .
3. They changed the subject on application of poisons.
First of all, the project manager is Rick Corsi.
Corsi is the manager of the outrage on the Cambridge side of the Charles.
Corsi spent four years insisting he had no intention of harming the Charles River White Geese.
In September 2004, he and Cambridge proceeded to starve them by blocking off all food in their mile long habit from access from the Charles River. When Corsi was asked about his statements, he proclaimed that starving them was not harming them.
For few months, he has reduced the starvation attacks, but is poised to resume them with a bang.
1. They are going to clean up graffiti.
This is a major part of the work contractors whom they are hiring. The contractors are cleaning up graffiti
I asked when was the last time graffiti was cleaned up. They could not say.
I asked what the policy was on cleanup of graffiti, whether it is cleaned up as part of normal maintenance.
They could not say.
The nicest thing that can be said about this is that it is blatant incompetence.
Once again, as I have said many times, Corsi should be fired.
2. They say they are not going to destroy trees, BUT . . .
On direct questioning the contractors said they are working on their plans and are UNLIKELY to destroy trees unless for HISTORICAL reasons.
I pointed out the "native" vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach in place of destroyed wetlands. I point out that the "native" vegetation was unfit to grow on the Charles River and had no business on the Charles River.
I also pointed out that the "native" vegetation served a function exactly the opposite of the lies being put out by the DCR as to their plans. The DCR says they want to encourage swimming. A wall of bushes which have no business on the banks of the Charles has replaced an open meadow. Which do you think is more conducive to swimming?
3. They changed the subject on application of poisons.
I pointed out the Ebersol Fields project, a precursor of Magazine Beach located between Massachusetts General Hospital and the Charles River Dam.
Playing fields were installed with a large amount of poison intermixed to kill off bugs. That was not enough, so the DCR added poisons labelled "do not use" near water. The next day, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge, algae everywhere.
The guys who did these terrible things and are planning even more terrible things did not respond. One member of the audience, residents of Back Bay and Beacon Hill, did remember the poisons and commented on them.
A truly reprehensible government agency.
Farewell to a good editor and a good reporter
Bob La Trémouille reports:
There have been good people in the local press.
Chris Helms, editor of the Cambridge Chronicle until last Thursday, is one of them
Chris not only did a good job looking at and communicating issues, he dramatically changed the editorial content of the Cambridge Chronicle for the better.
I have, for many years, bought every issue of the Cambridge Chronicle and religiously read the letters page. I, however, looked at next to nothing else. Chris changed that.
Chris not only significantly improved the editorial, letters and op-ed page, he made the rest of the Cambridge Chronicle interesting.
What more can you say of an editor.
His new assignment is as editor of the Watertown Tab and Press.
I wish him the best of luck.
I also remind him that the Charles River runs in Watertown, and he has significant DCR holdings in his jurisdiction.
There have been good people in the local press.
Chris Helms, editor of the Cambridge Chronicle until last Thursday, is one of them
Chris not only did a good job looking at and communicating issues, he dramatically changed the editorial content of the Cambridge Chronicle for the better.
I have, for many years, bought every issue of the Cambridge Chronicle and religiously read the letters page. I, however, looked at next to nothing else. Chris changed that.
Chris not only significantly improved the editorial, letters and op-ed page, he made the rest of the Cambridge Chronicle interesting.
What more can you say of an editor.
His new assignment is as editor of the Watertown Tab and Press.
I wish him the best of luck.
I also remind him that the Charles River runs in Watertown, and he has significant DCR holdings in his jurisdiction.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Heartless Destruction Resuming at Magazine Beach
My report yesterday was a pleasant resumption of winter time.
I missed some very big evidence at the other end of the playing fields.
Construction fences have been built, tape protecting areas and not to be victimized trees.
The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start with the destruction of the playing fields at Magazine Beach with all that food.
The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start with the destruction of perfectly healthy tree(s) for a yet another contractor boondoggle.
The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start the project which will apply poisons to the previously clean Magazine Beach playing fields.
The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to resume their attacks on the Charles River White Geese and other animals living at Magazine Beach.
I missed some very big evidence at the other end of the playing fields.
Construction fences have been built, tape protecting areas and not to be victimized trees.
The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start with the destruction of the playing fields at Magazine Beach with all that food.
The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start with the destruction of perfectly healthy tree(s) for a yet another contractor boondoggle.
The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start the project which will apply poisons to the previously clean Magazine Beach playing fields.
The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to resume their attacks on the Charles River White Geese and other animals living at Magazine Beach.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
City of Cambridge Harasses Guide Dog
1. Summary.
2. Your Editor’s Initial Press / Neighborhood Report (basis of the following, most reported above).
3. Tenant Organizer Response.
4. Editor response.
5. Kathy Podgers provides details.
6. Kathy Podgers on “Disability.”
7. Karen Parker response.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Summary.
Monday night, October 30, 2006, the Cambridge City Council was in its fake environmental mode. I separately report on these hypocrites with regard to tree destruction.
In addition to the people commenting to the Cambridge City Council on the destruction of the Grant Street tree, a regular speaker by the name of Elie Yarden spoke. Mr. Yarden commonly speaks to the City Council. The meaning of his comments are frequently abstruse. I was not listening closely but, apparently, the mayor, chairing the meeting, did not have the slightest idea what Yarden was talking about. After perhaps two minutes, the Mayor asked Yarden to say what item on the agenda he was talking about. Yarden refused. The mayor declared him out of order and when Yarden refused to leave the microphone, the mayor declared a recess and called the police. Yarden left the mike and the meeting resumed.
At the same time, Councilor Decker was in the audience talking to Kathy Podgers. Apparently a staff member had previously informed Kathy that Decker had forgotten to take her allergy pills and asked Kathy to move to the far end of the chamber for the benefit of Decker. Kathy complied with the request. Decker, during the Yarden confusion, went to Kathy and demanded that Kathy leave the room with her dog. Kathy refused.
The mayor ordered Kathy out of the room with her guide dog. Kathy refused. The mayor declared another recess and called the police on her.
I noticed Yarden sitting to my left by a couple of seats. He had left the room and, possibly, after talking with police, returned to the chambers. He was besieged by reporters.
The reporters did not notice that the police had come in and were talking with Kathy about her dog. Kathy has had repeated harassment about her guide dog and carries legal papers supporting her right to bring it with her.
The police left and city officials warned that they would “research” the law.
My past experiences with Cambridge’s research of laws has demonstrated severe bad faith. Their people once tried to keep my name off the ballot because their people refused to obey a very well publicized case in 1998 concerning Jack E. Robinson, a candidate for governor whom people tried to keep off the ballot with alleged defects in nominating signatures. The Supreme Judicial Court very clearly struck that attack. Cambridge Election Officials and the City Solicitor refused to obey this very clear decision with regard to me. To my understanding, the City of Cambridge still refuses to obey the extremely clear Jack E. Robinson decision and will trash completely valid election nomination signatures on that basis.
Kathy has done the smart thing. Thursday, she complained to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
2. Your Editor’s Initial Press / Neighborhood Report (basis of the following, most reported above).
RE: The Police Action at City Council last night - anti-dog and anti-handicapped action
Following up on my telephone discussion last night, I do not know what happened with your reporter on the matter.
What happened was public and semi-public. The public part got the press. The semi-public may have been the real game and got no press interest that I could see.
Publicly, Elie Yarden indulged in a rather general attack on the Cambridge City Council without apparent connection to anything on the agenda. Reeves told him to talk to the agenda. Yarden would not identify what he was talking about.
Reeves called a recess and the police. Yarden left the room.
Not generally noticed was Decker talking to Kathy Podgers and telling Kathy to get Kathy's guide dog out of the chambers. Kathy refused. Kathy has had a number of incidents in which any number of parties have tried to keep her from having her guide dog with her in public.
There was a public exchange between Reeves and Kathy concerning the dog, but which did not to other people in the room seem to be other than an outburst by Kathy. Basically, according to Kathy, Decker went to Reeves, Reeves told her to get the dog out of the chambers and Kathy refused. All that the rest of us really notice was Reeves telling Kathy to be quiet when Kathy was publicly objecting to the order to get out with her dog.
Reeves called another recess with regard to Kathy.
Apparently Yarden spoke with the police outside the Chamber (I have no knowledge, this is just a guess) because he returned to the Chamber quietly sitting there.
The police came into the Chamber in response to the complaint against Kathy. Kathy, because of rather wide bias against the guide dog being with her, carries legal papers on the use of the dog. The police declined to take action against Kathy. That I saw and I was confused as to how the dog got involved until I discussed things with Kathy. To the public, the exchange with Kathy had seemed that Kathy was backing up Yarden, not that it was a "separate" incident, although apparently an incident which occurred under cover of the exchange with Yarden.
The city said they would research the law. The city's research of laws tends to results in distinctive rulings. For example, the city tried to keep me off the ballot once based on the city's bizarre refusal to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson ballot case in a gubernatorial nomination. Kathy says that she intends to file a preemptive complaint. Given the record of the City of Cambridge of lack of respect for law that is a good idea.
When Decker could not get Kathy's dog out of the room, Decker left.
My take is that the Podgers incident is a serious human (and animal) rights matter which is part of a continuing series of attacks on her. With regard to Elie, I am not at all positive if he ever told the city council what he was talking about, although he seemed to be telling the people who interviewed him.
Copying Kathy. I do not see Yarden on my list, so I am copying a couple of neighborhood associations who have him on their list.
3. Tenant Organizer Response.
Why do people object to Kathy having a her guide dog with her. Is Kathy a blind person and the dog seeing eye dog or is this just a woman who wants to have her dog with her. If Kathy is blind and the dog is a seeing eye dog then the law requires that she be allowed to have toe dog with her. If she is not blind and the dog is not a seeing eye dog then what basis does she claim she can have the dog with her. What type of dog breed is the dog,
[Ed: Second issue raised, very much not relevant. References to the second issue deleted here and below.]
4. Editor response.
Copying you to Kathy Podgers and the Cambridgeport list for obvious reasons. I would encourage each to reply as they deem fit.
I am copying to others not shown as well and probably will add your comments to my blog deleting identification of you and the comments about the Cambridgeport list.
To me, the attacks on Kathy are part of a package of maximum destruction possible to all beings who are not human beings. The destructive people cannot kill every dog in the city, so they simply do their best to regulate them to death.
Animals in general are subject to destructive behavior by destructive people. Period.
That is the real reason for the outrages at Fresh Pond and on the Charles River. The people who behave like that deserve to be condemned. These are the people who are destroying our world.
As far as Kathy goes, Kathy has physical problems which require the use of a guide dog, and that is pretty much the end of the discussion.
5. Kathy Podgers provides details.
Kathy gave the following response to the above:
*************
In response to the question raised about my "dog", legally, my service animal is not a pet, but a service animal. The city constantly refers to it as a dog, to avoid using the legal and apropiate term.
My service animal is a purebred siberian husky, 3 years old, and is trained to help me with my locomotion. One think she does is help me to "get up" so I don't trip, or fall, also she helps me walk, as one of the symptome of my disability, liver disease, is profound fatigue. I also have several severe diseases of the spine, including radiculitis, which means inflamation of the nerve roots. My neck has "collapsed" I have lost 4" of my height, and when the spine, esp the neck become irritated, the nerve roots becomew inflamed. This is not felt as a pain in the neck, but as pain, and weakness in the extremities, such as feeling like I have a broken arm, or my foot can't "feel" the ground. I can soon feel "sea sick" and "loose my balance" so the service animal can walk in front of me, and "part the crouds" so folks don't bump into me, provided a steady "pull" so I have a "counter weight", well, I cound go on and on.
I selected the husky because their temperment is just what I need for my disability, and because huskies are not territorial, so she does not "protect" me from agressive people, and does not bark or growl to "protect" her territory. So if folks yell at me, lean over me, she is not "provoked" to "defend or protect" me. she is beautiful and friendly, and most folks love her, and want to pet her.
Both Mass State law and city ordinences re service animals are non compliant with the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1990, public law 1990, also known as The Americans With Disabilities Act, the ADA.
The ADA trumps both state and local law. neither the state nor the city is allowed to have writen policies or unwriten "practices" that discriminate against people with disabilities as defined by the ADA. It is difficult to meet the definition, and I do. The ADA protects the "person" from exclusion, and segregation, based on their disability, and provides that the person must be allowed to have service animal accompianied them any place the publ;ic is allowed. Alergies and fear are not reasons to exclude a person using a service animal. If a persons alergie is so severe that it rises to the level of a disability as defined by the ADA, the person using the service animal can be seated away from the person with the alergy. In the case of the public meeting, the City is required to accomodate both equally, and not exclude one or the other. Guide dogs, dog guides, hearing dogs, seisure dogs, all are examples of "service animals" as are monkies, cats, birds, etc.
It is not about the dog. A seeing eye dog can not be allowed to attend a meeting where pets are not allowed if the person with the guide dog is not blind. The dog must be trained to perform a task for the person with the disability.
If anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
6. Kathy Podgers on “Disability.”
I was asked, in an e-mail, about Decker's "disability." This is my response. (This e-mail is blind copied to quite a few selected individuals.)
I do not know if Decker's disability raises to the level that would afford her protection under the ADA, and no one has made that claim to date.
On Oct 16th, [Cambridge City Employee] Sandy informed me, outside of City Council chambers, that Decker's allergies were bothering her because she had not taken her medication, and asked me if I would mind moving to the far side and back of the public seating area in Sullivan Chamber. I did not ask about the degree of Decker's allergies, and I agreed to move, for which Sandy thanked me. I agreed to move "as if" I had been told that her allergy was so severe that it was a disability as defined by the ADA. By that act I already agreed to accommodate her allergy as though it were a qualified disability. I did not violate her privacy by making unessary inquiries into the nature of her allergy, nor inquire if she had a disability, which might be a violation of law.
The law should not "pit" one person's disability against another's, and if in fact Decker should claim the city must provide her an accommodation based upon her disability, she would need to show, or at least claim that she had a disability as defined by the ADA. The City could not provide her an accomodation by refusing to provide an equal one for me. That is why I agreed to sit in the back and the far side of the room, because I rfesponded "as if" they had told me she was disabled and protected from discrimination by the ADA. That is the accomodation they requested, and I did agree to it.
Thanks
Kathy
7. Karen Parker response.
Bob,
I am sorry this happened to Kathy, hope you are well, this Decker woman is crazy and so aren't the other city counselors, I wouldn't even put them into the category of city councilors, buffoons is probably a better description. [Comment on other issues omitted.]
2. Your Editor’s Initial Press / Neighborhood Report (basis of the following, most reported above).
3. Tenant Organizer Response.
4. Editor response.
5. Kathy Podgers provides details.
6. Kathy Podgers on “Disability.”
7. Karen Parker response.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Summary.
Monday night, October 30, 2006, the Cambridge City Council was in its fake environmental mode. I separately report on these hypocrites with regard to tree destruction.
In addition to the people commenting to the Cambridge City Council on the destruction of the Grant Street tree, a regular speaker by the name of Elie Yarden spoke. Mr. Yarden commonly speaks to the City Council. The meaning of his comments are frequently abstruse. I was not listening closely but, apparently, the mayor, chairing the meeting, did not have the slightest idea what Yarden was talking about. After perhaps two minutes, the Mayor asked Yarden to say what item on the agenda he was talking about. Yarden refused. The mayor declared him out of order and when Yarden refused to leave the microphone, the mayor declared a recess and called the police. Yarden left the mike and the meeting resumed.
At the same time, Councilor Decker was in the audience talking to Kathy Podgers. Apparently a staff member had previously informed Kathy that Decker had forgotten to take her allergy pills and asked Kathy to move to the far end of the chamber for the benefit of Decker. Kathy complied with the request. Decker, during the Yarden confusion, went to Kathy and demanded that Kathy leave the room with her dog. Kathy refused.
The mayor ordered Kathy out of the room with her guide dog. Kathy refused. The mayor declared another recess and called the police on her.
I noticed Yarden sitting to my left by a couple of seats. He had left the room and, possibly, after talking with police, returned to the chambers. He was besieged by reporters.
The reporters did not notice that the police had come in and were talking with Kathy about her dog. Kathy has had repeated harassment about her guide dog and carries legal papers supporting her right to bring it with her.
The police left and city officials warned that they would “research” the law.
My past experiences with Cambridge’s research of laws has demonstrated severe bad faith. Their people once tried to keep my name off the ballot because their people refused to obey a very well publicized case in 1998 concerning Jack E. Robinson, a candidate for governor whom people tried to keep off the ballot with alleged defects in nominating signatures. The Supreme Judicial Court very clearly struck that attack. Cambridge Election Officials and the City Solicitor refused to obey this very clear decision with regard to me. To my understanding, the City of Cambridge still refuses to obey the extremely clear Jack E. Robinson decision and will trash completely valid election nomination signatures on that basis.
Kathy has done the smart thing. Thursday, she complained to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
2. Your Editor’s Initial Press / Neighborhood Report (basis of the following, most reported above).
RE: The Police Action at City Council last night - anti-dog and anti-handicapped action
Following up on my telephone discussion last night, I do not know what happened with your reporter on the matter.
What happened was public and semi-public. The public part got the press. The semi-public may have been the real game and got no press interest that I could see.
Publicly, Elie Yarden indulged in a rather general attack on the Cambridge City Council without apparent connection to anything on the agenda. Reeves told him to talk to the agenda. Yarden would not identify what he was talking about.
Reeves called a recess and the police. Yarden left the room.
Not generally noticed was Decker talking to Kathy Podgers and telling Kathy to get Kathy's guide dog out of the chambers. Kathy refused. Kathy has had a number of incidents in which any number of parties have tried to keep her from having her guide dog with her in public.
There was a public exchange between Reeves and Kathy concerning the dog, but which did not to other people in the room seem to be other than an outburst by Kathy. Basically, according to Kathy, Decker went to Reeves, Reeves told her to get the dog out of the chambers and Kathy refused. All that the rest of us really notice was Reeves telling Kathy to be quiet when Kathy was publicly objecting to the order to get out with her dog.
Reeves called another recess with regard to Kathy.
Apparently Yarden spoke with the police outside the Chamber (I have no knowledge, this is just a guess) because he returned to the Chamber quietly sitting there.
The police came into the Chamber in response to the complaint against Kathy. Kathy, because of rather wide bias against the guide dog being with her, carries legal papers on the use of the dog. The police declined to take action against Kathy. That I saw and I was confused as to how the dog got involved until I discussed things with Kathy. To the public, the exchange with Kathy had seemed that Kathy was backing up Yarden, not that it was a "separate" incident, although apparently an incident which occurred under cover of the exchange with Yarden.
The city said they would research the law. The city's research of laws tends to results in distinctive rulings. For example, the city tried to keep me off the ballot once based on the city's bizarre refusal to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson ballot case in a gubernatorial nomination. Kathy says that she intends to file a preemptive complaint. Given the record of the City of Cambridge of lack of respect for law that is a good idea.
When Decker could not get Kathy's dog out of the room, Decker left.
My take is that the Podgers incident is a serious human (and animal) rights matter which is part of a continuing series of attacks on her. With regard to Elie, I am not at all positive if he ever told the city council what he was talking about, although he seemed to be telling the people who interviewed him.
Copying Kathy. I do not see Yarden on my list, so I am copying a couple of neighborhood associations who have him on their list.
3. Tenant Organizer Response.
Why do people object to Kathy having a her guide dog with her. Is Kathy a blind person and the dog seeing eye dog or is this just a woman who wants to have her dog with her. If Kathy is blind and the dog is a seeing eye dog then the law requires that she be allowed to have toe dog with her. If she is not blind and the dog is not a seeing eye dog then what basis does she claim she can have the dog with her. What type of dog breed is the dog,
[Ed: Second issue raised, very much not relevant. References to the second issue deleted here and below.]
4. Editor response.
Copying you to Kathy Podgers and the Cambridgeport list for obvious reasons. I would encourage each to reply as they deem fit.
I am copying to others not shown as well and probably will add your comments to my blog deleting identification of you and the comments about the Cambridgeport list.
To me, the attacks on Kathy are part of a package of maximum destruction possible to all beings who are not human beings. The destructive people cannot kill every dog in the city, so they simply do their best to regulate them to death.
Animals in general are subject to destructive behavior by destructive people. Period.
That is the real reason for the outrages at Fresh Pond and on the Charles River. The people who behave like that deserve to be condemned. These are the people who are destroying our world.
As far as Kathy goes, Kathy has physical problems which require the use of a guide dog, and that is pretty much the end of the discussion.
5. Kathy Podgers provides details.
Kathy gave the following response to the above:
*************
In response to the question raised about my "dog", legally, my service animal is not a pet, but a service animal. The city constantly refers to it as a dog, to avoid using the legal and apropiate term.
My service animal is a purebred siberian husky, 3 years old, and is trained to help me with my locomotion. One think she does is help me to "get up" so I don't trip, or fall, also she helps me walk, as one of the symptome of my disability, liver disease, is profound fatigue. I also have several severe diseases of the spine, including radiculitis, which means inflamation of the nerve roots. My neck has "collapsed" I have lost 4" of my height, and when the spine, esp the neck become irritated, the nerve roots becomew inflamed. This is not felt as a pain in the neck, but as pain, and weakness in the extremities, such as feeling like I have a broken arm, or my foot can't "feel" the ground. I can soon feel "sea sick" and "loose my balance" so the service animal can walk in front of me, and "part the crouds" so folks don't bump into me, provided a steady "pull" so I have a "counter weight", well, I cound go on and on.
I selected the husky because their temperment is just what I need for my disability, and because huskies are not territorial, so she does not "protect" me from agressive people, and does not bark or growl to "protect" her territory. So if folks yell at me, lean over me, she is not "provoked" to "defend or protect" me. she is beautiful and friendly, and most folks love her, and want to pet her.
Both Mass State law and city ordinences re service animals are non compliant with the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1990, public law 1990, also known as The Americans With Disabilities Act, the ADA.
The ADA trumps both state and local law. neither the state nor the city is allowed to have writen policies or unwriten "practices" that discriminate against people with disabilities as defined by the ADA. It is difficult to meet the definition, and I do. The ADA protects the "person" from exclusion, and segregation, based on their disability, and provides that the person must be allowed to have service animal accompianied them any place the publ;ic is allowed. Alergies and fear are not reasons to exclude a person using a service animal. If a persons alergie is so severe that it rises to the level of a disability as defined by the ADA, the person using the service animal can be seated away from the person with the alergy. In the case of the public meeting, the City is required to accomodate both equally, and not exclude one or the other. Guide dogs, dog guides, hearing dogs, seisure dogs, all are examples of "service animals" as are monkies, cats, birds, etc.
It is not about the dog. A seeing eye dog can not be allowed to attend a meeting where pets are not allowed if the person with the guide dog is not blind. The dog must be trained to perform a task for the person with the disability.
If anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
6. Kathy Podgers on “Disability.”
I was asked, in an e-mail, about Decker's "disability." This is my response. (This e-mail is blind copied to quite a few selected individuals.)
I do not know if Decker's disability raises to the level that would afford her protection under the ADA, and no one has made that claim to date.
On Oct 16th, [Cambridge City Employee] Sandy informed me, outside of City Council chambers, that Decker's allergies were bothering her because she had not taken her medication, and asked me if I would mind moving to the far side and back of the public seating area in Sullivan Chamber. I did not ask about the degree of Decker's allergies, and I agreed to move, for which Sandy thanked me. I agreed to move "as if" I had been told that her allergy was so severe that it was a disability as defined by the ADA. By that act I already agreed to accommodate her allergy as though it were a qualified disability. I did not violate her privacy by making unessary inquiries into the nature of her allergy, nor inquire if she had a disability, which might be a violation of law.
The law should not "pit" one person's disability against another's, and if in fact Decker should claim the city must provide her an accommodation based upon her disability, she would need to show, or at least claim that she had a disability as defined by the ADA. The City could not provide her an accomodation by refusing to provide an equal one for me. That is why I agreed to sit in the back and the far side of the room, because I rfesponded "as if" they had told me she was disabled and protected from discrimination by the ADA. That is the accomodation they requested, and I did agree to it.
Thanks
Kathy
7. Karen Parker response.
Bob,
I am sorry this happened to Kathy, hope you are well, this Decker woman is crazy and so aren't the other city counselors, I wouldn't even put them into the category of city councilors, buffoons is probably a better description. [Comment on other issues omitted.]
Magazine Beach as the Cold Sets In
Bob Reporting:
This morning was the first really cold morning of the Fall. Temperature dropped to the 20's,
When I got to Magazine Beach at about 7:30, the Charles River White Geese were there, spread in a row near the new and washing out path. In this path, they extended a bit beyond third base on the soft ball field.
I fed them some corn, but they quickly went into the water as a result of a false scare. They came back and fed in a group on the near outfield after finishing the corn.
Another scare, on return, they were grouped between the outfield and the water. That did not last long, another scare, this time real. Ignorant older man walking dogs, not only off leash, but he is encouraging them AGAINST their best wishes into the goose territory. He then LED them into the area just vacated by the geese, as close as possible to the geese in the water. We are dealing with really sick people.
The Charles River White Ducks were happily swimming and feeding near their lair on the Boston side. Leaves have heavily fallen particularly from the lower vegetation, including the vegetation protecting their lair.
The ducks are happy. I was on that side yesterday. They were swimming next to the area that the sickos from the CRC devegetated. They saw a human (me) and went further into the Charles for safety.
The sick bastard walked his dogs to the far end of the fields at Magazine Beach. The geese remain in the water. They may come back on land after he leaves. They may come back tomorrow.
As I left, the gaggle had moved into an area in the Charles between the boat dock and the infield. They were as close to the land as possible, wading four abreast, but they were still in the water.
The narrow Western extension of the Bumpy Memorial Pond showed signs of starting to freeze.
This morning was the first really cold morning of the Fall. Temperature dropped to the 20's,
When I got to Magazine Beach at about 7:30, the Charles River White Geese were there, spread in a row near the new and washing out path. In this path, they extended a bit beyond third base on the soft ball field.
I fed them some corn, but they quickly went into the water as a result of a false scare. They came back and fed in a group on the near outfield after finishing the corn.
Another scare, on return, they were grouped between the outfield and the water. That did not last long, another scare, this time real. Ignorant older man walking dogs, not only off leash, but he is encouraging them AGAINST their best wishes into the goose territory. He then LED them into the area just vacated by the geese, as close as possible to the geese in the water. We are dealing with really sick people.
The Charles River White Ducks were happily swimming and feeding near their lair on the Boston side. Leaves have heavily fallen particularly from the lower vegetation, including the vegetation protecting their lair.
The ducks are happy. I was on that side yesterday. They were swimming next to the area that the sickos from the CRC devegetated. They saw a human (me) and went further into the Charles for safety.
The sick bastard walked his dogs to the far end of the fields at Magazine Beach. The geese remain in the water. They may come back on land after he leaves. They may come back tomorrow.
As I left, the gaggle had moved into an area in the Charles between the boat dock and the infield. They were as close to the land as possible, wading four abreast, but they were still in the water.
The narrow Western extension of the Bumpy Memorial Pond showed signs of starting to freeze.
Boston Globe Prints Letter on Tree Destruction
Bob Reports:
A couple of weeks ago, I gave you a copy of a letter sent to the Cambridge Chronicle placing destruction of a tree near Harvard Square in context with the policies of nine Cambridge City Councilors.
That letter was printed last Thursday, November 3.
Last Sunday, the Boston Globe reported on the same tree and a number of people spoke Monday night on the tree destruction at the City Council meeting.
I wrote the following letter to the Boston Globe during the City Council meeting and sent it out during the meeting over the city's public wireless, pretty much at the same time as the city was harrassing a handicapped lady because she brought a guide dog into the City Council meeting.
The following is the letter to the Boston Globe as published today on page 8 of the City Section.
***********
Title: Cambridge sacrifices healthy trees.
I appreciated your article on tree destruction on Grant Street (“A tree died in Cambridge,” Oct. 29, City Weekly).
The Cambridge City Council, all nine members, showed exactly where they really stand on this matter the next day. A large number of residents complained to the City council about the tree destruction.
The very first item considered by the Cambridge City Council after the discussions was a park project on Harvard Street, in which nine city councilors have destroyed 9 out of 10 street trees on the first block of Clark Street. Nine excellent trees were destroyed because they were “in the way” of a park.
Thousands of trees are being destroyed at Fresh Pond. Hundreds of trees are being destroyed on Memorial Drive. Destruction of trees is the first thing done when nine city councilors do work in parks.
There is no real question why the tree on Grant Street was destroyed. Harvard is following the example of the City Council.
A couple of weeks ago, I gave you a copy of a letter sent to the Cambridge Chronicle placing destruction of a tree near Harvard Square in context with the policies of nine Cambridge City Councilors.
That letter was printed last Thursday, November 3.
Last Sunday, the Boston Globe reported on the same tree and a number of people spoke Monday night on the tree destruction at the City Council meeting.
I wrote the following letter to the Boston Globe during the City Council meeting and sent it out during the meeting over the city's public wireless, pretty much at the same time as the city was harrassing a handicapped lady because she brought a guide dog into the City Council meeting.
The following is the letter to the Boston Globe as published today on page 8 of the City Section.
***********
Title: Cambridge sacrifices healthy trees.
I appreciated your article on tree destruction on Grant Street (“A tree died in Cambridge,” Oct. 29, City Weekly).
The Cambridge City Council, all nine members, showed exactly where they really stand on this matter the next day. A large number of residents complained to the City council about the tree destruction.
The very first item considered by the Cambridge City Council after the discussions was a park project on Harvard Street, in which nine city councilors have destroyed 9 out of 10 street trees on the first block of Clark Street. Nine excellent trees were destroyed because they were “in the way” of a park.
Thousands of trees are being destroyed at Fresh Pond. Hundreds of trees are being destroyed on Memorial Drive. Destruction of trees is the first thing done when nine city councilors do work in parks.
There is no real question why the tree on Grant Street was destroyed. Harvard is following the example of the City Council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)