Bob La Trémouille reports:
It looks like I may have been wrong in reporting that the Charles River White Ducks found a new lair.
A tiny minority of very destructive people have led me to cling to pretty much any straw. It is entirely possible I saw two Charles River White Geese setting up nesting and, with nobody to compare for size near them, I incorrectly assumed they were Andrake and Daffney. Andrake and Daffney are BIG ducks, not as large as the Charles River White Geese, but nevertheless quite big.
This afternoon, the Charles River White Geese pretty much filled the destroyed nesting area, looking around for places to call home.
The Charles River is thawing. It never fully froze. There is a lot of free water under the Grand Junction railroad bridge. The ice next to the destroyed nesting area still is separated from the shore in the same spot it has been throughout the coldest part of the river, but now it is a big sheet of ice with free water beyond.
Most of the ice sheet was occupied by mallard ducks, with a couple of white geese and one sole gander. On the furthest point were the Charles River White Ducks.
The situation on the Charles River is the same as in Cambridge, MA. Some very destructive hypocrites are doing a lot of damage. The hypocrites on the Charles River are agents of the state bureaucrats who run the place. All have contempt for nature and aggressively are destroying nature.
The vegetation which has protected the Charles River White Ducks since their freedom has been destroyed by these sickos, the Charles River Conservancy. This vegetation is part of a well established wild part of the Boston side of the Charles River very close to Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road. The vegetation has vastly improved the view from the Cambridge side because it hid the highway. This vegetation has been terrific for water born animals.
But we have sick people with contempt for nature and for the Charles River. The Charles River Conservancy destroys, destroys, destroys. They fit in very nicely with the Cambridge City Council.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Charles River White Ducks find a new lair
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have frequently reported on the status of the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney.
They were abandoned at Magazine Beach last summer on the day before our memorial for Bumpy the leader of the gaggle, on the fifth anniversary of his very political killing. During the celebration a sick alleged human being loosed his dog on them. I saved the two. I used the dog as a football when he had his teeth on Andrake's neck.
Bill Naumann taught them what the Charles River was for. He backed into the Charles River while feeding them. They followed him and were overjoyed by their discovery of the Charles River. They established a lair under vegetation on the south side which has since been destroyed by sickos from the Charles River Conservancy.
I was very pleased today to get the impression that they have a new lair. It looks very safe and could be a good place for baby ducks to hatch.
*********
Caveat: I have been putting out reports on the Charles River since March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to the Destroyed Nesting Area to learn that sickos from Boston University had destroyed in on behalf of the DCR/MDC.
My reports since then, combining email newsletters and this blog, have easily exceeded 700.
One thing I have always done is realize that there are truly reprehensible people in this world: Boston University, the state bureaucrats, the Cambridge City Council, and loads of people who are either pulling their strings or having their strings pulled.
Given this truly belligerent, but very destructive, minority, I have been extremely careful about divulging information which could lead to harm to the animals of the Charles River if the wrong sicko got that information.
I am not going to say any more about the new location of the lair of the Charles River White Ducks.
Thank you.
I have frequently reported on the status of the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney.
They were abandoned at Magazine Beach last summer on the day before our memorial for Bumpy the leader of the gaggle, on the fifth anniversary of his very political killing. During the celebration a sick alleged human being loosed his dog on them. I saved the two. I used the dog as a football when he had his teeth on Andrake's neck.
Bill Naumann taught them what the Charles River was for. He backed into the Charles River while feeding them. They followed him and were overjoyed by their discovery of the Charles River. They established a lair under vegetation on the south side which has since been destroyed by sickos from the Charles River Conservancy.
I was very pleased today to get the impression that they have a new lair. It looks very safe and could be a good place for baby ducks to hatch.
*********
Caveat: I have been putting out reports on the Charles River since March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to the Destroyed Nesting Area to learn that sickos from Boston University had destroyed in on behalf of the DCR/MDC.
My reports since then, combining email newsletters and this blog, have easily exceeded 700.
One thing I have always done is realize that there are truly reprehensible people in this world: Boston University, the state bureaucrats, the Cambridge City Council, and loads of people who are either pulling their strings or having their strings pulled.
Given this truly belligerent, but very destructive, minority, I have been extremely careful about divulging information which could lead to harm to the animals of the Charles River if the wrong sicko got that information.
I am not going to say any more about the new location of the lair of the Charles River White Ducks.
Thank you.
Cambridge Chronicle - Odd Environmental Actions
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Recent Environmental Destruction.
2. This week's Cambridge Chronicle.
A. Silver Maple Forest.
B. Fake Environmental Group.
3. Proposed letter to the Editor, Silver Maple, Fake Environmental Group in Context.
4. Existing Record of the City of Cambridge and its "Groups."
5. The Bad Guys respond.
6. Cambridge Chronicle prints letter.
1. Recent Environmental Destruction.
A couple of weeks ago we reported about strikingly irresponsible tree destruction coming in the City of Cambridge.
The Cambridge Chronicle promptly dispatched a photographer who took some excellent photos of Kathy Podgers, her companion dog and me under eight excellent and threatened trees. Their reporter interviewed me on Friday, Monday (the photo session) and Tuesday.
But nothing appeared in that Thursday's issue and what appeared in today's issue is exactly the opposite.
2. This week's Cambridge Chronicle.
A. Silver Maple Forest.
They printed a letter concerning the planned private destruction of the silver forest in Belmont / Cambridge near Alewife and Cambridge Highlands. Excellent letter. Writer with strikingly problematic record.
B. Fake Environmental Group.
They devoted an entire section front page to a new, fake green group.
The group claims to be pro-environment, but could give a damn less about the massive environmental destruction ongoing by their friends, the City of Cambridge. But they love fancy light bulbs.
Interestingly, they look like friends of incumbent Cambridge City Councilors. Standard position of the Cambridge City Council: "How dare you look at our massive environmental destruction. Look at our fancy light bulbs."
3. Proposed letter to the Editor, Silver Maple, Fake Environmental Group in Context.
I just submitted the following proposed letter to the editor, some edits added:
************
I appreciated the letter about the impact of proposed construction on Route 2 on Cambridge Highlands. That is a very major concern, but it must be placed in context.
The context is that the greatest environmental threat is irresponsible environmental behavior by the City of Cambridge and its friends in the state bureaucracy.
Cambridge Highlands is across the street from the Fresh Pond Reservation. Cambridge is in the process of destroying thousands of trees at the Fresh Pond Reservation. The reason is that Cambridge wants to put in saplings so that Cambridge can brag about all the saplings that Cambridge has installed without mentioning the healthy, mature trees destroyed to put in saplings.
At Alewife, next to the private project on Route 2, Cambridge plans massive environmental destruction of near virgin woodlands to put in a drainage tank which should be installed under a parking lot about 500 feet to the south.
Hundreds of trees are being destroyed on the Charles River along with all wetlands and all animal habitat.
Pretty much every city project starts with the destruction of trees, almost all the destruction not only unnecessary but silly. Street trees and trees in new construction are constantly destroyed, even the largest.
The city's response to objections about their environmental destuction? The city's friends create "green" groups which could care less about massive government destruction of the green, but the "green" groups love their fancy light bulbs. But they sound so good while their friends at the city and state aggressively destroy Cambridge's green heritage.
4. Existing Record of the City of Cambridge and its "Groups."
Cambridge is a very active community.
The City of Cambridge started creating grass roots groups back in the 70's. They would talk with their friends and their friends would create the groups.
It was not at all surprising that the friends would work to make these groups as fake as possible, that is work to make the supposed grass roots organizations work to accomplish the dirty tricks that the City of Cambridge is trying to do.
There are all sorts of lovely techniques to make a group look real and to have it be REALLY FAKE. But the fake groups can be used to achieve their supposed purposes because, usually, there are more real people in the group than there are fakes, but you are fighting against major, very real institutional obstacles.
Thus groups which give the impression of being created to control the government in reality act to control the activists.
In the middle of this reprehensible situation are fake environmental groups.
I have no problems if friend of the Cambridge City Council want to run around fighting for fancy light bulbs. I just expect their groups to be honestly named.
"The Group Fighting for Fancy Light Bulbs" sounds like an excellent name.
"Greenport" strikes me as a name which is a flat out lie for a group which is managed to prevent defense of the Green when the friends of the organizers (city councilors) are aggressively destroying the Green in Cambridge.
And there is no way the organizers of these fake green organizations will name their groups in an honest manner.
But this is business as usual in Cambridge.
Reprehensible, for all practical purposes fraudulent, but business as usual.
5. The Bad Guys respond.
I have discussed the above analysis of this alleged Green organization with one of its founders.
Her response was to give them a few years and see how they look. That, to me, sounded like just another con in a city very consistent for its con jobs.
I passed on to the Cambridgeport list an announcement from an incipient Green organization in Allston in which the incipient Green organization was talking about all sorts of Green things.
But this Cambridge "Green" organization is talking about fancy light bulbs and is very visibly being organized by people who don’t want to hear about REAL Green issues in Cambridge.
And their friends on the Cambridge City Council have consistently used this fraud on the voters of claiming environmental sainthood, but the only sainthood they have is fancy lightbulbs.
Do I think it is just an extension of the environmental fraud on the Cambridge City Council? Of course, I do.
And they would not even dream of using an honest name for their fancy light bulb group.
6. Cambridge Chronicle prints letter.
My original draft of the letter in section 3 was printed by the Cambridge Chronicle in its March 1, 2006, edition, at page 10. The title they gave was "Trees are more important than light bulbs." The letter printed, being the original draft, has differences from what I have given you above, but does not differ at the bottom line.
The Cambridge Chronicle printed the letter close to an op-ed piece by another of Cambridge's "Green" groups which could care less about Cambridge's and the state bureaucrats' ongoing destruction of Cambridge's green heritage.
The "Green" group's piece said pretty much nothing, as usual. They did not even mention their fancy light bulbs.
1. Recent Environmental Destruction.
2. This week's Cambridge Chronicle.
A. Silver Maple Forest.
B. Fake Environmental Group.
3. Proposed letter to the Editor, Silver Maple, Fake Environmental Group in Context.
4. Existing Record of the City of Cambridge and its "Groups."
5. The Bad Guys respond.
6. Cambridge Chronicle prints letter.
1. Recent Environmental Destruction.
A couple of weeks ago we reported about strikingly irresponsible tree destruction coming in the City of Cambridge.
The Cambridge Chronicle promptly dispatched a photographer who took some excellent photos of Kathy Podgers, her companion dog and me under eight excellent and threatened trees. Their reporter interviewed me on Friday, Monday (the photo session) and Tuesday.
But nothing appeared in that Thursday's issue and what appeared in today's issue is exactly the opposite.
2. This week's Cambridge Chronicle.
A. Silver Maple Forest.
They printed a letter concerning the planned private destruction of the silver forest in Belmont / Cambridge near Alewife and Cambridge Highlands. Excellent letter. Writer with strikingly problematic record.
B. Fake Environmental Group.
They devoted an entire section front page to a new, fake green group.
The group claims to be pro-environment, but could give a damn less about the massive environmental destruction ongoing by their friends, the City of Cambridge. But they love fancy light bulbs.
Interestingly, they look like friends of incumbent Cambridge City Councilors. Standard position of the Cambridge City Council: "How dare you look at our massive environmental destruction. Look at our fancy light bulbs."
3. Proposed letter to the Editor, Silver Maple, Fake Environmental Group in Context.
I just submitted the following proposed letter to the editor, some edits added:
************
I appreciated the letter about the impact of proposed construction on Route 2 on Cambridge Highlands. That is a very major concern, but it must be placed in context.
The context is that the greatest environmental threat is irresponsible environmental behavior by the City of Cambridge and its friends in the state bureaucracy.
Cambridge Highlands is across the street from the Fresh Pond Reservation. Cambridge is in the process of destroying thousands of trees at the Fresh Pond Reservation. The reason is that Cambridge wants to put in saplings so that Cambridge can brag about all the saplings that Cambridge has installed without mentioning the healthy, mature trees destroyed to put in saplings.
At Alewife, next to the private project on Route 2, Cambridge plans massive environmental destruction of near virgin woodlands to put in a drainage tank which should be installed under a parking lot about 500 feet to the south.
Hundreds of trees are being destroyed on the Charles River along with all wetlands and all animal habitat.
Pretty much every city project starts with the destruction of trees, almost all the destruction not only unnecessary but silly. Street trees and trees in new construction are constantly destroyed, even the largest.
The city's response to objections about their environmental destuction? The city's friends create "green" groups which could care less about massive government destruction of the green, but the "green" groups love their fancy light bulbs. But they sound so good while their friends at the city and state aggressively destroy Cambridge's green heritage.
4. Existing Record of the City of Cambridge and its "Groups."
Cambridge is a very active community.
The City of Cambridge started creating grass roots groups back in the 70's. They would talk with their friends and their friends would create the groups.
It was not at all surprising that the friends would work to make these groups as fake as possible, that is work to make the supposed grass roots organizations work to accomplish the dirty tricks that the City of Cambridge is trying to do.
There are all sorts of lovely techniques to make a group look real and to have it be REALLY FAKE. But the fake groups can be used to achieve their supposed purposes because, usually, there are more real people in the group than there are fakes, but you are fighting against major, very real institutional obstacles.
Thus groups which give the impression of being created to control the government in reality act to control the activists.
In the middle of this reprehensible situation are fake environmental groups.
I have no problems if friend of the Cambridge City Council want to run around fighting for fancy light bulbs. I just expect their groups to be honestly named.
"The Group Fighting for Fancy Light Bulbs" sounds like an excellent name.
"Greenport" strikes me as a name which is a flat out lie for a group which is managed to prevent defense of the Green when the friends of the organizers (city councilors) are aggressively destroying the Green in Cambridge.
And there is no way the organizers of these fake green organizations will name their groups in an honest manner.
But this is business as usual in Cambridge.
Reprehensible, for all practical purposes fraudulent, but business as usual.
5. The Bad Guys respond.
I have discussed the above analysis of this alleged Green organization with one of its founders.
Her response was to give them a few years and see how they look. That, to me, sounded like just another con in a city very consistent for its con jobs.
I passed on to the Cambridgeport list an announcement from an incipient Green organization in Allston in which the incipient Green organization was talking about all sorts of Green things.
But this Cambridge "Green" organization is talking about fancy light bulbs and is very visibly being organized by people who don’t want to hear about REAL Green issues in Cambridge.
And their friends on the Cambridge City Council have consistently used this fraud on the voters of claiming environmental sainthood, but the only sainthood they have is fancy lightbulbs.
Do I think it is just an extension of the environmental fraud on the Cambridge City Council? Of course, I do.
And they would not even dream of using an honest name for their fancy light bulb group.
6. Cambridge Chronicle prints letter.
My original draft of the letter in section 3 was printed by the Cambridge Chronicle in its March 1, 2006, edition, at page 10. The title they gave was "Trees are more important than light bulbs." The letter printed, being the original draft, has differences from what I have given you above, but does not differ at the bottom line.
The Cambridge Chronicle printed the letter close to an op-ed piece by another of Cambridge's "Green" groups which could care less about Cambridge's and the state bureaucrats' ongoing destruction of Cambridge's green heritage.
The "Green" group's piece said pretty much nothing, as usual. They did not even mention their fancy light bulbs.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Flooding of Innocent Victims - Reality impacts Harvard's Application for Sainthood
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have recently quoted a number of comments about Harvard University in a report quoting extensively from the Cambridgeport (Cambridge) listserve.
The following is a report today from the Riverside (Cambridge) listserve. I have added paragraphing and nothing else.
The Mahoney's site is just west of Western Avenue across Memorial Drive from the Charles River. The neighborhood got shafted with an outrageous upzoning to maximize Harvard's development potential there. Key people in the shafting sounded tremendously like the people I was calling "Bad Guy 1" and "Bad Guy 2" in my report.
Riverside Place is between Western Avenue and the part of the project Lawrence is mostly mentioning. Actually, the Harvard project is on both sides of Western Avenue
*****************
From Lawrence Adkins:
Today I was with the Ashe Family who has ran into some bad luck.
This is the family living on Riverside Place Street, directly behind the former Mahoney site. The home on the street is flooded with 3 ft. of water in there basement.
They called Ed Laflore (Harvard mitigation manager) to be told that when he gets to work on Tuesday he will see what can be done. If you recall some of our concerns were the lack of proper drainage due to the ADA cross walks, this trapped the rain water on the entire street. The Ashes' are renting a pump to get the water out of the basement.
I did call Tom Lucey (Harvard Director of Community Relations), only able to leave a message. Someone from the University told the Ashes they did have access to a pump.
This is strange with the university having their power station directly across the street.
I have recently quoted a number of comments about Harvard University in a report quoting extensively from the Cambridgeport (Cambridge) listserve.
The following is a report today from the Riverside (Cambridge) listserve. I have added paragraphing and nothing else.
The Mahoney's site is just west of Western Avenue across Memorial Drive from the Charles River. The neighborhood got shafted with an outrageous upzoning to maximize Harvard's development potential there. Key people in the shafting sounded tremendously like the people I was calling "Bad Guy 1" and "Bad Guy 2" in my report.
Riverside Place is between Western Avenue and the part of the project Lawrence is mostly mentioning. Actually, the Harvard project is on both sides of Western Avenue
*****************
From Lawrence Adkins:
Today I was with the Ashe Family who has ran into some bad luck.
This is the family living on Riverside Place Street, directly behind the former Mahoney site. The home on the street is flooded with 3 ft. of water in there basement.
They called Ed Laflore (Harvard mitigation manager) to be told that when he gets to work on Tuesday he will see what can be done. If you recall some of our concerns were the lack of proper drainage due to the ADA cross walks, this trapped the rain water on the entire street. The Ashes' are renting a pump to get the water out of the basement.
I did call Tom Lucey (Harvard Director of Community Relations), only able to leave a message. Someone from the University told the Ashes they did have access to a pump.
This is strange with the university having their power station directly across the street.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Boston Globe Photo, CRUWI, Report from the Charles River
Roy Bercaw reports:
In Saturday's Boston Globe, February 10, 2007, on page B2 there is a picture of Alison Bleyler feeding the geese. No story just a picture.
Bob responds:
For the interest of our visitors, Alison Bleyler is one of the two key people in the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, the people feeding the Charles River White Geese and other free animals in need on the Charles River.
I said hello to her and to Bill Naumann, the other leader, just yesterday afternoon at the Goose Meadow. She was crouched at the river's edge. She happily pet one gander on his way to the river. We exchanged our mutual pleasure at how well Andrake and Daffney, the Charles River White Ducks are doing. They were abandoned on Magazine Beach in July. They was so unsophisticated that they did not even know what the Charles River was for. Bill enticed them into the river by backing into it while feeding them. They are now surviving well. As things have frozen in, they have moved close to the goose meadow while only nominally entering on its land. I have seen them hopping on and off the first row of rocks, which Allison says the extent of their entry into the meadow. Their caution allows CRUWI to watch and assist them as necessary.
Today things are thawing, but even yesterday, after many days of bitter cold, the water near the goose meadow had a lot of unfrozen areas. The white geese can be seen in those unfrozen areas in the morning and they tend to vary their behavior during the rest of the day.
This morning, walking along the on ramp to Memorial Drive, a main road parallel to the Charles, I was surprised to see ganders on the railroad tracks just downriver from the goose meadow. The railroad tracks are normally not an area they consider in their habitat EXCEPT during mating season when the ganders gather and prance.
Early spring from their mentality? Not at all impossible.
But 4 to 7 inches of snow are predicted for tomorrow. The Charles River White Geese are very accustomed to it. CRUWI, very certainly, will be watching the Charles River White Ducks. I will keep an eye out as well, but CRUWI is more important.
In Saturday's Boston Globe, February 10, 2007, on page B2 there is a picture of Alison Bleyler feeding the geese. No story just a picture.
Bob responds:
For the interest of our visitors, Alison Bleyler is one of the two key people in the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, the people feeding the Charles River White Geese and other free animals in need on the Charles River.
I said hello to her and to Bill Naumann, the other leader, just yesterday afternoon at the Goose Meadow. She was crouched at the river's edge. She happily pet one gander on his way to the river. We exchanged our mutual pleasure at how well Andrake and Daffney, the Charles River White Ducks are doing. They were abandoned on Magazine Beach in July. They was so unsophisticated that they did not even know what the Charles River was for. Bill enticed them into the river by backing into it while feeding them. They are now surviving well. As things have frozen in, they have moved close to the goose meadow while only nominally entering on its land. I have seen them hopping on and off the first row of rocks, which Allison says the extent of their entry into the meadow. Their caution allows CRUWI to watch and assist them as necessary.
Today things are thawing, but even yesterday, after many days of bitter cold, the water near the goose meadow had a lot of unfrozen areas. The white geese can be seen in those unfrozen areas in the morning and they tend to vary their behavior during the rest of the day.
This morning, walking along the on ramp to Memorial Drive, a main road parallel to the Charles, I was surprised to see ganders on the railroad tracks just downriver from the goose meadow. The railroad tracks are normally not an area they consider in their habitat EXCEPT during mating season when the ganders gather and prance.
Early spring from their mentality? Not at all impossible.
But 4 to 7 inches of snow are predicted for tomorrow. The Charles River White Geese are very accustomed to it. CRUWI, very certainly, will be watching the Charles River White Ducks. I will keep an eye out as well, but CRUWI is more important.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Public Hearing on Tree Destruction: Cambridge Protecting Its Environment from Trees?
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.
A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.
B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.
2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.
A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.
B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.
C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.
D. Memorial Drive plans.
E. Cherry Trees.
3. Summary.
Wednesday evening, February 7, 2007, I attended the public hearing on tree destruction in Harvard Square and behind the Hyatt Regency near Memorial Drive.
1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.
A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.
The City of Cambridge's Development Department defended the destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square on two grounds:
(1) The trees are in the way of their beautiful pavers (fancy bricks) that they are using to replace the cobble stones.
(2) Trees block light.
B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.
As near as I can gather, the Development Department and the City Arborist justified moving / destroying all but one tree on Church Street to make Church Street more compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Trouble is they are moving the trees closer to the existing buildings. How moving / replacing trees to get them closer to existing buildings increases the ADA's wish to make room for wheel chairs is beyond me.
But then I find the Development Departments explanation for Palmer Street flatly and simply sick.
2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.
Sixteen trees are being destroyed on Vassar Street. Eight are being destroyed at the demand of MIT, eight at the demand of the City Arborist.
A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.
All sorts of lovely reasons were given for MIT's eight.
The reason MIT really pushed at the end was that the trees are in the way of MIT's lovely bike path.
Additionally, MIT is widening the sidewalk and does not want trees in the middle of their lovely new sidewalk.
B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.
The City Arborist is the one fighting for the destruction of those eight magnificent trees behind the Hyatt Regency. These magnificent eight trees grew over the street and have massive root systems in place to support that growth. The city arborist is afraid they will fall over. And he is going to replace them with saplings.
But those trees have only been able to grow in one direction. The buildings are at the lot line. It is very obvious that, as the trees grew, their root system grew, and the root system, of necessity grew to hold up the trees. This argument is an argument against putting trees in districts where buildings are allowed to the lot line.
But then, the Development Department representative was very serious when she said she was destroying every tree on Palmer Street because trees block light (and are in the way of her lovely bricks, oh, I beg your pardon, pavers).
To my point of view, the city does not want to embarrass MIT. MIT is putting in a lot of saplings. Those massive trees would make MIT's saplings look small. So the massive trees "have to go."
Cambridge cannot have its eight mature street trees overwhelming MIT's baby street trees.
C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.
The arborist gave other, technical reasons for destruction.
The reality is that the city has a bad reputation with regard to saving street trees.
I hear these other, lovely reasons. They sound oh so technical and oh so impressive.
The trouble, among other things, is the timing. How is that the city has suddenly gotten so concerned about these matters at the same time as MIT is rebuilding Vassar Street?
I know of other excellent street trees in the way of "improvement" which were casually destroyed and suddenly disappeared and got out of the developer's way.
I am not at all comfortable with findings which, to put it as delicately as possible, certainly look self-serving on the part of the City of Cambridge.
They are excellent trees. Period.
D. Memorial Drive plans.
This portion of Vassar Street hits Memorial Drive across from a thick woods which is slated for destruction. To the west of the woods is the goose meadow of the Charles River White Geese. Sickos from the City of Cambridge and the state bureacracy have aggressively starved them and propose to destroy pretty much all those trees as well.
The eight massive trees are on the north side of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The south side faces on the Charles River and Memorial Drive.
The plans are to destroy more than 449 to 660 trees from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach. Across from the Hyatt and going east to the split of Memorial Drive, off the top of my head approximately 85 out of 110 trees are being destroyed.
The state bureacrats and their buddies explain the destruction on the grounds that Memorial Drive will look great in 40 years.
A thick woods just before the Memorial Drive split is slated for destruction. The woods is in the way of their lovely bike path. The Memorial Drive split is a block or two east of the Hyatt.
E. Cherry Trees.
Vassar Street is slated to have a number of young cherry trees planted.
The state bureaucrats are destroying every cherry tree on Memorial Drive from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach because cherry trees are not the IN tree this week.
This is being done in collusion with MIT and the City of Cambridge. You will recall that a Cambridge planner justified destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square because trees block light.
3. Summary.
Business as usual in the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.
1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.
A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.
B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.
2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.
A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.
B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.
C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.
D. Memorial Drive plans.
E. Cherry Trees.
3. Summary.
Wednesday evening, February 7, 2007, I attended the public hearing on tree destruction in Harvard Square and behind the Hyatt Regency near Memorial Drive.
1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.
A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.
The City of Cambridge's Development Department defended the destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square on two grounds:
(1) The trees are in the way of their beautiful pavers (fancy bricks) that they are using to replace the cobble stones.
(2) Trees block light.
B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.
As near as I can gather, the Development Department and the City Arborist justified moving / destroying all but one tree on Church Street to make Church Street more compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Trouble is they are moving the trees closer to the existing buildings. How moving / replacing trees to get them closer to existing buildings increases the ADA's wish to make room for wheel chairs is beyond me.
But then I find the Development Departments explanation for Palmer Street flatly and simply sick.
2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.
Sixteen trees are being destroyed on Vassar Street. Eight are being destroyed at the demand of MIT, eight at the demand of the City Arborist.
A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.
All sorts of lovely reasons were given for MIT's eight.
The reason MIT really pushed at the end was that the trees are in the way of MIT's lovely bike path.
Additionally, MIT is widening the sidewalk and does not want trees in the middle of their lovely new sidewalk.
B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.
The City Arborist is the one fighting for the destruction of those eight magnificent trees behind the Hyatt Regency. These magnificent eight trees grew over the street and have massive root systems in place to support that growth. The city arborist is afraid they will fall over. And he is going to replace them with saplings.
But those trees have only been able to grow in one direction. The buildings are at the lot line. It is very obvious that, as the trees grew, their root system grew, and the root system, of necessity grew to hold up the trees. This argument is an argument against putting trees in districts where buildings are allowed to the lot line.
But then, the Development Department representative was very serious when she said she was destroying every tree on Palmer Street because trees block light (and are in the way of her lovely bricks, oh, I beg your pardon, pavers).
To my point of view, the city does not want to embarrass MIT. MIT is putting in a lot of saplings. Those massive trees would make MIT's saplings look small. So the massive trees "have to go."
Cambridge cannot have its eight mature street trees overwhelming MIT's baby street trees.
C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.
The arborist gave other, technical reasons for destruction.
The reality is that the city has a bad reputation with regard to saving street trees.
I hear these other, lovely reasons. They sound oh so technical and oh so impressive.
The trouble, among other things, is the timing. How is that the city has suddenly gotten so concerned about these matters at the same time as MIT is rebuilding Vassar Street?
I know of other excellent street trees in the way of "improvement" which were casually destroyed and suddenly disappeared and got out of the developer's way.
I am not at all comfortable with findings which, to put it as delicately as possible, certainly look self-serving on the part of the City of Cambridge.
They are excellent trees. Period.
D. Memorial Drive plans.
This portion of Vassar Street hits Memorial Drive across from a thick woods which is slated for destruction. To the west of the woods is the goose meadow of the Charles River White Geese. Sickos from the City of Cambridge and the state bureacracy have aggressively starved them and propose to destroy pretty much all those trees as well.
The eight massive trees are on the north side of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The south side faces on the Charles River and Memorial Drive.
The plans are to destroy more than 449 to 660 trees from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach. Across from the Hyatt and going east to the split of Memorial Drive, off the top of my head approximately 85 out of 110 trees are being destroyed.
The state bureacrats and their buddies explain the destruction on the grounds that Memorial Drive will look great in 40 years.
A thick woods just before the Memorial Drive split is slated for destruction. The woods is in the way of their lovely bike path. The Memorial Drive split is a block or two east of the Hyatt.
E. Cherry Trees.
Vassar Street is slated to have a number of young cherry trees planted.
The state bureaucrats are destroying every cherry tree on Memorial Drive from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach because cherry trees are not the IN tree this week.
This is being done in collusion with MIT and the City of Cambridge. You will recall that a Cambridge planner justified destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square because trees block light.
3. Summary.
Business as usual in the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Respect for Law, Harvard University and the City of Cambridge
Bob La Trémouille reports:
A. Bad Guy #1.
B. Roy Bercaw.
C. Bad Guy #2.
D. Response of Roy Bercaw.
E. Bad Guy #1 again.
F. Roy Bercaw.
G. Terry McKay - Which side is Bad Guy on?
H. Your Editor.
The following exchange occurred on a local listserve. I am not positive what the omissions refer to. The omissions are not from me. Passed on because I like Roy’s and Terry's input, obviously.
This report has expanded and expanded as good comments have come from good guys. The bad guy comments are reported to maintain context. I have kept in some comments by me which are now dated, once again to provide context.
Based on comments from Jeff Manzelli, I have added some commas to Roy's input, corrected one or two spellings and split one run-together sentence. Thank you Jeff.
Actually I think I made one comparable edit to Bad Guy #2 as well, and I may have corrected a spelling in Bad Guy #1.
It should be noted that, as of this point (February 15), at least three other people have jumped on Bad Guy #1. I am getting tired of this line and this entry really has gotten as large as I want it to get.
It, however, is a very major item of pleasure to me to see so many people doing so much good on that listserve right now. Roy Bercaw deserves very major praise for his efforts.
[Added 2/16/07] I gave in. Item H is my response to all the nice comments, with a couple of edits.
A. Bad Guy #1.
1. The complaints about the former Mahoney's site and Radisson sound similarly overblown. [Ed. The Mahoney’s site is a Harvard project going up just west of Western Avenue on the North Side of Memorial Drive. Truly outrageous stunts were pulled to obtain an upzoning there a few years ago. The Radisson site received its own upzoning last year, I believe. It is across from the Magazine Beach Swimming Pool. The usual characters ran around getting both upzonings, although the latter featured a smaller number of the usual characters] [...]
2. The Allston opponents of Harvard expansion will never be satisfied. If the sites were going to be developed privately rather than by Harvard, there would be similar "noise, air, and visual pollution," without a lengthy public meeting and comment process. [...]
3. Stem cell research and other biological research is actually not that controversial, especially in Massachusetts, and concerns about protests or threats are both unlikely and premature, given the early planning stage.
4. Harvard has dozens of plans out, newspaper articles, websites, meetings, etc. but apparently that is not enough for them to be considered "forthcoming. "
B. Roy Bercaw.
1. The legal process for the Mahoney's site was corrupted about 22 times. The Open Meetings Law was violated about 20 times. The permanent easement for the land under Hingham Street was transferred to Harvard before the City complied with the Procurement Act, another state law violation. The City's ordinance on transferring city land to a private person was ignored because of Harvard's offer of affordable housing.
2. Harvard is a private developer. All developers must go through a public process. What rules are you thinking about?
3. Like stem cell research abortion, is not controversial in Massachusetts. Yet there are regular protests.
4. The idea of Harvard being forthcoming depends upon the beholder, like beauty. Historically they never made neighbors aware of their plans. It is a major reason for much of the distrust among Cambridge residents. It is why at University Relations Committee meetings the facilitator bars negative comments, preventing the search for truth and any ability to correct past abuses.
C. Bad Guy #2.
1. Let's keep recall Cambridge is what is is mostly because of Harvard. Denying that would be a stretch.
2. Not sure about the details of how the legal processes were corrupted or which laws were violated, but it would be great if specifics could be provided. Otherwise, the comments are likely to be dismissed as zany opinion, at least by this member. [...]
3. I kind of liken it to the way President Clinton responded about his use of marijuana or his relations with "that woman." [...] I'd understand if Harvard were to do the same.
4. Anyway, I think Cambridge is such a thriving city in part becuase of Harvard and MIT and the trickle down effects [...]
Thank you.
[Bad Guy #2]
D. Response of Roy Bercaw.
1. Now that the working class has been forced out of Cambridge, and all of the factories have left and are being converted into upscale condos, yes, Harvard and MIT and the Biotech companies are what remains of Cambridge. But the charm and the safety is also gone replaced by uncaring yuppies who worship Harvard and MIT and the Biotech companies. That is not what made Cambridge unique.
2. If I took the time to repeat all of the details, the "member" would also think of it as "zany." So let's save my time, and leave him with his fantasy view of the legal process between Harvard and the city facilitators.
3. Actually the comparison of Harvard to Clinton's follies is a good one for different reasons. Until Summers resigned, five top administrators were former Clinonistas. If I don't name them for you will you think that is "zany" also?
4. "Trickle down effects?" Now that's a great system of sharing that always worked in this country.
E. Bad Guy #1 again.
[Ed. I have had past experiences with Bad Guy #1 in the past in which he kept tossing in personal insult after personal insult after personal insult.
[I find Bad Guy #1's subsequent response falling into the same level of lack of meaning, but Roy responded to it again. I will not follow this line any more. If we get constructive add-on's, I will further amend. Otherwise, this is it.]
************
1. And? If whatever they supposedly did was so egregious, why didn't you and all of the other frequent opponents do something about it then?
2. Harvard voluntarily has gone above and beyond what is required of it and what the average private developer does.
3. Abortion is much more controversial than stem cell research, in Massachusetts and everywhere else. Have you ever seen a stem cell research protest at a research lab in Massachusetts?
4. I have yet to see anything of much benefit come out of these meetings, certainly not the "search for truth," as you called it, and I am rather busy, so I generally don't have time to attend. This also goes to Carolyn's very fair point about my anonymity, but I don't believe understanding these local issues requires first-person interaction and attendance at every community meeting.
F. Roy Bercaw.
1. At Harvard and other institutions, there are well-paid men and women who spend their time teaching people like you history. There are as you may have noticed many different versions of history. Seldom are the official versions accurate. But it usually takes 50 or 100 years for the truth to be revealed.
2. You report Harvard's version of history. Harvard promotes your version and denies all others.
3. You report your version of what is more controversial.
4. No one else is busy. In fact all of us have nothing to do, so we go to meetings and then we make up stories for others about what happened at the meetings. If you weren't there we can say what we want because you are too busy to check. And anyway those of us who don't have anything else to do, we represent you and all the others who are too busy to go to the meetings. Sometimes, we get 150 votes each because so few people show up.
That is what we did in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. You didn't listen when Woody Allen said, 90 percent of life is just showing up. I always show up because I'm never busy. I'm bored and never have anything to do.
I never sleep either, no time, too many meetings. I just wait for people who are too busy so I can tell them all of what happened over the past five years at the meetings so they don't have to attend.
Thanks for explaining what happened and what we should do for you. We are here to serve you better.
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM P.O. Box 400297
Cambridge MA 02140 USA [...]
G. Terry McKay - Which side is Bad Guy on?
[Ed. I said the above was the last one. Well, I will try this for the last. Paragraphing added by ed.]
It's curious to me that some on this listserve feel that we (the commuity) should feel beholden to Harvard University and sit holding our breath....for the 'trickle down' of good things that come when a major University is within ones community. We should be happy that Harvard gobbles up any and every parcel of land that it can get its hand on and then proceeds to overdevelop it...frequently as the powers that be at Harvard smile and tell the community "we will work with you...this will be good for your neighborhood. "
Well Mr. Listserve individual (who shall remain un-named)some of us have been around long enough to know how things really work when Harvard is involved. And although it may be hard to comprehend, some of us have nothing at all to do with Harvard and are not so impressed with this University and its tactics. Some are concerned about something called 'quality of life' and how the areas that we inhabit are effected by things such as overdevelopment, benefit to the community as a whole, affordable housing, parking,etc. This is why we take time out of our busy lives (yes, we're busy too)and try to keep tabs on what is happening within our community and how it will effect us.
Your being on this listserve would suggest that you too care about the community in some way but your words suggest something else....curious?
Terry McKay
H. Your editor.
I have done a lot of leafletting at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
You will recall that Boston University, in October 1999, as agent for the DCR/MDC destroyed the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. They started their actions BEFORE a meeting of the Cambridge Conservation Commission to discuss it. BU then DENIED doing the destruction until the CCC condemned their destruction. BU then blamed all the false denials of the secretary to their president.
It was a pleasure talking to normal people at the Destroyed Nesting Area, and most people were normal people. They sounded strikingly different from TWO people telling us how great Harvard is.
Then there were several people who sounded strikingly similar to the TWO people telling us how great Harvard is.
Oh, these people sounded so terrific. They would toss out one piece of nonsense after another piece of nonsense after a piece of blatant insults at the geese.
They would offer to resolve all our problems with fast solutions which sounded so great, unless you knew what they were really talking about.
I have seen people with similar smoothness destroy citizen zoning initiative after citizen zoning initiative. They always sound so great, and they are always so destructive.
I have read the thread of the responses to the TWO people who tell us how great Harvard is.
I have counted with pleasure the many people who have stood up to the TWO.
Thank you to all of you.
A. Bad Guy #1.
B. Roy Bercaw.
C. Bad Guy #2.
D. Response of Roy Bercaw.
E. Bad Guy #1 again.
F. Roy Bercaw.
G. Terry McKay - Which side is Bad Guy on?
H. Your Editor.
The following exchange occurred on a local listserve. I am not positive what the omissions refer to. The omissions are not from me. Passed on because I like Roy’s and Terry's input, obviously.
This report has expanded and expanded as good comments have come from good guys. The bad guy comments are reported to maintain context. I have kept in some comments by me which are now dated, once again to provide context.
Based on comments from Jeff Manzelli, I have added some commas to Roy's input, corrected one or two spellings and split one run-together sentence. Thank you Jeff.
Actually I think I made one comparable edit to Bad Guy #2 as well, and I may have corrected a spelling in Bad Guy #1.
It should be noted that, as of this point (February 15), at least three other people have jumped on Bad Guy #1. I am getting tired of this line and this entry really has gotten as large as I want it to get.
It, however, is a very major item of pleasure to me to see so many people doing so much good on that listserve right now. Roy Bercaw deserves very major praise for his efforts.
[Added 2/16/07] I gave in. Item H is my response to all the nice comments, with a couple of edits.
A. Bad Guy #1.
1. The complaints about the former Mahoney's site and Radisson sound similarly overblown. [Ed. The Mahoney’s site is a Harvard project going up just west of Western Avenue on the North Side of Memorial Drive. Truly outrageous stunts were pulled to obtain an upzoning there a few years ago. The Radisson site received its own upzoning last year, I believe. It is across from the Magazine Beach Swimming Pool. The usual characters ran around getting both upzonings, although the latter featured a smaller number of the usual characters] [...]
2. The Allston opponents of Harvard expansion will never be satisfied. If the sites were going to be developed privately rather than by Harvard, there would be similar "noise, air, and visual pollution," without a lengthy public meeting and comment process. [...]
3. Stem cell research and other biological research is actually not that controversial, especially in Massachusetts, and concerns about protests or threats are both unlikely and premature, given the early planning stage.
4. Harvard has dozens of plans out, newspaper articles, websites, meetings, etc. but apparently that is not enough for them to be considered "forthcoming. "
B. Roy Bercaw.
1. The legal process for the Mahoney's site was corrupted about 22 times. The Open Meetings Law was violated about 20 times. The permanent easement for the land under Hingham Street was transferred to Harvard before the City complied with the Procurement Act, another state law violation. The City's ordinance on transferring city land to a private person was ignored because of Harvard's offer of affordable housing.
2. Harvard is a private developer. All developers must go through a public process. What rules are you thinking about?
3. Like stem cell research abortion, is not controversial in Massachusetts. Yet there are regular protests.
4. The idea of Harvard being forthcoming depends upon the beholder, like beauty. Historically they never made neighbors aware of their plans. It is a major reason for much of the distrust among Cambridge residents. It is why at University Relations Committee meetings the facilitator bars negative comments, preventing the search for truth and any ability to correct past abuses.
C. Bad Guy #2.
1. Let's keep recall Cambridge is what is is mostly because of Harvard. Denying that would be a stretch.
2. Not sure about the details of how the legal processes were corrupted or which laws were violated, but it would be great if specifics could be provided. Otherwise, the comments are likely to be dismissed as zany opinion, at least by this member. [...]
3. I kind of liken it to the way President Clinton responded about his use of marijuana or his relations with "that woman." [...] I'd understand if Harvard were to do the same.
4. Anyway, I think Cambridge is such a thriving city in part becuase of Harvard and MIT and the trickle down effects [...]
Thank you.
[Bad Guy #2]
D. Response of Roy Bercaw.
1. Now that the working class has been forced out of Cambridge, and all of the factories have left and are being converted into upscale condos, yes, Harvard and MIT and the Biotech companies are what remains of Cambridge. But the charm and the safety is also gone replaced by uncaring yuppies who worship Harvard and MIT and the Biotech companies. That is not what made Cambridge unique.
2. If I took the time to repeat all of the details, the "member" would also think of it as "zany." So let's save my time, and leave him with his fantasy view of the legal process between Harvard and the city facilitators.
3. Actually the comparison of Harvard to Clinton's follies is a good one for different reasons. Until Summers resigned, five top administrators were former Clinonistas. If I don't name them for you will you think that is "zany" also?
4. "Trickle down effects?" Now that's a great system of sharing that always worked in this country.
E. Bad Guy #1 again.
[Ed. I have had past experiences with Bad Guy #1 in the past in which he kept tossing in personal insult after personal insult after personal insult.
[I find Bad Guy #1's subsequent response falling into the same level of lack of meaning, but Roy responded to it again. I will not follow this line any more. If we get constructive add-on's, I will further amend. Otherwise, this is it.]
************
1. And? If whatever they supposedly did was so egregious, why didn't you and all of the other frequent opponents do something about it then?
2. Harvard voluntarily has gone above and beyond what is required of it and what the average private developer does.
3. Abortion is much more controversial than stem cell research, in Massachusetts and everywhere else. Have you ever seen a stem cell research protest at a research lab in Massachusetts?
4. I have yet to see anything of much benefit come out of these meetings, certainly not the "search for truth," as you called it, and I am rather busy, so I generally don't have time to attend. This also goes to Carolyn's very fair point about my anonymity, but I don't believe understanding these local issues requires first-person interaction and attendance at every community meeting.
F. Roy Bercaw.
1. At Harvard and other institutions, there are well-paid men and women who spend their time teaching people like you history. There are as you may have noticed many different versions of history. Seldom are the official versions accurate. But it usually takes 50 or 100 years for the truth to be revealed.
2. You report Harvard's version of history. Harvard promotes your version and denies all others.
3. You report your version of what is more controversial.
4. No one else is busy. In fact all of us have nothing to do, so we go to meetings and then we make up stories for others about what happened at the meetings. If you weren't there we can say what we want because you are too busy to check. And anyway those of us who don't have anything else to do, we represent you and all the others who are too busy to go to the meetings. Sometimes, we get 150 votes each because so few people show up.
That is what we did in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. You didn't listen when Woody Allen said, 90 percent of life is just showing up. I always show up because I'm never busy. I'm bored and never have anything to do.
I never sleep either, no time, too many meetings. I just wait for people who are too busy so I can tell them all of what happened over the past five years at the meetings so they don't have to attend.
Thanks for explaining what happened and what we should do for you. We are here to serve you better.
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM P.O. Box 400297
Cambridge MA 02140 USA [...]
G. Terry McKay - Which side is Bad Guy on?
[Ed. I said the above was the last one. Well, I will try this for the last. Paragraphing added by ed.]
It's curious to me that some on this listserve feel that we (the commuity) should feel beholden to Harvard University and sit holding our breath....for the 'trickle down' of good things that come when a major University is within ones community. We should be happy that Harvard gobbles up any and every parcel of land that it can get its hand on and then proceeds to overdevelop it...frequently as the powers that be at Harvard smile and tell the community "we will work with you...this will be good for your neighborhood. "
Well Mr. Listserve individual (who shall remain un-named)some of us have been around long enough to know how things really work when Harvard is involved. And although it may be hard to comprehend, some of us have nothing at all to do with Harvard and are not so impressed with this University and its tactics. Some are concerned about something called 'quality of life' and how the areas that we inhabit are effected by things such as overdevelopment, benefit to the community as a whole, affordable housing, parking,etc. This is why we take time out of our busy lives (yes, we're busy too)and try to keep tabs on what is happening within our community and how it will effect us.
Your being on this listserve would suggest that you too care about the community in some way but your words suggest something else....curious?
Terry McKay
H. Your editor.
I have done a lot of leafletting at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
You will recall that Boston University, in October 1999, as agent for the DCR/MDC destroyed the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. They started their actions BEFORE a meeting of the Cambridge Conservation Commission to discuss it. BU then DENIED doing the destruction until the CCC condemned their destruction. BU then blamed all the false denials of the secretary to their president.
It was a pleasure talking to normal people at the Destroyed Nesting Area, and most people were normal people. They sounded strikingly different from TWO people telling us how great Harvard is.
Then there were several people who sounded strikingly similar to the TWO people telling us how great Harvard is.
Oh, these people sounded so terrific. They would toss out one piece of nonsense after another piece of nonsense after a piece of blatant insults at the geese.
They would offer to resolve all our problems with fast solutions which sounded so great, unless you knew what they were really talking about.
I have seen people with similar smoothness destroy citizen zoning initiative after citizen zoning initiative. They always sound so great, and they are always so destructive.
I have read the thread of the responses to the TWO people who tell us how great Harvard is.
I have counted with pleasure the many people who have stood up to the TWO.
Thank you to all of you.
Massive Tree Destruction Proposed Behind Hyatt Regency; Blocks to be destroyed in Harvard Square
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Introduction.
2. The legal advertisement.
3. "Public hearing."
4. Vassar Street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
A. General.
B. Importance to the Charles River White Geese and other Water Fowl.
C. Outrageous destruction proposed.
5. Harvard Square.
A. Recent History in Harvard Square.
B. The latest make work project in Harvard Square.
C. Palmer Street and Church Street.
(1) General.
(2) Reality at Palmer and Church Streets.
6. Key motivation in an environmentally repulsive City of Cambridge, MA.
1. Introduction.
This is an update of a report issued a couple of days ago. I have already corrected some typos.
I just viewed what is being destroyed behind the Hyatt.
One of the biggest hypocrisies in the City of Cambridge is the city and its pols’ belligerent claim to environmental sainthood.
The large scale environmental destruction ongoing or pending on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond and at Alewife are excellent large scale examples of their very destructive hypocrisy.
The reality, however, is that in pretty much every public works project of any scope, the first thing that happens is tree destruction.
2. The legal advertisement.
The February 2, 2007 Cambridge Tab at the bottom of page 19 announces a "public hearing" in front of a City Manager appointee on the destruction of a lot of street trees.
It announces that they are considering destroying two 8 inch Norway Maples, an 18 inch, a 14 inch, an 18 inch, and a 13 inch Norway maple, two 12 inch Honey Locusts and 18 inch, 17 inch, 18 inch, 19 inch, 19 inch, 21 inch, 22 inc, and 20 inch Norway maples. All of these are being destroyed as part of "improvement" of Vassar Street between the Charles River and the MIT campus.
Some have "pruning damage." Guess whose friends did the pruning damage?
It also announces destruction in Harvard Square.
It announces destruction of five 3 inch dbh Ginkgo trees and one 12 inch dbh norway maple trees on the short Palmer Street. No sickness. No reason given except: "to be removed as part of the Palmer Street reconstruction."
The same advertisement states that the adjoining Church Street is proposed to see the excavation of eight 2 to 5 inch Gingkos to "recenter" them in the tree pit if possible. Golly gee, the trees are not centered in their tree pits. No thought to rearranging the tree pits. They are going to move the trees, IF POSSIBLE.
3. "Public hearing."
If you feel like talking with an appointee of the Cambridge City Manager to discuss whether the Cambridge City Manager should casually destroy even more trees, the "public hearing" is scheduled for February 7, 2007, at 5:30 pm in the conference room at 147 Hampshire Street, Cambridge, the city’s public works department. Comments are expected in writing.
4. Vassar Street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
A. General.
The reason for the rewrite and republication of this report is that I just drove up Vassar Street near the Charles River. I had deprecated the destruction of the Vassar Street trees in the prior report because I figured the trees were in the heart of the MIT Campus between Mass. Ave. and Main Street, an area which has seen major street work.
B. Importance to the Charles River White Geese and other Water Fowl.
The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts on part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese fed on the banks of the Charles River across from the Hyatt Regency for 25 years. In 2004, the City of Cambridge did a sewerage project there.
When Cambridge was done, Cambridge left a wall barring access from the Charles River. The wall had nothing to do with the sewerage project and plenty to do with an environmentally really sick city government.
That wall continued to bar access until sickos from the Charles River Conservancy wiped out the riverfront vegetation. But by then, the Charles River White Geese had been trained that there was no food for them there.
At the same time as Cambridge created this wall across from the Hyatt Regency, Cambridge and the state bureacrats created another wall blocking access to Magazine Beach from the Charles River.
100% of the 25 year food of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously taken away from them.
This is a city in which the city and nine city councilors constantly claim environmental sainthood.
Massive tree destruction is proposed by state bureacrats friendly with the City of Cambridge on the banks of the Charles River across from and within a block or so from the Hyatt Regency. Planned tree destruction is between 80 and 90 of about 110 trees. Trees were destroyed as part of the sewerage project.
C. Outrageous destruction proposed.
One block off the Charles River is a row of eight magnificent street trees directly behind the block containing the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
These trees cover Vassar Street. Truly excellent.
Certainly there is pruning damage.
These excellent trees are so large that the buildings next to them are in the way of their normal limb growth. The buildings are built to the sidewalk.
Similarly, they have been pruned to allow for utility wires.
Most definitely the limbs are totally over the street, but they are really over the street. Massive, beautiful trees covering an entire block of Vassar Street. Clearly, they must have massive roots. There is no way these magnificent trees are dangerous.
But Cambridge has an environmentally sick City Government.
Cambridge’s city government routinely destroys excellent trees to make work for its contractor buddies.
These excellent trees fall into that category.
I see three less large trees about a block closer to the MIT campus which are also marked.
Clearly healthy, fine trees and quite mature, just not as massive as the eight behind the Hyatt. I am not certain where the other trees in the advertisement are.
Naturally, the hypocrites will brag of the saplings they put in to replace excellent trees.
Alleged "hearing" as stated above.
5. Harvard Square.
A. Recent History in Harvard Square.
A couple of years ago, the city showed its contempt for the environment in the Brattle Square part of Harvard Square in a small park next to the Harvard Square Hotel. This little park was constructed as part of the Red Line extension a couple of decades ago. Its trees were just reaching adult beauty.
Scorched earth destruction of all of these twelve healthy trees was followed by replacement with an equal number of saplings. The city’s brags of saplings. The city calls healthy trees destroyed to plant saplings "irrelevant." Nine destructive city councilors call themselves "environmentalists."
B. The latest make work project in Harvard Square.
Cambridge’s Harvard Square is in the middle of yet another contractor make work project. Most visible NOW is ongoing construction on Mt. Auburn Street near the Harvard Lampoon building. The city is putting in a strikingly useless traffic island. The most important "benefit" of that traffic island is that it forces yet more traffic through the heart of Harvard Square. It partially blocks a short cut to get through Harvard Square from central to west Cambridge. The short cut still exists. It is just necessary to drive an additional two blocks in the core part of Harvard Square.
The reality of these bizarre projects does not come when they are announced since the City Manager and nine city councilors keep tree destruction secret when announcing projects. The reality comes with the chain saws or in the legal notices should you read legal notices.
C. Palmer Street and Church Street.
(1) General.
In the fine print legal ad on February 2, 2007, the Cambridge Tab dropped the other shoe on one of the silliest parts of the Harvard Square boondoggle: Palmer Street and Church Street.
Cambridge's friend, the DCR / MDC, claims to be destroying hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive in the name of a history that never existed.
The Palmer Street project destroys the last cobble stone street in Harvard Square (and probably the last in Cambridge) to replace cobble stones with bricks.
Palmer Street is one short block out of Harvard Square proper. It is a one block long street which connects the beginning of Brattle Street to Church Street. Palmer Street is parallel to the highly visible leg of Massachusetts Avenue between the Coop and the MBTA subway entrance.
Palmer Street is a very quiet street. It sees a few pedestrians and almost no cars although it is located in the middle of a thriving municipal square. Those cobble stones, when they were maintained, were absolutely beautiful.
The idea of spending money to destroy a cobble stone street to replace the cobble stones with brick is so bizarre as to be flat out sick, but that is the part of the project they are bragging about.
(2) Reality at Palmer and Church Streets.
I looked at the logging site just before the prior publication of this, now modified, report.
This make work project will destroy EVERY tree on the one block Palmer Street.
There is only one tree on the two block Church Street which is not posted for destruction. That one tree has grown at a 60 degree angle to the ground rather than the usual 90 degree angle. It is entirely possible that this tree simply could not hold the notice given its odd growth.
As far as the tree pits go, if this were not part of a long time record of environmental irresponsibility, the claim of concern for centering would be downright silly.
6. Key motivation in an environmentally repulsive City of Cambridge, MA.
The obvious key to both projects is the city's tax for creating new open space. The voters approved the tax because the voters want new open space. The city manager does not want new open space. New open space takes property off the tax rolls. So the City Manager and City Council churn the existing environment, destroying healthy trees and bragging about saplings.
But people who look connected to Cambridge City Councilors are creating "Green" groups in the City of Cambridge, MA. The "Green" groups just could care less about massive destruction of the Green in the City of Cambridge. "Don't look at the destruction. Look at the fancy light bulbs."
Take a peak at the construction / logging zones before they are accomplished.
PARTICULARLY look at the block behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
The block does not have the political importance of the blocks in Harvard Square which are not particularly large trees.
The destruction of that block just constitutes truly sick environmental behavior.
And nine environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors and their fake "green" groups will simply not want to know what is going on.
Sick, bizarre? That is the way the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, is.
1. Introduction.
2. The legal advertisement.
3. "Public hearing."
4. Vassar Street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
A. General.
B. Importance to the Charles River White Geese and other Water Fowl.
C. Outrageous destruction proposed.
5. Harvard Square.
A. Recent History in Harvard Square.
B. The latest make work project in Harvard Square.
C. Palmer Street and Church Street.
(1) General.
(2) Reality at Palmer and Church Streets.
6. Key motivation in an environmentally repulsive City of Cambridge, MA.
1. Introduction.
This is an update of a report issued a couple of days ago. I have already corrected some typos.
I just viewed what is being destroyed behind the Hyatt.
One of the biggest hypocrisies in the City of Cambridge is the city and its pols’ belligerent claim to environmental sainthood.
The large scale environmental destruction ongoing or pending on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond and at Alewife are excellent large scale examples of their very destructive hypocrisy.
The reality, however, is that in pretty much every public works project of any scope, the first thing that happens is tree destruction.
2. The legal advertisement.
The February 2, 2007 Cambridge Tab at the bottom of page 19 announces a "public hearing" in front of a City Manager appointee on the destruction of a lot of street trees.
It announces that they are considering destroying two 8 inch Norway Maples, an 18 inch, a 14 inch, an 18 inch, and a 13 inch Norway maple, two 12 inch Honey Locusts and 18 inch, 17 inch, 18 inch, 19 inch, 19 inch, 21 inch, 22 inc, and 20 inch Norway maples. All of these are being destroyed as part of "improvement" of Vassar Street between the Charles River and the MIT campus.
Some have "pruning damage." Guess whose friends did the pruning damage?
It also announces destruction in Harvard Square.
It announces destruction of five 3 inch dbh Ginkgo trees and one 12 inch dbh norway maple trees on the short Palmer Street. No sickness. No reason given except: "to be removed as part of the Palmer Street reconstruction."
The same advertisement states that the adjoining Church Street is proposed to see the excavation of eight 2 to 5 inch Gingkos to "recenter" them in the tree pit if possible. Golly gee, the trees are not centered in their tree pits. No thought to rearranging the tree pits. They are going to move the trees, IF POSSIBLE.
3. "Public hearing."
If you feel like talking with an appointee of the Cambridge City Manager to discuss whether the Cambridge City Manager should casually destroy even more trees, the "public hearing" is scheduled for February 7, 2007, at 5:30 pm in the conference room at 147 Hampshire Street, Cambridge, the city’s public works department. Comments are expected in writing.
4. Vassar Street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
A. General.
The reason for the rewrite and republication of this report is that I just drove up Vassar Street near the Charles River. I had deprecated the destruction of the Vassar Street trees in the prior report because I figured the trees were in the heart of the MIT Campus between Mass. Ave. and Main Street, an area which has seen major street work.
B. Importance to the Charles River White Geese and other Water Fowl.
The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts on part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese fed on the banks of the Charles River across from the Hyatt Regency for 25 years. In 2004, the City of Cambridge did a sewerage project there.
When Cambridge was done, Cambridge left a wall barring access from the Charles River. The wall had nothing to do with the sewerage project and plenty to do with an environmentally really sick city government.
That wall continued to bar access until sickos from the Charles River Conservancy wiped out the riverfront vegetation. But by then, the Charles River White Geese had been trained that there was no food for them there.
At the same time as Cambridge created this wall across from the Hyatt Regency, Cambridge and the state bureacrats created another wall blocking access to Magazine Beach from the Charles River.
100% of the 25 year food of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously taken away from them.
This is a city in which the city and nine city councilors constantly claim environmental sainthood.
Massive tree destruction is proposed by state bureacrats friendly with the City of Cambridge on the banks of the Charles River across from and within a block or so from the Hyatt Regency. Planned tree destruction is between 80 and 90 of about 110 trees. Trees were destroyed as part of the sewerage project.
C. Outrageous destruction proposed.
One block off the Charles River is a row of eight magnificent street trees directly behind the block containing the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
These trees cover Vassar Street. Truly excellent.
Certainly there is pruning damage.
These excellent trees are so large that the buildings next to them are in the way of their normal limb growth. The buildings are built to the sidewalk.
Similarly, they have been pruned to allow for utility wires.
Most definitely the limbs are totally over the street, but they are really over the street. Massive, beautiful trees covering an entire block of Vassar Street. Clearly, they must have massive roots. There is no way these magnificent trees are dangerous.
But Cambridge has an environmentally sick City Government.
Cambridge’s city government routinely destroys excellent trees to make work for its contractor buddies.
These excellent trees fall into that category.
I see three less large trees about a block closer to the MIT campus which are also marked.
Clearly healthy, fine trees and quite mature, just not as massive as the eight behind the Hyatt. I am not certain where the other trees in the advertisement are.
Naturally, the hypocrites will brag of the saplings they put in to replace excellent trees.
Alleged "hearing" as stated above.
5. Harvard Square.
A. Recent History in Harvard Square.
A couple of years ago, the city showed its contempt for the environment in the Brattle Square part of Harvard Square in a small park next to the Harvard Square Hotel. This little park was constructed as part of the Red Line extension a couple of decades ago. Its trees were just reaching adult beauty.
Scorched earth destruction of all of these twelve healthy trees was followed by replacement with an equal number of saplings. The city’s brags of saplings. The city calls healthy trees destroyed to plant saplings "irrelevant." Nine destructive city councilors call themselves "environmentalists."
B. The latest make work project in Harvard Square.
Cambridge’s Harvard Square is in the middle of yet another contractor make work project. Most visible NOW is ongoing construction on Mt. Auburn Street near the Harvard Lampoon building. The city is putting in a strikingly useless traffic island. The most important "benefit" of that traffic island is that it forces yet more traffic through the heart of Harvard Square. It partially blocks a short cut to get through Harvard Square from central to west Cambridge. The short cut still exists. It is just necessary to drive an additional two blocks in the core part of Harvard Square.
The reality of these bizarre projects does not come when they are announced since the City Manager and nine city councilors keep tree destruction secret when announcing projects. The reality comes with the chain saws or in the legal notices should you read legal notices.
C. Palmer Street and Church Street.
(1) General.
In the fine print legal ad on February 2, 2007, the Cambridge Tab dropped the other shoe on one of the silliest parts of the Harvard Square boondoggle: Palmer Street and Church Street.
Cambridge's friend, the DCR / MDC, claims to be destroying hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive in the name of a history that never existed.
The Palmer Street project destroys the last cobble stone street in Harvard Square (and probably the last in Cambridge) to replace cobble stones with bricks.
Palmer Street is one short block out of Harvard Square proper. It is a one block long street which connects the beginning of Brattle Street to Church Street. Palmer Street is parallel to the highly visible leg of Massachusetts Avenue between the Coop and the MBTA subway entrance.
Palmer Street is a very quiet street. It sees a few pedestrians and almost no cars although it is located in the middle of a thriving municipal square. Those cobble stones, when they were maintained, were absolutely beautiful.
The idea of spending money to destroy a cobble stone street to replace the cobble stones with brick is so bizarre as to be flat out sick, but that is the part of the project they are bragging about.
(2) Reality at Palmer and Church Streets.
I looked at the logging site just before the prior publication of this, now modified, report.
This make work project will destroy EVERY tree on the one block Palmer Street.
There is only one tree on the two block Church Street which is not posted for destruction. That one tree has grown at a 60 degree angle to the ground rather than the usual 90 degree angle. It is entirely possible that this tree simply could not hold the notice given its odd growth.
As far as the tree pits go, if this were not part of a long time record of environmental irresponsibility, the claim of concern for centering would be downright silly.
6. Key motivation in an environmentally repulsive City of Cambridge, MA.
The obvious key to both projects is the city's tax for creating new open space. The voters approved the tax because the voters want new open space. The city manager does not want new open space. New open space takes property off the tax rolls. So the City Manager and City Council churn the existing environment, destroying healthy trees and bragging about saplings.
But people who look connected to Cambridge City Councilors are creating "Green" groups in the City of Cambridge, MA. The "Green" groups just could care less about massive destruction of the Green in the City of Cambridge. "Don't look at the destruction. Look at the fancy light bulbs."
Take a peak at the construction / logging zones before they are accomplished.
PARTICULARLY look at the block behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
The block does not have the political importance of the blocks in Harvard Square which are not particularly large trees.
The destruction of that block just constitutes truly sick environmental behavior.
And nine environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors and their fake "green" groups will simply not want to know what is going on.
Sick, bizarre? That is the way the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, is.
Monday, February 05, 2007
The Bad Guys brag of Environmental Sainthood on The Charles River - Response
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The February 1, 2007 issue of the Cambridge Chronicle printed a letter from a representative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He bragged about the efforts of MIT and its friends, including the Charles River Conservancy to clean up the Charles River and to otherwise "improve" the Charles River.
I have offered the following letter in response.
**********
I appreciated the letter from MIT emphasizing the need for cooperation in returning the Charles to a healthy environment.
MIT lauded the swim-in media event at Magazine Beach in July 2005 as an example of going in the right direction.
Only a brief look at Magazine Beach will show that the animal habitat and wetlands is now gone as a result of the effort praised by that swim-in. During the construction, animals, of course were heartlessly starved by having access from the Charles totally blocked. The wetlands have been replaced with a wall of designer bushes which have no place on the Charles River. They, in fact, repeatedly died since their introduction at Magazine Beach.
These introduced bushes create a wall blocking most animal access from the Charles and PREVENTING swimming from most of Magazine Beach.
The next phase of construction will dig up and remove the dirt in the playing fields at Magazine Beach. The dirt will be replaced with dirt, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers will replace the wetlands. The poisons will protect the new dirt from insects which are not a problem with Magazine Beach before "improvement."
There, of course, is no concern about starving local animals during this project either.
Similar "improvements" were made at Ebersol Field near Mass. General Hospital last year. The new poisons were not enough to protect against insects, so the DCR / MDC introduced even more powerful poisons. The more powerful poisons were labelled with a prohibition against use near water.
The next day, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, swamped with algae. A first annual "swim in" was cancelled because of the algae.
Before the ongoing "improvements" to the Charles River, the DCR / DCR took a poll. Most people said we do not need "improvements."
Some of the people swimming with MIT have been poisoning every goose egg they can get away with on the Charles for the last four years. These same people brag about running around destroying as much native vegetation as they can get away with.
The DCR / MDC is fighting for "water related uses" while attacking local aquatic animals and vegetation, and fighting for swimming while walling off the Charles River. Naturally, playing fields seem to be water related uses but water animals and water vegetation do not seem to be.
MIT's idea of cooperation is interesting. It seems to be cooperation in exactly the opposite direction of what most people want on the Charles River.
The February 1, 2007 issue of the Cambridge Chronicle printed a letter from a representative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He bragged about the efforts of MIT and its friends, including the Charles River Conservancy to clean up the Charles River and to otherwise "improve" the Charles River.
I have offered the following letter in response.
**********
I appreciated the letter from MIT emphasizing the need for cooperation in returning the Charles to a healthy environment.
MIT lauded the swim-in media event at Magazine Beach in July 2005 as an example of going in the right direction.
Only a brief look at Magazine Beach will show that the animal habitat and wetlands is now gone as a result of the effort praised by that swim-in. During the construction, animals, of course were heartlessly starved by having access from the Charles totally blocked. The wetlands have been replaced with a wall of designer bushes which have no place on the Charles River. They, in fact, repeatedly died since their introduction at Magazine Beach.
These introduced bushes create a wall blocking most animal access from the Charles and PREVENTING swimming from most of Magazine Beach.
The next phase of construction will dig up and remove the dirt in the playing fields at Magazine Beach. The dirt will be replaced with dirt, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers will replace the wetlands. The poisons will protect the new dirt from insects which are not a problem with Magazine Beach before "improvement."
There, of course, is no concern about starving local animals during this project either.
Similar "improvements" were made at Ebersol Field near Mass. General Hospital last year. The new poisons were not enough to protect against insects, so the DCR / MDC introduced even more powerful poisons. The more powerful poisons were labelled with a prohibition against use near water.
The next day, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, swamped with algae. A first annual "swim in" was cancelled because of the algae.
Before the ongoing "improvements" to the Charles River, the DCR / DCR took a poll. Most people said we do not need "improvements."
Some of the people swimming with MIT have been poisoning every goose egg they can get away with on the Charles for the last four years. These same people brag about running around destroying as much native vegetation as they can get away with.
The DCR / MDC is fighting for "water related uses" while attacking local aquatic animals and vegetation, and fighting for swimming while walling off the Charles River. Naturally, playing fields seem to be water related uses but water animals and water vegetation do not seem to be.
MIT's idea of cooperation is interesting. It seems to be cooperation in exactly the opposite direction of what most people want on the Charles River.
Weather and Animal Report on the Charles River
Bob La Trémouille reports:
We are now getting the cold, but we still have not seen a real snowstorm.
Last night we had single digits and have had very cold weather for perhaps two weeks.
Most of the Charles River has frozen over, but not next to the Goose Meadow just east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, MA, USA. The difference certainly looks like the Grand Junction railroad bridge, probably current action. The Grand Junction railroad passes through the goose habitat just east of the goose meadow. It then crosses the Charles River over this railroad bridge that, in turn, travels below the much more visible BU Bridge connecting highways on the Boston and Cambridge sides of the Charles River.
The water has never frozen under the bridge and down river (east) for at least the first two supports going south from the goose meadow.
In the morning, the Charles River White Geese can be seen in the water on the east side of the supports and pretty much spread out in the free water area.
In the afternoon, most of the gaggle can be seen on dry land in the goose meadow. Other water fowl can be seen either in the free water or on the ice to the west of the supports. The free water spreads west of the supports at the meadow, extending perhaps half the way.
During this cold snap, I have never seen the Charles River White Ducks in the water or in the meadow. I have seen them on the ice next to the free water which is next to the meadow. Commonly, there would be Canadas near the White Ducks. Very frequently, there would be Mallard Ducks in the water next to the White Ducks.
I have had nights in the past when I have come to visit the Charles River White Geese in the goose meadow as early as 3 am. In these days of extreme cold, they will sleep rolled up in their down jackets. Around 4 or so somebody will get up and sound a call, and groups will start wandering, either on the water or across the on ramp to the grass under the Memorial Drive bridge.
In recent months, the gaggle has been scared away from Magazine Beach. It could be because of nasty behavior not yet explained. It could be because they sense the soon to come destruction there.
The Charles River White Ducks are spending their first winter in freedom. I know that I have seen the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative walk to the shore line to toss contributed veggies to Andrake and Daffney. That could be the reason for their remaining in the location where I have seen them. They would be staying out of the water from concern for getting frozen in.
It is smart for the water fowl to stay out of the water overnight. That is when the water is most likely to freeze. It has not yet frozen and if it does not freeze overnight, it is less likely to freeze during the day, but very clearly possible. This a very cold period.
This extreme cold is slated to last the rest of the week, at least. It is very unlikely that the free water will continue.
We will see.
We are now getting the cold, but we still have not seen a real snowstorm.
Last night we had single digits and have had very cold weather for perhaps two weeks.
Most of the Charles River has frozen over, but not next to the Goose Meadow just east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, MA, USA. The difference certainly looks like the Grand Junction railroad bridge, probably current action. The Grand Junction railroad passes through the goose habitat just east of the goose meadow. It then crosses the Charles River over this railroad bridge that, in turn, travels below the much more visible BU Bridge connecting highways on the Boston and Cambridge sides of the Charles River.
The water has never frozen under the bridge and down river (east) for at least the first two supports going south from the goose meadow.
In the morning, the Charles River White Geese can be seen in the water on the east side of the supports and pretty much spread out in the free water area.
In the afternoon, most of the gaggle can be seen on dry land in the goose meadow. Other water fowl can be seen either in the free water or on the ice to the west of the supports. The free water spreads west of the supports at the meadow, extending perhaps half the way.
During this cold snap, I have never seen the Charles River White Ducks in the water or in the meadow. I have seen them on the ice next to the free water which is next to the meadow. Commonly, there would be Canadas near the White Ducks. Very frequently, there would be Mallard Ducks in the water next to the White Ducks.
I have had nights in the past when I have come to visit the Charles River White Geese in the goose meadow as early as 3 am. In these days of extreme cold, they will sleep rolled up in their down jackets. Around 4 or so somebody will get up and sound a call, and groups will start wandering, either on the water or across the on ramp to the grass under the Memorial Drive bridge.
In recent months, the gaggle has been scared away from Magazine Beach. It could be because of nasty behavior not yet explained. It could be because they sense the soon to come destruction there.
The Charles River White Ducks are spending their first winter in freedom. I know that I have seen the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative walk to the shore line to toss contributed veggies to Andrake and Daffney. That could be the reason for their remaining in the location where I have seen them. They would be staying out of the water from concern for getting frozen in.
It is smart for the water fowl to stay out of the water overnight. That is when the water is most likely to freeze. It has not yet frozen and if it does not freeze overnight, it is less likely to freeze during the day, but very clearly possible. This a very cold period.
This extreme cold is slated to last the rest of the week, at least. It is very unlikely that the free water will continue.
We will see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)