Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
B. More General.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
1. Introduction.
On March 29, 2006, the Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted a meeting on its plans for Storrow Drive at the Morse School in Cambridge directly across Memorial Drive from the Starvation Zone at Magazine Beach.
The following was distributed on April 3, 2006, by people who give the impression that they find controversy offensive (and give the impression that they are neutral on massive environmental destruction). It is unedited except to remove identification of the guilty:
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
We are all Cambridgeport residents and who were in attendance at last week's DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) public meeting on Storrow Drive Tunnel Reconstruction options. This is to provide a brief report on the meeting and the DCR's on-going design and development of the project . The design options and more are outlined at the DCR website and further info may be obtained through DCR's public outreach contact person Nancy Farell. See DCR website contact info below. By way of background, Dept. of Conservatin & Recreation was transferred responsibility for the former MDC, and thus is responsible for Mem Drive and Storrow Drive (river areas).
[Ed: I somehow lost the DCR website info. The party line blends in the consultant’s position with their own Newspeak. I edited out the distinction and in editing signature blocks, edited out the website references the Newspeak people were alluding to.]
DCR confirmed that the Storrow tunnel reconstruction could take 2-4 years (depending which reconstruction strategy is implemented), and thus there will be a long period of traffic diversion involving increased traffic on Mem Drive, Mass Pike, area streets and bridges. Thus we want to emphasize this is an important citywide and regional transportation/traffic issue likely to impact our area, and it is important to let DCR and our city and state representatives know we need this to be implemented in a manner that is responsive to area concerns. State Reps. Alice Wolf and Mary Walz were in attendance, as were City Councillors Henrietta Davis and Craig Kelly.
It appears that the studies and planning will continue well into the fall of 2006 and that, if a final plan is approved, construction would not begin [until after the Longfellow Bridge repairs/reconstruction is complete and thus it is difficult for DCR to predict a begin date for the Storrow tunnel project]. At present, DCR assumes the project will be funded by state funding [through the sale of bonds]. Four major categories of addressing the redesign of Storrow Drive were highlighted and these 4 categories had various subdesigns. The different design options are set forth in the DCR website (see website info below). A Cambridgeport resident suggested a cut and cover tunnel design under the Charles river which would restore all of the Esplanade. Others suggested DCR work with MBTA to implement incentives for use of Mass Transit during the tunnel reconstruction. Other mitigation suggestions and concerns were voiced.
We recall the Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) saying they would continue to have open workshops on traffic issues when the analysis of their data collection is complete and that a September public meeting will be scheduled to go over the various traffic studies that will be conducted in the next month or two. We note DCR saying, despite some short-term reconfigurations, they would commit to no net reduction in trees, but perhaps increase trees and other landscaping amenities over time depending on the final design. Their main presenter was a recognized author on the subject of the Charles River, who appeared concerned with many bigger issues, including environmental concerns.
The accessibility of the DCR staff to answer all calls, take feedback, and try to provide an open process was mentioned several times during the presentation. We recognize there are tendencies in any bureaucracy not to be as open as all would like and we need to be vigilant and, as necessary, critical on behalf of our neighborhood. However, we believe we will have more credibility if we pursue such vigilance and offer our comments and criticisms in a balanced manner. The proposed tunnel reconstruction appears to be a complex and major project and the many details and mitigation proposals are beyond the scope of this email. However, we want to alert the list serv readers to the existence of an ongoing, dynamic and important public input process that is underway, and we are hopeful this will be of assistance as a partial introduction to and update on the subject. Remember, citizens and neighborhood groups can make a huge difference in these projects. Years ago, it was citizens groups that caused elected officials and planners to take heed of neighborhood concerns and radically alter and actually discontinue some of the objectionable Inner Belt highway contsruction proposals. So, it is incumbent on us to remind our State Reps, City Councillors and DCR that any Storrow reconstruction proposal be implemented only after careful and comprehensive consideration of Cambridge and other neighborhood needs. Given the fact that the closure of Storrow Drive for tunnel reconstruction could divert 100,000 cars a day, this is a project warranting community oversight and participation.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
Lots of stuff about "cooperation and coordination," with the reality strikingly different as usual for Cambridge.
They need Memorial Drive straightened out and want to destroy all those trees. The DCR/MDC says they will coordinate with the Longfellow Bridge project.
They flat out refuse to discuss the Memorial Drive coordination.
It is also interesting that the as-secret-as-possible meeting on the traffic counts seems to be unmentioned.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
This was distributed in the form of a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe on about March 30:
Reports about openness of the Department of Conservation and Recreation concerning the Storrow Drive project were demonstrated to be extremely inaccurate at a meeting in Cambridge on March 29, 2006.
The moderator flatly refused to discuss the relationship between the Storrow Drive project and environmental destruction on Memorial Drive which is rather clearly aimed at easing the Storrow Drive reconstruction.
Memorial Drive is in the process of having more than 449 to 660 trees destroyed in number interrelated projects. All the parking on the river side between the BU and Longfellow Bridges has been destroyed. Memorial Drive is being straightened out to handle the traffic from Storrow Drive.
Repeated questions about the Memorial Drive parking loss and ongoing tree destruction were answered by bragging about the tree protections on Storrow Drive.
The moderator, Mr. Karl Hoaglund, announced that most members of the public will be barred from attending a future meeting on traffic projections.
Mr. Hoaglund, in addition to being a high DCR official, has very visible association with the Charles River Conservancy. The CRC has supported the environmental destruction in Cambridge including this massive tree destruction and the bizarre ongoing project at Magazine Beach. The latter project along with a project across from the Hyatt has featured starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese which are now in their 19th month. The CRC has poisoned every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River for the past three years.
Looks like "openness" for Boston with the usual backroom dealing and environmental destruction for Cambridge.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
Dear Readers: A factual report on the Storrow Drive Closing presentation yesterday evening is forthcoming from [Identification of the guilty omitted.] Please look for it. Thank you.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
Councilor Kelley sent out the following after a maximally secret presentation DCR to the Cambridge City Council on April 6. This presentation was conducted during the day with absolutely minimal public notice. Marilyn did attend and has promised a report.
I consider the first paragraph irrelevant, but Councilor Kelley considers it relevant and I will grant him the courtesy of including it.
*********
While there may not be a connection directly between these issues, they are related and they are also related to a shooting in Jefferson Park in February, bricks being thrown through windows in North Cambridge a few weeks ago, loud little scooters running endlessly around Rindge Field at night and so on. Point being, our current policing efforts are not, around these issues, making people feel comfortable and it's not just a Cambridgeport, or North Cambridge, or Riverside, problem. So the question is, what systemic things can Cambridge as a City, to include the CPD but also youth services and the Cambridge Housing Authority and the school system and neighborhood groups and individuals and so on down the line do to make people more comfortable with our levels of safety and overall nuisance.
As someone said yesterday about the DCR's distinction between their upcoming Storrow Drive work and their ongoing Memorial Drive work, it is odd to have bureaucratic separation of things that are physically and logically related.
Thoughts?
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
The DCR connects and will coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Longfellow work. They will not connect and allegedly will not coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Memorial Drive work.
The difference is that they claim to be pro-environment and are flat out lying on Memorial Drive. The hundreds of trees being destroyed, the flat out deliberate starvation of beautiful animals, the deliberate destruction of wetlands, the twice annual destruction of native vegetation, the connection to the off ramp from the Mass. Pike - these are are matters of great shame. These are all good reasons to fire a lot of people, both at the DCR and in the City of Cambridge.
So they will not talk and they know the City of Cambridge will support them in not talking.
There is no sanction for refusing to talk. There is great sanction for living in reality.
B. More General.
One side of the problem is the complainer saying "they do not listen to us."
A much more serious part of the problem is people who consider meaningful complaints "impolite." You can say anything you want. Just do not be so "impolite" as to make meaningful complaints.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
In apparent response to a number of issues raised by Kathy Podgers, some ostensibly sensitive souls are talking about splitting the listserve quoted above. They do not want to be disturbed by reality.
Note, however, that such people commonly are very happy to have the sort of Party Line report distributed. They are just disturbed that somebody would mention negative things.
To quote:
**********
I don't think that the bantering that fills all of our mailboxes is a healthy way to share or refine ideas or that it serves us as a community. What I want from our list-serv are notices of meetings and major neighborhood events/reasons to be concerned. 5 or so such notices a month would serve me well. At our monthly meetings we can discuss these neighborhood issues as a community. We need to hear from more than the 4 or 5 folks who regularly present their points of view on the list-serv. They do not a community make.
**********
Note: The Party Line demands squelching “offensive” talks but have no response to those mentioning offensive things. Their response is censorship and reports positive in tone with key omission of matters which will never be discussed by them EVEN AFTER IT IS DONE.
Interestingly, the meetings which the Party Line favors are censored by the chair and at least one key councillor (Henrietta Davis) repeatedly shouts down those who talk reality.
At the same time, the Party Line repeatedly talks about “openness” by the DCR. What they find offensive are statements that prove the “openness” to be a lie.
This is the way things are done.
This is why Cambridge is on exactly the opposite environmentally from their lovely claims.
