Friends of the White Geese Co-chairs Robert J. La Trémouille and Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Editor of Bostonia, the Boston University alumni magazine. Bostonia's Fall, 2007 issue published an article about the White Geese.
******
To the Editor:
There may be no such thing as bad publicity. However, your recent article on the Charles River White Geese asserts the geese can't fend for themselves in their habitat. This misstatement is not only false but extremely dangerous for the animals and their friends.
For more than 20 years the White Geese did fend for themselves on the river. With waterproof down jackets, acres of meadows for food, an increasingly clean river, and the love of thousands of residents and visitors, they were safe, healthy, and a source of delight and education for their human friends. They enjoyed our contributions of food as much as we enjoyed giving them, but our contributions only supplemented what they independently got from their habitat.
Before September 2004 we had no idea how supplementary our feeding was. That month the DCR-Cambridge "restoration" prevented the geese from going ashore to feed at Magazine Beach. (The fields there have grasses and other plants, including polygonum, a wetland-defining member of the buckwheat family that is an important source of food for waterfowl.) The White Geese were frantic, because they fed here—quite on their own—all day long.
Since then it has been impossible or extremely dangerous for them to feed at Magazine Beach. They have essentially been confined to their nesting area, now their ghetto. This accords with the DCR-Cambridge policy of eliminating them from the river by whatever means necessary. If that includes starvation, too bad for the geese.
A heroic group of people, including the ones featured in your article, have kept the geese from that fate. The geese’s need for such help now is not proof they have always needed it or always will. They undeniably fended for themselves until the DCR and Cambridge deliberately denied them access to food. (This followed the DCR's deliberate destruction of the nesting habitat, using Boston University as its agent, in 1999.)
Saying the geese can't survive in their entire habitat will also allow the DCR and Cambridge to claim the geese shouldn't be there—that they're pets or farm animals, not natives—and should be removed (read: destroyed). This has in fact been the agency's line since 1998, as indicated in a memo Friends of the White Geese obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and in subsequent DCR-Cambridge actions.
Will ignorance of this history condemn us to repeat what followed from that memo?
• In 2000, the MSPCA, working with the DCR and then-State Rep. Barrios, offered "humane measures" to deal with the 1998 memo’s fabricated problems with the geese. When Friends of the White Geese proposed "humane measures" for Rep. Barrios, he claimed we wanted to assassinate him.
• In 2001, the MSPCA, still working with the DCR, again offered "humane treatment" at its happy farm in Methuen to save the geese from DCR-instigated violence. Three people, including an MSPCA employee, independently told [us] the animals would be destroyed there.
• Since 2000, the DCR has claimed it doesn’t intend to harm the geese. Since the starvation began in September, 2004, the DCR has announced that starving the geese is not harming them.
If Boston University, once again the DCR's agent, tells us the White Geese—Charles River natives for 25 generations—aren’t fit to live on the river, what's up? Can we expect another offer of "humane treatment"? DCR "No-Feeding" signs in Cambridge like in Boston and arrests of people who do feed them? More vilification of a "non-native species," more violence?
There’s a simple remedy for the geese's current plight. Restore them to their entire habitat. Recognize it as habitat, the wildlife sanctuary it is. Recognize the White Geese as the treasure they are: sources of delight and knowledge of the natural world, symbols of Cambridge, Boston, the Charles River, and even Boston University, and a sentinel species that warns us of threats to their, and our, habitat here.
With this recognition of the status quo before the DCR, Cambridge, and Boston University began their attacks on them, the Charles River White Geese would be fine.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Developer type claims to have lost 30 acres of wasteland which existed for up to 30 years in Cambridgeport.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. General.
2. Bad Guy, November 19, 2007.
3. Your editor, November 15, 2007.
4. Bad Guy, November 15, 2007.
5. Your editor, November 15, 2007.
6. Allston Community Development Corporation, November 15, 2007.
1. General.
Folks,
The following exchange started on the Cambridgeport listserve and continued.
It has reached the point of typical absurdity when dealing on development matters.
This is a typical tactic from the development lobby. Wear down the good guy with bizarre detail. To respect such demands belittles the statement of the good guy.
In this case, I compared Harvard's landbanking at the Shaw's on Western Avenue in Allston to the highly destructive landbanking which MIT did in Cambridgeport starting in about 1968 with the purchase of the Simplex properties.
MIT created a grassy expanse which reached 30 acres in the middle of one of the most densely developed cities in the United States.
This wasteland destroyed the viability of Central Square in Cambridge by destroying hundreds if not thousands of jobs and the money those people would spend in Central Square.
The wasteland was a blight on Cambridge starting with the eastern side of Brookline Street and extending blocks over to and behind what was then the NECCO factory at Albany and Mass. Ave.
The remnants on Brookline Street are blocks of construction from the 90's to 00's where for decades there was nothing but grass.
So the bad guy wants me to spell out to the bad guy where this 30 acre wasteland was for a period of up to 30 years in this neighborhood.
This sort of question from an outsider makes excellent sense.
This sort of question from somebody who knows Cambridge is an insult. You do not lose 30 acres of wasteland in one of the country's most densely developed cities.
The following exchange followed based on my analysis.
You may read from the bottom if you wish or just start with the nonsense.
Thank you.
2. Bad Guy, November 19, 2007.
[censored to protect the guilty] wrote:
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:36:23 -0500
From: [censored to protect the guilty]
To: "Bob LaTrémouille"
Subject: Re: [cportneighbors] Governor Patrick Coming to Affordable Housing in Near Part of Allston Tomorrow
I am not telling you anything, rather I am asking you a question to which your reply was not responsive. Addresses on Brookline or "I don't know" would be examples of responsive answers. If you want to provide additional history or links beyond the answer to my specific question, that's fine by me.
3. Your editor, November 15, 2007.
On 11/15/07, Bob LaTrémouille wrote:
Golley Gee, I guess we are now being told that
(1) the 70's, 80's and 90's did not happen and
(2) Central Square was not destroyed by the landbanking in Cambridgeport by MIT, and
(3) there was never a wasteland of many, many acres east of Brookline Street.
I am afraid I have always lived in reality and we did live in reality during that outrage.
4. Bad Guy, November 15, 2007.
[censored to protect the guilty] wrote:
Do you know which of the buildings on Brookline St. are part of the MIT landbank, and if there are plans floating out there somewhere for what MIT is going to do with its land in the future?
5. Your editor, November 15, 2007.
On 11/15/07, Bob LaTrémouille wrote [to the Cambridgeport listserve]:
For your information.
These units are off Everett Street in Allston between the Mass. Pike and North Beacon Street. A lot is going on in this part of Allston which impacts Riverside and Cambridgeport.
Everett Street is the major street which crosses Western Avenue just before the Shaw's Shopping Center.
You will recall that Harvard's landbanking has turned the Shaw's Shopping Center into a ghost town worthy of MIT's landbanking in Cambridgeport. Harvard is trying and apparently succeeding in forcing affordable housing tenants from the project at North Harvard and Western to the Shaw's shopping center as part of Harvard's expansion in Allston.
The project where the governor is coming is three to four blocks south of the Shaw's site.
The project where the governor is coming is quite close to Union Square, Allston.
Additionally, many people are interested in affordable housing and could be in this nearby townhouse type of construction.
6. Allston Community Development Corporation, November 15, 2007.
Bob Van Meter < vanmeter@allstonbrightoncdc.org> wrote:
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:01:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Bob Van Meter < vanmeter@allstonbrightoncdc.org>
To: boblat@yahoo.com
Subject: Governor Patrick Coming to the Brian J. Honan Apartments Tomorrow
Governor Patrick Coming Tomorrow to the Brian J. Honan Apartments
Please join Governor Patrick and Mayor Menino, Rep. Kevin Honan and the Allston Brighton CDC at the Brian J. Honan apartments at 33 Everett Street in Allston tomorrow, Friday November 16, at 11 AM. Governor Patrick has chosen the site for the release of his Affordable Housing Bond Bill.
The Brian J. Honan apartments are 50 units of affordable rental housing for families, developed and owned by the Allston Brighton CDC. The housing was named in honor of the late Allston Brighton City Councilor Brian J. Honan who was instrumental in securing the site for the homes that now bear his name.
The Brian J. Honan Apartments were made possible by a unique partnership including suppport from the City of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Harvard University, the Home Funders Collaborative, Massachusetts Housing Partnership, Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation, Bank of America, the Massachusetts Life Insurance Community Investment Initiative , Mass Development, Boston Community Capital and the Renewable Energy Trust of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Allston Brighton CDC
320 Washington Street
Brighton, Massachusetts 02135
617-787-3874
info@allstonbrightoncdc.org
www.allstonbrightoncdc.org
[They had some lovely graphics which got lost]
1. General.
2. Bad Guy, November 19, 2007.
3. Your editor, November 15, 2007.
4. Bad Guy, November 15, 2007.
5. Your editor, November 15, 2007.
6. Allston Community Development Corporation, November 15, 2007.
1. General.
Folks,
The following exchange started on the Cambridgeport listserve and continued.
It has reached the point of typical absurdity when dealing on development matters.
This is a typical tactic from the development lobby. Wear down the good guy with bizarre detail. To respect such demands belittles the statement of the good guy.
In this case, I compared Harvard's landbanking at the Shaw's on Western Avenue in Allston to the highly destructive landbanking which MIT did in Cambridgeport starting in about 1968 with the purchase of the Simplex properties.
MIT created a grassy expanse which reached 30 acres in the middle of one of the most densely developed cities in the United States.
This wasteland destroyed the viability of Central Square in Cambridge by destroying hundreds if not thousands of jobs and the money those people would spend in Central Square.
The wasteland was a blight on Cambridge starting with the eastern side of Brookline Street and extending blocks over to and behind what was then the NECCO factory at Albany and Mass. Ave.
The remnants on Brookline Street are blocks of construction from the 90's to 00's where for decades there was nothing but grass.
So the bad guy wants me to spell out to the bad guy where this 30 acre wasteland was for a period of up to 30 years in this neighborhood.
This sort of question from an outsider makes excellent sense.
This sort of question from somebody who knows Cambridge is an insult. You do not lose 30 acres of wasteland in one of the country's most densely developed cities.
The following exchange followed based on my analysis.
You may read from the bottom if you wish or just start with the nonsense.
Thank you.
2. Bad Guy, November 19, 2007.
[censored to protect the guilty] wrote:
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:36:23 -0500
From: [censored to protect the guilty]
To: "Bob LaTrémouille"
Subject: Re: [cportneighbors] Governor Patrick Coming to Affordable Housing in Near Part of Allston Tomorrow
I am not telling you anything, rather I am asking you a question to which your reply was not responsive. Addresses on Brookline or "I don't know" would be examples of responsive answers. If you want to provide additional history or links beyond the answer to my specific question, that's fine by me.
3. Your editor, November 15, 2007.
On 11/15/07, Bob LaTrémouille
Golley Gee, I guess we are now being told that
(1) the 70's, 80's and 90's did not happen and
(2) Central Square was not destroyed by the landbanking in Cambridgeport by MIT, and
(3) there was never a wasteland of many, many acres east of Brookline Street.
I am afraid I have always lived in reality and we did live in reality during that outrage.
4. Bad Guy, November 15, 2007.
[censored to protect the guilty] wrote:
Do you know which of the buildings on Brookline St. are part of the MIT landbank, and if there are plans floating out there somewhere for what MIT is going to do with its land in the future?
5. Your editor, November 15, 2007.
On 11/15/07, Bob LaTrémouille
For your information.
These units are off Everett Street in Allston between the Mass. Pike and North Beacon Street. A lot is going on in this part of Allston which impacts Riverside and Cambridgeport.
Everett Street is the major street which crosses Western Avenue just before the Shaw's Shopping Center.
You will recall that Harvard's landbanking has turned the Shaw's Shopping Center into a ghost town worthy of MIT's landbanking in Cambridgeport. Harvard is trying and apparently succeeding in forcing affordable housing tenants from the project at North Harvard and Western to the Shaw's shopping center as part of Harvard's expansion in Allston.
The project where the governor is coming is three to four blocks south of the Shaw's site.
The project where the governor is coming is quite close to Union Square, Allston.
Additionally, many people are interested in affordable housing and could be in this nearby townhouse type of construction.
6. Allston Community Development Corporation, November 15, 2007.
Bob Van Meter < vanmeter@allstonbrightoncdc.org> wrote:
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:01:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Bob Van Meter < vanmeter@allstonbrightoncdc.org>
To: boblat@yahoo.com
Subject: Governor Patrick Coming to the Brian J. Honan Apartments Tomorrow
Governor Patrick Coming Tomorrow to the Brian J. Honan Apartments
Please join Governor Patrick and Mayor Menino, Rep. Kevin Honan and the Allston Brighton CDC at the Brian J. Honan apartments at 33 Everett Street in Allston tomorrow, Friday November 16, at 11 AM. Governor Patrick has chosen the site for the release of his Affordable Housing Bond Bill.
The Brian J. Honan apartments are 50 units of affordable rental housing for families, developed and owned by the Allston Brighton CDC. The housing was named in honor of the late Allston Brighton City Councilor Brian J. Honan who was instrumental in securing the site for the homes that now bear his name.
The Brian J. Honan Apartments were made possible by a unique partnership including suppport from the City of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Harvard University, the Home Funders Collaborative, Massachusetts Housing Partnership, Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation, Bank of America, the Massachusetts Life Insurance Community Investment Initiative , Mass Development, Boston Community Capital and the Renewable Energy Trust of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Allston Brighton CDC
320 Washington Street
Brighton, Massachusetts 02135
617-787-3874
info@allstonbrightoncdc.org
www.allstonbrightoncdc.org
[They had some lovely graphics which got lost]
Friday, November 09, 2007
Newly Elected Cambridge City Councilor in Context
Progressive Government in Cambridge Takes Yet Another Step Backwards
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. General Analysis.
2. Specific current issues.
A. Civil rights and the right of the handicapped, Kathy Podgers in context.
B. Environmentalism.
C. Election law.
D. Development issues.
3. Comparison to the Walsh law firm.
A. General.
B. The Boston Globe series and the Worcester bankruptcy records.
4. Summary.
5. Disclaimer.
1. General Analysis.
Samuel Seidel was elected to the Cambridge City Council on Tuesday.
This gives the really destructive fake progressive clique, the Cambridge pols, an outrageous 6 to 3 margin. The other 3 are most definitely not good guys. They just do not care and go along with the destructive group.
To give you a feel for just how destructive Seidel is, please look at the following analysis from this blog, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html. In this report, Seidel brags about that he and the rest of the Cambridge pols have a secret definition of "environmentalism." The secret definition of "environmentalism" by the Cambridge pols is highly destructive of the environment.
2. Specific current issues.
A. Civil rights and the right of the handicapped, Kathy Podgers in context.
The sort of treatment Kathy Podgers got by people who almost certainly are owned by the Cambridge pols group is just one part of the tactics of the Cambridge pols.
Kathy Podgers has the nerve to expect the City of Cambridge to respect her Civil Rights as a Person With Disabilities under federal law.
The City of Cambridge contends that the City of Cambridge has its own civil rights laws. The City of Cambridge's law does not protect people like Kathy. The City of Cambridge says that their civil rights and disabilities laws are good enough. How dare anybody expect them to respect Federal civil rights and disabilities laws.
Strange, the Cambridge position sounds a lot like the Jim Crow south.
No wonder the friends of the Cambridge pols are running around making personal attacks against Kathy. There is nothing which offends these people more than somebody who meaningfully stands for causes they are lying about.
B. Environmentalism.
Environmentalism is just the most blatantly vile behavior of these people.
Civil rights is another area in which the Cambridge pols have contempt for decency. Their position has the stench of 50's Jim Crow: they have their civil rights laws; how dare anybody expect the Cambridge pols to obey Federal civil rights laws.
C. Election law.
When I first ran for Cambridge City Councilor four years ago, the Cambridge Election Commission tossed out 51 of 100 nominating signatures. 100 signatures is the maximum which can be submitted. 50 is the absolute minimum to get on the ballot.
The 51 were tossed out because the Cambridge Election Commission refuses to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson ballot law case. There is nothing complicated about it. The Cambridge Election Commission simply refuses to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson election law case. And the 1998 Jack E. Robinson election law case is very clearly controlling. BY VOTE OF AN ELECTION COMMISSION STACKED WITH LAWYERS WHO CLAIM TO BE PROGRESSIVE.
The most illuminating explanation I ever got for the trashing of those 51 signatures in spite of the very clearly applicable Jack E. Robinson ballot law case was "That is the way things are done in Cambridge."
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" has the stench of 1950's Jim Crow.
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" has a very clear stench of lawlessness for which many governments in this country have been roundly held in contempt.
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" exactly fits the current Cambridge city government.
D. Development issues.
Development issues, of course, are a web of lies.
Reality is that the Cambridge pols are living a lie.
There is a very definite and very strong stench about Cambridge City Government.
3. Comparison to the Walsh law firm.
A. General.
The last time I smelled such a stench was when I tried to do legal business with Cambridge's Walsh law firm in the mid to late 80's.
Bill Walsh was, politically, a very good friend, a person whom I respected politically in spite of major political disagreement on one specific issue (in sharp contrast to the current situation), but the Walsh law office had that stench about it when I did legal business with it.
A number of members of that law office went to jail in the early 90's because of lack of respect for laws which people go to jail for violating.
B. The Boston Globe series and the Worcester bankruptcy records.
The Globe did a three part series on the Walsh law office as the case was unfolding. The Globe documented legally questionable maneuverings in specific, limited parts of the state in the first and third parts of the series (Friday and Sunday). They did an excellent job. They provided an incredible amount of detail.
The middle part expanded on the analysis of the problem by providing related instances in other parts of the state, not the massive detail, but very clear facts expanding the analysis.
The middle part was based on a bankruptcy filing in Worcester by a person who never lived more than two blocks or so from Porter Square in Cambridge.
I had been checking out Boston Land Court records concerning the Walsh matter and another person related to Walsh when I was led to the individual who filed this bankruptcy. When I realized he had filed in Worcester, all sorts of bells went off.
The bankruptcy petition said one thing originally. The bankruptcy petition was amended AFTER the Walsh indictment to add the things which were the middle report in the Boston Globe series.
The amendments related to the Walsh indictment. The amendments related to matters for which Walsh was indicted. The "failure" to include these items in the original filing combined with the addition after the indictment said to me that the filer considered the indictment directly related to the filer's "bankruptcy estate." The preceding sentence should be considered an understatement.
When I saw what was in in those amendments after the Walsh indictment, my response disrupted a very quiet courthouse.
4. Summary.
Mr. Seidel by his incredible position on the definition of environmentalism and by his Conservation Commission actions has gone on record as part of the current stench.
5. Disclaimer.
In no way should my current analysis be interpreted as saying that I have legal grounds to think there are valid grounds for anybody currently in Cambridge city government to go to jail.
The reality was that, when I was trying to do legal business with the Walsh law firm in the mid to late 1980's, I saw the same contempt for law and contempt for reality which I see in the current Cambridge city government.
In the Walsh law firm of the 80's as now, I did not see any reason why people should go to jail. In the Walsh law firm of the 80's as now, I just saw contempt for law and for reality.
I see contempt for law and for reality in Cambridge city government now. I saw contempt for law and for reality in the Walsh law firm in the 80's.
The current problem is most definitely much larger than one person added to the Cambridge City Council. The current problem is most definitely much larger than six people plus three on the Cambridge City Council.
The current problem is a package which stinks to high heaven and there are a very large number of people involved.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. General Analysis.
2. Specific current issues.
A. Civil rights and the right of the handicapped, Kathy Podgers in context.
B. Environmentalism.
C. Election law.
D. Development issues.
3. Comparison to the Walsh law firm.
A. General.
B. The Boston Globe series and the Worcester bankruptcy records.
4. Summary.
5. Disclaimer.
1. General Analysis.
Samuel Seidel was elected to the Cambridge City Council on Tuesday.
This gives the really destructive fake progressive clique, the Cambridge pols, an outrageous 6 to 3 margin. The other 3 are most definitely not good guys. They just do not care and go along with the destructive group.
To give you a feel for just how destructive Seidel is, please look at the following analysis from this blog, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html. In this report, Seidel brags about that he and the rest of the Cambridge pols have a secret definition of "environmentalism." The secret definition of "environmentalism" by the Cambridge pols is highly destructive of the environment.
2. Specific current issues.
A. Civil rights and the right of the handicapped, Kathy Podgers in context.
The sort of treatment Kathy Podgers got by people who almost certainly are owned by the Cambridge pols group is just one part of the tactics of the Cambridge pols.
Kathy Podgers has the nerve to expect the City of Cambridge to respect her Civil Rights as a Person With Disabilities under federal law.
The City of Cambridge contends that the City of Cambridge has its own civil rights laws. The City of Cambridge's law does not protect people like Kathy. The City of Cambridge says that their civil rights and disabilities laws are good enough. How dare anybody expect them to respect Federal civil rights and disabilities laws.
Strange, the Cambridge position sounds a lot like the Jim Crow south.
No wonder the friends of the Cambridge pols are running around making personal attacks against Kathy. There is nothing which offends these people more than somebody who meaningfully stands for causes they are lying about.
B. Environmentalism.
Environmentalism is just the most blatantly vile behavior of these people.
Civil rights is another area in which the Cambridge pols have contempt for decency. Their position has the stench of 50's Jim Crow: they have their civil rights laws; how dare anybody expect the Cambridge pols to obey Federal civil rights laws.
C. Election law.
When I first ran for Cambridge City Councilor four years ago, the Cambridge Election Commission tossed out 51 of 100 nominating signatures. 100 signatures is the maximum which can be submitted. 50 is the absolute minimum to get on the ballot.
The 51 were tossed out because the Cambridge Election Commission refuses to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson ballot law case. There is nothing complicated about it. The Cambridge Election Commission simply refuses to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson election law case. And the 1998 Jack E. Robinson election law case is very clearly controlling. BY VOTE OF AN ELECTION COMMISSION STACKED WITH LAWYERS WHO CLAIM TO BE PROGRESSIVE.
The most illuminating explanation I ever got for the trashing of those 51 signatures in spite of the very clearly applicable Jack E. Robinson ballot law case was "That is the way things are done in Cambridge."
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" has the stench of 1950's Jim Crow.
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" has a very clear stench of lawlessness for which many governments in this country have been roundly held in contempt.
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" exactly fits the current Cambridge city government.
D. Development issues.
Development issues, of course, are a web of lies.
Reality is that the Cambridge pols are living a lie.
There is a very definite and very strong stench about Cambridge City Government.
3. Comparison to the Walsh law firm.
A. General.
The last time I smelled such a stench was when I tried to do legal business with Cambridge's Walsh law firm in the mid to late 80's.
Bill Walsh was, politically, a very good friend, a person whom I respected politically in spite of major political disagreement on one specific issue (in sharp contrast to the current situation), but the Walsh law office had that stench about it when I did legal business with it.
A number of members of that law office went to jail in the early 90's because of lack of respect for laws which people go to jail for violating.
B. The Boston Globe series and the Worcester bankruptcy records.
The Globe did a three part series on the Walsh law office as the case was unfolding. The Globe documented legally questionable maneuverings in specific, limited parts of the state in the first and third parts of the series (Friday and Sunday). They did an excellent job. They provided an incredible amount of detail.
The middle part expanded on the analysis of the problem by providing related instances in other parts of the state, not the massive detail, but very clear facts expanding the analysis.
The middle part was based on a bankruptcy filing in Worcester by a person who never lived more than two blocks or so from Porter Square in Cambridge.
I had been checking out Boston Land Court records concerning the Walsh matter and another person related to Walsh when I was led to the individual who filed this bankruptcy. When I realized he had filed in Worcester, all sorts of bells went off.
The bankruptcy petition said one thing originally. The bankruptcy petition was amended AFTER the Walsh indictment to add the things which were the middle report in the Boston Globe series.
The amendments related to the Walsh indictment. The amendments related to matters for which Walsh was indicted. The "failure" to include these items in the original filing combined with the addition after the indictment said to me that the filer considered the indictment directly related to the filer's "bankruptcy estate." The preceding sentence should be considered an understatement.
When I saw what was in in those amendments after the Walsh indictment, my response disrupted a very quiet courthouse.
4. Summary.
Mr. Seidel by his incredible position on the definition of environmentalism and by his Conservation Commission actions has gone on record as part of the current stench.
5. Disclaimer.
In no way should my current analysis be interpreted as saying that I have legal grounds to think there are valid grounds for anybody currently in Cambridge city government to go to jail.
The reality was that, when I was trying to do legal business with the Walsh law firm in the mid to late 1980's, I saw the same contempt for law and contempt for reality which I see in the current Cambridge city government.
In the Walsh law firm of the 80's as now, I did not see any reason why people should go to jail. In the Walsh law firm of the 80's as now, I just saw contempt for law and for reality.
I see contempt for law and for reality in Cambridge city government now. I saw contempt for law and for reality in the Walsh law firm in the 80's.
The current problem is most definitely much larger than one person added to the Cambridge City Council. The current problem is most definitely much larger than six people plus three on the Cambridge City Council.
The current problem is a package which stinks to high heaven and there are a very large number of people involved.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Rumor campaign against Kathy Podgers
Friends of a friend who saw City Council candidate Kathy Podgers on Sunday's CCTV debate called her to say they were impressed. Kathy was solid on the issues, thoughtful, and she didn't seem like a "nut case."
Where could they have gotten the idea she was a "nut case"?
This is the rumor the bad guys have been spreading about Kathy.
It repeats the slander against her at the Cambridge City Council meeting a year ago when city officials mocked, threatened, and publicly humiliated her to try to silence her and get her out of the Council chamber.
They violated her civil rights to attend and participate in the Council meeting as a person with a physical disability accompanied by her service animal. The Mass. Commission Against Discrimination found "Probable Cause" to believe city officials (including two candidates for re-election) discriminated against her as she said. The persons named in Kathy's complaint are encouraged to resolve the problem before a public hearing set for December 12.
In attempting to dismiss Kathy as a "nut case," anyone spreading this rumor simply confirms his or her own bias against persons with disabilities. Would a rumor using the "N word" about a candidate spread without revealing the rumor-mongers as bigots?
On the one hand we read that mental illness is a true disability, that its sufferers have a right to respect and dignity. On the other we have people right here in Cambridge using the designation to indicate a person can be ignored or abused with impunity. Whether they apply this or other derogatory terms to a person with mental illness or a person with a physical disability, like Kathy, it is bigotry, and it plays to bigotry.
Who, and what, is sick here?
Marilyn Wellons
Where could they have gotten the idea she was a "nut case"?
This is the rumor the bad guys have been spreading about Kathy.
It repeats the slander against her at the Cambridge City Council meeting a year ago when city officials mocked, threatened, and publicly humiliated her to try to silence her and get her out of the Council chamber.
They violated her civil rights to attend and participate in the Council meeting as a person with a physical disability accompanied by her service animal. The Mass. Commission Against Discrimination found "Probable Cause" to believe city officials (including two candidates for re-election) discriminated against her as she said. The persons named in Kathy's complaint are encouraged to resolve the problem before a public hearing set for December 12.
In attempting to dismiss Kathy as a "nut case," anyone spreading this rumor simply confirms his or her own bias against persons with disabilities. Would a rumor using the "N word" about a candidate spread without revealing the rumor-mongers as bigots?
On the one hand we read that mental illness is a true disability, that its sufferers have a right to respect and dignity. On the other we have people right here in Cambridge using the designation to indicate a person can be ignored or abused with impunity. Whether they apply this or other derogatory terms to a person with mental illness or a person with a physical disability, like Kathy, it is bigotry, and it plays to bigotry.
Who, and what, is sick here?
Marilyn Wellons
Cambridge Pol Advertises for Election Help, Withdraws Ad
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Ad on Craigslist.
2. Responses.
3. Counterad.
4. Ad pulled.
1. Ad on Craigslist.
The following ad appeared on Craigslist on November 2, 2007 with regard to Cambridge, MA:
**********
Progressive candidate for city council is looking for last minute help Monday
and Tuesday. The campaign is very tight and we are looking for the final push to
take us over the top.
Are you a leader? Put together a team and we will pay you more!
Support Workers' Rights! Make Housing Affordable! End the War!
2. Responses.
I distributed a copy of the ad to perhaps a hundred of my closest friends.
One suggested that it sounded like Decker or Seidel.
3. Counterad.
I posted the following counterad on Sunday, November 5. The PPS was added after the suggestion that it could be Decker or Seidel.
************
Work for a “Progressive” Cambridge City Councilor?
A recent posting sought workers for a “progressive” Cambridge City Councilor.
There is no such thing.
A recent MCAD ruling found probable cause of discrimination in the City Council’s attempt to keep a handicapped woman in her 60’s from using her guide dog in a city council meeting. Cambridge is appealing.
Cambridge seems to claim that Cambridge has a right to ignore federal civil rights of the handicapped because Cambridge has their own civil rights laws which do not protect this woman’s dog. They want to obey their less protective laws, not the fed’s more protective laws. Sounds like state’s rights in the Jim Crow south, but this is worse. Cambridge may think it is a People’s Republik, but it is not even a state.
The City of Cambridge is in the process of destroying hundreds if not thousands of healthy trees at Fresh Pond. Cambridge has no problem with the state Department of Recreation and Development’s plans to destroy 449 to 660 trees on Memorial Drive between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge including every cherry tree. Cambridge routinely destroys healthy trees as part of its projects.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed the wetlands and animal habitat at Magazine Beach to put in designer bushes which kept dying.
The feds have prohibited more phosphate addition to the Charles. Cambridge and the DCR are digging up seven acres of dirt at Magazine Beach to replace it with seven acres of dirt and phosphates.
Cambridge’s buddies at the DCR spent four years denying their plans would harm the 25 year resident gaggle of Charles River White Geese. They then explained that starving them is not harming them.
Their buddies did a similar project at Ebersol Fields near Mass. General last year. The Phosphates did not work, so they added Tartan. The next day, the Charles River was dead with algae from the harbor to Mass. Ave.
A young woman was raped and murdered near the BU Bridge apparently by a guy who graduated from killing mother geese on their nests. The DCR and Cambridge were belligerently neutral on the goose killings. Then Cambridge’s city council spent more than an hour discussing the rape and murder but DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where she was raped and murdered.
Will Cambridge and the DCR obey the feds on phosphates? Cambridge considers its rules more important than the fed’s when it comes to Cambridge abusing the handicapped.
PS: The guide dog was attacked by a pit bull belonging to a Cambridge cop in the lobby of the Cambridge police station. No negative comment by Cambridge city council and no known punishment of the cop.
PPS: I just reread the posting and realize that this could be a non-incumbent. One non-incumbent has previously posted on Craigslist and claims to be progressive.
He is a member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission who, I believe, has been on the scene since after the rape and murder. His hand are filthy with the environmental destruction after that.
He has publicly defended Cambridge pols’ environmental destructiveness claiming that they have a “better” definition of environmentalism.
Sounds roughly like the claim of the City Council to defend their barring the guide dog, and their apparent response to the EPA objection to their new phosphates.
Most of us live in reality.
4. Ad pulled.
As of this morning, November 5, when I checked Craigslist, the "progressive" Cambridge City Council candidate seems to have pulled the ad.
1. Ad on Craigslist.
2. Responses.
3. Counterad.
4. Ad pulled.
1. Ad on Craigslist.
The following ad appeared on Craigslist on November 2, 2007 with regard to Cambridge, MA:
**********
Progressive candidate for city council is looking for last minute help Monday
and Tuesday. The campaign is very tight and we are looking for the final push to
take us over the top.
Are you a leader? Put together a team and we will pay you more!
Support Workers' Rights! Make Housing Affordable! End the War!
2. Responses.
I distributed a copy of the ad to perhaps a hundred of my closest friends.
One suggested that it sounded like Decker or Seidel.
3. Counterad.
I posted the following counterad on Sunday, November 5. The PPS was added after the suggestion that it could be Decker or Seidel.
************
Work for a “Progressive” Cambridge City Councilor?
A recent posting sought workers for a “progressive” Cambridge City Councilor.
There is no such thing.
A recent MCAD ruling found probable cause of discrimination in the City Council’s attempt to keep a handicapped woman in her 60’s from using her guide dog in a city council meeting. Cambridge is appealing.
Cambridge seems to claim that Cambridge has a right to ignore federal civil rights of the handicapped because Cambridge has their own civil rights laws which do not protect this woman’s dog. They want to obey their less protective laws, not the fed’s more protective laws. Sounds like state’s rights in the Jim Crow south, but this is worse. Cambridge may think it is a People’s Republik, but it is not even a state.
The City of Cambridge is in the process of destroying hundreds if not thousands of healthy trees at Fresh Pond. Cambridge has no problem with the state Department of Recreation and Development’s plans to destroy 449 to 660 trees on Memorial Drive between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge including every cherry tree. Cambridge routinely destroys healthy trees as part of its projects.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed the wetlands and animal habitat at Magazine Beach to put in designer bushes which kept dying.
The feds have prohibited more phosphate addition to the Charles. Cambridge and the DCR are digging up seven acres of dirt at Magazine Beach to replace it with seven acres of dirt and phosphates.
Cambridge’s buddies at the DCR spent four years denying their plans would harm the 25 year resident gaggle of Charles River White Geese. They then explained that starving them is not harming them.
Their buddies did a similar project at Ebersol Fields near Mass. General last year. The Phosphates did not work, so they added Tartan. The next day, the Charles River was dead with algae from the harbor to Mass. Ave.
A young woman was raped and murdered near the BU Bridge apparently by a guy who graduated from killing mother geese on their nests. The DCR and Cambridge were belligerently neutral on the goose killings. Then Cambridge’s city council spent more than an hour discussing the rape and murder but DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where she was raped and murdered.
Will Cambridge and the DCR obey the feds on phosphates? Cambridge considers its rules more important than the fed’s when it comes to Cambridge abusing the handicapped.
PS: The guide dog was attacked by a pit bull belonging to a Cambridge cop in the lobby of the Cambridge police station. No negative comment by Cambridge city council and no known punishment of the cop.
PPS: I just reread the posting and realize that this could be a non-incumbent. One non-incumbent has previously posted on Craigslist and claims to be progressive.
He is a member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission who, I believe, has been on the scene since after the rape and murder. His hand are filthy with the environmental destruction after that.
He has publicly defended Cambridge pols’ environmental destructiveness claiming that they have a “better” definition of environmentalism.
Sounds roughly like the claim of the City Council to defend their barring the guide dog, and their apparent response to the EPA objection to their new phosphates.
Most of us live in reality.
4. Ad pulled.
As of this morning, November 5, when I checked Craigslist, the "progressive" Cambridge City Council candidate seems to have pulled the ad.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Cambridge, MA: A city government with a stench about it
The following was published in the November 1, 2007, Cambridge Chronicle:
************
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is to be commended for standing up to Cambridge environmentally reprehensible city government.
The EPA order for no new phosphate sources on the Charles River is a direct prohibition of Phase II of the outrageous Magazine Beach project with its combined animal starvation / poisoning and the poisoning of the Charles River through phosphate runoff.
Without phase II of Cambridge city's project, Magazine Beach is now a “green” place in the best sense of the word, except for the bizarre designer bushes for which wetlands and animal habitat was destroyed along with the usual deliberate animal starvation.
In city whose pols mouth holier than thous almost incessantly including on environmental matters, it should be a foregone conclusion that the EPA order would kill the balance of this reprehensible project.
Regrettably, the Chronicle, in its major fight to review the mayor’s spending has seen the contempt for law which is normal in the City of Cambridge .
Another recent example of Cambridge contempt for law is the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination’s recent finding of probable cause in Cambridge ’s abuse of a guide dog being used by a handicapped person and Cambridge ’s refusal to enforce Federal law protecting that guide dog (I know the fights, not the specific details of the finding). Cambridge , in a position strikingly similar to the Jim Crow south, says that Cambridge ’s civil rights laws are good enough. Cambridge refuses to obey federal civil rights laws which give more civil rights to the handicapped than Cambridge cares to give.
Another example of Cambridge contempt for law was the trashing of 51 nominating petition signatures on this candidate’s election papers (making those papers invalid) a few years ago. Cambridge Election Commission, filled with lawyers, considers itself above the clearly applicable Jack E. Robinson election law decision.
Lawlessness is the norm in the granting of property variances, unless the city, through lying to the public, has trashed the zoning laws sufficiently that variances are no longer necessary.
The contempt for law, the contempt for basic principals of good government and the contempt for basic principals of a good city combine with the holier than thou lies to really create a vile stench about our government.
Keep up the good fight on your part of watching this government in action.
I myself will keep an eye on Magazine Beach and an eye on a whole bunch of Cambridge pols who lie about being pro-environment.
************
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is to be commended for standing up to Cambridge environmentally reprehensible city government.
The EPA order for no new phosphate sources on the Charles River is a direct prohibition of Phase II of the outrageous Magazine Beach project with its combined animal starvation / poisoning and the poisoning of the Charles River through phosphate runoff.
Without phase II of Cambridge city's project, Magazine Beach is now a “green” place in the best sense of the word, except for the bizarre designer bushes for which wetlands and animal habitat was destroyed along with the usual deliberate animal starvation.
In city whose pols mouth holier than thous almost incessantly including on environmental matters, it should be a foregone conclusion that the EPA order would kill the balance of this reprehensible project.
Regrettably, the Chronicle, in its major fight to review the mayor’s spending has seen the contempt for law which is normal in the City of Cambridge .
Another recent example of Cambridge contempt for law is the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination’s recent finding of probable cause in Cambridge ’s abuse of a guide dog being used by a handicapped person and Cambridge ’s refusal to enforce Federal law protecting that guide dog (I know the fights, not the specific details of the finding). Cambridge , in a position strikingly similar to the Jim Crow south, says that Cambridge ’s civil rights laws are good enough. Cambridge refuses to obey federal civil rights laws which give more civil rights to the handicapped than Cambridge cares to give.
Another example of Cambridge contempt for law was the trashing of 51 nominating petition signatures on this candidate’s election papers (making those papers invalid) a few years ago. Cambridge Election Commission, filled with lawyers, considers itself above the clearly applicable Jack E. Robinson election law decision.
Lawlessness is the norm in the granting of property variances, unless the city, through lying to the public, has trashed the zoning laws sufficiently that variances are no longer necessary.
The contempt for law, the contempt for basic principals of good government and the contempt for basic principals of a good city combine with the holier than thou lies to really create a vile stench about our government.
Keep up the good fight on your part of watching this government in action.
I myself will keep an eye on Magazine Beach and an eye on a whole bunch of Cambridge pols who lie about being pro-environment.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
What happens to the White Geese in the Winter? Plus election recommendation.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
We got the following very appropriate question in email. Here is the question and a slightly cleaned up answer:
1. Please let me know what happens to the White Geese in the winter. Thanks!
2. Response:
The Charles River White Geese lived in freedom on the Charles River for 23 years, from 1981 to 2004 when the state and Cambridge pols and bureaucrats started to deliberately starve them.
They have goose down jackets and survive cold temperatures quite happily.
Winter extremes are the reason free animals including the CRWG stuff themselves during the good parts of the year, so that they can survive the winter with its lack of food.
Many friends would visit them during the off year with cracked corn, bread and veggies to help, as we did during the good times of the year.
When the DCR started starving the geese, the DCR explained that they did not consider starving them to be harming them.
Since the starvation attacks started, concerned people have aggressively been feeding the Charles River White Geese, and local charities have contributed day old greens, of great value.
These contributions have been necessary because we are dealing with PROUDLY reprehensible people, although the DCR spent years insisting they would do no harm to the CRWG.
We have found that our prior feedings were very much supplemental. We have found that the principal food was the grass at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt, all of which were taken away at once.
In the feedings, we and, more recently, a separate feeding organization carefully balanced the CRWG’s diet. Full feedings now continue year round.
If you are a Cambridge resident, please be advised that heartless individuals include each and every current city council incumbent. The conservation committee member who is a candidate, Samuel Sidel, could reasonably be considered worse.
The ONLY Cambridge City Council Candidate that I am aware of who has shown herself fit to be voted for is Kathy Podgers.
We got the following very appropriate question in email. Here is the question and a slightly cleaned up answer:
1. Please let me know what happens to the White Geese in the winter. Thanks!
2. Response:
The Charles River White Geese lived in freedom on the Charles River for 23 years, from 1981 to 2004 when the state and Cambridge pols and bureaucrats started to deliberately starve them.
They have goose down jackets and survive cold temperatures quite happily.
Winter extremes are the reason free animals including the CRWG stuff themselves during the good parts of the year, so that they can survive the winter with its lack of food.
Many friends would visit them during the off year with cracked corn, bread and veggies to help, as we did during the good times of the year.
When the DCR started starving the geese, the DCR explained that they did not consider starving them to be harming them.
Since the starvation attacks started, concerned people have aggressively been feeding the Charles River White Geese, and local charities have contributed day old greens, of great value.
These contributions have been necessary because we are dealing with PROUDLY reprehensible people, although the DCR spent years insisting they would do no harm to the CRWG.
We have found that our prior feedings were very much supplemental. We have found that the principal food was the grass at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt, all of which were taken away at once.
In the feedings, we and, more recently, a separate feeding organization carefully balanced the CRWG’s diet. Full feedings now continue year round.
If you are a Cambridge resident, please be advised that heartless individuals include each and every current city council incumbent. The conservation committee member who is a candidate, Samuel Sidel, could reasonably be considered worse.
The ONLY Cambridge City Council Candidate that I am aware of who has shown herself fit to be voted for is Kathy Podgers.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Destruction resumes on the Charles River West of the BU Bridge
Marilyn Wellons follows up on Bob La Tremouille's early morning report:
Bob La Tremouille posted this alert early Wednesday morning. As soon as I could, I went to Magazine Beach to find out what was up.
Fortunately, for the moment, there's no major construction at Magazine Beach now. According to the MWRA workers I talked to, the extensive stack of items at Magazine Beach is a large quantity of pontoons, leftovers from the Head of the Charles regatta, now removed from the river.
If not today, major construction is nevertheless coming, if the City of Cambridge has its way. Phase 2 of the joint Cambridge-DCR project here--replacing 7 acres of ball fields and wildlife habitat there with 7 acres of commercial sod (zero wildlife value but lots of chemicals)--will go out to bid in November.
Cambridge City Councillors, the Conservation Commission, and State Senator Galluccio insist on going ahead with this project. They seem to believe, or want voters to believe, that they're giving Cambridge children more playing fields. In fact the project adds ZERO to the number of playing fields, ZERO to the city's inventory of open space, and $1.5 million of city funds to the DCR and its contractors.
This project also gives us more toxic algae blooms in the river. The blooms in 2006 and 2007 followed the installation of 6 acres of commercial sod downriver, at the Ebersol ball fields in Boston near MGH. Runoff from the chemicals applied there fed the algae and will continue to do so. Now Cambridge is paying $1.5 million to repeat the blunder and add more chemicals to the river from these 7 acres for bigger and better blooms.
We've paid $60 million so far to clean up the river, but that will be down the drain, so to speak, when Cambridge and the DCR are done.
What a deal.
Bob's alarm this morning was certainly reasonable.
One morning in October, 1999, the DCR's agent (Boston University) began destroying the goose meadow, where the White Geese nest, before the ConCom even met to consider the DCR's request for permission to do it. And BU's contractors cleared and poisoned much more than they ultimately told the ConCom they planned to. When dealing with the White Geese, the DCR has, to put it delicately, not been bothered by laws.
Three years ago, in September, 2004, the City of Cambridge and the DCR suddenly put up 3 lines of barriers between the water and the fields at Magazine Beach. Suddenly, the White Geese, who had been feeding there for more than 20 years, couldn't. They couldn't get ashore--and this at a time of year when they would ordinarily have been feeding from before sunup to after sundown on the grass, to prepare for winter.
The geese were frantic. We, their friends, tried to feed them as best we could, but it has been very hard to keep them from starving in the three years since that September. Until that time I had no idea how merely supplementary any food the White Geese got from their human friends was. That is, the geese--vegetarians--had survived for more than 20 years on the Charles on the grass and other riverfront plants. It is their primary food. Three years later, the geese still cannot get to their primary feeding grounds safely.
The DCR and Cambridge are very clear they don't want the White Geese on the river. So it's fair to say that preventing the geese from feeding at Magazine Beach is a deliberate policy. (Our Freedom of Information search of DCR documents in 2000 revealed the agency's written policy against the White Geese.)
So by noon today we knew that construction hadn't started yet. However, since the Cambridge City Council, the ConCom, and Senator Galluccio insist on proceeding with this project despite knowing about the algae blooms of 2006 and 2007, we are alert for the start of construction at any time.
Marilyn Wellons
********
Bob's report, early Wednesday morning, October 31, 2007:
There is a tradition in Cambridge, MA.
The really vile behavior is commonly saved until just after the election.
This morning early symptoms were at Magazine Beach and across the Charles River on the Boston side.
On Magazine Beach were seen 14 to 15 combinations of 15 packages each of nearly rectangular hollow black plastic objects. These objects were identical to each other, one to two feet in flat dimensions, a bit less than a foot high.
The last time this sort of this showed up at Magazine Beach, the vile City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation created three walls in the Charles River blocking access between the river and Magazine Beach with the obvious starvation impacts.
On the south side of the river was a work crew with police protection. The plastic walls were in place pretty much walling off the south shore from the river in an area starting from about the BU Bridge and ending across from the outfield at Magazine Beach.
We have bureaucrats and pols with contempt for the environment.
The last time this happened at Magazine Beach, wetlands, native protective vegetation and animal habitat were destroyed to put in bizarre bushes which kept dying and which were unfit for the Charles River. Deliberate starvation was targeted at the Charles River White Geese. The leadership of the DCR explained four years of promises not to harm them by saying that they did not consider starving them harming them.
On the south side, the DCR would appear to be going public with its contempt for native, protective vegetation and animal habitat. Previously, they hid behind the Charles River Conservancy.
Reprehensible, business as usual in the City of Cambridge and with their state bureaucrats and pols.
Bob La Tremouille posted this alert early Wednesday morning. As soon as I could, I went to Magazine Beach to find out what was up.
Fortunately, for the moment, there's no major construction at Magazine Beach now. According to the MWRA workers I talked to, the extensive stack of items at Magazine Beach is a large quantity of pontoons, leftovers from the Head of the Charles regatta, now removed from the river.
If not today, major construction is nevertheless coming, if the City of Cambridge has its way. Phase 2 of the joint Cambridge-DCR project here--replacing 7 acres of ball fields and wildlife habitat there with 7 acres of commercial sod (zero wildlife value but lots of chemicals)--will go out to bid in November.
Cambridge City Councillors, the Conservation Commission, and State Senator Galluccio insist on going ahead with this project. They seem to believe, or want voters to believe, that they're giving Cambridge children more playing fields. In fact the project adds ZERO to the number of playing fields, ZERO to the city's inventory of open space, and $1.5 million of city funds to the DCR and its contractors.
This project also gives us more toxic algae blooms in the river. The blooms in 2006 and 2007 followed the installation of 6 acres of commercial sod downriver, at the Ebersol ball fields in Boston near MGH. Runoff from the chemicals applied there fed the algae and will continue to do so. Now Cambridge is paying $1.5 million to repeat the blunder and add more chemicals to the river from these 7 acres for bigger and better blooms.
We've paid $60 million so far to clean up the river, but that will be down the drain, so to speak, when Cambridge and the DCR are done.
What a deal.
Bob's alarm this morning was certainly reasonable.
One morning in October, 1999, the DCR's agent (Boston University) began destroying the goose meadow, where the White Geese nest, before the ConCom even met to consider the DCR's request for permission to do it. And BU's contractors cleared and poisoned much more than they ultimately told the ConCom they planned to. When dealing with the White Geese, the DCR has, to put it delicately, not been bothered by laws.
Three years ago, in September, 2004, the City of Cambridge and the DCR suddenly put up 3 lines of barriers between the water and the fields at Magazine Beach. Suddenly, the White Geese, who had been feeding there for more than 20 years, couldn't. They couldn't get ashore--and this at a time of year when they would ordinarily have been feeding from before sunup to after sundown on the grass, to prepare for winter.
The geese were frantic. We, their friends, tried to feed them as best we could, but it has been very hard to keep them from starving in the three years since that September. Until that time I had no idea how merely supplementary any food the White Geese got from their human friends was. That is, the geese--vegetarians--had survived for more than 20 years on the Charles on the grass and other riverfront plants. It is their primary food. Three years later, the geese still cannot get to their primary feeding grounds safely.
The DCR and Cambridge are very clear they don't want the White Geese on the river. So it's fair to say that preventing the geese from feeding at Magazine Beach is a deliberate policy. (Our Freedom of Information search of DCR documents in 2000 revealed the agency's written policy against the White Geese.)
So by noon today we knew that construction hadn't started yet. However, since the Cambridge City Council, the ConCom, and Senator Galluccio insist on proceeding with this project despite knowing about the algae blooms of 2006 and 2007, we are alert for the start of construction at any time.
Marilyn Wellons
********
Bob's report, early Wednesday morning, October 31, 2007:
There is a tradition in Cambridge, MA.
The really vile behavior is commonly saved until just after the election.
This morning early symptoms were at Magazine Beach and across the Charles River on the Boston side.
On Magazine Beach were seen 14 to 15 combinations of 15 packages each of nearly rectangular hollow black plastic objects. These objects were identical to each other, one to two feet in flat dimensions, a bit less than a foot high.
The last time this sort of this showed up at Magazine Beach, the vile City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation created three walls in the Charles River blocking access between the river and Magazine Beach with the obvious starvation impacts.
On the south side of the river was a work crew with police protection. The plastic walls were in place pretty much walling off the south shore from the river in an area starting from about the BU Bridge and ending across from the outfield at Magazine Beach.
We have bureaucrats and pols with contempt for the environment.
The last time this happened at Magazine Beach, wetlands, native protective vegetation and animal habitat were destroyed to put in bizarre bushes which kept dying and which were unfit for the Charles River. Deliberate starvation was targeted at the Charles River White Geese. The leadership of the DCR explained four years of promises not to harm them by saying that they did not consider starving them harming them.
On the south side, the DCR would appear to be going public with its contempt for native, protective vegetation and animal habitat. Previously, they hid behind the Charles River Conservancy.
Reprehensible, business as usual in the City of Cambridge and with their state bureaucrats and pols.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Injured Canada Near WBZ
Reported by Bob La Trémouille
An old friend wrote to seek help for an injured Canada near WBZ on Soldiers Field Road in Allston - Brighton.
The following are his comments and my reply. If anybody can help, it would be appreciated.
Since this was initially published, comments have come in from Marilyn, Cheri and Ellen as well, plus a few others.
I have added a nice summary from Cheri. Of necessity, this is the end and I cannot include all the comments. This is getting too long.
1. Injured Goose.
2. Your editor's reply.
3. Marilyn.
4. Cheri of Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA.
5. Bob in Response to Cheri.
6. Cheri - Summary.
1. Injured Goose.
William Budington writes:
*********
Hello friends of the Charles River White Geese,
I am contacting you because Cheri from Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA alerted me to a situation which has been troubling her. A man that works for a radio station in Boston located at 1200 Storrow Drive called Cheri and told her that there is a Canadian Goose with one foot living near his place of work, and that this goose would often cross Storrow when looking for food and water. He is concerned that the Goose will get hit by oncoming traffic, especially given its disabled condition.
The goose is also ostracized from the other geese living there because of its condition.
Since Cheri has to take care of the animals on the farm, she doesn't really have any time to come into Boston. So she called me to see if I could look into it and hopefully bring the duck to her, so that it can live out its life in peace on the farm. Today, myself and a friend of mine went to investigate, and we found the goose. After numerous attempts to approach the goose, he just flew away.
Recognizing that the attempt was futile, we stopped and figured we would need some additional help in this situation.
We were wondering if any of you have any experience with this sort of stuff, and if not, if you can refer us to someone that can help us.
Cheri has a net that we can possibly use, but we personally have no experience with capturing geese.
If you can help, please let me know. I am available at this email and my phone number is 857 204 6906.
Thank you,
Bill
Volunteer, Boston Animal Defense League
2. Your editor's reply.
I am copying a number of people who might be interested. (Aside to Marilyn: I can't find our Brighton contacts.)
Unfortunately, Little Brook, the Native American who cared for the Charles River White Geese for a number of years and who also does not live that far from you (1) does not have direct email access and (2) is not in very good physical shape.
Little Brook, however, is the only person I am aware of with experience providing comfort and native medications to water fowl in need.
I will also post your notice of the Charles River White Geese blog.
A few thoughts, however. In 2001, a nut ran around the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. He killed a number of nesting geese and finally graduated to the rape and murder of a young woman for which he has been tried and convicted.
He was emulating the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation. These two entitities egged him on with the silence of the guilty.
The nut's attacks on animals reached a pinnacle in July 2001 when, in an clearly political act, he apparently was the killer of Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle. WBZ-TV telecast the removal of Bumpy's body from the Charles as the lead of its 11 pm newscast.
Our first knowledge that something was wrong when Bumpy was killed was when some youths found a young female goose who had been stabbed in the side. She was one of five other geese, besides Bumpy, attacked in that outrage.
Iowa, as we called her, hopped around on one foot until the following November or December when she finally was able to start using that leg. She got a lot of treatment from Little Brook. After a period of years, she recovered so much that her prior infirmity was fully healed for all practical purposes.
I find the fact that the Canada is flying away from you to be a positive thing.
Iowa hopped around on one leg for many months, either fully off her injured leg or, then, favoring the injured leg. Iowa also kept away from all humans other than Little Brook. I would think that your one-legged Canada should be able to survive quite adequately, especially since he has retained his ability to fly.
Iowa was never rejected by the gaggle. The fact that he is ostracized is ominous. [I, however, remember a Canada who was similarly ostracized. I saw him during the spring in the park between the Gardner Museum and the Museum School. If this is the same one, the fact that he is still alive says a lot. This other guy's problem, however, looked like angel-wing, an odd wing formation.
My and Marilyn Wellons' (my co-chair with the Friends of the White Geese) experience has been that free animals, more than anything else, want to remain free. When they are so hurt that they allow themselves to be carried by somebody wishing to help, especially to be carried away from their habitat, they commonly have been beyond help.
Thank you for your true concern about animals (and your name is familiar).
PS: I also remember Cheri, and I do so with good feelings. I am copying her as well.
3. Marilyn.
Bob, Mr. Budington,
I'm trying to see Little Brook sometime this week and
will raise the issue of the injured goose.
My own reaction is that if the goose can fly and is
eating, it will recover or not, as nature decides.
Iowa, the goose Bob mentions, wasn't excluded by the
flock when she was so hurt. She definitely kept
herself apart to nurse her wounds, though. In time
she recovered and rejoined the group.
I've seen solitary geese over the years of walking on
the Charles. Since geese are social animals this is
unusual. Given all the water traffic from big motor
boats in the summer and shells leading up to and
including the Head of the Charles, it wouldn't
surprise me if there were injuries among migrating
birds whose flocks moved on without them.
There are, apparently, ways of treating injured geese,
and Little Brook knows them. I will ask him what he
recommends.
Thank you so much for caring about the goose! I'll
get back to you asap.
Marilyn Wellons
4. Cheri of Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA.
I received your email that you also sent Bill regarding the goose on Soldier's Field Rd. The fellow who originally called me (from the radio station) called me a few minutes ago, still concerned. I explained I had several people that went there over the weekend to observe the goose.
Like you, I'd rather see a wild animal remain where it feels safe and live out it's life. If he were in desperate pain I would take a different action. But it sounds like the goose can fly (although it can't push off as well as a normal goose) and it eats well. According to this concerned fellow, the flock left and this goose is all by itself now. This fellow has found another group in Bellerica that is willing to take the goose in but they need someone to bring the goose to them (the group is Beaks and Noses I believe). I tried to discourage him from putting the goose through that trauma but ultimately I can't control his final decision.
Any further words of wisdom would be deeply appreciated...
Peace,
Cheri
Maple Farm Sanctuary
5. Bob in Response to Cheri.
It sounds like we are in agreement.
My only words of wisdom (aside from passing your comments on to the same key people who got the original transmittal of my response to him) are that I would love to add your comments to the blog report.
As far as the Canada being left back by his gaggle, my strongest wish is that he find the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese in such a manner that he is comfortable going there.
The Charles River Urban Wilds people (one of the bcc's) regularly feed needy water fowl. I have been aware of, in one case, a Canada whose mate was killed who simply stayed her. I and some others referred to him as the lone Canada.
Food is available for this valiant bird in addition to what he would normally find anyway. I hope he finds it, but birds survive during the off season.
You are a good person and an old friend. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in you.
6. Cheri - Summary.
Bob, Ellen, Marilyn,
It's been so wonderful having this support system even though my instincts have certainly guided me to our combined opinion. The fellow who first contacted about this goose is very concerned about the wellbeing of this bird, and I'm grateful for anyone having concern for the environment and it's inhabitants. I think his concerns brought him to the conclusion that captivity would protect and heal the goose.
Hopefully he is beginning to understand that the best thing is to allow the goose to live out it's life in the wild, with some assistance. Some of my friends are now making regular visits to make certain the goose has food. At some point I'm hoping the goose will find the feeding station by the BU bridge.
My thoughts, prayers and respect go out to Little Brook if anyone talks to him...
I will contact Bob if there are any changes we need to be concerned
about. Thank-you all for your kind hearts.
Peace,
Cheri
Maple Farm Sanctuary
An old friend wrote to seek help for an injured Canada near WBZ on Soldiers Field Road in Allston - Brighton.
The following are his comments and my reply. If anybody can help, it would be appreciated.
Since this was initially published, comments have come in from Marilyn, Cheri and Ellen as well, plus a few others.
I have added a nice summary from Cheri. Of necessity, this is the end and I cannot include all the comments. This is getting too long.
1. Injured Goose.
2. Your editor's reply.
3. Marilyn.
4. Cheri of Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA.
5. Bob in Response to Cheri.
6. Cheri - Summary.
1. Injured Goose.
William Budington writes:
*********
Hello friends of the Charles River White Geese,
I am contacting you because Cheri from Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA alerted me to a situation which has been troubling her. A man that works for a radio station in Boston located at 1200 Storrow Drive called Cheri and told her that there is a Canadian Goose with one foot living near his place of work, and that this goose would often cross Storrow when looking for food and water. He is concerned that the Goose will get hit by oncoming traffic, especially given its disabled condition.
The goose is also ostracized from the other geese living there because of its condition.
Since Cheri has to take care of the animals on the farm, she doesn't really have any time to come into Boston. So she called me to see if I could look into it and hopefully bring the duck to her, so that it can live out its life in peace on the farm. Today, myself and a friend of mine went to investigate, and we found the goose. After numerous attempts to approach the goose, he just flew away.
Recognizing that the attempt was futile, we stopped and figured we would need some additional help in this situation.
We were wondering if any of you have any experience with this sort of stuff, and if not, if you can refer us to someone that can help us.
Cheri has a net that we can possibly use, but we personally have no experience with capturing geese.
If you can help, please let me know. I am available at this email and my phone number is 857 204 6906.
Thank you,
Bill
Volunteer, Boston Animal Defense League
2. Your editor's reply.
I am copying a number of people who might be interested. (Aside to Marilyn: I can't find our Brighton contacts.)
Unfortunately, Little Brook, the Native American who cared for the Charles River White Geese for a number of years and who also does not live that far from you (1) does not have direct email access and (2) is not in very good physical shape.
Little Brook, however, is the only person I am aware of with experience providing comfort and native medications to water fowl in need.
I will also post your notice of the Charles River White Geese blog.
A few thoughts, however. In 2001, a nut ran around the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. He killed a number of nesting geese and finally graduated to the rape and murder of a young woman for which he has been tried and convicted.
He was emulating the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation. These two entitities egged him on with the silence of the guilty.
The nut's attacks on animals reached a pinnacle in July 2001 when, in an clearly political act, he apparently was the killer of Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle. WBZ-TV telecast the removal of Bumpy's body from the Charles as the lead of its 11 pm newscast.
Our first knowledge that something was wrong when Bumpy was killed was when some youths found a young female goose who had been stabbed in the side. She was one of five other geese, besides Bumpy, attacked in that outrage.
Iowa, as we called her, hopped around on one foot until the following November or December when she finally was able to start using that leg. She got a lot of treatment from Little Brook. After a period of years, she recovered so much that her prior infirmity was fully healed for all practical purposes.
I find the fact that the Canada is flying away from you to be a positive thing.
Iowa hopped around on one leg for many months, either fully off her injured leg or, then, favoring the injured leg. Iowa also kept away from all humans other than Little Brook. I would think that your one-legged Canada should be able to survive quite adequately, especially since he has retained his ability to fly.
Iowa was never rejected by the gaggle. The fact that he is ostracized is ominous. [I, however, remember a Canada who was similarly ostracized. I saw him during the spring in the park between the Gardner Museum and the Museum School. If this is the same one, the fact that he is still alive says a lot. This other guy's problem, however, looked like angel-wing, an odd wing formation.
My and Marilyn Wellons' (my co-chair with the Friends of the White Geese) experience has been that free animals, more than anything else, want to remain free. When they are so hurt that they allow themselves to be carried by somebody wishing to help, especially to be carried away from their habitat, they commonly have been beyond help.
Thank you for your true concern about animals (and your name is familiar).
PS: I also remember Cheri, and I do so with good feelings. I am copying her as well.
3. Marilyn.
Bob, Mr. Budington,
I'm trying to see Little Brook sometime this week and
will raise the issue of the injured goose.
My own reaction is that if the goose can fly and is
eating, it will recover or not, as nature decides.
Iowa, the goose Bob mentions, wasn't excluded by the
flock when she was so hurt. She definitely kept
herself apart to nurse her wounds, though. In time
she recovered and rejoined the group.
I've seen solitary geese over the years of walking on
the Charles. Since geese are social animals this is
unusual. Given all the water traffic from big motor
boats in the summer and shells leading up to and
including the Head of the Charles, it wouldn't
surprise me if there were injuries among migrating
birds whose flocks moved on without them.
There are, apparently, ways of treating injured geese,
and Little Brook knows them. I will ask him what he
recommends.
Thank you so much for caring about the goose! I'll
get back to you asap.
Marilyn Wellons
4. Cheri of Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA.
I received your email that you also sent Bill regarding the goose on Soldier's Field Rd. The fellow who originally called me (from the radio station) called me a few minutes ago, still concerned. I explained I had several people that went there over the weekend to observe the goose.
Like you, I'd rather see a wild animal remain where it feels safe and live out it's life. If he were in desperate pain I would take a different action. But it sounds like the goose can fly (although it can't push off as well as a normal goose) and it eats well. According to this concerned fellow, the flock left and this goose is all by itself now. This fellow has found another group in Bellerica that is willing to take the goose in but they need someone to bring the goose to them (the group is Beaks and Noses I believe). I tried to discourage him from putting the goose through that trauma but ultimately I can't control his final decision.
Any further words of wisdom would be deeply appreciated...
Peace,
Cheri
Maple Farm Sanctuary
5. Bob in Response to Cheri.
It sounds like we are in agreement.
My only words of wisdom (aside from passing your comments on to the same key people who got the original transmittal of my response to him) are that I would love to add your comments to the blog report.
As far as the Canada being left back by his gaggle, my strongest wish is that he find the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese in such a manner that he is comfortable going there.
The Charles River Urban Wilds people (one of the bcc's) regularly feed needy water fowl. I have been aware of, in one case, a Canada whose mate was killed who simply stayed her. I and some others referred to him as the lone Canada.
Food is available for this valiant bird in addition to what he would normally find anyway. I hope he finds it, but birds survive during the off season.
You are a good person and an old friend. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in you.
6. Cheri - Summary.
Bob, Ellen, Marilyn,
It's been so wonderful having this support system even though my instincts have certainly guided me to our combined opinion. The fellow who first contacted about this goose is very concerned about the wellbeing of this bird, and I'm grateful for anyone having concern for the environment and it's inhabitants. I think his concerns brought him to the conclusion that captivity would protect and heal the goose.
Hopefully he is beginning to understand that the best thing is to allow the goose to live out it's life in the wild, with some assistance. Some of my friends are now making regular visits to make certain the goose has food. At some point I'm hoping the goose will find the feeding station by the BU bridge.
My thoughts, prayers and respect go out to Little Brook if anyone talks to him...
I will contact Bob if there are any changes we need to be concerned
about. Thank-you all for your kind hearts.
Peace,
Cheri
Maple Farm Sanctuary
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Do Cambridge Pols Have a right to Lie about Environmentalism?
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
4. Editor's Response.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.
1. Introduction.
On the front page of the October 4, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle, the newspaper reported that Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley's campaign manager acted in a key capacity in a candidate's night without being disclosed as his Campaign Manager.
This failure to disclose struck me as business as usual from Kelley and his buddies on environmental issues, so I wrote a letter to the editor saying that. The letter I sent is reprinted in section 2.
I was rather pleased with the letter, so I distributed it to 400 or 500 of my closest friends on about a third of an email list I used for perhaps 500 environmental reports before Friends of the White Geese started this blog.
One of the members of the list is Kelley's campaign manager. She responded with the email quoted in section 3.
Section 4 is my response to a key point in her response.
The Cambridge Chronicle printed my letter very prominently this morning, Thursday, October 11. It was preceded only by Kelley's response to the article. The Chronicle omitted two paragraphs of my letter. That reporting is quoted in section 5.
The secret definition of "environmentalism" as elaborated by Sam Seidel on behalf of the Cambridge pols may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I appreciated your front page exposure of Craig Kelley giving people the false impression that his campaign manager was a neutral party at East Cambridge ’s candidate’s night. On environmental matters people giving the false impression about where they are coming from is the norm in Cambridge. Kelley's 2005 race was an excellent example.
Kelley went so far in 2005 as to put on a special presentation telling people about environmental protection. He actually gave people the impression that he was pro-environment, rather than being as environmentally destructive as all nine of the then incumbents.
Sam Seidel did an excellent presentation in The Alewife a few months ago in which he mocked me for being consistent in my protection of the environment. Seidel bragged that the Cambridge pols have their own (secret) definition of environmentalism which he called much better than the one I (and most people in our world) live by.
Kelley and the rest of the active pols have shown flat out contempt for the environment on matters particular to the City of Cambridge and particular to the REAL powers of the Cambridge City Council.
The continuing outrage on Memorial Drive is only one example.
Nine city councilors told their constituents that they were protecting the Radisson Hotel area by the Memorial Drive Overlay District. They neglected to mention that their protections were a flat out lie as is demonstrated by the building soon to come there towering over the sidewalk.
Kelley and the others claim to be "green." They neglect to mention that the green they are talking about includes algae they are inviting to the Charles River by the second part of the outrage continuing on Magazine Beach. Poisons are not now necessary to protect the playing fields at Magazine Beach. Kelley and the others have demanded that the governor go forward with digging up our perfectly good playing fields and replacing them with dirt, sod and poisons. Cambridge kids are expected to roll around in this stuff.
The predecessor project to Magazine Beach , Ebersol Fields near MGH, saw the DCR dump on Tartan (prohibited near water) when the basic poisons did not work. The next day, the Charles River was infested with algae from the harbor to Mass. Ave.
I could go on with massive, needless destruction of healthy trees. I could go on with destruction of wetlands. I could go on with the encouragement of WORSE traffic on Memorial Drive. I could mention the apparently thousands of healthy trees being destroyed at Fresh Pond.
I, and the rest of us, live in reality. Kelley and the rest of the Cambridge pols live in a fake reality in which they casually define "environmentalism" to include environmental destruction.
Once again, thanks for the front page article and the editorial. On Kelley's key issue, environmentalism, I see only one candidate so far who is fit to be respected, and there is no similarity between the spelling of "Podgers" and the spelling of "Kelley."
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
Bob,
I thought the American Justic System stated that a person was innocent until proven guilty. You don't know me nor have you asked me what has happened. How sad. To go from a simple error which could not have been corrected to stating I was not a neutral party without knowing the facts to Kelley is against the environment leads me to think there is something very wrong with your thought process. The two are not related. Please take me off your list.
4. Editor's Response.
The outrage which passes for environmentalism in Cambridge is based exactly on your argument.
Kelley and the other destroyers claim to have a right to destroy our city's environment while loudly calling themselves environmental protectors.
"It is improper to call me a flat out liar without a jury decision calling me a liar. I have a flat out right to lie and lie and lie while at the same time destroying and destroying and destroying."
That is a little bit clearer than Sam Seidel's piece.
Thank you.
PS: You are off the list.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.
In the first of the two letters, Kelley's second paragraph of two (referring to his campaign manager activities in that candidate night) read:
***********
People in Cambridge rightly expect me and everything I'm associated with, to be as open and transparent as possible. I blew it in this case and will strive to learn from this mistake to make sure my actions are even more open and transparent in the future.
***********
The Chronicle deleted two paragraphs in my letter. The result was that Kelley's letter and mine were pretty much the only letters on the letters/editorial page. They printed the beginning of a third letter on that page.
The Chronicle's printing deleted the third paragraph of my letter, starting with "Sam Seidel" and deleted the third paragraph from the end providing more general examples of environmental destruction by Kelley and his friends.
1. Introduction.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
4. Editor's Response.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.
1. Introduction.
On the front page of the October 4, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle, the newspaper reported that Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley's campaign manager acted in a key capacity in a candidate's night without being disclosed as his Campaign Manager.
This failure to disclose struck me as business as usual from Kelley and his buddies on environmental issues, so I wrote a letter to the editor saying that. The letter I sent is reprinted in section 2.
I was rather pleased with the letter, so I distributed it to 400 or 500 of my closest friends on about a third of an email list I used for perhaps 500 environmental reports before Friends of the White Geese started this blog.
One of the members of the list is Kelley's campaign manager. She responded with the email quoted in section 3.
Section 4 is my response to a key point in her response.
The Cambridge Chronicle printed my letter very prominently this morning, Thursday, October 11. It was preceded only by Kelley's response to the article. The Chronicle omitted two paragraphs of my letter. That reporting is quoted in section 5.
The secret definition of "environmentalism" as elaborated by Sam Seidel on behalf of the Cambridge pols may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I appreciated your front page exposure of Craig Kelley giving people the false impression that his campaign manager was a neutral party at East Cambridge ’s candidate’s night. On environmental matters people giving the false impression about where they are coming from is the norm in Cambridge. Kelley's 2005 race was an excellent example.
Kelley went so far in 2005 as to put on a special presentation telling people about environmental protection. He actually gave people the impression that he was pro-environment, rather than being as environmentally destructive as all nine of the then incumbents.
Sam Seidel did an excellent presentation in The Alewife a few months ago in which he mocked me for being consistent in my protection of the environment. Seidel bragged that the Cambridge pols have their own (secret) definition of environmentalism which he called much better than the one I (and most people in our world) live by.
Kelley and the rest of the active pols have shown flat out contempt for the environment on matters particular to the City of Cambridge and particular to the REAL powers of the Cambridge City Council.
The continuing outrage on Memorial Drive is only one example.
Nine city councilors told their constituents that they were protecting the Radisson Hotel area by the Memorial Drive Overlay District. They neglected to mention that their protections were a flat out lie as is demonstrated by the building soon to come there towering over the sidewalk.
Kelley and the others claim to be "green." They neglect to mention that the green they are talking about includes algae they are inviting to the Charles River by the second part of the outrage continuing on Magazine Beach. Poisons are not now necessary to protect the playing fields at Magazine Beach. Kelley and the others have demanded that the governor go forward with digging up our perfectly good playing fields and replacing them with dirt, sod and poisons. Cambridge kids are expected to roll around in this stuff.
The predecessor project to Magazine Beach , Ebersol Fields near MGH, saw the DCR dump on Tartan (prohibited near water) when the basic poisons did not work. The next day, the Charles River was infested with algae from the harbor to Mass. Ave.
I could go on with massive, needless destruction of healthy trees. I could go on with destruction of wetlands. I could go on with the encouragement of WORSE traffic on Memorial Drive. I could mention the apparently thousands of healthy trees being destroyed at Fresh Pond.
I, and the rest of us, live in reality. Kelley and the rest of the Cambridge pols live in a fake reality in which they casually define "environmentalism" to include environmental destruction.
Once again, thanks for the front page article and the editorial. On Kelley's key issue, environmentalism, I see only one candidate so far who is fit to be respected, and there is no similarity between the spelling of "Podgers" and the spelling of "Kelley."
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
Bob,
I thought the American Justic System stated that a person was innocent until proven guilty. You don't know me nor have you asked me what has happened. How sad. To go from a simple error which could not have been corrected to stating I was not a neutral party without knowing the facts to Kelley is against the environment leads me to think there is something very wrong with your thought process. The two are not related. Please take me off your list.
4. Editor's Response.
The outrage which passes for environmentalism in Cambridge is based exactly on your argument.
Kelley and the other destroyers claim to have a right to destroy our city's environment while loudly calling themselves environmental protectors.
"It is improper to call me a flat out liar without a jury decision calling me a liar. I have a flat out right to lie and lie and lie while at the same time destroying and destroying and destroying."
That is a little bit clearer than Sam Seidel's piece.
Thank you.
PS: You are off the list.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.
In the first of the two letters, Kelley's second paragraph of two (referring to his campaign manager activities in that candidate night) read:
***********
People in Cambridge rightly expect me and everything I'm associated with, to be as open and transparent as possible. I blew it in this case and will strive to learn from this mistake to make sure my actions are even more open and transparent in the future.
***********
The Chronicle deleted two paragraphs in my letter. The result was that Kelley's letter and mine were pretty much the only letters on the letters/editorial page. They printed the beginning of a third letter on that page.
The Chronicle's printing deleted the third paragraph of my letter, starting with "Sam Seidel" and deleted the third paragraph from the end providing more general examples of environmental destruction by Kelley and his friends.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Cambridge City Council votes to pollute the Charles, expose children to pesticides and other chemicals
On September 24, 2007 the Cambridge City Council voted to endorse the joint Cambridge-DCR project at Magazine Beach. Councillor Davis's Order, described here on September 23 ("Environmental Destroyer"), passed, 8-0-1. Councillor Galluccio was absent.
The September 23 blog also posted the text of Marilyn Wellons's letter to the City Council and a copy of her July 29, 2007 e-mail to to Rep. Marty Walz ("Reality on the 'Renovation' of Magazine Beach").
After the Council's vote, Wellons sent the following letter to the Cambridge legislative delegation and attached the July 29 e-mail to Walz as documentation. (This entry reposts that e-mail.) She sent similar letters, with the attachment, to the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, and to the Governor.
Since these elected officials represent non-Cambridge municipalities and voters who have paid to clean up the Charles River and Boston Harbor, they may bring some common sense to the issue if the Cambridge City Council will not or cannot.
Cambridge voters might ask themselves and candidates this election year why we should pay for the ill-conceived project. Like Ebersol Fields, it will create toxic algae blooms in the river. According to the city's agreement with the DCR, it will give Cambridge public school children first priority for exposure to the herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides needed to maintain the 7 acres of commercial sod.
Voters might also ask candidates for City Council and School Committee how this project affects natural ecosystems, water quality, pollution of the environment, and exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.
Leaving aside fears of brain-eating amoebas that feed on algae in warm water, anyone with hopes of swimming in the Charles should ask how this project advances that goal.
****
Dear Members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation:
Last night the Cambridge City Council voted to urge you to "assure that work goes forward [with the joint Cambridge-DCR project] at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline," i.e., contract out to bid in October, construction in 2008. Cambridge has placed $1.5 million in escrow for it, to be released at the Governor's discretion.
The project will replace 7 acres of dirt and grass adapted to the riverfront environment with 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, an irrigation system, and fences.
Its prototype is "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" in Boston, near MGH. Runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod there polluted the Charles River in 2006 and 2007, creating a public health hazard. As a result of DCR ongoing maintenance of the professional-level turf, pollution from this source and resulting dangerous algae blooms will continue.
The fields now at Magazine Beach simultaneously accommodate an existing regulation Little League field, soccer, frisbee, golf practice, other active uses, and "Bordering Land Subject to Flooding"--rich wildlife habitat and important passive open space for us city dwellers. A second regulation Little League field is less than 200 yards away, at Lindstrom Field between Memorial Drive and Granite Street.
As at Ebersol, at Magazine Beach the commercial sod will get repeated applications of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides to maintain it. Children and adults, pets and wildlife, all will be exposed to these chemicals. As downstream, runoff from the fields will pollute the river and, subsequently, the harbor.
You represent not only Cambridge but other municipalities in the Charles River watershed, whose taxpayers have already paid $60 million to clean it up. Another $19 million will be spent before 2013 for this purpose. Please exercise judgment and urge the Governor to protect the river, not destroy it.
I am writing the Governor and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, to alert them to these problems and ask for common sense from them as well.
Attached please find my e-mail of July 29, 2007, to Rep. Marty Walz. It outlines the connection between installation and maintenance of Ebersol Fields and the resulting algae blooms of 2006 and 2007.
****
July 29 e-mail:
Dear Rep. Walz,
Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).
The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.
Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)
Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)
Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)
In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)
The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.
The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.
In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.
With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.
The September 23 blog also posted the text of Marilyn Wellons's letter to the City Council and a copy of her July 29, 2007 e-mail to to Rep. Marty Walz ("Reality on the 'Renovation' of Magazine Beach").
After the Council's vote, Wellons sent the following letter to the Cambridge legislative delegation and attached the July 29 e-mail to Walz as documentation. (This entry reposts that e-mail.) She sent similar letters, with the attachment, to the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, and to the Governor.
Since these elected officials represent non-Cambridge municipalities and voters who have paid to clean up the Charles River and Boston Harbor, they may bring some common sense to the issue if the Cambridge City Council will not or cannot.
Cambridge voters might ask themselves and candidates this election year why we should pay for the ill-conceived project. Like Ebersol Fields, it will create toxic algae blooms in the river. According to the city's agreement with the DCR, it will give Cambridge public school children first priority for exposure to the herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides needed to maintain the 7 acres of commercial sod.
Voters might also ask candidates for City Council and School Committee how this project affects natural ecosystems, water quality, pollution of the environment, and exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.
Leaving aside fears of brain-eating amoebas that feed on algae in warm water, anyone with hopes of swimming in the Charles should ask how this project advances that goal.
****
Dear Members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation:
Last night the Cambridge City Council voted to urge you to "assure that work goes forward [with the joint Cambridge-DCR project] at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline," i.e., contract out to bid in October, construction in 2008. Cambridge has placed $1.5 million in escrow for it, to be released at the Governor's discretion.
The project will replace 7 acres of dirt and grass adapted to the riverfront environment with 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, an irrigation system, and fences.
Its prototype is "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" in Boston, near MGH. Runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod there polluted the Charles River in 2006 and 2007, creating a public health hazard. As a result of DCR ongoing maintenance of the professional-level turf, pollution from this source and resulting dangerous algae blooms will continue.
The fields now at Magazine Beach simultaneously accommodate an existing regulation Little League field, soccer, frisbee, golf practice, other active uses, and "Bordering Land Subject to Flooding"--rich wildlife habitat and important passive open space for us city dwellers. A second regulation Little League field is less than 200 yards away, at Lindstrom Field between Memorial Drive and Granite Street.
As at Ebersol, at Magazine Beach the commercial sod will get repeated applications of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides to maintain it. Children and adults, pets and wildlife, all will be exposed to these chemicals. As downstream, runoff from the fields will pollute the river and, subsequently, the harbor.
You represent not only Cambridge but other municipalities in the Charles River watershed, whose taxpayers have already paid $60 million to clean it up. Another $19 million will be spent before 2013 for this purpose. Please exercise judgment and urge the Governor to protect the river, not destroy it.
I am writing the Governor and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, to alert them to these problems and ask for common sense from them as well.
Attached please find my e-mail of July 29, 2007, to Rep. Marty Walz. It outlines the connection between installation and maintenance of Ebersol Fields and the resulting algae blooms of 2006 and 2007.
****
July 29 e-mail:
Dear Rep. Walz,
Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).
The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.
Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)
Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)
Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)
In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)
The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.
The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.
In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.
With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Environmental Destroyer Putting Cambridge City Council on Record Supporting Poisoning of the Charles River
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
3. 2004 Destruction.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.
1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
The following is proposed Order number 13 submitted by Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis for the September 24, 2007 meeting:
WHEREAS: The DCR has informed the City Manager that the bid package for Magazine Beach was once again delayed due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system which will result in a construction delay; and
WHEREAS: Richard Corsi of the DCR anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out in mid-October of this year; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to urge the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to assure that work goes forward at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to inform the City Council of any changes in the work schedule at Magazine Beach.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
Davis’ record is very clear. Environmentally, on the matters that count, Cambridge has nine City Councillors who are heartlessly destructive of the environment. Davis is the worst.
3. 2004 Destruction.
The Magazine Beach project is a continuation of two actions taken by the City of Cambridge and its agents in 2004 when they started starving the Charles River White Geese.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
Part of the vile behavior in 2004 was supposedly sewerage work on an outlet across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel. This grassy slope was part of the habitat and food of the Charles River White Geese since the beginning, 26 years ago. It was the eastern end of the habitat.
The sickos from the City of Cambridge finished the sewerage work and left a wall of plastic blocking access to the food from the Charles River. Absolutely no excuse. Truly vile, truly in character with the pols and bureaucrats of the state and the City of Cambridge.
The wall was installed in September 2004.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
In September 2004, strictly by “coincidence” (I do not believe in sick “coincidences”), Cambridge and the DCR dug up all the wetlands at Magazine Beach, preventing access to all that food from the water. This was the western end of the habitat, and the balance of the food of the Charles River White Geese.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation, from 2000 to about 2006, repeatedly insisted they had no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.
Corsi, referenced in Davis’ order, explained the apparent contradiction in about 2006. He explained that he does not consider starving the Charles River White Geese harming them.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
Cambridge and the DCR sicced representatives on the project at Magazine Beach in 2005. The representatives did a swim in, bragging that the project was assisting in swimming in the Charles River. That part of the project constructed a physical wall PREVENTING access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. The FLAT OUT LIE was part a package of pretty much non-stop lies on the projects on the Charles River.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
The wall consists of a bunch of designer plants so unfit for the Charles River environment that they kept dying. The LIE which explained this wall of plants called them “native.” As near as I can gather, the secret definition of “native” used by these people translates as “unfit for the local environment.”
There has been a tiny gap left exactly where sickos like to run dogs off leash. The Charles River White Geese have started to feed very early in the morning and leave when the dogs show up. 95% of their feeding ground at Magazine Beach is denied them. 100% of their feeding ground at the Hyatt has never stopped being denied them.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
The sick portion of the sick project which Davis is now pushing constitutes digging up all the grass and soil at the Magazine Beach playing fields, trucking it away and replacing this perfectly good grass and soil with grass, soil, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers replace the wetlands which did not need to be destroyed. The poisons protect the commercial grade grass from problems which are not problems before the project.
The precursor for this project is another ball field at Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. The poisons were not effective enough to keep the bureaucrats happy, so they installed Tartan fungicide. The DAY AFTER THE TARTAN was installed, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, algae all over the place.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
The pols and the bureaucrats has tested this concept at Magazine Beach. They created an artificial puddle at the eastern end of the Magazine Beach playing fields. The artificial puddle is separated from the Charles River by perhaps 20 feet and has no water flow contact with the Charles River, so the puddle becomes stagnant and algae loaded.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
The Cambridge City Council took the key vote in December 1999 and has proceeded to implement their vile vote by not wanting to know what they were doing. There has been significant turnover on the Cambridge City Council in that period. None of them wanted to know what they were doing.
One of the more demonstrative occurrences came in 2001. There have been many, many attacks on the Charles River White Geese over the years. Many of those attacks looked highly professional and thus the work of the bureaucrats or their friends. The starvation attacks, of course, were the public actions of the bureaucrats and the pols.
In 2001, a nut started beating to death nesting Mother Geese. Nine city councilors were belligerently neutral in spite of repeated pleas that such a person graduates to humans. In October 2001, he graduated. He and his friends raped and murdered a young woman where he had been beating Mother Geese to death. The brutality was strikingly similar.
Nine city councilors discussed the rape and murder for more than an hour. Only Davis mentioned where it occurred. She looked around in a guilty manner and swallowed her words. They did not want to know where it happened.
These reprehensible people have done their best not to know what they were doing on the Charles River.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
Last Sunday, Friends of the White Geese leafleted an event by a insider pol, Sam Seigel, running for Cambridge City Council. Seigel, as member and chair of the Cambridge Conservation Commission has really filthy hands from the outrages on the Charles River.
Even more so, Siegel has gone on record BRAGGING about environmental outrages by the City of Cambridge. He has bragged that this environmental destructiveness is a new form of environmentalism that he and the other pols in the City of Cambridge are doing brilliantly.
Friends of the White Geese leafleted the event, communicating the truly reprehensible environmental record.
We have leafleted the first city council debate of the election season.
Thursday, there was a school committee debate. Marc McGovern, former School Committee member running for return to the board, has public fought for the irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. We leafleted the debate and leafleted this School Committee candidate fighting to have children rolling in poisons at Magazine Beach.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
So now Davis has filed this motion putting nine members of the Cambridge City Council on record in favor of this reprehensible project.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.
They will probably approve it without comment.
If you are pro-environment, you should have contempt for nine members of the Cambridge City Council and their lies about being pro-environment, using their secret definition which includes environmental destruction in their definition of environmentalism.
I say nine with very deliberate thought. All nine liars using the fake definition of environmentalism which was repeated at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Outrageous, irresponsible. This is the City of Cambridge, MA.
1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
3. 2004 Destruction.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.
1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
The following is proposed Order number 13 submitted by Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis for the September 24, 2007 meeting:
WHEREAS: The DCR has informed the City Manager that the bid package for Magazine Beach was once again delayed due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system which will result in a construction delay; and
WHEREAS: Richard Corsi of the DCR anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out in mid-October of this year; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to urge the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to assure that work goes forward at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to inform the City Council of any changes in the work schedule at Magazine Beach.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
Davis’ record is very clear. Environmentally, on the matters that count, Cambridge has nine City Councillors who are heartlessly destructive of the environment. Davis is the worst.
3. 2004 Destruction.
The Magazine Beach project is a continuation of two actions taken by the City of Cambridge and its agents in 2004 when they started starving the Charles River White Geese.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
Part of the vile behavior in 2004 was supposedly sewerage work on an outlet across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel. This grassy slope was part of the habitat and food of the Charles River White Geese since the beginning, 26 years ago. It was the eastern end of the habitat.
The sickos from the City of Cambridge finished the sewerage work and left a wall of plastic blocking access to the food from the Charles River. Absolutely no excuse. Truly vile, truly in character with the pols and bureaucrats of the state and the City of Cambridge.
The wall was installed in September 2004.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
In September 2004, strictly by “coincidence” (I do not believe in sick “coincidences”), Cambridge and the DCR dug up all the wetlands at Magazine Beach, preventing access to all that food from the water. This was the western end of the habitat, and the balance of the food of the Charles River White Geese.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation, from 2000 to about 2006, repeatedly insisted they had no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.
Corsi, referenced in Davis’ order, explained the apparent contradiction in about 2006. He explained that he does not consider starving the Charles River White Geese harming them.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
Cambridge and the DCR sicced representatives on the project at Magazine Beach in 2005. The representatives did a swim in, bragging that the project was assisting in swimming in the Charles River. That part of the project constructed a physical wall PREVENTING access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. The FLAT OUT LIE was part a package of pretty much non-stop lies on the projects on the Charles River.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
The wall consists of a bunch of designer plants so unfit for the Charles River environment that they kept dying. The LIE which explained this wall of plants called them “native.” As near as I can gather, the secret definition of “native” used by these people translates as “unfit for the local environment.”
There has been a tiny gap left exactly where sickos like to run dogs off leash. The Charles River White Geese have started to feed very early in the morning and leave when the dogs show up. 95% of their feeding ground at Magazine Beach is denied them. 100% of their feeding ground at the Hyatt has never stopped being denied them.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
The sick portion of the sick project which Davis is now pushing constitutes digging up all the grass and soil at the Magazine Beach playing fields, trucking it away and replacing this perfectly good grass and soil with grass, soil, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers replace the wetlands which did not need to be destroyed. The poisons protect the commercial grade grass from problems which are not problems before the project.
The precursor for this project is another ball field at Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. The poisons were not effective enough to keep the bureaucrats happy, so they installed Tartan fungicide. The DAY AFTER THE TARTAN was installed, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, algae all over the place.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
The pols and the bureaucrats has tested this concept at Magazine Beach. They created an artificial puddle at the eastern end of the Magazine Beach playing fields. The artificial puddle is separated from the Charles River by perhaps 20 feet and has no water flow contact with the Charles River, so the puddle becomes stagnant and algae loaded.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
The Cambridge City Council took the key vote in December 1999 and has proceeded to implement their vile vote by not wanting to know what they were doing. There has been significant turnover on the Cambridge City Council in that period. None of them wanted to know what they were doing.
One of the more demonstrative occurrences came in 2001. There have been many, many attacks on the Charles River White Geese over the years. Many of those attacks looked highly professional and thus the work of the bureaucrats or their friends. The starvation attacks, of course, were the public actions of the bureaucrats and the pols.
In 2001, a nut started beating to death nesting Mother Geese. Nine city councilors were belligerently neutral in spite of repeated pleas that such a person graduates to humans. In October 2001, he graduated. He and his friends raped and murdered a young woman where he had been beating Mother Geese to death. The brutality was strikingly similar.
Nine city councilors discussed the rape and murder for more than an hour. Only Davis mentioned where it occurred. She looked around in a guilty manner and swallowed her words. They did not want to know where it happened.
These reprehensible people have done their best not to know what they were doing on the Charles River.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
Last Sunday, Friends of the White Geese leafleted an event by a insider pol, Sam Seigel, running for Cambridge City Council. Seigel, as member and chair of the Cambridge Conservation Commission has really filthy hands from the outrages on the Charles River.
Even more so, Siegel has gone on record BRAGGING about environmental outrages by the City of Cambridge. He has bragged that this environmental destructiveness is a new form of environmentalism that he and the other pols in the City of Cambridge are doing brilliantly.
Friends of the White Geese leafleted the event, communicating the truly reprehensible environmental record.
We have leafleted the first city council debate of the election season.
Thursday, there was a school committee debate. Marc McGovern, former School Committee member running for return to the board, has public fought for the irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. We leafleted the debate and leafleted this School Committee candidate fighting to have children rolling in poisons at Magazine Beach.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
So now Davis has filed this motion putting nine members of the Cambridge City Council on record in favor of this reprehensible project.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.
They will probably approve it without comment.
If you are pro-environment, you should have contempt for nine members of the Cambridge City Council and their lies about being pro-environment, using their secret definition which includes environmental destruction in their definition of environmentalism.
I say nine with very deliberate thought. All nine liars using the fake definition of environmentalism which was repeated at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Outrageous, irresponsible. This is the City of Cambridge, MA.
Reality on the "Renovation" of Magazine Beach
On September 23, 2007, Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Cambridge City Council about the city's ill-conceived "renovation" of Magazine Beach. Cambridge's $1.5 million project will pollute the Charles River. It will expose our children to the toxic chemicals needed to maintain the 7 acres of commercial sod there.
The letter refers to an e-mail Wellons sent in July to State Rep. Marty Walz on the same topic. The text of that e-mail follows this letter.
Dear Mayor Reeves, Vice Mayor Toomey, and other members of the Cambridge City Council:
For your information, please find the attached copy of my reply to State Rep. Marty Walz, dated July 29, 2007, about the joint Cambridge-DCR project at Magazine Beach and its prototype, the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park in Boston.
My e-mail cites documents at the Boston Conservation Commission and other sources regarding runoff from the renovated playing fields at Ebersol. Although the DCR says it doesn't usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles, it did so at Ebersol. Although it didn't plan to use the fungicide "Tartan" there, it did so. It does not deny the use of pesticides.
Runoff from these chemicals at Ebersol Fields polluted the river in 2006 and 2007. They also exposed Little League players to the long-term effects of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Children are at particularly high risk from exposure to pesticides.
You may remember the Council's own concern regarding the use of harmful chemicals expressed in Councillor Simmons's Policy Order No. O-8, December 4, 2006, regarding ChemLawn on the Cambridge riverfront.
Our children have access to the benefits of Little League ball without this project. The adequate, functioning, regulation Little League field at Magazine Beach is less than two hundred yards from a second, at Lindstrom Field. Will you "renovate" Magazine Beach and give our children access to all the chemicals required to maintain the turf there?
Please reconsider this project and reject it. It will pollute the river--undoing millions of dollars and years of work to clean up the river--and adversely affect our children's health.
P.S. There is an error in the attached e-mail to Rep. Walz. Cambridge's $1.5M project at Magazine Beach will install 7 acres of commercial sod, not 6.
E-mail from Marilyn to Rep. Marty Walz attached to this letter:
Dear Rep. Walz,
Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres [sic] at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).
The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.
Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)
Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)
Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)
In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)
The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.
The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.
In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.
With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.
The letter refers to an e-mail Wellons sent in July to State Rep. Marty Walz on the same topic. The text of that e-mail follows this letter.
Dear Mayor Reeves, Vice Mayor Toomey, and other members of the Cambridge City Council:
For your information, please find the attached copy of my reply to State Rep. Marty Walz, dated July 29, 2007, about the joint Cambridge-DCR project at Magazine Beach and its prototype, the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park in Boston.
My e-mail cites documents at the Boston Conservation Commission and other sources regarding runoff from the renovated playing fields at Ebersol. Although the DCR says it doesn't usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles, it did so at Ebersol. Although it didn't plan to use the fungicide "Tartan" there, it did so. It does not deny the use of pesticides.
Runoff from these chemicals at Ebersol Fields polluted the river in 2006 and 2007. They also exposed Little League players to the long-term effects of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Children are at particularly high risk from exposure to pesticides.
You may remember the Council's own concern regarding the use of harmful chemicals expressed in Councillor Simmons's Policy Order No. O-8, December 4, 2006, regarding ChemLawn on the Cambridge riverfront.
Our children have access to the benefits of Little League ball without this project. The adequate, functioning, regulation Little League field at Magazine Beach is less than two hundred yards from a second, at Lindstrom Field. Will you "renovate" Magazine Beach and give our children access to all the chemicals required to maintain the turf there?
Please reconsider this project and reject it. It will pollute the river--undoing millions of dollars and years of work to clean up the river--and adversely affect our children's health.
P.S. There is an error in the attached e-mail to Rep. Walz. Cambridge's $1.5M project at Magazine Beach will install 7 acres of commercial sod, not 6.
E-mail from Marilyn to Rep. Marty Walz attached to this letter:
Dear Rep. Walz,
Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres [sic] at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).
The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.
Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)
Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)
Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)
In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)
The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.
The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.
In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.
With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
There Exists one Cambridge City Council Candidate fit to Vote For
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have just posted a link to the secret definition of environmentalism which really drives Cambridge and State Pols and Bureaucrats.
I noticed, however, a comment by me in that link saying that, if Cantabridgians were concerned about the environment, the Cambridge pols gave them good reason not to vote.
So far I am aware of one Cambridge City Council candidate this year fit to be voted for, Kathy Podgers.
Please note that this post was placed without discussion with my co-blogger, Marilyn Wellons.
I have just posted a link to the secret definition of environmentalism which really drives Cambridge and State Pols and Bureaucrats.
I noticed, however, a comment by me in that link saying that, if Cantabridgians were concerned about the environment, the Cambridge pols gave them good reason not to vote.
So far I am aware of one Cambridge City Council candidate this year fit to be voted for, Kathy Podgers.
Please note that this post was placed without discussion with my co-blogger, Marilyn Wellons.
Environmental Hypocrites on the Move at Magazine Beach, on Charles River
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The following is Communication number 19 from the Cambridge City Manager to the Cambridge City Council at the meeting of September 17, 2007:
To the Honorable, the City Council:
In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-95, regarding a report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:
We were informed on September 11, 2007 by Richard Corsi from the DCR that the bid package for Magazine Beach was delayed once again, due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system, which required further review and revisions to the drawings. He anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out for bids in mid-October of 2007. This latest delay will result in a construction delay, thus the field will not be renovated in time for next year’’s Little League season. No projected completion date was provided.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
The following is Communication number 19 from the Cambridge City Manager to the Cambridge City Council at the meeting of September 17, 2007:
To the Honorable, the City Council:
In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-95, regarding a report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:
We were informed on September 11, 2007 by Richard Corsi from the DCR that the bid package for Magazine Beach was delayed once again, due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system, which required further review and revisions to the drawings. He anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out for bids in mid-October of 2007. This latest delay will result in a construction delay, thus the field will not be renovated in time for next year’’s Little League season. No projected completion date was provided.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Response to Boston Globe editorial, "In jittery Allston, a lack of trust," August 27, 2007
On August 30, Marilyn Wellons sent the following response to the Globe's August 27 editorial, "In jittery Allston, a lack of trust."
There are plenty of reasons why Allston residents may not trust assurances of benefits they're supposed to get from Harvard's plans for their neighborhood. The letter outlines reasons to doubt the supposed benefits to the larger public of Harvard's plans for its Allston holdings.
To the Editor:
To quiet the neighborhood’s concerns, you propose a community center on Harvard-owned land in Allston. The site, described as “between Western Avenue and the Mass. Pike,” is land the university sees as “blighted” and “underutilized.” It would convert this land to an “academic precinct.”
Before you sign on to Harvard’s limited vision, consider its impact on an issue also in the news, our state’s transportation infrastructure.
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s April, 2007 Freight Study says the industry, trucks, and trains here constitute the intermodal freight yard closest to the Port of Boston. As such, they reduce the cost of delivered goods, the wear and tear on our roads, and help maintain the region’s increasingly fragile competitiveness.
The university is a private entity. It understandably failed to include an easement for the Beacon Yards in its deed for the land. Only the intervention of the Attorney General, over the protests of Harvard and the Pike's lawyers, protected the public interest here.
Given the pickle the state is in economically, and given the importance of the Beacon Yards for any improvement, endorsing a project--while invoking the public interest--that nibbles away at it is short-sighted, to say the least.
There are plenty of reasons why Allston residents may not trust assurances of benefits they're supposed to get from Harvard's plans for their neighborhood. The letter outlines reasons to doubt the supposed benefits to the larger public of Harvard's plans for its Allston holdings.
To the Editor:
To quiet the neighborhood’s concerns, you propose a community center on Harvard-owned land in Allston. The site, described as “between Western Avenue and the Mass. Pike,” is land the university sees as “blighted” and “underutilized.” It would convert this land to an “academic precinct.”
Before you sign on to Harvard’s limited vision, consider its impact on an issue also in the news, our state’s transportation infrastructure.
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s April, 2007 Freight Study says the industry, trucks, and trains here constitute the intermodal freight yard closest to the Port of Boston. As such, they reduce the cost of delivered goods, the wear and tear on our roads, and help maintain the region’s increasingly fragile competitiveness.
The university is a private entity. It understandably failed to include an easement for the Beacon Yards in its deed for the land. Only the intervention of the Attorney General, over the protests of Harvard and the Pike's lawyers, protected the public interest here.
Given the pickle the state is in economically, and given the importance of the Beacon Yards for any improvement, endorsing a project--while invoking the public interest--that nibbles away at it is short-sighted, to say the least.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Environmental Waste at Fresh Pond, Using State Money
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
3. Request to Use.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.
1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
We have stated any number of times that the outrages on the Charles River are anything but unusual with regard to the City of Cambridge. Another excellent example is the wild areas at Fresh Pond in West Cambridge. The City of Cambridge is destroying thousands of healthy trees to put in saplings.
And they get state subsidies for this outrage as a part of which they neglect to tell the state about the needless destruction.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
I was just riding at Fresh Pond on my bicycle.
I saw the work they are doing there, although they are putting some nice plants in that are pretty to look at. I asked some passerbys what they thought about all of the work, did they think it was good or bad, and they said, bad, because they are destroying the natural plants and they are not native the stuff they are putting in now.
I said, thank you and I agree, I will tell my friends.
Too bad, I did not have a flyer with me to pass along.
Just wanted you to know.
3. Request to Use.
You normally say it is ok to quote you.
I would be pleased to post this on the blog.
Thank you.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.
Its never a problem, if it were I would let you know. I figured everyone would be glad to hear this.
The other thing is I mentioned the plants they put at Charles River keep dying and they will at Fresh Pond probably.
The people agreed. They said they didn't like the change at Fresh Pond.
You can copy all of this.
Karen
1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
3. Request to Use.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.
1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
We have stated any number of times that the outrages on the Charles River are anything but unusual with regard to the City of Cambridge. Another excellent example is the wild areas at Fresh Pond in West Cambridge. The City of Cambridge is destroying thousands of healthy trees to put in saplings.
And they get state subsidies for this outrage as a part of which they neglect to tell the state about the needless destruction.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
I was just riding at Fresh Pond on my bicycle.
I saw the work they are doing there, although they are putting some nice plants in that are pretty to look at. I asked some passerbys what they thought about all of the work, did they think it was good or bad, and they said, bad, because they are destroying the natural plants and they are not native the stuff they are putting in now.
I said, thank you and I agree, I will tell my friends.
Too bad, I did not have a flyer with me to pass along.
Just wanted you to know.
3. Request to Use.
You normally say it is ok to quote you.
I would be pleased to post this on the blog.
Thank you.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.
Its never a problem, if it were I would let you know. I figured everyone would be glad to hear this.
The other thing is I mentioned the plants they put at Charles River keep dying and they will at Fresh Pond probably.
The people agreed. They said they didn't like the change at Fresh Pond.
You can copy all of this.
Karen
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Most of Show on Cambridge's Jim Crow Attack is on the web
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post two more segments from Kathy Podgers' August 12, 2007 appearance on The Cambridge Environment.
I have not been able to review these in detail. However, clearly these segments include the first portion and the last portion of the show. I will amend our links to place the links in the proper order. These clips are edited, and are not the complete show.
Thanks Roy.
First segment: http://tinyurl.com/2wgzzx.
Final segment: http://tinyurl.com/2m7c29.
Cambridge, MA, has a terrible city government which spends a lot of time saying false things about itself.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post two more segments from Kathy Podgers' August 12, 2007 appearance on The Cambridge Environment.
I have not been able to review these in detail. However, clearly these segments include the first portion and the last portion of the show. I will amend our links to place the links in the proper order. These clips are edited, and are not the complete show.
Thanks Roy.
First segment: http://tinyurl.com/2wgzzx.
Final segment: http://tinyurl.com/2m7c29.
Cambridge, MA, has a terrible city government which spends a lot of time saying false things about itself.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Letter to the Boston Globe about Mirant-Kendall power plant and the algae blooms
This letter from Marilyn Wellons responds to an editorial in the Boston Globe that managed to discuss the algae bloom without mentioning Ebersol Fields' contribution to the phenomenon.
Among other reasons, since it is over the Globe's 200-word limit for letters, it may not be published.
To the Editor:
Your editorial on the Charles, “A river system in hot water” (August 13, 2007), oddly subsumes a major factor in the 2006 and 2007 algae blooms under the rubric of “runoffs from nutrient-rich fertilized lawns.”
It’s no secret that runoff from 6 acres of commercial sod, installed in the spring of 2006 at “Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park,” have fed the algae and disrupted the river’s chemistry. These DCR fields by Mass General Hospital are directly opposite the Mirant-Kendall power plant in Cambridge, where other pollutants collect before discharge into Boston Harbor.
While you hesitate to ascribe full responsibility for the algae blooms to Mirant-Kendall, you omit this other, critical piece of the puzzle. Mirant-Kendall ran at an even higher capacity in August, 2005, but there was no explosion of algae. A year later, in August, 2006, your paper quoted a water quality scientist as saying of the astronomical counts, “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before.” (“Toxic algae levels feared in lower Charles River,” August 16, 2006, p. A1.) There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.
Boaters could smell the fertilizer offshore from the fields all last summer. Other chemicals applied to the 6 acres also disrupted the river’s chemistry. In July, 2006, Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf. The DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres, to provide the “quality of turf our players deserve.” (Boston Conservation Commission hearing, August 2, 2006.)
The label for “Tartan” warns against its use near water. (“Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The first application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. The DCR supplemented the two treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation.” (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.) The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million to clean up the river for swimming. By 2013 we will have spent $19 million more. Now Cambridge is paying $1.5 million to pollute the river. It will install 7 acres of commercial sod at the DCR’s Magazine Beach this summer, to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and make swimming impossible there. Since the project’s puddle, billed as a “wetland” and far upriver from Mirant-Kendall, has already had an algae bloom this summer, we can expect really spectacular Cyanobacteria once the fields go in.
Among other reasons, since it is over the Globe's 200-word limit for letters, it may not be published.
To the Editor:
Your editorial on the Charles, “A river system in hot water” (August 13, 2007), oddly subsumes a major factor in the 2006 and 2007 algae blooms under the rubric of “runoffs from nutrient-rich fertilized lawns.”
It’s no secret that runoff from 6 acres of commercial sod, installed in the spring of 2006 at “Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park,” have fed the algae and disrupted the river’s chemistry. These DCR fields by Mass General Hospital are directly opposite the Mirant-Kendall power plant in Cambridge, where other pollutants collect before discharge into Boston Harbor.
While you hesitate to ascribe full responsibility for the algae blooms to Mirant-Kendall, you omit this other, critical piece of the puzzle. Mirant-Kendall ran at an even higher capacity in August, 2005, but there was no explosion of algae. A year later, in August, 2006, your paper quoted a water quality scientist as saying of the astronomical counts, “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before.” (“Toxic algae levels feared in lower Charles River,” August 16, 2006, p. A1.) There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.
Boaters could smell the fertilizer offshore from the fields all last summer. Other chemicals applied to the 6 acres also disrupted the river’s chemistry. In July, 2006, Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf. The DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres, to provide the “quality of turf our players deserve.” (Boston Conservation Commission hearing, August 2, 2006.)
The label for “Tartan” warns against its use near water. (“Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The first application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. The DCR supplemented the two treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation.” (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.) The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million to clean up the river for swimming. By 2013 we will have spent $19 million more. Now Cambridge is paying $1.5 million to pollute the river. It will install 7 acres of commercial sod at the DCR’s Magazine Beach this summer, to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and make swimming impossible there. Since the project’s puddle, billed as a “wetland” and far upriver from Mirant-Kendall, has already had an algae bloom this summer, we can expect really spectacular Cyanobacteria once the fields go in.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Video on Jim Crow attack, August 4, 2007, Cambridge, MA
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have now done two posts on the apparent police abuse of Kathy Podgers because she had the nerve to expect Cambridge, MA to obey federal civil rights law.
I have also had Kathy on my Cambridge, MA Cable Show, The Cambridge Environment, twice concerning this matter. The first was on the day after the attack, Sunday, August 5. The second was Sunday, August 12.
The second show was taped by Roy Bercaw and a key part posted on his blog. He has been kind enough to provide a link, it is: http://tinyurl.com/338had. I have also posted the link in the active links to this blog.
I have now done two posts on the apparent police abuse of Kathy Podgers because she had the nerve to expect Cambridge, MA to obey federal civil rights law.
I have also had Kathy on my Cambridge, MA Cable Show, The Cambridge Environment, twice concerning this matter. The first was on the day after the attack, Sunday, August 5. The second was Sunday, August 12.
The second show was taped by Roy Bercaw and a key part posted on his blog. He has been kind enough to provide a link, it is: http://tinyurl.com/338had. I have also posted the link in the active links to this blog.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Comments on Police Brutality, Cambridge, MA USA
Bob La Trémouille edits:
1. Joe, 8/6.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
3. Bob, 8/12.
The following respond to our report of August 6, 2007, "Cambridge Woman Alleges Abuse by Cambridge Police in Cambridge Police Station Because of her Handicap."
1. Joe, 8/6.
Every day I get more and more frustrated with this City's management, politicians and upper echelon officials and how they thumb their noses at the public they are supposed to serve. It seems that every year, for the past decade, it's been nothing but getting worse and worse.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
August 9, 2007.
The vicious attack on my service dog, Shannon, was a sick and cowardly act of brutal terror. Shannon lay crying on the floor, attached to me by a 2 1/2 foot lead. She did not fight back, as per her training, as I would have been seriously injured. She was brave and true.
None of the police present did anything to protect Shannon nor myself.
I am 64 years old, sick and totally disabled.
Also, I have just received notice that my MCAD complaint vs. CVS for discrimination based on I entered the store accompanied by my service dog was dismissed based upon police perjury, false police reports, and the refusal of the police to accept internal complain, more perjury, and 3 other laws were violated by police, including my civil rights.
BTW, Is there not a law that makes it a crime to provide false statements in a civil rights investigation?
Take care folks
this will be over when it's over
Your neighbour
Kathy
3. Bob, 8/12.
A young woman has been raped and murdered on the Charles River as part of the ongoing problems there. The rapist/murderer had good reason through silence and through their/their friends mistreatment of the Charles River White Geese to think that he was implementing the policies of the City of Cambridge / Department of Conservation and Recreation as he killed nesting geese. He then graduated.
The City of Cambridge, along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation is aggressively moving the environmental approach to the Charles River into the 19th Century. The DCR brags about it as explanation for their pending (with Cambridge blessing) destruction of hundreds of mature trees.
The City of Cambridge is aggressively now in the company of the 50's and 60's South in the realm of civil rights.
The City of Cambridge PUBLICLY calls itself above federal civil rights law. The City of Cambridge in its attack on Kathy Podgers having her guide dog at a Cambridge City Council meeting PUBLICLY confronted her individually.
The City of Cambridge with this apparently clear abuse of Kathy through her guide dog, BY A ROGUE COP IN A ROOM FULL OF SILENTLY COMPLICENT "POLICE OFFICERS", has removed the most important distinction between Cambridge, MA, 2007, and the South in the 50's and 60's.
Will we hear that this also "did not happen"?
Will Cambridge change its stripes and start behaving like the city it claims to be?
1. Joe, 8/6.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
3. Bob, 8/12.
The following respond to our report of August 6, 2007, "Cambridge Woman Alleges Abuse by Cambridge Police in Cambridge Police Station Because of her Handicap."
1. Joe, 8/6.
Every day I get more and more frustrated with this City's management, politicians and upper echelon officials and how they thumb their noses at the public they are supposed to serve. It seems that every year, for the past decade, it's been nothing but getting worse and worse.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
August 9, 2007.
The vicious attack on my service dog, Shannon, was a sick and cowardly act of brutal terror. Shannon lay crying on the floor, attached to me by a 2 1/2 foot lead. She did not fight back, as per her training, as I would have been seriously injured. She was brave and true.
None of the police present did anything to protect Shannon nor myself.
I am 64 years old, sick and totally disabled.
Also, I have just received notice that my MCAD complaint vs. CVS for discrimination based on I entered the store accompanied by my service dog was dismissed based upon police perjury, false police reports, and the refusal of the police to accept internal complain, more perjury, and 3 other laws were violated by police, including my civil rights.
BTW, Is there not a law that makes it a crime to provide false statements in a civil rights investigation?
Take care folks
this will be over when it's over
Your neighbour
Kathy
3. Bob, 8/12.
A young woman has been raped and murdered on the Charles River as part of the ongoing problems there. The rapist/murderer had good reason through silence and through their/their friends mistreatment of the Charles River White Geese to think that he was implementing the policies of the City of Cambridge / Department of Conservation and Recreation as he killed nesting geese. He then graduated.
The City of Cambridge, along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation is aggressively moving the environmental approach to the Charles River into the 19th Century. The DCR brags about it as explanation for their pending (with Cambridge blessing) destruction of hundreds of mature trees.
The City of Cambridge is aggressively now in the company of the 50's and 60's South in the realm of civil rights.
The City of Cambridge PUBLICLY calls itself above federal civil rights law. The City of Cambridge in its attack on Kathy Podgers having her guide dog at a Cambridge City Council meeting PUBLICLY confronted her individually.
The City of Cambridge with this apparently clear abuse of Kathy through her guide dog, BY A ROGUE COP IN A ROOM FULL OF SILENTLY COMPLICENT "POLICE OFFICERS", has removed the most important distinction between Cambridge, MA, 2007, and the South in the 50's and 60's.
Will we hear that this also "did not happen"?
Will Cambridge change its stripes and start behaving like the city it claims to be?
Monday, August 06, 2007
Cambridge Woman Alleges Abuse by Cambridge Police in Cambridge Police Station Because of her Handicap
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Kathy Podgers has a long standing “disagreement” with the City of Cambridge and its police department over her guide dog. Kathy has the odd impression that the City of Cambridge should be obeying and enforcing Federal laws on the matter. Cambridge considers Cambridge’s local ordinance more important than federal law.
Federal law, according to Kathy, gives her a right to have her guide dog accompany her in public places to assist her because of neurological problems. The City of Cambridge’s local ordinance does not give her that right and Cambridge is downright offended that Kathy would expect Cambridge to obey and respect federal laws.
The confrontations with city officials over Kathy’s use of the guide dog have been quite public including one situation in a meeting of the Cambridge City Council in which the chair tried to evict Kathy from the room because of the presence of her guide dog.
Saturday morning, August 4, Kathy was at the main lobby of the Cambridge Police Station reviewing complaint files because of public distress at difficulties getting the Cambridge Police to accept citizen complaints.
Kathy says that a police officer opened a door between the main lobby and the police area. Kathy says that a pit bull came through that door and immediately latched onto her dog’s leg.
Not only did the officer with the dog fail to defend Kathy’s dog, the officer expressed lack of concern about the matter. The “police officer” finally removed the dog from her dog by picking up the pit bull with the guide dog’s leg still in the pit bull’s mouth. The pit bull was finally removed with added pain to the guide dog.
At no time did the guide dog do anything to defend itself, in accordance with its training.
Kathy thinks the police were trying to goad her dog into self defense so that they could charge her dog as the aggressor. Police refused to take a complaint on the attack. Police stated no harm because the pit bull had no teeth.
An animal control office was called. The animal control officer demanded to see the guide dog’s papers. The police refused to provide to Kathy the relevant papers on the pit bull, and, to Kathy’s knowledge, no demand for papers was made by the animal control officer on the police.
The guide dog was treated at Angell Memorial Hospital. Kathy was treated at Mass. General. All medical personnel expressed distress at the behavior of the Cambridge Police and the refusal by the Cambridge Police to obey minimal paper exchange requirements.
Kathy Podgers may be contacted at 617-642-3154. Your reporter has no personal knowledge of the incident on Saturday morning.
Kathy Podgers has a long standing “disagreement” with the City of Cambridge and its police department over her guide dog. Kathy has the odd impression that the City of Cambridge should be obeying and enforcing Federal laws on the matter. Cambridge considers Cambridge’s local ordinance more important than federal law.
Federal law, according to Kathy, gives her a right to have her guide dog accompany her in public places to assist her because of neurological problems. The City of Cambridge’s local ordinance does not give her that right and Cambridge is downright offended that Kathy would expect Cambridge to obey and respect federal laws.
The confrontations with city officials over Kathy’s use of the guide dog have been quite public including one situation in a meeting of the Cambridge City Council in which the chair tried to evict Kathy from the room because of the presence of her guide dog.
Saturday morning, August 4, Kathy was at the main lobby of the Cambridge Police Station reviewing complaint files because of public distress at difficulties getting the Cambridge Police to accept citizen complaints.
Kathy says that a police officer opened a door between the main lobby and the police area. Kathy says that a pit bull came through that door and immediately latched onto her dog’s leg.
Not only did the officer with the dog fail to defend Kathy’s dog, the officer expressed lack of concern about the matter. The “police officer” finally removed the dog from her dog by picking up the pit bull with the guide dog’s leg still in the pit bull’s mouth. The pit bull was finally removed with added pain to the guide dog.
At no time did the guide dog do anything to defend itself, in accordance with its training.
Kathy thinks the police were trying to goad her dog into self defense so that they could charge her dog as the aggressor. Police refused to take a complaint on the attack. Police stated no harm because the pit bull had no teeth.
An animal control office was called. The animal control officer demanded to see the guide dog’s papers. The police refused to provide to Kathy the relevant papers on the pit bull, and, to Kathy’s knowledge, no demand for papers was made by the animal control officer on the police.
The guide dog was treated at Angell Memorial Hospital. Kathy was treated at Mass. General. All medical personnel expressed distress at the behavior of the Cambridge Police and the refusal by the Cambridge Police to obey minimal paper exchange requirements.
Kathy Podgers may be contacted at 617-642-3154. Your reporter has no personal knowledge of the incident on Saturday morning.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Visibilities 356-362 at the Goose Meadow of the Charles River White Geese — Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1, Visibilities 356-362.
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
C. Summary.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.
1. Visibilities 356-362.
Monday, July 23 (356), Tuesday, July 24 (357), Wednesday, July 25 (358), Thursday, July 26 (359), Friday, July 27 (360), Tuesday, July 31 (361) and Wednesday, August 1 (362), Marilyn did visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The visibility on August 1 started at the BU Bridge and moved to the nearby City of Cambridge ball field.
Her response, as usual was excellent.
Marilyn reports:
Lots of people are taking the flyers, and I get thumbs-up signs and waves.
[ed: The latter come from passing motorists. The visibility location takes on a love-in type of thing based on the general love of the commuters for the Charles River White Geese and for the Charles River. This love is recognized by the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats. That love is exactly the reason for the repeated flat out lies.]
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
The evening of July 28, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers responded at Cambridge City Council to a motion from the Cambridge City Council asking the governor the status of the next stage of environment destruction at Magazine Beach funded by the Cambridge City Council.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
Marilyn did an excellent job of summarizing her position on the Cambridge City Council’s funding of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in a letter printed in the Cambridge City Council today, August 2, 2007.
It read as follows:
********
David Harris, Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
To the Editor:
Your otherwise excellent article and editorial on the First Annual Charles River Swim Race failed to mention the cause of last summer’s unprecedented, astronomical algae bloom: 6 acres of commercial sod installed in the spring of 2006 at the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park, by Mass General Hospital in Boston. “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before,” one water quality scientist was quoted as saying. There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.
The matter is especially important for the Chronicle’s readers, since our city is poised to install 7 acres of the same sod at Magazine Beach.
At Ebersol Fields, the DCR replaced existing ball fields with professional-level ones, to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve,” as a DCR spokesperson put it.
In the river offshore from those 6 acres before they became "professional level," water quality was B+ in August, 2005. A year later, in August, 2006, the river was dead from the Museum of Science dam to the Mass. Avenue Bridge. Runoff from those 6 acres’ fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicide created a major public health hazard for humans and wildlife.
Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million so far to clean up the river. We’ll spend another $19 million by 2013, without factoring in the algae. Taxpayers in Cambridge — where water rates continue to rise — are about to pay $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach and make swimming impossible. The joint Cambridge-DCR “restoration” at Magazine Beach, even before the 7 polluting acres, has already caused an algae bloom in the puddle installed as there as “wetlands”
In this election year, it would be interesting to hear candidates’ justifications for the project. Our City Council has approved it and given the Governor the funds to proceed. With wisdom and enough calls from the public, he will think twice about water quality and withhold the funds.
I’m hoping to read all about it in the Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
Mr. Rob Johnson, a director of the Charles River Conservancy, was the only person, including members of the Cambridge City Council, who spoke in favor of the Magazine Beach project.
Mr. Johnson was a leader of the predecessor organization to the Charles River Conservancy, the “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
One of the first things that Friends of the White Geese did after organizing was to demonstrate at a supposed environmentally favorable project by “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
The Friends of the White Geese demonstration was in opposition to the destruction of the Goose Meadow a few months, and to the balance of these people’s destructive plans which include but very much are not limited to:
(1) The wall of designer bushes which has replaced the wetlands at Magazine Beach and should be removed; and
(2) The current proposal to poison Magazine Beach and the Charles River.
Not long after our demonstration against the "Friends of Magazine Beach," the "Friends of Magazine Beach" for all practical purposes disappeared and, Da Da, we had the Charles River Conservancy, which included directors of the "Friends of Magazine Beach."
The Charles River Conservancy conducted a “swim in” at this project in 2005, the year after they, the City of Cambridge and the state pols and bureaucrats, destroyed the wetlands and started to starve the Charles River White Geese.
The CRC claimed that this batch of stuff would assist swimming in the Charles.
A quick view of the wall of designer bushes now blocking access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River readily shows just how much of a flat out lie the "swim in" was.
The poisons that nine city councilors and their pol and bureaucrat buddies are poised to introduce once again demonstrate just how much the CRC (and their pols and bureaucrats) lack credibility.
The CRC has run around for the past five years poisoning the eggs of water fowl on the Charles River. For the same period, they have run around destroying more and more protective vegetation on the Charles River needed by migrating birds such as cranes.
For one of the directors of the CRC to be the only public supporter of poisoning Magazine Beach and the Charles River, says a lot about the project at Magazine Beach and about this developer funded group.
The only person standing in the way of this continuing outrage is Deval Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
C. Summary.
Is Governor Patrick on the side of our world or on the side of the destroyers of our world? The latter group includes NINE Cambridge City Councilors, and the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats.
There is a very major difference between reality and the repeated lies of the destroyers.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
Motorists and passers-by are very concerned about the White Geese's trips across the road to get to the grass.
I always point out that the geese can no longer get to their primary sources of food, the grass at Magazine Beach and on the river by the Hyatt. Since 2004 the White Geese have been confined to their nesting area, now their ghetto, by the Cambridge and DCR projects in both places. They cross the road now because they have to--and didn't for 20 years previous to the joint Cambridge-DCR starvation campaign.
Then people ask why the DCR and Cambridge would do that. I mention the cover story, that the White Geese are said to be "not a native species." We all know that humans are "native" to Africa only, but apparently humans are exempt from this stringent standard for living on and around the Charles River.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese frequently commute from their Goose Meadow to grass located under Memorial Drive. This was extremely difficult before the first attack on the Charles River White Geese, by Boston University acting on behalf of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. In October 1999, BU removed sections of fence which kept the Goose Meadow safe from people at the same time that BU destroyed the goose meadow.
Since the starvation campaign was commenced in September 2005 by nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors and by their pols and bureaucrats at state and local level, the Charles River White Geese have hunted for food wherever they can find it.
Their search for food includes a dangerous walk across the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge. This on ramp constitutes the northern boundary of the goose meadow.
The Charles River White Geese are extremely cautious pedestrians, especially given their lack of formal education in traffic laws. The Charles River White Geese will stand on the sidewalk next to the on ramp. They will look and look and look until they think it is safe to cross. Trouble is that, after all that cautious looking, they cross the on ramp like a bunch of geese. They walk with very little speed. Many of them will wander all about in the process of crossing the on ramp.
I have frequently seen commuters patiently watching their progress with admiration for their individual beauty and determination. Many will get out of their cars and take photos. I have never seen drivers treat these travels with lack of respect.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.
Robb Johnson was the only person who spoke in favor of
the MB scandal. Remember too that his Friends of
Magazine Beach organized the annual volunteer cleanups
of Magazine Beach a week or two before BU's graduation
ceremony there--without telling the volunteers they
were subsidizing BU as well as the DCR.
When we pointed out the timing, FOMB rescheduled the
next cleanup for after the graduation and then
dissolved, discontinuing them altogether.
His organization was the one the DCR solicited the
anti-White Geese memo from. When I followed up on
their statements about the White Geese, I found the
people they quoted disavowed what the memo attributed
to them. In fact, one official has been completely
misrespresented.
While Johnson was speaking about the plan for Magazine
Beach he favored, Kathy Podgers pointed out to me that
his organization approved the plans in secret, that in
subsequent public meetings people told the DCR the
plans didn't do what they had wanted done--clean up
the pool and fix the old stone building at Captain's
Island made from granite in the original magazine.
As it is, the plans Johnson and the DCR are pushing
will do away with the turnout and parking at the
swimming pool. Everyone I talk to about that says
it's not only crazy, but should be stopped.
1, Visibilities 356-362.
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
C. Summary.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.
1. Visibilities 356-362.
Monday, July 23 (356), Tuesday, July 24 (357), Wednesday, July 25 (358), Thursday, July 26 (359), Friday, July 27 (360), Tuesday, July 31 (361) and Wednesday, August 1 (362), Marilyn did visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The visibility on August 1 started at the BU Bridge and moved to the nearby City of Cambridge ball field.
Her response, as usual was excellent.
Marilyn reports:
Lots of people are taking the flyers, and I get thumbs-up signs and waves.
[ed: The latter come from passing motorists. The visibility location takes on a love-in type of thing based on the general love of the commuters for the Charles River White Geese and for the Charles River. This love is recognized by the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats. That love is exactly the reason for the repeated flat out lies.]
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
The evening of July 28, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers responded at Cambridge City Council to a motion from the Cambridge City Council asking the governor the status of the next stage of environment destruction at Magazine Beach funded by the Cambridge City Council.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
Marilyn did an excellent job of summarizing her position on the Cambridge City Council’s funding of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in a letter printed in the Cambridge City Council today, August 2, 2007.
It read as follows:
********
David Harris, Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
To the Editor:
Your otherwise excellent article and editorial on the First Annual Charles River Swim Race failed to mention the cause of last summer’s unprecedented, astronomical algae bloom: 6 acres of commercial sod installed in the spring of 2006 at the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park, by Mass General Hospital in Boston. “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before,” one water quality scientist was quoted as saying. There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.
The matter is especially important for the Chronicle’s readers, since our city is poised to install 7 acres of the same sod at Magazine Beach.
At Ebersol Fields, the DCR replaced existing ball fields with professional-level ones, to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve,” as a DCR spokesperson put it.
In the river offshore from those 6 acres before they became "professional level," water quality was B+ in August, 2005. A year later, in August, 2006, the river was dead from the Museum of Science dam to the Mass. Avenue Bridge. Runoff from those 6 acres’ fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicide created a major public health hazard for humans and wildlife.
Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million so far to clean up the river. We’ll spend another $19 million by 2013, without factoring in the algae. Taxpayers in Cambridge — where water rates continue to rise — are about to pay $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach and make swimming impossible. The joint Cambridge-DCR “restoration” at Magazine Beach, even before the 7 polluting acres, has already caused an algae bloom in the puddle installed as there as “wetlands”
In this election year, it would be interesting to hear candidates’ justifications for the project. Our City Council has approved it and given the Governor the funds to proceed. With wisdom and enough calls from the public, he will think twice about water quality and withhold the funds.
I’m hoping to read all about it in the Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
Mr. Rob Johnson, a director of the Charles River Conservancy, was the only person, including members of the Cambridge City Council, who spoke in favor of the Magazine Beach project.
Mr. Johnson was a leader of the predecessor organization to the Charles River Conservancy, the “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
One of the first things that Friends of the White Geese did after organizing was to demonstrate at a supposed environmentally favorable project by “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
The Friends of the White Geese demonstration was in opposition to the destruction of the Goose Meadow a few months, and to the balance of these people’s destructive plans which include but very much are not limited to:
(1) The wall of designer bushes which has replaced the wetlands at Magazine Beach and should be removed; and
(2) The current proposal to poison Magazine Beach and the Charles River.
Not long after our demonstration against the "Friends of Magazine Beach," the "Friends of Magazine Beach" for all practical purposes disappeared and, Da Da, we had the Charles River Conservancy, which included directors of the "Friends of Magazine Beach."
The Charles River Conservancy conducted a “swim in” at this project in 2005, the year after they, the City of Cambridge and the state pols and bureaucrats, destroyed the wetlands and started to starve the Charles River White Geese.
The CRC claimed that this batch of stuff would assist swimming in the Charles.
A quick view of the wall of designer bushes now blocking access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River readily shows just how much of a flat out lie the "swim in" was.
The poisons that nine city councilors and their pol and bureaucrat buddies are poised to introduce once again demonstrate just how much the CRC (and their pols and bureaucrats) lack credibility.
The CRC has run around for the past five years poisoning the eggs of water fowl on the Charles River. For the same period, they have run around destroying more and more protective vegetation on the Charles River needed by migrating birds such as cranes.
For one of the directors of the CRC to be the only public supporter of poisoning Magazine Beach and the Charles River, says a lot about the project at Magazine Beach and about this developer funded group.
The only person standing in the way of this continuing outrage is Deval Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
C. Summary.
Is Governor Patrick on the side of our world or on the side of the destroyers of our world? The latter group includes NINE Cambridge City Councilors, and the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats.
There is a very major difference between reality and the repeated lies of the destroyers.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
Motorists and passers-by are very concerned about the White Geese's trips across the road to get to the grass.
I always point out that the geese can no longer get to their primary sources of food, the grass at Magazine Beach and on the river by the Hyatt. Since 2004 the White Geese have been confined to their nesting area, now their ghetto, by the Cambridge and DCR projects in both places. They cross the road now because they have to--and didn't for 20 years previous to the joint Cambridge-DCR starvation campaign.
Then people ask why the DCR and Cambridge would do that. I mention the cover story, that the White Geese are said to be "not a native species." We all know that humans are "native" to Africa only, but apparently humans are exempt from this stringent standard for living on and around the Charles River.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese frequently commute from their Goose Meadow to grass located under Memorial Drive. This was extremely difficult before the first attack on the Charles River White Geese, by Boston University acting on behalf of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. In October 1999, BU removed sections of fence which kept the Goose Meadow safe from people at the same time that BU destroyed the goose meadow.
Since the starvation campaign was commenced in September 2005 by nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors and by their pols and bureaucrats at state and local level, the Charles River White Geese have hunted for food wherever they can find it.
Their search for food includes a dangerous walk across the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge. This on ramp constitutes the northern boundary of the goose meadow.
The Charles River White Geese are extremely cautious pedestrians, especially given their lack of formal education in traffic laws. The Charles River White Geese will stand on the sidewalk next to the on ramp. They will look and look and look until they think it is safe to cross. Trouble is that, after all that cautious looking, they cross the on ramp like a bunch of geese. They walk with very little speed. Many of them will wander all about in the process of crossing the on ramp.
I have frequently seen commuters patiently watching their progress with admiration for their individual beauty and determination. Many will get out of their cars and take photos. I have never seen drivers treat these travels with lack of respect.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.
Robb Johnson was the only person who spoke in favor of
the MB scandal. Remember too that his Friends of
Magazine Beach organized the annual volunteer cleanups
of Magazine Beach a week or two before BU's graduation
ceremony there--without telling the volunteers they
were subsidizing BU as well as the DCR.
When we pointed out the timing, FOMB rescheduled the
next cleanup for after the graduation and then
dissolved, discontinuing them altogether.
His organization was the one the DCR solicited the
anti-White Geese memo from. When I followed up on
their statements about the White Geese, I found the
people they quoted disavowed what the memo attributed
to them. In fact, one official has been completely
misrespresented.
While Johnson was speaking about the plan for Magazine
Beach he favored, Kathy Podgers pointed out to me that
his organization approved the plans in secret, that in
subsequent public meetings people told the DCR the
plans didn't do what they had wanted done--clean up
the pool and fix the old stone building at Captain's
Island made from granite in the original magazine.
As it is, the plans Johnson and the DCR are pushing
will do away with the turnout and parking at the
swimming pool. Everyone I talk to about that says
it's not only crazy, but should be stopped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)