Marilyn Wellons reports on her e-mail letter dated December 17, 2008, to David Mohler, Deputy Secretary for Planning in the Executive Office of Transportation, about plans for the Boston University Bridge, and posts the letter below.
Report:
At Boston and Cambridge Conservation Commission hearings on August 20 and November 17, 2008, respectively, the Department of Conservation and Recreation showed its plans to repair the bridge. They include a "rehabilitation" of the stormwater system. Unlike other work on the structure, this "rehabilitation" actually increases its footprint--the area of ground it covers--rather than conform to the existing one.
At a public meeting on October 16, 2008 at Boston University, DCR Deputy Commissioner for Operations Jack Murray stated that the DCR is a parks agency first and manager of highways second. However, in Cambridge the new stormwater system will inflict serious and permanent damage to the urban wild that is home to the Charles River White Geese, Canada geese, mallard ducks, rabbits, hawks, and migrating songbirds, among other species. The damage to the goose meadow is consistent with the DCR's long-standing plan to eliminate the Charles River White Geese from the river through habitat destruction, among other means.
At the BU meeting Mr. Murray also said that, under the terms of the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP), the footprint cannot be expanded to accommodate better, safer bicycle and pedestrian access.
Whether the footprint can nevertheless expand for the DCR's new stormwater system is the question posed in my e-mail to Deputy Secretary Mohler. I believe he chairs the newly established ABP Oversight Council.
The question arises because the DCR has invoked M.G.L. Chapter 91, the recently revised law governing certain work in filled tidal wetlands. By invoking Ch. 91, the DCR effectively nullifies the Cambridge Conservation Commission's ability under the Wetlands Protection Act to require an alternative stormwater system that would avoid damage to the environment. Thus on November 17 the Cambridge ConCom found it was unable to require the DCR to tie drainage from the BU Bridge into the DCR's own stormwater system for Memorial Drive at the Reid Overpass, treat it with the device planned, and use Mem Drive's existing outfall--drain pipe--into the river. This was a possibility the DCR acknowledged in its Cambridge filing. The DCR nevertheless chose to add the new structure.
The two new structures on the Boston and Cambridge ends of the bridge expand its footprint. As such, they require a pro forma license from the Department of Environmental Protection. The letters cited in my e-mail to David Mohler are correspondence between the DCR consultant and DEP officials concerning the expanded footprint and the DEP's determination that the DCR needs a new Ch. 91 license for the footprint's new elements.
The matter of the expanded footprint is not, I think, trivial. Given current concern about the state's transportation funding crisis and history with the Big Dig, this question of control seems to have some point. Holding bridge repairs to the existing footprint is a primary ABP means of control over scope and cost. It will be interesting to learn what Mr. Mohler's take on the issue is.
E-mail letter:
Dear David Mohler:
It is my understanding that the Accelerated Bridge Program requires repairs to conform to any given bridge's existing footprint. For example, the Boston University Bridge cannot be expanded to accommodate bicycles, despite the great need.
Most of the work to repair the BU Bridge will be within the existing footprint. However, the Department of Conservation and Recreation's proposal for "rehabilitation of the existing stormwater management system" will expand it.
This seems contrary to the terms of the ABP. Since you supervise this program I write [to] ask for your opinion.
Please see the letter, attached here, from DCR consultant Kathryn Barnicle to Ben Lynch and Alex Strysky, Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulation Program, dated October 24, 2008. In para. 2, Ms. Barnicle states that "[t]he only work proposed outside of the existing footprint of the bridge is two stormwater outfalls needed to meet the Massachusetts Stormwater Policy." The letter includes plans for reach of these new structures, one in Boston, one in Cambridge.
Also attached is Mr. Lynch's response to Ms. Barnicle, dated November 20, 2008. In paras. 2 and 3, Mr. Lynch distinguishes between work to repair the bridge, which requires no new Chapter 91 license, and the "additional outfalls and associated drainage structures." These are "new structures . . . and therefore require c. 91 licensing prior to construction of those drainage facilities."
The structures are shown on plans on pp. 3-4 of Ms. Barnicle's letter as well as in DCR filings with the Boston and Cambridge Conservation Commissions.
In the DCR's Notice of Intent, filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission (DEP File # 123-0215, August, 2008 [Revised October 2008]) Drawings No. 3 and 4 show the extent of the change. Section 3.2, Proposed Work, describes the change to the footprint on the Cambridge side in some detail (plans for equivalent changes to the footprint on the Boston side [is] in the DCR's NOI with the Boston Conservation Commission, DEP # 006-1171):
"The water quality structure will be a [hydrodynamic separator] installed 25 feet east of the bridge . . . . Extending from the water quality structure will be 120 feet of 12 inch concrete pipe. . . . At the end of the line a flared end section will be mated to the new pipe and a riprap channel will be installed . . . . The riprap channel will extend 5 feet from the water line to the outlet of the pipe" (p. 3-2).
Cleaning up Boston Harbor is an important and necessary task. Given the crisis in our transportation system, maintaining the integrity of the Accelerated Bridge Program is also critically important.
The DCR has identified a means of doing both: tying the new drainage system and hydrodynamic separator to the Memorial Drive stormwater system at the BU Bridge (Cambridge NOI, Section 2.2.4.1). This would also, presumably, work in Boston at Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road. The agency nevertheless has opted to change the bridge's footprint, with attendant damage to riverfront parkland.
I would be grateful if you would let me know your opinion, as the official charged with the ABP, of the proposed change to the BU Bridge's footprint. I will call to follow up later this week . . . .
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
[Attachments as indicated above.]
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Good person saves a lost goose.
Bob La Trémouille reports;
Last night, the weather was so bad, very heavy wind and rain, that a golden retriever I am familiar with refused to go out for her evening walk.
In the middle of this mess, Bernice Gittes of Pearl Street, Cambridge, realized she had a Charles River White Goose lost in her yard.
She and her son gave our lost friend an escort back to the river, one on either side, prodding him in the right direction.
Good person.
Thank you very much.
Last night, the weather was so bad, very heavy wind and rain, that a golden retriever I am familiar with refused to go out for her evening walk.
In the middle of this mess, Bernice Gittes of Pearl Street, Cambridge, realized she had a Charles River White Goose lost in her yard.
She and her son gave our lost friend an escort back to the river, one on either side, prodding him in the right direction.
Good person.
Thank you very much.
Monday, December 08, 2008
What is the Judge in the Monteiro Case Doing?
The jury decision in the Monteiro case came down in late May.
To no surprise, the opinion of the jury was strikingly similar to the opinion of a very clear majority of people in the street and of outsiders viewing things in the City of Cambridge.
You see, very easily a majority of the most visible "organizations" in the City of Cambridge have been created by friends of the Cambridge City Manager at the request of the Cambridge City Manager (or his minions), and, to no great surprise, operate to protect the Cambridge City Manager. The key people in these organizations praise the heck out of the City Manager and his nine similarly bad city councilors. Their words are commonly great. Their actions are commonly exactly the opposite, and they cannot understand the problem.
The jury expressed a much more common and very much an outsider view of the City of Cambridge and the Cambridge City Manager. The jury expressed contempt for the Cambridge City Manager. The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager deliberately destroyed a woman’s life because she had the nerve to file a civil rights claim against him.
The jury expressed their contempt as powerfully as they could. The jury ordered $1.1 million or so in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages to be paid by the City of Cambridge to Ms. Monteiro.
The city filed motions to reverse the decision. These motions, for the most part, had already been decided in a similar motion before a different judge. One exception, mentioned in the Globe article cited in a prior report, was that the Cambridge City Manager stated that he was mistreated by the failure of the jury to learn that the Civil Rights complaint which was the source of the retaliation was thrown out by a prior jury. So a bad civil rights complaint gives the Cambridge City Manager the right to destroy a woman’s life? That is quite simply not the law.
Also filed was a motion to reduce the award of damages.
The motions were heard in a hearing on June 10, and three filings followed. The first, by the City of Cambridge, was described as papers. The second was described as the plaintiff’s response. The third, on August 4, was a motion by the city to strike the plaintiff’s response.
Now we sit.
I have no access to the papers. They are on the judge’s desk. I have thus no real knowledge as to the content of the papers, only to their titles on the court’s formal list of papers which is called the court docket.
The motion to strike the plaintiff’s response to the city’s papers is highly unusual. Apparently the judge allowed Cambridge to file papers with regard to an argument at the hearing, and allowed the plaintiff to respond to the papers. The motion to strike was apparently the only avenue open to the city to respond to a plaintiff’s paper which was probably devastating.
It would be unusual for the judge to reverse the jury, especially in light of the prior judge’s ruling in the same case.
It seems to me that the judge is responding to motion to reduce damages. The jury socked Cambridge with pretty much the maximum allowed under US Supreme Court decisions, three times damages. It is very difficult to justify such an award in general, but such reprehensible behavior could possibly justify it.
The jury used a broad weapon, money, to respond to really bad behavior.
The judge is not so limited, especially since she had the city’s motion to reduce in front of her. The judge has powers of "equity" in Superior Court in addition to the powers the jury has.
I think she is recognizing that the monetary damages do not hit the point directly enough. I think she is looking at a series of statutes by which the legislature has dictated forfeiture of pension rights in response to severely gross misbehavior in office.
I think she is working on an order replacing part of the monetary punitive damages with an order that the Cambridge City Manager be fired and his pension stripped.
I find such an order a reasonable response to reprehensible behavior, another example of the contempt by decent human beings to the status quo in the City of Cambridge.
To no surprise, the opinion of the jury was strikingly similar to the opinion of a very clear majority of people in the street and of outsiders viewing things in the City of Cambridge.
You see, very easily a majority of the most visible "organizations" in the City of Cambridge have been created by friends of the Cambridge City Manager at the request of the Cambridge City Manager (or his minions), and, to no great surprise, operate to protect the Cambridge City Manager. The key people in these organizations praise the heck out of the City Manager and his nine similarly bad city councilors. Their words are commonly great. Their actions are commonly exactly the opposite, and they cannot understand the problem.
The jury expressed a much more common and very much an outsider view of the City of Cambridge and the Cambridge City Manager. The jury expressed contempt for the Cambridge City Manager. The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager deliberately destroyed a woman’s life because she had the nerve to file a civil rights claim against him.
The jury expressed their contempt as powerfully as they could. The jury ordered $1.1 million or so in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages to be paid by the City of Cambridge to Ms. Monteiro.
The city filed motions to reverse the decision. These motions, for the most part, had already been decided in a similar motion before a different judge. One exception, mentioned in the Globe article cited in a prior report, was that the Cambridge City Manager stated that he was mistreated by the failure of the jury to learn that the Civil Rights complaint which was the source of the retaliation was thrown out by a prior jury. So a bad civil rights complaint gives the Cambridge City Manager the right to destroy a woman’s life? That is quite simply not the law.
Also filed was a motion to reduce the award of damages.
The motions were heard in a hearing on June 10, and three filings followed. The first, by the City of Cambridge, was described as papers. The second was described as the plaintiff’s response. The third, on August 4, was a motion by the city to strike the plaintiff’s response.
Now we sit.
I have no access to the papers. They are on the judge’s desk. I have thus no real knowledge as to the content of the papers, only to their titles on the court’s formal list of papers which is called the court docket.
The motion to strike the plaintiff’s response to the city’s papers is highly unusual. Apparently the judge allowed Cambridge to file papers with regard to an argument at the hearing, and allowed the plaintiff to respond to the papers. The motion to strike was apparently the only avenue open to the city to respond to a plaintiff’s paper which was probably devastating.
It would be unusual for the judge to reverse the jury, especially in light of the prior judge’s ruling in the same case.
It seems to me that the judge is responding to motion to reduce damages. The jury socked Cambridge with pretty much the maximum allowed under US Supreme Court decisions, three times damages. It is very difficult to justify such an award in general, but such reprehensible behavior could possibly justify it.
The jury used a broad weapon, money, to respond to really bad behavior.
The judge is not so limited, especially since she had the city’s motion to reduce in front of her. The judge has powers of "equity" in Superior Court in addition to the powers the jury has.
I think she is recognizing that the monetary damages do not hit the point directly enough. I think she is looking at a series of statutes by which the legislature has dictated forfeiture of pension rights in response to severely gross misbehavior in office.
I think she is working on an order replacing part of the monetary punitive damages with an order that the Cambridge City Manager be fired and his pension stripped.
I find such an order a reasonable response to reprehensible behavior, another example of the contempt by decent human beings to the status quo in the City of Cambridge.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
A response to an environmental destroyer – State Representative Martha Walz
Bob La Trémouille
State Representative Martha Walz is one of the few people with filthy hands to publicly brag about the outrage going on on the Charles River within half a mile of the BU Bridge.
A few days ago, she put out an email to constituents “informing” the constituents about plans on the Charles River and neglecting to mention her very reprehensible part in the plans.
The following is my response:
***********
Walz has been in the middle of the totally unnecessary heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, and the destruction of the Charles River from the beginning of her term.
She is just as vile as nine heartless members of the Cambridge City Council.
If she were a decent human being:
1. The bizarre starvation wall of designer bushes preventing access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River would be regularly chopped down or destroyed.
2. The biannual destruction of useful protective vegetation throughout the Charles River between the harbor and the Watertown dam would end.
3. The sick destruction of green maintenance at Magazine Beach would end. Green maintenance would be restored. The HEARTLESS, TOTALLY UNNECESSARY starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese would end, and they would be allowed to return to their 25 year home and food at Magazine Beach BEFORE the BU Bridge repairs start.
4. Fancy drainage pits in Magazine Beach to drain off the totally unnecessary poisons would be ended. If you are not using poisons, you do not need the fancy drainage.
5. The near total destruction of ground vegetation by the DCR between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse would be reversed. The destruction of all undestroyed ground vegetation in that area by the BU Bridge repairs would be ended. The only destruction would be within 25 feet of the BU Bridge. Staging would be placed under Memorial Drive where it belongs. Work would start only after the Charles River White Geese were returned to a green Magazine Beach. The White Geese would be allowed to nest as necessary and the construction be fenced in that 25 foot area.
6. The annual poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl on the Charles River would end.
7. Introduction of light pollution on Charles River bridges would be reversed.
8. The reprehensible Charles River Conservancy would be recognized as the sick entity it is and be barred from future destruction on the Charles River .
But Walz is not a decent human. Walz is just another irresponsible, destructive rotter like the nine Cambridge City Councilors and the Cantabridgians in the State House.
State Representative Martha Walz is one of the few people with filthy hands to publicly brag about the outrage going on on the Charles River within half a mile of the BU Bridge.
A few days ago, she put out an email to constituents “informing” the constituents about plans on the Charles River and neglecting to mention her very reprehensible part in the plans.
The following is my response:
***********
Walz has been in the middle of the totally unnecessary heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, and the destruction of the Charles River from the beginning of her term.
She is just as vile as nine heartless members of the Cambridge City Council.
If she were a decent human being:
1. The bizarre starvation wall of designer bushes preventing access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River would be regularly chopped down or destroyed.
2. The biannual destruction of useful protective vegetation throughout the Charles River between the harbor and the Watertown dam would end.
3. The sick destruction of green maintenance at Magazine Beach would end. Green maintenance would be restored. The HEARTLESS, TOTALLY UNNECESSARY starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese would end, and they would be allowed to return to their 25 year home and food at Magazine Beach BEFORE the BU Bridge repairs start.
4. Fancy drainage pits in Magazine Beach to drain off the totally unnecessary poisons would be ended. If you are not using poisons, you do not need the fancy drainage.
5. The near total destruction of ground vegetation by the DCR between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse would be reversed. The destruction of all undestroyed ground vegetation in that area by the BU Bridge repairs would be ended. The only destruction would be within 25 feet of the BU Bridge. Staging would be placed under Memorial Drive where it belongs. Work would start only after the Charles River White Geese were returned to a green Magazine Beach. The White Geese would be allowed to nest as necessary and the construction be fenced in that 25 foot area.
6. The annual poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl on the Charles River would end.
7. Introduction of light pollution on Charles River bridges would be reversed.
8. The reprehensible Charles River Conservancy would be recognized as the sick entity it is and be barred from future destruction on the Charles River .
But Walz is not a decent human. Walz is just another irresponsible, destructive rotter like the nine Cambridge City Councilors and the Cantabridgians in the State House.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Update on Monteiro Case
Bob La Trémouille reports:
A. Report.
We keep you abreast on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court case MICV2001-02737, because it should have very major impact on the reprehensible Cambridge, MA city government.
Apologists for the nine extremely bad city councilors say their environmental destructiveness with holier than thou hypocrisy is acceptable because they are so great on civil rights. A lot of the apologists are unaware of the secret definition being used and the real situation on that front.
A jury, 12 people not influenced by the massive organization in Cambridge that runs around calling black white, decided the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
Malvina Monteiro fits even the secret definition of civil rights. She is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of the city's Police Review board. The jury said she was fired in retaliation for filing a civil rights complaint. The jury awarded $1.1 million plus in actual damages and $3.5 million in penalties. Those penalties show the contempt that decent people have for the situation in Cambridge.
That verdict came down in May. Cambridge filed post trial motions most of which would appear to have already been denied by a prior judge with slightly different wording in the motion, although it is certainly possible that the trial judge would disagree. The one apparently new item would be an attempt to reduce the well earned and very large penalty awarded.
A hearing was conducted on the motions in June and the last, apparently related, papers were filed on August 4.
That last filing is instructive. It was a motion to strike. Apparently, at the hearing, the judge allowed Cambridge to file papers in support of its argument and allowed the plaintiff to respond, but did not create yet another step in which Cambridge could further respond to the plaintiff. Cambridge moved to strike the plaintiff's response, a highly unusual action but technically allowed. My guess is that the plaintiff's response was deadly to Cambridge's argument.
A week or so ago, the plaintiff's attorneys filed a letter to the judge apparently suggesting that six months total and nearly four months after filing of last papers should give her time to make her decision.
On November 21, 2008 (these things take a few days to get posted), the city's attorney filed her letter with the judge.
I cannot see the contents of these various documents. The file is on the judge's desk. All that is available is the title, which I essentially just gave you.
It is reasonable to assume that the city's lawyer agreed with the plaintiff's lawyers that six months after jury verdict and nearly four months after last filing is adequate time for the judge to come to a verdict.
The Boston Globe did a good write up on the case when jury decision came down. The report may be found at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/28/ex_cambridge_city_worker_is_awarded_45m_in_suit/?page=2.
A. Report.
We keep you abreast on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court case MICV2001-02737, because it should have very major impact on the reprehensible Cambridge, MA city government.
Apologists for the nine extremely bad city councilors say their environmental destructiveness with holier than thou hypocrisy is acceptable because they are so great on civil rights. A lot of the apologists are unaware of the secret definition being used and the real situation on that front.
A jury, 12 people not influenced by the massive organization in Cambridge that runs around calling black white, decided the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
Malvina Monteiro fits even the secret definition of civil rights. She is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of the city's Police Review board. The jury said she was fired in retaliation for filing a civil rights complaint. The jury awarded $1.1 million plus in actual damages and $3.5 million in penalties. Those penalties show the contempt that decent people have for the situation in Cambridge.
That verdict came down in May. Cambridge filed post trial motions most of which would appear to have already been denied by a prior judge with slightly different wording in the motion, although it is certainly possible that the trial judge would disagree. The one apparently new item would be an attempt to reduce the well earned and very large penalty awarded.
A hearing was conducted on the motions in June and the last, apparently related, papers were filed on August 4.
That last filing is instructive. It was a motion to strike. Apparently, at the hearing, the judge allowed Cambridge to file papers in support of its argument and allowed the plaintiff to respond, but did not create yet another step in which Cambridge could further respond to the plaintiff. Cambridge moved to strike the plaintiff's response, a highly unusual action but technically allowed. My guess is that the plaintiff's response was deadly to Cambridge's argument.
A week or so ago, the plaintiff's attorneys filed a letter to the judge apparently suggesting that six months total and nearly four months after filing of last papers should give her time to make her decision.
On November 21, 2008 (these things take a few days to get posted), the city's attorney filed her letter with the judge.
I cannot see the contents of these various documents. The file is on the judge's desk. All that is available is the title, which I essentially just gave you.
It is reasonable to assume that the city's lawyer agreed with the plaintiff's lawyers that six months after jury verdict and nearly four months after last filing is adequate time for the judge to come to a verdict.
The Boston Globe did a good write up on the case when jury decision came down. The report may be found at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/28/ex_cambridge_city_worker_is_awarded_45m_in_suit/?page=2.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The BU Bridge Repair Project: A responsible Alternative
A. Letter to Governor, Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge Conservation Commission.
I. Introductory, formal opposition.
II. Proposed Resolution of Problem.
III. Project in Context.
i. Destroying all living beings on the Charles River.
ii. Specific facts, general.
iii. Specific facts.
iii. Application of specific facts.
IV. Responsible resolution.
V. Added issues.
1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”
2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.
3. Example of “independent activity.”
B. Letter to Cambridge City Council.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
A. Letter to Governor, Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge Conservation Commission.
I sent the following letter to the governor and the DCR on November 19, 2008. The identical letter was hand delivered to the Cambridge Conservation Commission on November 17, 2008. The identical letter except for the first paragraph was mailed to the Cambridge City Council on November 19, 2008. The first paragraph is provided below.
I am adding subdivisions (Roman Numerals) in accordance with the Internet format, and to make it more clear in this format.
I. Introductory, formal opposition.
November 19, 2008
Governor Leval Patrick
State House
Boston, MA 02133
RE: BU Bridge Reconstruction Project
Sir:
Please be advised of my opposition to the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project as currently proposed. I do think that the project can be accomplished with minimal responsible modifications to the proposal.
II. Proposed Resolution of Problem.
I propose:
1. Chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else.
2. Return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap.
3. Kill the new, expensive drainage system at Magazine Beach. Green maintenance does not require this expenditure.
4. Let the White Geese return to Magazine Beach where they lived for 25 years.
5. Let them return to their nesting area, the location of the current proposal for environmental destruction, as they deem necessary.
6. Put the staging where it is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.
7. To the extent this delays the current project, so be it. The DCR has scheduled things for maximum destruction. Minor delays for responsible behavior comport to the delays the DCR has already incurred in the area attempting to introduce vegetation at Magazine Beach which is unfit for planting on the Charles River.
8. Prohibit the continuation of destruction of protective vegetation lining the Charles River. Require twice annual chopping to one foot of the bizarre designer vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach, or, better use, require its removal. Prohibit the continued poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl.
III. Project in Context.
i. Destroying all living beings on the Charles River.
This project is most definitely NOT free standing but is carefully coordinated to fit in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.
The DCR is in the process of destroying all living beings on the Charles River, either directly or indirectly through destroying their ecosystem. The goal is to replace a viable and mixed ecosystem with a dead ecosystem. A balance of nature is being replaced with a suburban lawn. And a lot of lying has been and continues to be used in that regard. The important lie in this project is the claim that the project is independent of the DCR’s many other environmental outrages in the area.
Key in this project’s link to environmental destruction is deliberate and cumulative harm to the local animal and vegetation population.
ii. Specific facts, general.
In 2004-2005, the DCR took their food away from the Charles River White Geese by destroying the wetlands at Magazine Beach and replacing that wetlands with an introduced wall of bushes blocking access from the Charles River to most of Magazine Beach.
The DCR and Cambridge have just expanded on that destruction by digging up all the grass at Magazine Beach, the 25 year food and habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The grass has been replaced with a mudpit. It is the intention of the DCR and Cambridge to poison that grass with new additions to the soil whether technically called “chemicals” or otherwise.
The DCR has denied any responsibility for the actions of its agent, Cambridge. The DCR is playing the DCR’s usual irresponsible game of saying don’t talk to me, talk to my coconspirator/agent. No way. It is all one package. It is all highly irresponsible. The denial of responsibility is yet another type of the very varied amount of lies we have seen from the DCR over the past nine years.
iii. Specific facts.
A summary of the record:
In September 2004, the DCR and Cambridge simultaneously walled off the Charles River White Geese from all of their food.
The DCR destroyed access at Magazine Beach with the construction zone followed by the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation. At a public meeting during the past week, a DCR representative bragged that this bizarre wall prevents the feeding of the Charles River White Geese. The bizarre wall of vegetation directly violates the so-called Charles River Master Plan.
Cambridge destroyed access at the BU Boathouse and across from the Hyatt Regency by installing a wall of plastic between the Charles River and the grass.
In the past five years, the DCR through its agents has destroyed every piece of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation in the core nesting area just east of the BU Bridge which this project proposes to destroy. This is the only portion of their habitat that DCR and Cambridge did not bar them from in 2004.
So pretty much all of the world of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously destroyed to them, and they would now be confined to an artificially created (by the DCR) mudpit in one quarter of their nesting area in place of the mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge where they lived until September 2004.
This extreme and deliberate cruelty is inexcusable.
Its importance is emphasized by the flat out lie that the DCR put out about the Charles River White Geese starting in 2000, repeatedly stated and continuing even after the DCR and its agents / associates imposed starvation and deprival of habitat in 2004:
The promise that the DCR would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese.
This has been followed up by the demand of the DCR at the recent meeting in Boston that the Charles River White Geese find temporary housing while this latest destruction is inflicted on them. This is the sort of sick mentality by which man is destroying our world, compounded by the obvious stupidity of the demand, given their proven attachment to their home of nearly 30 years, and the high likelihood that the DCR would happily kill them if they did move.
iii. Application of specific facts.
The heartlessness of this latest attack is compounded by the simultaneous and totally needless conversion of Magazine Beach, the primary habitat of the Charles River White Geese, into a mudpit.
The combination of the two projects destroys the little that was not destroyed in September 2004, AND prevents immediate conversion of Magazine Beach to use Magazine Beach as the nine month home of the Charles River White Geese, which is the proper nine month residence of the Charles River white Geese anyway.
IV. Responsible resolution.
The DCR’s priorities in the BU Bridge area should be reversed.
Use of and destruction of the nesting area for staging should be prohibited. Staging under Memorial Drive is good for the sidewalk project. It should be good for the Memorial Bridge project.
If use of the staging area under Memorial Drive delays the project, that is the fault of the DCR.
Instead of timing the project to maximize animal harm, it should be timed to minimize animal harm. The totally unnecessary destruction of Magazine Beach to replace green maintenance with chemical maintenance should be stopped in its tracks. GREEN seeding of grass should be resumed. The bizarre massive athletic complex should be killed and fields with athletics on top of it should resume.
Instead of the DCR’s current semi-annual destruction of valuable native ground vegetation twice a year everywhere on the Charles below the Watertown dam, the protective vegetation should be allowed to resume.
The bizarre INTRODUCED wall of vegetation walling off Magazine Beach should be chopped to the ground and removed instead of the semi-annual destruction of useful vegetation, and the resumption of this wasteful destruction should be prohibited. Mr. Corsi at a meeting last week essentially bragged that this wall is starving the Charles River White Geese in response to a question.
The total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse should be reversed by normal seeding. The tiny portion that has not been destroyed should not be destroyed except for that area next to the BU Bridge needed for the BU Bridge project.
Once Magazine Beach once again becomes fit to use and the destroyed vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse is returned to normal, the Charles River White Geese should be allowed to resume their migratory lifestyle within their mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge, spending most of their life at Magazine Beach in A HEALTHY GREEN environment, with nesting at the destroyed nesting area only interrupted insofar as necessary to do the work on the BU Bridge within 25 feet of the BU Bridge for the most part, less near the water.
To the extent the current irresponsible timing is impacted by responsible behavior, that is the fault of the DCR for proposing irresponsible timing.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
V. Added issues.
ADDENDUM:
1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”
It is my understanding that a purported citizens group created by an employee of the Cambridge City Manager will be approaching the board claiming some sort of independent existence and not informing the board of its connection to the Cambridge City Manager.
Please note my objections to the claimed independent status of this group and to its very destructive goals.
This group calls itself something like “liveable streets coalition.” It is a highway organization with goals too close to those of the Cambridge City Manager. It is fighting for a new highway which would destroy approximately 83 out of the 110 trees located between the Hyatt and the Memorial Drive split. It is also supporting destruction of the Nesting Area for a similar highway connecting to the railroad bridge.
I condemn these outrageous proposals and I condemn the tactics behind these proposals.
The Cambridge City Manager is a co-conspirator with the DCR in the destruction of the environment of the Charles River. The Cambridge City Manager’s supposed independent organization is fighting for his very destructive cause.
The Cambridge City Council will hopefully fire the Cambridge City Manager because of a jury verdict finding heartless behavior in a civil rights matter, $1 + million damages, $3.5 million punitive damages.
If the Cambridge City Council behaves in a responsible manner, perhaps we will see fewer of these supposed citizen’s groups with undisclosed connections to the Cambridge City Manager.
2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.
The level of lying and the variation of the techniques of lying by the DCR over the past nine years has been nothing less than incredible.
I believe nothing that the DCR says that would help them in their quest for the destruction of all living beings on the Charles River.
At its last discussion of this matter, the Conservation Commission questioned why the DCR has not conducted public meetings on this matter with its major harm to Cambridge. The DCR with entirely unsurprising bad faith conducted a meeting on the BU campus and invited a whole bunch of developer types. They did not conduct their meeting in a location convenient for Cambridge residents who are concerned about the DCR’s belligerent lack of responsible behavior.
One flat out lie from the Boston meeting has been abandoned: that the vegetation needlessly being destroyed for staging is larger than the area available under the BU Bridge. The latest explanation (and the DCR keeps on varying explanations) is that the excess destruction is for convenience. The DCR brags that the DCR is too lazy to cross one and a half lanes of traffic for their staging.
The other flat out lie from the Boston meeting seems to continue: This is the bizarre lie that the Charles River White Geese WILL find temporary housing as justification for the needless destruction of their homes.
I anticipate that the “expert” who made this bizarre statement will plead stupidity.
“Oh, you mean there is a difference between the White Geese and the Canadas?”
Claiming to be this stupid after being introduced as an expert is another variety of flat out lying.
The Canadas are migratory.
The White Geese are permanent residents for nearly 30 years and have remained in their devastated habitat after the outrages of 2004 and after the ongoing destruction of ground vegetation in their consigned ghetto.
That very major attachment to their home of nearly 30 years says everything and proves the comparison to Canadas to be a flat out lie.
I anticipate that the DCR’s “expert” will brag that the DCR’s “expert” does not understand the difference.
3. Example of “independent activity.”
In the Boston meeting, I was shouted down by a person known to be a friend of the DCR and Cambridge when I attempted to respond to the above analyzed two outrageous lies of the DCR.
There are too many friends of the DCR and Cambridge running around falsely claiming to be independent.
I consider the activities of such people and their claims of being “independent” just another technique of lying.
B. Letter to Cambridge City Council.
The letter to the Cambridge City Council was identical except for the first paragraph which reads as follows:
**************
Please be advised of my opposition to the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project as currently proposed. Your actions are part of the problem. The project can be accomplished with minimal responsible modifications to the proposal.
**************
The agenda for the next meeting, November 24, 2008, is posted on line. The letter is not included. So, I anticipate it was not received in time. Not terribly surprising, I anticipate it will be on the following week’s agenda.
I. Introductory, formal opposition.
II. Proposed Resolution of Problem.
III. Project in Context.
i. Destroying all living beings on the Charles River.
ii. Specific facts, general.
iii. Specific facts.
iii. Application of specific facts.
IV. Responsible resolution.
V. Added issues.
1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”
2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.
3. Example of “independent activity.”
B. Letter to Cambridge City Council.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
A. Letter to Governor, Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge Conservation Commission.
I sent the following letter to the governor and the DCR on November 19, 2008. The identical letter was hand delivered to the Cambridge Conservation Commission on November 17, 2008. The identical letter except for the first paragraph was mailed to the Cambridge City Council on November 19, 2008. The first paragraph is provided below.
I am adding subdivisions (Roman Numerals) in accordance with the Internet format, and to make it more clear in this format.
I. Introductory, formal opposition.
November 19, 2008
Governor Leval Patrick
State House
Boston, MA 02133
RE: BU Bridge Reconstruction Project
Sir:
Please be advised of my opposition to the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project as currently proposed. I do think that the project can be accomplished with minimal responsible modifications to the proposal.
II. Proposed Resolution of Problem.
I propose:
1. Chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else.
2. Return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap.
3. Kill the new, expensive drainage system at Magazine Beach. Green maintenance does not require this expenditure.
4. Let the White Geese return to Magazine Beach where they lived for 25 years.
5. Let them return to their nesting area, the location of the current proposal for environmental destruction, as they deem necessary.
6. Put the staging where it is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.
7. To the extent this delays the current project, so be it. The DCR has scheduled things for maximum destruction. Minor delays for responsible behavior comport to the delays the DCR has already incurred in the area attempting to introduce vegetation at Magazine Beach which is unfit for planting on the Charles River.
8. Prohibit the continuation of destruction of protective vegetation lining the Charles River. Require twice annual chopping to one foot of the bizarre designer vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach, or, better use, require its removal. Prohibit the continued poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl.
III. Project in Context.
i. Destroying all living beings on the Charles River.
This project is most definitely NOT free standing but is carefully coordinated to fit in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.
The DCR is in the process of destroying all living beings on the Charles River, either directly or indirectly through destroying their ecosystem. The goal is to replace a viable and mixed ecosystem with a dead ecosystem. A balance of nature is being replaced with a suburban lawn. And a lot of lying has been and continues to be used in that regard. The important lie in this project is the claim that the project is independent of the DCR’s many other environmental outrages in the area.
Key in this project’s link to environmental destruction is deliberate and cumulative harm to the local animal and vegetation population.
ii. Specific facts, general.
In 2004-2005, the DCR took their food away from the Charles River White Geese by destroying the wetlands at Magazine Beach and replacing that wetlands with an introduced wall of bushes blocking access from the Charles River to most of Magazine Beach.
The DCR and Cambridge have just expanded on that destruction by digging up all the grass at Magazine Beach, the 25 year food and habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The grass has been replaced with a mudpit. It is the intention of the DCR and Cambridge to poison that grass with new additions to the soil whether technically called “chemicals” or otherwise.
The DCR has denied any responsibility for the actions of its agent, Cambridge. The DCR is playing the DCR’s usual irresponsible game of saying don’t talk to me, talk to my coconspirator/agent. No way. It is all one package. It is all highly irresponsible. The denial of responsibility is yet another type of the very varied amount of lies we have seen from the DCR over the past nine years.
iii. Specific facts.
A summary of the record:
In September 2004, the DCR and Cambridge simultaneously walled off the Charles River White Geese from all of their food.
The DCR destroyed access at Magazine Beach with the construction zone followed by the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation. At a public meeting during the past week, a DCR representative bragged that this bizarre wall prevents the feeding of the Charles River White Geese. The bizarre wall of vegetation directly violates the so-called Charles River Master Plan.
Cambridge destroyed access at the BU Boathouse and across from the Hyatt Regency by installing a wall of plastic between the Charles River and the grass.
In the past five years, the DCR through its agents has destroyed every piece of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation in the core nesting area just east of the BU Bridge which this project proposes to destroy. This is the only portion of their habitat that DCR and Cambridge did not bar them from in 2004.
So pretty much all of the world of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously destroyed to them, and they would now be confined to an artificially created (by the DCR) mudpit in one quarter of their nesting area in place of the mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge where they lived until September 2004.
This extreme and deliberate cruelty is inexcusable.
Its importance is emphasized by the flat out lie that the DCR put out about the Charles River White Geese starting in 2000, repeatedly stated and continuing even after the DCR and its agents / associates imposed starvation and deprival of habitat in 2004:
The promise that the DCR would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese.
This has been followed up by the demand of the DCR at the recent meeting in Boston that the Charles River White Geese find temporary housing while this latest destruction is inflicted on them. This is the sort of sick mentality by which man is destroying our world, compounded by the obvious stupidity of the demand, given their proven attachment to their home of nearly 30 years, and the high likelihood that the DCR would happily kill them if they did move.
iii. Application of specific facts.
The heartlessness of this latest attack is compounded by the simultaneous and totally needless conversion of Magazine Beach, the primary habitat of the Charles River White Geese, into a mudpit.
The combination of the two projects destroys the little that was not destroyed in September 2004, AND prevents immediate conversion of Magazine Beach to use Magazine Beach as the nine month home of the Charles River White Geese, which is the proper nine month residence of the Charles River white Geese anyway.
IV. Responsible resolution.
The DCR’s priorities in the BU Bridge area should be reversed.
Use of and destruction of the nesting area for staging should be prohibited. Staging under Memorial Drive is good for the sidewalk project. It should be good for the Memorial Bridge project.
If use of the staging area under Memorial Drive delays the project, that is the fault of the DCR.
Instead of timing the project to maximize animal harm, it should be timed to minimize animal harm. The totally unnecessary destruction of Magazine Beach to replace green maintenance with chemical maintenance should be stopped in its tracks. GREEN seeding of grass should be resumed. The bizarre massive athletic complex should be killed and fields with athletics on top of it should resume.
Instead of the DCR’s current semi-annual destruction of valuable native ground vegetation twice a year everywhere on the Charles below the Watertown dam, the protective vegetation should be allowed to resume.
The bizarre INTRODUCED wall of vegetation walling off Magazine Beach should be chopped to the ground and removed instead of the semi-annual destruction of useful vegetation, and the resumption of this wasteful destruction should be prohibited. Mr. Corsi at a meeting last week essentially bragged that this wall is starving the Charles River White Geese in response to a question.
The total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse should be reversed by normal seeding. The tiny portion that has not been destroyed should not be destroyed except for that area next to the BU Bridge needed for the BU Bridge project.
Once Magazine Beach once again becomes fit to use and the destroyed vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse is returned to normal, the Charles River White Geese should be allowed to resume their migratory lifestyle within their mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge, spending most of their life at Magazine Beach in A HEALTHY GREEN environment, with nesting at the destroyed nesting area only interrupted insofar as necessary to do the work on the BU Bridge within 25 feet of the BU Bridge for the most part, less near the water.
To the extent the current irresponsible timing is impacted by responsible behavior, that is the fault of the DCR for proposing irresponsible timing.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
V. Added issues.
ADDENDUM:
1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”
It is my understanding that a purported citizens group created by an employee of the Cambridge City Manager will be approaching the board claiming some sort of independent existence and not informing the board of its connection to the Cambridge City Manager.
Please note my objections to the claimed independent status of this group and to its very destructive goals.
This group calls itself something like “liveable streets coalition.” It is a highway organization with goals too close to those of the Cambridge City Manager. It is fighting for a new highway which would destroy approximately 83 out of the 110 trees located between the Hyatt and the Memorial Drive split. It is also supporting destruction of the Nesting Area for a similar highway connecting to the railroad bridge.
I condemn these outrageous proposals and I condemn the tactics behind these proposals.
The Cambridge City Manager is a co-conspirator with the DCR in the destruction of the environment of the Charles River. The Cambridge City Manager’s supposed independent organization is fighting for his very destructive cause.
The Cambridge City Council will hopefully fire the Cambridge City Manager because of a jury verdict finding heartless behavior in a civil rights matter, $1 + million damages, $3.5 million punitive damages.
If the Cambridge City Council behaves in a responsible manner, perhaps we will see fewer of these supposed citizen’s groups with undisclosed connections to the Cambridge City Manager.
2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.
The level of lying and the variation of the techniques of lying by the DCR over the past nine years has been nothing less than incredible.
I believe nothing that the DCR says that would help them in their quest for the destruction of all living beings on the Charles River.
At its last discussion of this matter, the Conservation Commission questioned why the DCR has not conducted public meetings on this matter with its major harm to Cambridge. The DCR with entirely unsurprising bad faith conducted a meeting on the BU campus and invited a whole bunch of developer types. They did not conduct their meeting in a location convenient for Cambridge residents who are concerned about the DCR’s belligerent lack of responsible behavior.
One flat out lie from the Boston meeting has been abandoned: that the vegetation needlessly being destroyed for staging is larger than the area available under the BU Bridge. The latest explanation (and the DCR keeps on varying explanations) is that the excess destruction is for convenience. The DCR brags that the DCR is too lazy to cross one and a half lanes of traffic for their staging.
The other flat out lie from the Boston meeting seems to continue: This is the bizarre lie that the Charles River White Geese WILL find temporary housing as justification for the needless destruction of their homes.
I anticipate that the “expert” who made this bizarre statement will plead stupidity.
“Oh, you mean there is a difference between the White Geese and the Canadas?”
Claiming to be this stupid after being introduced as an expert is another variety of flat out lying.
The Canadas are migratory.
The White Geese are permanent residents for nearly 30 years and have remained in their devastated habitat after the outrages of 2004 and after the ongoing destruction of ground vegetation in their consigned ghetto.
That very major attachment to their home of nearly 30 years says everything and proves the comparison to Canadas to be a flat out lie.
I anticipate that the DCR’s “expert” will brag that the DCR’s “expert” does not understand the difference.
3. Example of “independent activity.”
In the Boston meeting, I was shouted down by a person known to be a friend of the DCR and Cambridge when I attempted to respond to the above analyzed two outrageous lies of the DCR.
There are too many friends of the DCR and Cambridge running around falsely claiming to be independent.
I consider the activities of such people and their claims of being “independent” just another technique of lying.
B. Letter to Cambridge City Council.
The letter to the Cambridge City Council was identical except for the first paragraph which reads as follows:
**************
Please be advised of my opposition to the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project as currently proposed. Your actions are part of the problem. The project can be accomplished with minimal responsible modifications to the proposal.
**************
The agenda for the next meeting, November 24, 2008, is posted on line. The letter is not included. So, I anticipate it was not received in time. Not terribly surprising, I anticipate it will be on the following week’s agenda.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
DCR / Cambridge attacks in Cambridge Chronicle
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
The letter sent by Marilyn Wellons reported on this blog a few days ago was printed, apparently without edit, by the Cambridge Chronicle in its 11/20/08 Edition.
Immediately following Marilyn’s letter was the following letter from me, also with no apparent edits:
**********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Your report on the DCR plans for BU Bridge reconstruction quotes me as shouting “nonsense.” You misquoted the DCR position I was responding to and neglected to mention that I had been at the mike and that my return to the mike was blocked by a DCR/City Council supporter loudly yelling against allowing me to respond.
The DCR representative proclaimed that the DCR and Cambridge have the right to, for silly reasons, take the entire world of the Charles River White Geese away from them and that the White Geese have a duty to find another place to live on their own and then come back.
This is the sort of outrageous mentality by which man is destroying our world.
As bad as this is, the real level of behavior of the City Council and the DCR is even worse.
In 2004, they took away 90% of the 25 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese. They introduced a bizarre wall of ten foot high vegetation at Magazine Beach which violates the DCR’s stated goals for Magazine Beach and blocks access to the Charles River instead of assisting swimming as claimed by their apologists; and they built a wall of plastic across from the Hyatt to keep the White Geese from that grass / food for no stated reason.
They isolated the Geese between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. They then destroyed all vegetation except for what they now demand to destroy.
The area next to the BU Bridge is needed for repairs. The DCR is demanding destruction above what is necessary, so that the combination will destroy EVERY bit of ground vegetation they have left. They claim to be destroying for staging. First they claimed the area of vegetation being destroyed is larger than the area under Memorial Drive being released by the sidewalk project. Now that that has been shown to be false, they just want to destroy because they are too lazy to cross the street.
The responsible alternative would be: (1) chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else (2) return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap, (3) let the White Geese return to Magazine Beach where they lived for 25 years, (4) let them return to their nesting area as necessary, and (5) put the staging where it is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.
Yes, I said “nonsense.” The statement was nonsense and my detailed response was blocked with very clear lack of fair play.
The letter sent by Marilyn Wellons reported on this blog a few days ago was printed, apparently without edit, by the Cambridge Chronicle in its 11/20/08 Edition.
Immediately following Marilyn’s letter was the following letter from me, also with no apparent edits:
**********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Your report on the DCR plans for BU Bridge reconstruction quotes me as shouting “nonsense.” You misquoted the DCR position I was responding to and neglected to mention that I had been at the mike and that my return to the mike was blocked by a DCR/City Council supporter loudly yelling against allowing me to respond.
The DCR representative proclaimed that the DCR and Cambridge have the right to, for silly reasons, take the entire world of the Charles River White Geese away from them and that the White Geese have a duty to find another place to live on their own and then come back.
This is the sort of outrageous mentality by which man is destroying our world.
As bad as this is, the real level of behavior of the City Council and the DCR is even worse.
In 2004, they took away 90% of the 25 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese. They introduced a bizarre wall of ten foot high vegetation at Magazine Beach which violates the DCR’s stated goals for Magazine Beach and blocks access to the Charles River instead of assisting swimming as claimed by their apologists; and they built a wall of plastic across from the Hyatt to keep the White Geese from that grass / food for no stated reason.
They isolated the Geese between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. They then destroyed all vegetation except for what they now demand to destroy.
The area next to the BU Bridge is needed for repairs. The DCR is demanding destruction above what is necessary, so that the combination will destroy EVERY bit of ground vegetation they have left. They claim to be destroying for staging. First they claimed the area of vegetation being destroyed is larger than the area under Memorial Drive being released by the sidewalk project. Now that that has been shown to be false, they just want to destroy because they are too lazy to cross the street.
The responsible alternative would be: (1) chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else (2) return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap, (3) let the White Geese return to Magazine Beach where they lived for 25 years, (4) let them return to their nesting area as necessary, and (5) put the staging where it is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.
Yes, I said “nonsense.” The statement was nonsense and my detailed response was blocked with very clear lack of fair play.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monteiro Case
Bob La Tremouille has kept us posted about this case, in which a jury awarded $4.5M (including $3.5M punitive damages) against the City of Cambridge for retaliation against the former head of the Cambridge Police Review and Advisory Board. She had the temerity to file a lawsuit that the city had discriminated against her.
Although the jury found the city had not discriminated, it found the city had indeed retaliated for the filing.
Cambridge has appealed the decision, and the judge in the case has yet to rule on the appeal.
Bob now reports that the docket records a paper "dated 11/10/08 from Laura Studen and
Ellen Zucker. The docket does not identify the content and it would just be added to the file.
"The are the plaintiff's attorneys. I assume they are reminding the judge that the jury's decision was six months ago and the papers have not changed since August. I would imagine that they think something should be happening."
Bob will report further in due course.
Marilyn Wellons
********
Bob replies:
Thanks for the accurate summary.
Oneof the key issues to remember when dealing with the nine hyprocrites on the Cambridge City Council is the explanation of their apologists for their environmental vileness.
The apologists say that these outrageous people have a right to be environmentally destructive and lie that they are exactly the opposite because they are so good on "Civil Rights."
Montero is a Black Woman, Cape Verdean.
The nine hypocrites have their own secret definition of civil rights (as usual), but Montero satisfies every part of their secret definition.
Although the jury found the city had not discriminated, it found the city had indeed retaliated for the filing.
Cambridge has appealed the decision, and the judge in the case has yet to rule on the appeal.
Bob now reports that the docket records a paper "dated 11/10/08 from Laura Studen and
Ellen Zucker. The docket does not identify the content and it would just be added to the file.
"The are the plaintiff's attorneys. I assume they are reminding the judge that the jury's decision was six months ago and the papers have not changed since August. I would imagine that they think something should be happening."
Bob will report further in due course.
Marilyn Wellons
********
Bob replies:
Thanks for the accurate summary.
Oneof the key issues to remember when dealing with the nine hyprocrites on the Cambridge City Council is the explanation of their apologists for their environmental vileness.
The apologists say that these outrageous people have a right to be environmentally destructive and lie that they are exactly the opposite because they are so good on "Civil Rights."
Montero is a Black Woman, Cape Verdean.
The nine hypocrites have their own secret definition of civil rights (as usual), but Montero satisfies every part of their secret definition.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Marilyn Reports on DCR Report to Neighborhood
Marilyn has submitted the following to the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle:
Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
To the Editor:
At a neighborhood meeting November 12, DCR representatives once again heard about the need for improvements and proper maintenance at the pools and bath house at Magazine Beach. They also heard again about the need to repair the DCR footbridge, damaged years ago, for safe pedestrian access across Memorial Drive. Like all who use this state parkland, Cambridge residents want greater, and safer, use and enjoyment of these major facilities. Focus on the pools and footbridge has been a constant at all public meetings for ten years.
DCR representatives said they were working on all of the above and these things take time.
At Magazine Beach the DCR has had other, higher priorities. Together with Cambridge and the city’s $1.5M, it is destroying what has simultaneously been playing fields open to all, wetland habitat, and passive open space for city dwellers in need of air, light, and contact with the natural world. Our City Council and Manager, obsessed with the tax base and AAA bond rating, have chosen to appropriate state parkland for playing fields for Cambridge schools and groups, rather than invest in city-owned playing fields for our children in underserved neighborhoods like East Cambridge.
The prototype for Magazine Beach is the DCR’s Ebersol Fields, installed in May, 2006, near MGH in Boston. Runoff from chemicals applied to the commercial sod there fed the astronomical algae blooms that summer and after, undoing a $60M cleanup that had given the river a B+ rating there in late 2005. DCR representatives at the neighborhood meeting professed to know nothing about Ebersol’s role in this pollution. When asked what chemicals would be used to maintain the turf at Magazine Beach, they shrugged and pointed to Cambridge, which will be responsible for keeping its expensive stuff at peak quality. When asked what chemicals the sod they deliver will come with, the DCR did not answer.
What will our city’s so-called green policies bring to Magazine Beach, then? They’re now destroying these wetlands on the International Atlantic Flyway, redoing the riverfront path to previous specifications for a road suitable for cars and small trucks, and damaging mature trees at the northeast edge. They deny humans access to the river and river views with a wall of plants unique to the Charles: 10’ high, they are never whacked, not even for the Head of the Charles.
Some amenity our $1.5M is buying.
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
651 Green Street
Cambridge 02139
Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
To the Editor:
At a neighborhood meeting November 12, DCR representatives once again heard about the need for improvements and proper maintenance at the pools and bath house at Magazine Beach. They also heard again about the need to repair the DCR footbridge, damaged years ago, for safe pedestrian access across Memorial Drive. Like all who use this state parkland, Cambridge residents want greater, and safer, use and enjoyment of these major facilities. Focus on the pools and footbridge has been a constant at all public meetings for ten years.
DCR representatives said they were working on all of the above and these things take time.
At Magazine Beach the DCR has had other, higher priorities. Together with Cambridge and the city’s $1.5M, it is destroying what has simultaneously been playing fields open to all, wetland habitat, and passive open space for city dwellers in need of air, light, and contact with the natural world. Our City Council and Manager, obsessed with the tax base and AAA bond rating, have chosen to appropriate state parkland for playing fields for Cambridge schools and groups, rather than invest in city-owned playing fields for our children in underserved neighborhoods like East Cambridge.
The prototype for Magazine Beach is the DCR’s Ebersol Fields, installed in May, 2006, near MGH in Boston. Runoff from chemicals applied to the commercial sod there fed the astronomical algae blooms that summer and after, undoing a $60M cleanup that had given the river a B+ rating there in late 2005. DCR representatives at the neighborhood meeting professed to know nothing about Ebersol’s role in this pollution. When asked what chemicals would be used to maintain the turf at Magazine Beach, they shrugged and pointed to Cambridge, which will be responsible for keeping its expensive stuff at peak quality. When asked what chemicals the sod they deliver will come with, the DCR did not answer.
What will our city’s so-called green policies bring to Magazine Beach, then? They’re now destroying these wetlands on the International Atlantic Flyway, redoing the riverfront path to previous specifications for a road suitable for cars and small trucks, and damaging mature trees at the northeast edge. They deny humans access to the river and river views with a wall of plants unique to the Charles: 10’ high, they are never whacked, not even for the Head of the Charles.
Some amenity our $1.5M is buying.
Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons
651 Green Street
Cambridge 02139
Visibility 373, Good Guys and Bad Guys
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility 363, November 11, 2008.
2. Good guys, Brighton, 11/11/08.
3. Bad guys, Cambridgeport, 11/12/08.
1. Visibility 363, November 11, 2008.
I was at the BU Bridge / Destroyed Nesting Area during rush hour.
Apparently because of the Veteran's Day holiday, traffic was down severely.
Percentage of takes on leaflets was up dramatically. It looked like I was meeting a lot of new people who were quite interested.
2. Good guys, Brighton, 11/11/08.
I went from the BU Bridge to the Green Streets meeting in Brighton.
These well meaning people spent an hour seeking a very minimal level of green space.
The sort of green space they are fighting for, Cambridge City Councilors routinely destroy, either because mature trees are in the middle of saplings or because the City Councilors change zoning to allow construction to the sidewalk.
3. Bad guys, Cambridgeport, 11/12/08.
The DCR was in Cambridgeport last night.
It is constantly amazing to see them contradicting themselves. There is no reality when words have no meaning.
The most important comment was that Corsi claims to support lawns to the Charles when appropriate. Last night, he claimed to think that Magazine Beach is not appropriate.
Fascinating, now his beloved Charles River Master Plan, according to him, seems to be a flat out lie when it calls for a lawn to the Charles at Magazine Beach and no bizarre wall of introduced designer bushes.
We are dealing with people who very consistently say what will work to get this particular audience happy.
1. Visibility 363, November 11, 2008.
2. Good guys, Brighton, 11/11/08.
3. Bad guys, Cambridgeport, 11/12/08.
1. Visibility 363, November 11, 2008.
I was at the BU Bridge / Destroyed Nesting Area during rush hour.
Apparently because of the Veteran's Day holiday, traffic was down severely.
Percentage of takes on leaflets was up dramatically. It looked like I was meeting a lot of new people who were quite interested.
2. Good guys, Brighton, 11/11/08.
I went from the BU Bridge to the Green Streets meeting in Brighton.
These well meaning people spent an hour seeking a very minimal level of green space.
The sort of green space they are fighting for, Cambridge City Councilors routinely destroy, either because mature trees are in the middle of saplings or because the City Councilors change zoning to allow construction to the sidewalk.
3. Bad guys, Cambridgeport, 11/12/08.
The DCR was in Cambridgeport last night.
It is constantly amazing to see them contradicting themselves. There is no reality when words have no meaning.
The most important comment was that Corsi claims to support lawns to the Charles when appropriate. Last night, he claimed to think that Magazine Beach is not appropriate.
Fascinating, now his beloved Charles River Master Plan, according to him, seems to be a flat out lie when it calls for a lawn to the Charles at Magazine Beach and no bizarre wall of introduced designer bushes.
We are dealing with people who very consistently say what will work to get this particular audience happy.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Visibility No. 372, Cambridge Conservation Commission hearing November 17, 2008
Marilyn Wellons reports on leafleting at the BU Bridge on Monday, November 10:
It was dusk but, as usual, many drivers gave thumbs-up on seeing the sign to Save Magazine Beach. Even in the dusk they, cyclists, and passers-by took the flyers.
When people stopped to talk they wanted to know what was going on at Magazine Beach, and to say how much they enjoy the urban wild at the goose meadow. Many of them check it out every day as they cross the bridge. They tell me they love it, and draw strength from this contact with the natural world.
I told them about Cambridge's destruction of habitat and playing fields open to all Magazine Beach. Some people say they're not Cambridge residents, but are upset to learn the city is essentially appropriating state parkland for the privileged use of its own groups.
I also alerted them to the Department of Conservation and Recreation's plans to destroy the goose meadow--home to rabbits, hawks, mallard ducks, migrating songbirds and waterfowl as well as the White Geese--under the guise of work on the BU Bridge.
The Cambridge Conservation Commission will hear the DCR's request to destroy the goose meadow at its hearing on November 17, 2008, at 8:30 pm at the 2nd floor conference room, 344 Broadway (corner of Inman Street). All who care about this place should plan to attend, if at all possible, I say.
The DCR claims it needs to clear all of the meadow 100 feet from the river to the sidewalk for construction staging. In fact it could go under the Reid Overpass at the BU Bridge rotary, where staging for the sidewalk repair is now. That equipment will be gone and there's plenty of room beyond what it occupies for the larger project.
Further, the DCR wants to clear a 50-foot wide work zone in the nesting area for, among other things, a stormwater drainage system that could go elsewhere.
Although the proposed staging area is technically beyond the ConCom's jurisdiction, destruction there will necessarily affect the 100' zone that is within its jurisdiction. And the stormwater system and work zone next to the bridge is certainly within that jurisdiction.
Will the ConCom approve all this destruction? It has accepted the DCR's lies about Magazine Beach--that human activity had so altered what is normally rich habitat that the habitat no longer existed there--and approved the project that itself is even now destroying that habitat. Whether it will go along with the DCR's convenient lie that it must use the goose meadow for staging and stormwater management, and consent to wholesale destruction of habitat on the Charles remains to be seen.
It was dusk but, as usual, many drivers gave thumbs-up on seeing the sign to Save Magazine Beach. Even in the dusk they, cyclists, and passers-by took the flyers.
When people stopped to talk they wanted to know what was going on at Magazine Beach, and to say how much they enjoy the urban wild at the goose meadow. Many of them check it out every day as they cross the bridge. They tell me they love it, and draw strength from this contact with the natural world.
I told them about Cambridge's destruction of habitat and playing fields open to all Magazine Beach. Some people say they're not Cambridge residents, but are upset to learn the city is essentially appropriating state parkland for the privileged use of its own groups.
I also alerted them to the Department of Conservation and Recreation's plans to destroy the goose meadow--home to rabbits, hawks, mallard ducks, migrating songbirds and waterfowl as well as the White Geese--under the guise of work on the BU Bridge.
The Cambridge Conservation Commission will hear the DCR's request to destroy the goose meadow at its hearing on November 17, 2008, at 8:30 pm at the 2nd floor conference room, 344 Broadway (corner of Inman Street). All who care about this place should plan to attend, if at all possible, I say.
The DCR claims it needs to clear all of the meadow 100 feet from the river to the sidewalk for construction staging. In fact it could go under the Reid Overpass at the BU Bridge rotary, where staging for the sidewalk repair is now. That equipment will be gone and there's plenty of room beyond what it occupies for the larger project.
Further, the DCR wants to clear a 50-foot wide work zone in the nesting area for, among other things, a stormwater drainage system that could go elsewhere.
Although the proposed staging area is technically beyond the ConCom's jurisdiction, destruction there will necessarily affect the 100' zone that is within its jurisdiction. And the stormwater system and work zone next to the bridge is certainly within that jurisdiction.
Will the ConCom approve all this destruction? It has accepted the DCR's lies about Magazine Beach--that human activity had so altered what is normally rich habitat that the habitat no longer existed there--and approved the project that itself is even now destroying that habitat. Whether it will go along with the DCR's convenient lie that it must use the goose meadow for staging and stormwater management, and consent to wholesale destruction of habitat on the Charles remains to be seen.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Day 371, Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA.
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
2. Environmental destroyers on the attack.
3. Update on Monteiro v. Cambridge.
A. Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA.
B. Current Mayor downright indignant when approached about her attacks on the little guy.
C. Abuse of the handicapped.
D. Abuse of Women. Abuse of Blacks. Abuse of employees complaining about violation of their Civil Rights.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
The past several days have been rainy.
Today, November 9, was clear, so I gave it a try.
What a wind!!!
Nice people, big sign. I did not last long.
2. Environmental destroyers on the attack.
In Cambridge, with its Con Game organizations, the louder many groups yell that they are pro-environment, the more they should be suspect.
By now, the nine destructive city councilors do not have to give orders. Their followers know what to do.
Don’t look at the outrage on the Charles. Don’t look at the outrage at Alewife. Don’t look at the outrage at Fresh Pond. Don’t look at the needless environmental destruction in so many city projects. Let’s save the world.
A well establish Con Game type of group in Cambridgeport is putting on a speech with regard to saving the world.
A related group is talking about putting on a referendum to save the world.
Sounds like something truly reprehensible must be going on for the con games to be coming so loud and fast.
Interesting. Something truly reprehensible is going on.
3. Update on Monteiro v. Cambridge.
A. Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA.
Part of the con game coming out of the nine city councilors’ representatives is: How dare you object to their irresponsible destruction of the environment. Think of how great they are on Civil Rights!!!
Part of this nonsense is the usual secret redefinition of terms.
Civil Rights is the rights of the little guy.
In Cambridge, MA, they have redefined "civil rights" as the rights of politically powerful lobbies.
B. Current Mayor downright indignant when approached about her attacks on the little guy.
The current mayor was downright indignant when a representative wanted to discuss her heartless treatment of the animals of the Charles River.
Her explanation translated as: How dare you bother me with this. That is the little guy.
C. Abuse of the handicapped.
Cambridge and the Cambridge City Council have been trying to take the use of her guide dog away from a handicapped woman.
She has now had two findings of probable cause of discrimination made by the Massachusetts Commission aAgainst Discrimination.
D. Abuse of Women. Abuse of Blacks. Abuse of employees complaining about violation of their Civil Rights.
This is Monteiro v. Cambridge.
In May, a jury found that Cambridge had discriminated against Melvina Monteiro a black woman (Cape Verdean?) who was head of the Police Review Board.
The jury found the discrimination to be retaliation by firing her for filing a civil rights complaint.
The jury awarded $1.1 million in actual damages (approximate) plus $3.5 million in penal damages.
Cambridge filed motions to amend or throw out the verdict. These motions were similar to a motion which a previous judge in the case threw out a couple of years ago, except that there is now a dollar verdict which the judge might want to reduce.
Rather clearly, the jury was trying to send a message. The jury’s message was that Cambridge’s behavior was reprehensible.
The judge held a hearing on the motions and Cambridge and the plaintiff then filed various papers.
I keep an eye on the docket every day or so to see if the judge’s decision has come down yet.
It has not.
2. Environmental destroyers on the attack.
3. Update on Monteiro v. Cambridge.
A. Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA.
B. Current Mayor downright indignant when approached about her attacks on the little guy.
C. Abuse of the handicapped.
D. Abuse of Women. Abuse of Blacks. Abuse of employees complaining about violation of their Civil Rights.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
The past several days have been rainy.
Today, November 9, was clear, so I gave it a try.
What a wind!!!
Nice people, big sign. I did not last long.
2. Environmental destroyers on the attack.
In Cambridge, with its Con Game organizations, the louder many groups yell that they are pro-environment, the more they should be suspect.
By now, the nine destructive city councilors do not have to give orders. Their followers know what to do.
Don’t look at the outrage on the Charles. Don’t look at the outrage at Alewife. Don’t look at the outrage at Fresh Pond. Don’t look at the needless environmental destruction in so many city projects. Let’s save the world.
A well establish Con Game type of group in Cambridgeport is putting on a speech with regard to saving the world.
A related group is talking about putting on a referendum to save the world.
Sounds like something truly reprehensible must be going on for the con games to be coming so loud and fast.
Interesting. Something truly reprehensible is going on.
3. Update on Monteiro v. Cambridge.
A. Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA.
Part of the con game coming out of the nine city councilors’ representatives is: How dare you object to their irresponsible destruction of the environment. Think of how great they are on Civil Rights!!!
Part of this nonsense is the usual secret redefinition of terms.
Civil Rights is the rights of the little guy.
In Cambridge, MA, they have redefined "civil rights" as the rights of politically powerful lobbies.
B. Current Mayor downright indignant when approached about her attacks on the little guy.
The current mayor was downright indignant when a representative wanted to discuss her heartless treatment of the animals of the Charles River.
Her explanation translated as: How dare you bother me with this. That is the little guy.
C. Abuse of the handicapped.
Cambridge and the Cambridge City Council have been trying to take the use of her guide dog away from a handicapped woman.
She has now had two findings of probable cause of discrimination made by the Massachusetts Commission aAgainst Discrimination.
D. Abuse of Women. Abuse of Blacks. Abuse of employees complaining about violation of their Civil Rights.
This is Monteiro v. Cambridge.
In May, a jury found that Cambridge had discriminated against Melvina Monteiro a black woman (Cape Verdean?) who was head of the Police Review Board.
The jury found the discrimination to be retaliation by firing her for filing a civil rights complaint.
The jury awarded $1.1 million in actual damages (approximate) plus $3.5 million in penal damages.
Cambridge filed motions to amend or throw out the verdict. These motions were similar to a motion which a previous judge in the case threw out a couple of years ago, except that there is now a dollar verdict which the judge might want to reduce.
Rather clearly, the jury was trying to send a message. The jury’s message was that Cambridge’s behavior was reprehensible.
The judge held a hearing on the motions and Cambridge and the plaintiff then filed various papers.
I keep an eye on the docket every day or so to see if the judge’s decision has come down yet.
It has not.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Response to a press release printed by the Cambridge Chronicle without attempt at balance
1. Report on the hustings.
2. Letter to the Editor in response.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Report on the hustings.
A gentleman passing by at a visibility slowed down enough to tell me that the Cambridge Chronicle had published a favorable report on the destruction of Magazine Beach.
Marilyn found a copy on line and gave me a link.
It turned out to be what looks a City of Cambridge press release printed with minimal edits and no attempt at unbiased coverage.
We issued our press release, which is provided below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/press-release-cambridge-council-and-dcr.html.
Cambridge’s was printed. Not only was our release not printed, it was not even used as a source to show the other side of Cambridge’s nonsense.
2. Letter to the Editor in response.
On November 3, I sent the following to the Cambridge Chronicle as a response. Since I use the phrase “flat out lies” in the conclusion, after proving contents of the press release to be such, it is possible that the letter may be deemed too intemperate for publication.
*************
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I was told about your buried report on the mudpit just created at Magazine Beach.
It turns out to seem to be a loosely edited press release with no attempt to be objective.
The City of Cambridge, in its press release, brags about a large number of municipal benefits from this project. It mentions exactly none.
The City of Cambridge brags about public meetings. To the extent the outrage on the Charles River has been discussed at public meetings, public input has been ignored.
To the extent the outrage on the Charles River has been mentioned in public meetings, the City of Cambridge has kept secret the important stuff:
1. Destruction of Green Maintenance to replace it with Chemical maintenance.
2. Poisoning of local birds feeding on the chemicals as part of an ongoing destruction of as much life as can be destroyed on the Charles River. Related is the annual poisoning of bird eggs.
3. The deliberate and heartless starving of the Charles River White Geese and the barring of them from 90% of their habitat.
4. The blocking off of the Charles from Magazine Beach by the construction of a bizarre wall of vegetation, at the same time as useful vegetation on the Charles needed for migrating birds is destroyed twice a year.
5. The destruction of all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for vegetation being destroyed, needlessly or otherwise, in the BU Bridge reconstruction. Half of that destruction is for staging that could and should be placed under Memorial Drive.
6. Silly destruction of trees.
Agents of Cambridge / the DCR have bragged about the bizarre wall of vegetation. They conducted a media event to brag that it would help swimming. Walling off Magazine Beach helps swimming?
The DCR has spent something like eight years promising they would not harm the Charles River White Geese. Poisoning them is harm. Starving them is harm. Taking their habitat away from them is harm. Destroying the vegetation they live in in the tiny area which has been left to them as their ghetto is harm.
And nine city councilors create con game organizations saving the world’s environment and not wanting to know about the Charles River.
So the edited press release looks like Pablum based on flat out lies of public input and public benefit.
Business as usual from the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.
2. Letter to the Editor in response.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Report on the hustings.
A gentleman passing by at a visibility slowed down enough to tell me that the Cambridge Chronicle had published a favorable report on the destruction of Magazine Beach.
Marilyn found a copy on line and gave me a link.
It turned out to be what looks a City of Cambridge press release printed with minimal edits and no attempt at unbiased coverage.
We issued our press release, which is provided below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/press-release-cambridge-council-and-dcr.html.
Cambridge’s was printed. Not only was our release not printed, it was not even used as a source to show the other side of Cambridge’s nonsense.
2. Letter to the Editor in response.
On November 3, I sent the following to the Cambridge Chronicle as a response. Since I use the phrase “flat out lies” in the conclusion, after proving contents of the press release to be such, it is possible that the letter may be deemed too intemperate for publication.
*************
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I was told about your buried report on the mudpit just created at Magazine Beach.
It turns out to seem to be a loosely edited press release with no attempt to be objective.
The City of Cambridge, in its press release, brags about a large number of municipal benefits from this project. It mentions exactly none.
The City of Cambridge brags about public meetings. To the extent the outrage on the Charles River has been discussed at public meetings, public input has been ignored.
To the extent the outrage on the Charles River has been mentioned in public meetings, the City of Cambridge has kept secret the important stuff:
1. Destruction of Green Maintenance to replace it with Chemical maintenance.
2. Poisoning of local birds feeding on the chemicals as part of an ongoing destruction of as much life as can be destroyed on the Charles River. Related is the annual poisoning of bird eggs.
3. The deliberate and heartless starving of the Charles River White Geese and the barring of them from 90% of their habitat.
4. The blocking off of the Charles from Magazine Beach by the construction of a bizarre wall of vegetation, at the same time as useful vegetation on the Charles needed for migrating birds is destroyed twice a year.
5. The destruction of all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for vegetation being destroyed, needlessly or otherwise, in the BU Bridge reconstruction. Half of that destruction is for staging that could and should be placed under Memorial Drive.
6. Silly destruction of trees.
Agents of Cambridge / the DCR have bragged about the bizarre wall of vegetation. They conducted a media event to brag that it would help swimming. Walling off Magazine Beach helps swimming?
The DCR has spent something like eight years promising they would not harm the Charles River White Geese. Poisoning them is harm. Starving them is harm. Taking their habitat away from them is harm. Destroying the vegetation they live in in the tiny area which has been left to them as their ghetto is harm.
And nine city councilors create con game organizations saving the world’s environment and not wanting to know about the Charles River.
So the edited press release looks like Pablum based on flat out lies of public input and public benefit.
Business as usual from the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Visibility 370, Governor’s Ethics Committee Lacks Credibility.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility 370, October 30, 2008.
2. Governor Creates Ethics Panel.
3. Follow Up to Governor.
4. The Governor Responds.
1. Visibility 370, October 30, 2008.
Marilyn did a visibility on Thursday to the usual good response.
2. Governor Creates Ethics Panel.
A message to Governor Patrick, left at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us this morning.
*********
RE: Governor’s Ethics Committee Lacks Credibility
Senator Diane Wilkerson has been indicted for various unethical charges. She previously has received sanctions for ethics lapses.
You have now created an “ethics” panel to discuss ethics in government.
My impression as I have watched her has that she and the DCR feel very compatible to me.
I have no reason to think that money is changing hands.
The variety of techniques of lying that the DCR has used over the past eight years, however, has been nothing less than flabbergasting.
The DCR would never have gotten away with their many and ongoing items of destruction of the environment on the Charles River without their plethora of lying techniques.
I have filed repeated complaints with you.
Are you serious about ethics?
I doubt it.
I doubt very seriously that the ongoing pattern of multiple techniques of lying by the DCR will receive even the slightest notice by you or your committee. It certainly seems to have gotten no interest on your behalf.
I thus have no respect for the committee.
3. Follow Up to Governor.
I just left the following at the same address:
RE: Ethics Committee. DCR not as good as Wilkerson?
*******
Following up my message of a few minutes ago, I have no reason to believe Senator Wilkerson is a liar.
4. The governor responds:
I received the following at about 1:30 pm. The header is omitted because it raises hell with this report for technical reasons.
***********
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with Governor Patrick. The Governor values your opinions and enjoys hearing from people across the Commonwealth. Please know that your views are always welcome in this administration.
The Governor and his staff strive to review every piece of correspondence in a timely manner. If appropriate, we will forward your message to the appropriate staff member, department or the state agency that can best address your concerns.
If you need an immediate response, please call the Governor’s Office at 617-725-4005 to speak with a Constituent Services Aide. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with Governor Patrick. Stay involved and engaged...this is your government!
1. Visibility 370, October 30, 2008.
2. Governor Creates Ethics Panel.
3. Follow Up to Governor.
4. The Governor Responds.
1. Visibility 370, October 30, 2008.
Marilyn did a visibility on Thursday to the usual good response.
2. Governor Creates Ethics Panel.
A message to Governor Patrick, left at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us this morning.
*********
RE: Governor’s Ethics Committee Lacks Credibility
Senator Diane Wilkerson has been indicted for various unethical charges. She previously has received sanctions for ethics lapses.
You have now created an “ethics” panel to discuss ethics in government.
My impression as I have watched her has that she and the DCR feel very compatible to me.
I have no reason to think that money is changing hands.
The variety of techniques of lying that the DCR has used over the past eight years, however, has been nothing less than flabbergasting.
The DCR would never have gotten away with their many and ongoing items of destruction of the environment on the Charles River without their plethora of lying techniques.
I have filed repeated complaints with you.
Are you serious about ethics?
I doubt it.
I doubt very seriously that the ongoing pattern of multiple techniques of lying by the DCR will receive even the slightest notice by you or your committee. It certainly seems to have gotten no interest on your behalf.
I thus have no respect for the committee.
3. Follow Up to Governor.
I just left the following at the same address:
RE: Ethics Committee. DCR not as good as Wilkerson?
*******
Following up my message of a few minutes ago, I have no reason to believe Senator Wilkerson is a liar.
4. The governor responds:
I received the following at about 1:30 pm. The header is omitted because it raises hell with this report for technical reasons.
***********
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with Governor Patrick. The Governor values your opinions and enjoys hearing from people across the Commonwealth. Please know that your views are always welcome in this administration.
The Governor and his staff strive to review every piece of correspondence in a timely manner. If appropriate, we will forward your message to the appropriate staff member, department or the state agency that can best address your concerns.
If you need an immediate response, please call the Governor’s Office at 617-725-4005 to speak with a Constituent Services Aide. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with Governor Patrick. Stay involved and engaged...this is your government!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Visibility 369, "World Saving Environmental Organization" to Ignore Cambridge Environment, as usual?
Bob La Trémouille reports:
On Monday, October 27, 2008, Marilyn and I saw a lot of very friendly people in the latest visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. That includes some rather extended discussions.
************
At the same time, I see yet another "World Saving Environmental Organization" being created in the City of Cambridge.
Looks like, although, as usual, certainly it is impossible to prove, just another con from nine fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council.
Let us save the world, but how dare you look at the outrageous environmental destruction being inflicted by nine Cambridge City Councillors and their friends in Cambridge, MA, and on the Charles River.
On Monday, October 27, 2008, Marilyn and I saw a lot of very friendly people in the latest visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. That includes some rather extended discussions.
************
At the same time, I see yet another "World Saving Environmental Organization" being created in the City of Cambridge.
Looks like, although, as usual, certainly it is impossible to prove, just another con from nine fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council.
Let us save the world, but how dare you look at the outrageous environmental destruction being inflicted by nine Cambridge City Councillors and their friends in Cambridge, MA, and on the Charles River.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Visibility 368, October 23, 2008
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Both Marilyn and I worked the Nesting Area during rush hour. Response was good.
A caveat on these visibility reports. This blog is the decendant of a very large email mailing report which started by reports on daily visibilities back when these reprehensible people started their attacks on the Charles River environment.
We are doing a lot more than just visibilities at the nesting area, but the tradition has been to report, and we have a lot of history, so the reports are coming.
In the past, because of the major effort in putting out mailings which got to be in excess of 1300 recipients, the reports were frequently quite large including a lot of specific items.
With the convenience of blog reports, massive visibility reports are no longer necessary.
Both Marilyn and I worked the Nesting Area during rush hour. Response was good.
A caveat on these visibility reports. This blog is the decendant of a very large email mailing report which started by reports on daily visibilities back when these reprehensible people started their attacks on the Charles River environment.
We are doing a lot more than just visibilities at the nesting area, but the tradition has been to report, and we have a lot of history, so the reports are coming.
In the past, because of the major effort in putting out mailings which got to be in excess of 1300 recipients, the reports were frequently quite large including a lot of specific items.
With the convenience of blog reports, massive visibility reports are no longer necessary.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Governor Patrick’s response concerning the flat out liars he has working on BU Bridge reconstruction.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Communication to Governor Patrick.
2. The Governor responds concerning the flat out liars he has working on the BU Bridge Reconstruction.
3. Summary.
1. Communication to Governor Patrick.
On October 18, 2008, I left the following email for Governor Patrick on his website using the form for email contact, Email form: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us
RE: The DCR's Outrageous "Explanation" for Environmental Destruction: BU Bridge
Governor Patrick
I attended a DCR meeting in Boston concerning environmental destruction as part of the BU Bridge reconstruction.
Contracting types were rather clearly invited by the DCR and it was kept secret from and made as inconvenient as possible for decent human beings.
Flat out lies, as is the custom with the DCR, were the norm on the key environmental issues.
My analyses of the proposal and the flat out lies may be read at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/let-them-move-and-come-back.html.
And at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-details-on-dcrs-outrageous.html.
I have previously suggested you fire at least two of the most irresponsible of the DCR people. The people spouting these latest flat out lies should join them.
Thank you.
2. The Governor responds concerning the flat out liars he has working on the BU Bridge Reconstruction.
On October 20, 2008, I received the following response:
******
FROM: "Governor Patrick's Office"
RE: Your email to Governor Patrick
DATE: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:36 AM
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with Governor Patrick. The Governor values your opinions and enjoys hearing from people across the Commonwealth. Please know that your views are always welcome in this administration.The Governor and his staff strive to review every piece of correspondence in a timely manner. If appropriate, we will forward your message to the appropriate staff member, department or the state agency that can best address your concerns.If you need an immediate response, please call the Governor’s Office at 617-725-4005 to speak with a Constituent Services Aide. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with Governor Patrick. Stay involved and engaged...this is your government!
3. Summary.
My evaluation of Governor Patrick is that it is impossible to distinguish between him and the DCR Bureaucrats and the Cambridge Pols.
I see no reason to change that opinion.
1. Communication to Governor Patrick.
2. The Governor responds concerning the flat out liars he has working on the BU Bridge Reconstruction.
3. Summary.
1. Communication to Governor Patrick.
On October 18, 2008, I left the following email for Governor Patrick on his website using the form for email contact, Email form: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us
RE: The DCR's Outrageous "Explanation" for Environmental Destruction: BU Bridge
Governor Patrick
I attended a DCR meeting in Boston concerning environmental destruction as part of the BU Bridge reconstruction.
Contracting types were rather clearly invited by the DCR and it was kept secret from and made as inconvenient as possible for decent human beings.
Flat out lies, as is the custom with the DCR, were the norm on the key environmental issues.
My analyses of the proposal and the flat out lies may be read at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/let-them-move-and-come-back.html.
And at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-details-on-dcrs-outrageous.html.
I have previously suggested you fire at least two of the most irresponsible of the DCR people. The people spouting these latest flat out lies should join them.
Thank you.
2. The Governor responds concerning the flat out liars he has working on the BU Bridge Reconstruction.
On October 20, 2008, I received the following response:
******
FROM: "Governor Patrick's Office"
RE: Your email to Governor Patrick
DATE: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:36 AM
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with Governor Patrick. The Governor values your opinions and enjoys hearing from people across the Commonwealth. Please know that your views are always welcome in this administration.The Governor and his staff strive to review every piece of correspondence in a timely manner. If appropriate, we will forward your message to the appropriate staff member, department or the state agency that can best address your concerns.If you need an immediate response, please call the Governor’s Office at 617-725-4005 to speak with a Constituent Services Aide. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with Governor Patrick. Stay involved and engaged...this is your government!
3. Summary.
My evaluation of Governor Patrick is that it is impossible to distinguish between him and the DCR Bureaucrats and the Cambridge Pols.
I see no reason to change that opinion.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
More details on the DCR’s outrageous “explanation” for environmental destruction in the BU Bridge Reconstruction.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Introduction.
2. My letter.
a. Introductory
b. Objections to farcical scheduling.
c. Project must be considered as part of massive environmental destruction ongoing by DCR.
d. Starving the Charles River White Geese, Destroying green maintenance at Magazine Beach, creation of mudpit, poisoning feeding birds with chemicals.
e. Destruction of ground vegetation between BU Bridge and BU Boathouse.
f. Combination is extreme and deliberate cruelty.
g. Achieved through flat out lies.
h. What should be done.
i. Objection to front organization for Cambridge City Manager being treated as anything other than a front organization for the Cambridge City Manager.
3. DCR’s Response, the usual flat out lies.
a. Let them move and come back.
b. We have to destroy the nesting area for staging. There is more room there than under Memorial Drive.
1. Introduction.
The DCR conducted its “public meeting” on Cambridge damage in Boston on the Boston University campus on October 16, 2008.
The DCR publicized the meeting to developer types and introduced the meeting with a total development mentality with environmental considerations solely related to the project’s water gathering abilities.
2. My letter.
I submitted the following letter. I have added subdivisions to comport to blog format.
a. Introductory
October 16, 2008
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114-2104
RE: BU Bridge Reconstruction Project
Gentlemen/Ladies:
This evening you are conducting a “public hearing” IN BOSTON to respond to a suggestion by the CAMBRIDGE Conservation Commission that you conduct a public hearing concerning the very major environmental destruction you propose IN CAMBRIDGE as part of the project.
b. Objections to farcical scheduling.
Please be advised that conducting a public hearing concerning CAMBRIDGE destructiveness in BOSTON is nothing less than outrageous. As such, it fits the long record of bad behavior by the DCR on Charles River matters affecting Cambridge during the past nine years.
c. Project must be considered as part of massive environmental destruction ongoing by DCR.
This project is most definitely NOT free standing but is carefully coordinated to fit in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.
The DCR is in the process of destroying all living beings on the Charles River, either directly or indirectly through destroying their ecosystem. The goal is to replace a viable and mixed ecosystem with a dead ecosystem. A balance of nature is being replaced with a suburban lawn. And a lot of lying has been and continues to be used in that regard. The important lie in this project is the claim that the project is independent of the DCR’s many other environmental outrages in the area.
Key in this project’s link to environmental destruction is deliberate and cumulative harm to the local animal and vegetation population.
d. Starving the Charles River White Geese, Destroying green maintenance at Magazine Beach, creation of mudpit, poisoning feeding birds with chemicals.
In 2004-2005, the DCR took their food away from the Charles River White Geese by destroying the wetlands at Magazine Beach and replacing that wetlands with an introduced wall of bushes blocking access from the Charles River to most of Magazine Beach.
The DCR and Cambridge have just expanded on that destruction by digging up all the grass at Magazine Beach, the 25 year food and habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The grass has been replaced with a mudpit. It is the intention of the DCR and Cambridge to poison that grass with chemicals.
In September 2004, the DCR and Cambridge simultaneously walled off the Charles River White Geese from all of their food. The DCR did that at Magazine Beach with the construction zone followed by the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation. Cambridge did that east of the BU Boathouse and across from the Hyatt Regency by installing a wall of plastic.
e. Destruction of ground vegetation between BU Bridge and BU Boathouse.
In the past five years, the DCR through its agents has destroyed every piece of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation in the core nesting area just east of the BU Bridge which this project proposes to destroy.
f. Combination is extreme and deliberate cruelty.
So all of the world of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously destroyed to them, and they would be confined to an artificially created (by the DCR) mudpit in one quarter of their nesting area in place of the mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge where they lived until September 2004.
This extreme and deliberate cruelty is inexcusable.
g. Achieved through flat out lies.
Its importance is emphasized by the flat out lie that the DCR put out about the Charles River White Geese starting in 2000, repeatedly stated and continuing even after the DCR and its agents / associates imposed starvation and deprival of habitat in 2004:
The promise that the DCR would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese.
The heartlessness of this latest attack is compounded by the simultaneous and totally needless conversion of Magazine Beach, their primary habitat, into a mudpit.
The combination of the two projects destroys the little that was not destroyed in September 2004, AND prevents immediate conversion of Magazine Beach to use Magazine Beach as the nine month home of the Charles River White Geese, which is the proper nine month residence of the Charles River white Geese anyway.
h. What should be done.
The DCR’s priorities in the BU Bridge area should be reversed.
Use of and destruction of the nesting area for staging should be prohibited. Staging under Memorial Drive is good for the sidewalk project. It should be good for the Memorial Bridge project.
If use of the staging area under Memorial Drive delays the project, that is the fault of the DCR.
Instead of timing the project to maximize animal harm, it should be timed to minimize animal harm. The totally unnecessary destruction of Magazine Beach to replace green maintenance with chemical should be stopped in its tracks. GREEN seeding of grass should be resumed. The bizarre massive athletic complex should be killed and fields with athletics on top of it should resume.
Instead of the DCR’s current semi-annual destruction of valuable native ground vegetation twice a year everywhere on the Charles below the Watertown dam, the protective vegetation should be allowed to resume.
The bizarre INTRODUCED wall of vegetation walling off Magazine Beach should be chopped to the ground and removed instead of the semi-annual destruction of useful vegetation.
The total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse should be reversed by normal seeding. The tiny portion that has not been destroyed should not be destroyed except for that area next to the BU Bridge needed for the BU Bridge project.
Once Magazine Beach once again becomes fit to use and the destroyed vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse is returned to normal, the Charles River White Geese should be allowed to resume their migratory lifestyle within their mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge, spending most of their life at Magazine Beach in A HEALTHY GREEN environment, with nesting at the destroyed nesting area only interrupted insofar as necessary to do the work on the BU Bridge within 25 feet of the BU Bridge for the most part, less near the water.
To the extent the current irresponsible timing is impacted by responsible behavior, that is the fault of the DCR for proposing irresponsible timing.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
i. Objection to front organization for Cambridge City Manager being treated as anything other than a front organization for the Cambridge City Manager.
ADDENDUM:
It is my understanding that a purported citizens group created by an employee of the Cambridge City Manager will be approaching the board claiming some sort of independent existence and not informing the board of its connection to the Cambridge City Manager.
Please note my objections to the claimed independent status of this group and to its very destructive goals.
This is a highway organization. It is fighting for a new highway which would destroy approximately 83 out of the 110 trees located between the Hyatt and the Memorial Drive split. It is also supporting destruction of the Nesting Area for a similar highway connecting to the railroad bridge.
I condemn these outrageous proposals and I condemn the tactics behind these proposals.
The Cambridge City Manager is a co-conspirator with the DCR in the destruction of the environment of the Charles River. The Cambridge City Manager’s supposed independent organization is fighting for his very destructive cause.
The Cambridge City Council will hopefully fire the Cambridge City Manager because of a jury verdict finding heartless behavior in a civil rights matter, $1 + million damages, $3.5 million punitive damages.
If the Cambridge City Council behaves in a responsible manner, perhaps we will see fewer of these supposed citizen’s groups with undisclosed connections to the Cambridge City Manager.
3. DCR’s Response, the usual flat out lies.
Two of the usual flat out lies. I responded simply by calling them nonsense. I had been maneuvered away from the microphone and was not in a position to directly respond.
a. Let them move and come back.
This flat out lie was presented by a self-described animal expert.
I have responded to that in a letter to the Daily Free Press printed below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/let-them-move-and-come-back.html.
b. We have to destroy the nesting area for staging. There is more room there than under Memorial Drive.
Interestingly, the DCR waived an argument they had previously used. They previously claimed they could not put staging under Memorial Drive because it would be used by the contractor repairing BU Bridge sidewalks.
First of all, there is plenty of additional room there for a second contractor.
Secondly, the BU Bridge project is now being staged so that it will not be done simultaneously with the sidewalk project.
The staging would destroy EXACTLY an area south of the Memorial Drive on ramp which the sidewalk project had previously promised to destroy.
Apparently, the DCR has decided the sidewalk project is inadequate excuse for destroying that area and is using this excuse.
Eyeballing the two sites on Google Maps provides the rapid analysis that the level of this flat out lie is simply incredible. Eyeballing the two sites indicates that the space under Memorial Drive is something like four to eight times as large as the area they propose to destroy in the nesting area.
Flat out lies, business as usual from the DCR.
1. Introduction.
2. My letter.
a. Introductory
b. Objections to farcical scheduling.
c. Project must be considered as part of massive environmental destruction ongoing by DCR.
d. Starving the Charles River White Geese, Destroying green maintenance at Magazine Beach, creation of mudpit, poisoning feeding birds with chemicals.
e. Destruction of ground vegetation between BU Bridge and BU Boathouse.
f. Combination is extreme and deliberate cruelty.
g. Achieved through flat out lies.
h. What should be done.
i. Objection to front organization for Cambridge City Manager being treated as anything other than a front organization for the Cambridge City Manager.
3. DCR’s Response, the usual flat out lies.
a. Let them move and come back.
b. We have to destroy the nesting area for staging. There is more room there than under Memorial Drive.
1. Introduction.
The DCR conducted its “public meeting” on Cambridge damage in Boston on the Boston University campus on October 16, 2008.
The DCR publicized the meeting to developer types and introduced the meeting with a total development mentality with environmental considerations solely related to the project’s water gathering abilities.
2. My letter.
I submitted the following letter. I have added subdivisions to comport to blog format.
a. Introductory
October 16, 2008
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114-2104
RE: BU Bridge Reconstruction Project
Gentlemen/Ladies:
This evening you are conducting a “public hearing” IN BOSTON to respond to a suggestion by the CAMBRIDGE Conservation Commission that you conduct a public hearing concerning the very major environmental destruction you propose IN CAMBRIDGE as part of the project.
b. Objections to farcical scheduling.
Please be advised that conducting a public hearing concerning CAMBRIDGE destructiveness in BOSTON is nothing less than outrageous. As such, it fits the long record of bad behavior by the DCR on Charles River matters affecting Cambridge during the past nine years.
c. Project must be considered as part of massive environmental destruction ongoing by DCR.
This project is most definitely NOT free standing but is carefully coordinated to fit in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.
The DCR is in the process of destroying all living beings on the Charles River, either directly or indirectly through destroying their ecosystem. The goal is to replace a viable and mixed ecosystem with a dead ecosystem. A balance of nature is being replaced with a suburban lawn. And a lot of lying has been and continues to be used in that regard. The important lie in this project is the claim that the project is independent of the DCR’s many other environmental outrages in the area.
Key in this project’s link to environmental destruction is deliberate and cumulative harm to the local animal and vegetation population.
d. Starving the Charles River White Geese, Destroying green maintenance at Magazine Beach, creation of mudpit, poisoning feeding birds with chemicals.
In 2004-2005, the DCR took their food away from the Charles River White Geese by destroying the wetlands at Magazine Beach and replacing that wetlands with an introduced wall of bushes blocking access from the Charles River to most of Magazine Beach.
The DCR and Cambridge have just expanded on that destruction by digging up all the grass at Magazine Beach, the 25 year food and habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The grass has been replaced with a mudpit. It is the intention of the DCR and Cambridge to poison that grass with chemicals.
In September 2004, the DCR and Cambridge simultaneously walled off the Charles River White Geese from all of their food. The DCR did that at Magazine Beach with the construction zone followed by the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation. Cambridge did that east of the BU Boathouse and across from the Hyatt Regency by installing a wall of plastic.
e. Destruction of ground vegetation between BU Bridge and BU Boathouse.
In the past five years, the DCR through its agents has destroyed every piece of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation in the core nesting area just east of the BU Bridge which this project proposes to destroy.
f. Combination is extreme and deliberate cruelty.
So all of the world of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously destroyed to them, and they would be confined to an artificially created (by the DCR) mudpit in one quarter of their nesting area in place of the mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge where they lived until September 2004.
This extreme and deliberate cruelty is inexcusable.
g. Achieved through flat out lies.
Its importance is emphasized by the flat out lie that the DCR put out about the Charles River White Geese starting in 2000, repeatedly stated and continuing even after the DCR and its agents / associates imposed starvation and deprival of habitat in 2004:
The promise that the DCR would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese.
The heartlessness of this latest attack is compounded by the simultaneous and totally needless conversion of Magazine Beach, their primary habitat, into a mudpit.
The combination of the two projects destroys the little that was not destroyed in September 2004, AND prevents immediate conversion of Magazine Beach to use Magazine Beach as the nine month home of the Charles River White Geese, which is the proper nine month residence of the Charles River white Geese anyway.
h. What should be done.
The DCR’s priorities in the BU Bridge area should be reversed.
Use of and destruction of the nesting area for staging should be prohibited. Staging under Memorial Drive is good for the sidewalk project. It should be good for the Memorial Bridge project.
If use of the staging area under Memorial Drive delays the project, that is the fault of the DCR.
Instead of timing the project to maximize animal harm, it should be timed to minimize animal harm. The totally unnecessary destruction of Magazine Beach to replace green maintenance with chemical should be stopped in its tracks. GREEN seeding of grass should be resumed. The bizarre massive athletic complex should be killed and fields with athletics on top of it should resume.
Instead of the DCR’s current semi-annual destruction of valuable native ground vegetation twice a year everywhere on the Charles below the Watertown dam, the protective vegetation should be allowed to resume.
The bizarre INTRODUCED wall of vegetation walling off Magazine Beach should be chopped to the ground and removed instead of the semi-annual destruction of useful vegetation.
The total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse should be reversed by normal seeding. The tiny portion that has not been destroyed should not be destroyed except for that area next to the BU Bridge needed for the BU Bridge project.
Once Magazine Beach once again becomes fit to use and the destroyed vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse is returned to normal, the Charles River White Geese should be allowed to resume their migratory lifestyle within their mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge, spending most of their life at Magazine Beach in A HEALTHY GREEN environment, with nesting at the destroyed nesting area only interrupted insofar as necessary to do the work on the BU Bridge within 25 feet of the BU Bridge for the most part, less near the water.
To the extent the current irresponsible timing is impacted by responsible behavior, that is the fault of the DCR for proposing irresponsible timing.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
i. Objection to front organization for Cambridge City Manager being treated as anything other than a front organization for the Cambridge City Manager.
ADDENDUM:
It is my understanding that a purported citizens group created by an employee of the Cambridge City Manager will be approaching the board claiming some sort of independent existence and not informing the board of its connection to the Cambridge City Manager.
Please note my objections to the claimed independent status of this group and to its very destructive goals.
This is a highway organization. It is fighting for a new highway which would destroy approximately 83 out of the 110 trees located between the Hyatt and the Memorial Drive split. It is also supporting destruction of the Nesting Area for a similar highway connecting to the railroad bridge.
I condemn these outrageous proposals and I condemn the tactics behind these proposals.
The Cambridge City Manager is a co-conspirator with the DCR in the destruction of the environment of the Charles River. The Cambridge City Manager’s supposed independent organization is fighting for his very destructive cause.
The Cambridge City Council will hopefully fire the Cambridge City Manager because of a jury verdict finding heartless behavior in a civil rights matter, $1 + million damages, $3.5 million punitive damages.
If the Cambridge City Council behaves in a responsible manner, perhaps we will see fewer of these supposed citizen’s groups with undisclosed connections to the Cambridge City Manager.
3. DCR’s Response, the usual flat out lies.
Two of the usual flat out lies. I responded simply by calling them nonsense. I had been maneuvered away from the microphone and was not in a position to directly respond.
a. Let them move and come back.
This flat out lie was presented by a self-described animal expert.
I have responded to that in a letter to the Daily Free Press printed below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/let-them-move-and-come-back.html.
b. We have to destroy the nesting area for staging. There is more room there than under Memorial Drive.
Interestingly, the DCR waived an argument they had previously used. They previously claimed they could not put staging under Memorial Drive because it would be used by the contractor repairing BU Bridge sidewalks.
First of all, there is plenty of additional room there for a second contractor.
Secondly, the BU Bridge project is now being staged so that it will not be done simultaneously with the sidewalk project.
The staging would destroy EXACTLY an area south of the Memorial Drive on ramp which the sidewalk project had previously promised to destroy.
Apparently, the DCR has decided the sidewalk project is inadequate excuse for destroying that area and is using this excuse.
Eyeballing the two sites on Google Maps provides the rapid analysis that the level of this flat out lie is simply incredible. Eyeballing the two sites indicates that the space under Memorial Drive is something like four to eight times as large as the area they propose to destroy in the nesting area.
Flat out lies, business as usual from the DCR.
Friday, October 17, 2008
"Let them move and come back"
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have just sent the following letter to the Boston University Daily Free Press. I will follow with more on the DCR meeting last night:
*********
Following up on my discussion with your reporter last night responding to the flat out lie from the DCR: Let the Charles River White Geese move and come back.
Very clearly the pattern of the DCR is killing any and all living beings on the Charles River INSOFAR AS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT and flat out lying pretty much nonstop all the way.
First of all, if the Charles River White Geese move to "some other place," the obvious result will be that the DCR will kill them because they will not be wanted where they move to.
Second of all, this is not the first time these heartless animal abusers have destroyed the habitat of the Charles River White Geese. THEY HAVE BEEN STARVING THEM since September 2004 when 90% of the habitat and pretty much 100% of their food was taken from them.
They stayed in what was not destroyed of their home. AND THEIR WORLD HAS STAYED DESTROYED.
These reprehensible bastards should do nothing until they they have restored Magazine Beach to the Charles River White Geese.
The bizarre wall of introduced vegetation should come down. The mudpit which was just created should be returned to normal GREEN state, not bizarre chemicals coming from the usual bunch of flat out liars who claim to be green.
The casual, heartless ongoing destruction of the Charles River White Geese is an excellent example of man destroying our world.
"Where did all the animals of our world go? All we did was destroy everywhere they could live!!! We didn't harm them. We just destroyed their world!"
Key in that destruction is holier than thou hypocrite Boston University. Key in that destruction is nine holier than thou hypocrites from the Cambridge City Council. Key in that destruction is holier than thou hypocrite Representative Walz. Key in that destruction is holier than thou hypocrite Representative Wolf. Key in that destruction is holier than thou hypocrite Governor Patrick. Key in that destruction is former City Councilor (who voted for this outrage) holier than thou hypocrite Senator Anthony Galluccio. Key in that destruction is another former Cambridge City Councilor who voted for this outrage and is now a holier than thou hypocrite anchoring on NECN.
What is being heartlessly done to the animals of the Charles River is an excellent example of man destroying our world.
What advantage?
The walling off of their food at Magazine Beach was done for a bizarre wall of bushes that nobody can see any advantage in and which directly violates the supposed Charles River Master Plan which calls for a lawn to the Charles at Magazine Beach. The killing of the rest of their food in 2004 was casually done by building a plastic wall across from the Hyatt blocking access to that grass from the Charles River with no meaningful benefit.
The DCR claims to want water related uses on the Charles River. The DCR and the Cambridge hypocrites loudly proclaim the flat out lie that they are GREEN. That mudpit just created at Magazine Beach has no value except to destroy GREEN maintenance.
And the heartless hypocrites who call themselves our leaders and our servants destroy our world piece by piece spouting out non stop lies as they go.
I have just sent the following letter to the Boston University Daily Free Press. I will follow with more on the DCR meeting last night:
*********
Following up on my discussion with your reporter last night responding to the flat out lie from the DCR: Let the Charles River White Geese move and come back.
Very clearly the pattern of the DCR is killing any and all living beings on the Charles River INSOFAR AS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT and flat out lying pretty much nonstop all the way.
First of all, if the Charles River White Geese move to "some other place," the obvious result will be that the DCR will kill them because they will not be wanted where they move to.
Second of all, this is not the first time these heartless animal abusers have destroyed the habitat of the Charles River White Geese. THEY HAVE BEEN STARVING THEM since September 2004 when 90% of the habitat and pretty much 100% of their food was taken from them.
They stayed in what was not destroyed of their home. AND THEIR WORLD HAS STAYED DESTROYED.
These reprehensible bastards should do nothing until they they have restored Magazine Beach to the Charles River White Geese.
The bizarre wall of introduced vegetation should come down. The mudpit which was just created should be returned to normal GREEN state, not bizarre chemicals coming from the usual bunch of flat out liars who claim to be green.
The casual, heartless ongoing destruction of the Charles River White Geese is an excellent example of man destroying our world.
"Where did all the animals of our world go? All we did was destroy everywhere they could live!!! We didn't harm them. We just destroyed their world!"
Key in that destruction is holier than thou hypocrite Boston University. Key in that destruction is nine holier than thou hypocrites from the Cambridge City Council. Key in that destruction is holier than thou hypocrite Representative Walz. Key in that destruction is holier than thou hypocrite Representative Wolf. Key in that destruction is holier than thou hypocrite Governor Patrick. Key in that destruction is former City Councilor (who voted for this outrage) holier than thou hypocrite Senator Anthony Galluccio. Key in that destruction is another former Cambridge City Councilor who voted for this outrage and is now a holier than thou hypocrite anchoring on NECN.
What is being heartlessly done to the animals of the Charles River is an excellent example of man destroying our world.
What advantage?
The walling off of their food at Magazine Beach was done for a bizarre wall of bushes that nobody can see any advantage in and which directly violates the supposed Charles River Master Plan which calls for a lawn to the Charles at Magazine Beach. The killing of the rest of their food in 2004 was casually done by building a plastic wall across from the Hyatt blocking access to that grass from the Charles River with no meaningful benefit.
The DCR claims to want water related uses on the Charles River. The DCR and the Cambridge hypocrites loudly proclaim the flat out lie that they are GREEN. That mudpit just created at Magazine Beach has no value except to destroy GREEN maintenance.
And the heartless hypocrites who call themselves our leaders and our servants destroy our world piece by piece spouting out non stop lies as they go.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Well Deserved Firings, A Letter to an Environmentally Destructive Governor
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I just left the following message for Governor Patrick at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us. Given Governor Patrick's record of environmental destruction on the Charles River, it probably likely that this suggestion will not be implemented.
*********
Your announcement of budget cuts should be an opportunity to rid the DCR of people who are not fit to manage the environment and who have a record of flat out lying to achieve their goals.
The heartless attacks on animals on Charles River include four years plus of promises of "do not intend to harm."
Corsi explained how this promise fits his heartless starving of the Charles River White Geese as part of the strikingly bizarre and ongoing destruction of the environment in the area of the BU Bridge: Corsi said IN PUBLIC that starving the Charles River White Geese does not harm them.
Julia O'Brien, the woman who headed "planning" for the DCR flatly and simply has contempt for the natural environment. She simply has no business in a planning capacity.
Any and all people associated in any way with the ongoing destruction of protective vegetation on the banks of the Charles River are unfit for their jobs, particularly the Charles River Conservancy which is happily destroying and destroying, but also who ever is doing the current work east of the BU Bridge in Boston. Casual and bizarre destruction of protective vegetation to the ground.
Chop down the bizarre wall of vegetation installed at Magazine Beach.
Your people explained walling off Magazine Beach from providing animal feed and for swimming as helping swimming. The usual flat out lie. Native vegetation protecting migrating birds is routinely destroyed. The native protective vegetation should be protected.
This bizarre stuff should be dumped.
The outrage ongoing at Magazine Beach should be ended. Grass should be sown. POISONS should be barred.
Plans should be ended to destroy what little vegetation has not been destroyed between the BU Boathouse and the BU Bridge as part of needless destruction in the BU Bridge work. The place should be reseeded to neutralize five years of destruction, not further destroyed.
Staging for BU Bridge reconstruction should be under Memorial Drive AS IS BEING DONE WITH THE SIDEWALK WORK.
The beautiful animals which your government has heartlessly starved should be protected in the BU Bridge project, not shoved into the ground as your plans call for.
You are currently timing your projects to do maximum environmental harm.
The plans should be phased to do exactly the opposite.
After firing a bunch of people who are unfit to manage the environment.
I just left the following message for Governor Patrick at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us. Given Governor Patrick's record of environmental destruction on the Charles River, it probably likely that this suggestion will not be implemented.
*********
Your announcement of budget cuts should be an opportunity to rid the DCR of people who are not fit to manage the environment and who have a record of flat out lying to achieve their goals.
The heartless attacks on animals on Charles River include four years plus of promises of "do not intend to harm."
Corsi explained how this promise fits his heartless starving of the Charles River White Geese as part of the strikingly bizarre and ongoing destruction of the environment in the area of the BU Bridge: Corsi said IN PUBLIC that starving the Charles River White Geese does not harm them.
Julia O'Brien, the woman who headed "planning" for the DCR flatly and simply has contempt for the natural environment. She simply has no business in a planning capacity.
Any and all people associated in any way with the ongoing destruction of protective vegetation on the banks of the Charles River are unfit for their jobs, particularly the Charles River Conservancy which is happily destroying and destroying, but also who ever is doing the current work east of the BU Bridge in Boston. Casual and bizarre destruction of protective vegetation to the ground.
Chop down the bizarre wall of vegetation installed at Magazine Beach.
Your people explained walling off Magazine Beach from providing animal feed and for swimming as helping swimming. The usual flat out lie. Native vegetation protecting migrating birds is routinely destroyed. The native protective vegetation should be protected.
This bizarre stuff should be dumped.
The outrage ongoing at Magazine Beach should be ended. Grass should be sown. POISONS should be barred.
Plans should be ended to destroy what little vegetation has not been destroyed between the BU Boathouse and the BU Bridge as part of needless destruction in the BU Bridge work. The place should be reseeded to neutralize five years of destruction, not further destroyed.
Staging for BU Bridge reconstruction should be under Memorial Drive AS IS BEING DONE WITH THE SIDEWALK WORK.
The beautiful animals which your government has heartlessly starved should be protected in the BU Bridge project, not shoved into the ground as your plans call for.
You are currently timing your projects to do maximum environmental harm.
The plans should be phased to do exactly the opposite.
After firing a bunch of people who are unfit to manage the environment.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Visibility 367, October 15, 2008, Nice People, Distinction among baddies
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Magazine Beach Hill.
2. Visibility.
3. Distinction among the bad guys.
1. Magazine Beach Hill.
On the way to the Destroyed Nesting Area, I stopped off at the hill above Magazine Beach and gave leaflets to people there.
One gentleman who was playing with a dog read the leaflet and simply started loudly exclaiming negatively.
2. Visibility.
In the visibility, people were as nice as ever. One lady stood out there as well. She was a Jewish woman who explained that she could not take the flier because of the High Holy Days, but asked me where she could find us on the web.
It is very much normal for people to be shocked to learn that the bizarre wall of vegetation blocking off Magazine Beach from the Charles River was PAID to be installed.
3. Distinction among the bad guys.
Both our flier and the link toward the top of this blog provide the same names to contact and the same contact information, with one exception.
I have just added Governor Patrick to the top of the list on this site and hope that we will add him to the fliers.
The reality is that, as reprehensible as the Cambridge Pols UNIFORMLY are, Governor Patrick is responsible and his organization is even worse than the Cambridge Pols.
The outrages are occurring on state land. Governor Patrick handled Cambridge's money. Governor Patrick employs the reprehensible bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and Recreation who are ongoing in their destruction of the environment and of our world's living beings. We have repeatedly objected about this outrage to Governor Patrick. We have been ignored.
Massive cuts are going on. Gross irresponsibility in environmental destruction is accelerating under Governor Patrick's "leadership." BU Bridge reconstruction is structured to destroy living beings as much as they can get away with and destroys what little ground vegetation the DCR has not destroyed between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. The massiveness of the destruction is very much needless and simply piles irresponsibility upon irresponsibility.
Nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors are listed because of their shared guilt. Even if they did not participate in the actual vote, they have been on the council long enough ignoring our objections that they clearly share the guilt.
The newest member, Samuel Seidel, voted for this outrage as a member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. A link can also be found on this blog to his public comments in which he brags that the heartless environmental destruction in which the Cambridge Pols are guilty is a new form of environmentalism.
Two names, however, should have flags: School Committee Member Marc McGovern and State Representative Walz.
McGovern has twice written letters to the Cambridge Chronicle bragging about this outrage. The second time, he was joined by Walz. The nine city councilors are vile and lying about how vile they are. Walz and McGovern have bragged about their reprehensible acts.
1. Magazine Beach Hill.
2. Visibility.
3. Distinction among the bad guys.
1. Magazine Beach Hill.
On the way to the Destroyed Nesting Area, I stopped off at the hill above Magazine Beach and gave leaflets to people there.
One gentleman who was playing with a dog read the leaflet and simply started loudly exclaiming negatively.
2. Visibility.
In the visibility, people were as nice as ever. One lady stood out there as well. She was a Jewish woman who explained that she could not take the flier because of the High Holy Days, but asked me where she could find us on the web.
It is very much normal for people to be shocked to learn that the bizarre wall of vegetation blocking off Magazine Beach from the Charles River was PAID to be installed.
3. Distinction among the bad guys.
Both our flier and the link toward the top of this blog provide the same names to contact and the same contact information, with one exception.
I have just added Governor Patrick to the top of the list on this site and hope that we will add him to the fliers.
The reality is that, as reprehensible as the Cambridge Pols UNIFORMLY are, Governor Patrick is responsible and his organization is even worse than the Cambridge Pols.
The outrages are occurring on state land. Governor Patrick handled Cambridge's money. Governor Patrick employs the reprehensible bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and Recreation who are ongoing in their destruction of the environment and of our world's living beings. We have repeatedly objected about this outrage to Governor Patrick. We have been ignored.
Massive cuts are going on. Gross irresponsibility in environmental destruction is accelerating under Governor Patrick's "leadership." BU Bridge reconstruction is structured to destroy living beings as much as they can get away with and destroys what little ground vegetation the DCR has not destroyed between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. The massiveness of the destruction is very much needless and simply piles irresponsibility upon irresponsibility.
Nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors are listed because of their shared guilt. Even if they did not participate in the actual vote, they have been on the council long enough ignoring our objections that they clearly share the guilt.
The newest member, Samuel Seidel, voted for this outrage as a member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. A link can also be found on this blog to his public comments in which he brags that the heartless environmental destruction in which the Cambridge Pols are guilty is a new form of environmentalism.
Two names, however, should have flags: School Committee Member Marc McGovern and State Representative Walz.
McGovern has twice written letters to the Cambridge Chronicle bragging about this outrage. The second time, he was joined by Walz. The nine city councilors are vile and lying about how vile they are. Walz and McGovern have bragged about their reprehensible acts.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Visibility 366, Real People Are Shocked at the Hypocrisy of the Fake Green Activists
Bob La Trémouille reports
Nine hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council spend a lot of time lying that they are pro-environment. Their organizations and the City Manager's organization reinforces this outrageous lie.
During visibility 366, it was nice, as usual, to be talking with decent people who are shocked by the perfidy of these reprehensible people.
Nine hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council spend a lot of time lying that they are pro-environment. Their organizations and the City Manager's organization reinforces this outrageous lie.
During visibility 366, it was nice, as usual, to be talking with decent people who are shocked by the perfidy of these reprehensible people.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Visibility 365, October 9, 2008
Bob leafletted late afternoon with good response.
Marily leafletted during the evening rush. Her response was so good she ran out of fliers.
Marily leafletted during the evening rush. Her response was so good she ran out of fliers.
What You Can Do
This report was updated on December 21, 2010.
Workers, telephoning / writing and money are key.
We need leafleters, especially at the BU Bridge, but also at key meetings. Please contact Bob at 617-491-7181 or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Money for the fliers is crucial. We do not need much, but we do need a few hundred dollars for materials and other organizing costs. Please send contributions to:
Friends of the White Geese
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139.
Our Financial Director is Ellen Schloss, 978-362-8786, birdimom@comcast.net.
These contributions are NOT tax deductible.
Contact Information for people to contact:
President Barack Obama needs to be contacted because millions of Obama stimulus dollars are being requested for destruction of hundreds of healthy trees between the BU Boathouse and the Longfellow Bridge, PLUS being used for destruction of even more goose food across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
His email contact form is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/. His telephone number is: 202-456-6213.
Governor Deval Patrick is at the heart of this situation on the state side. His managers do not merit attention. His own contact information is:
Email form: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us
888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.
It is pointless to contact the Cambridge City Manager. It may be useful to contact the Cambridge Conservation Commission although its members are the Manager's appointees. (One former appointee in a different city agency has won a $4.5M judgment against the City Manager for his retaliation against her when he found her work displeasing. The judge in that case, Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, referred to the Manager's acts as "reprehensible." Cambridge has filed a Notice of Appeal.)
The Cambridge Conservation Commission may be reached by e-mail:
Director Jennifer Wright, jwright@CambridgeMA.GOV; telephone: 617-349-4680.
The Cambridge City Council and other city officials and their supporters dismiss concerns about these environmental outrages to the extent they comment at all. 2009 is, however, an election year and voters need to know where the candidates stand.
Incumbent City Councillors are:
Mayor David P. Maher
mailto:dmaher@cambridgema.gov
617-547-7219 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis
mailto:hdavis@cambridgema.gov
617-547-0877 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Leland Cheung,
mailto:LCheung@cambridgema.gov
617-491-2692 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Marjorie C. Decker
mailto:mdecker@cambridgema.gov
617-349-4280 (W)
Craig A. Kelley
mailto:ckelley@cambridgema.gov
617-354-8353 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Kenneth E. Reeves
mailto:kreeves@cambridgema.gov
617-661-1635 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Samuel Seidel
mailto:sseidel@cambridgema.gov
617-547-1067 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
E. Denise Simmons
mailto:dsimmons@cambridgema.gov
617-491-7435 (H), 617-349-4321 (W)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.
Also State Representative
mailto:TimToomey@aol.com
617-576-6483 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Cambridge School Committee incumbent:
Marc McGovern
617-945-1866 (H)
State Representatives:
Martha M. Walz
Rep.MartyWalz@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2460
Alice K. Wolf
Rep.AliceWolf@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2460
State Senators:
Sal N. DiDomenico
Sal.DiDomenico@state.ma.us
617-722-1650
Anthony Petruccelli
mailto:Anthony.Petruccelli@state.ma.us
617-722-1634
Rationale behind this list may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/visibility-367-october-15-2008-nice.html in section 3, Distinction among the bad guys.
It is our opinion that, in order to end the attacks on the Charles River, the Cambridge City Manager must be fired. The Cambridge City Council has a very strong court opinion calling the City Manager “reprehensible” for civil rights violations. We have posted that opinion at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and have a YouTube analysis at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
Thank you in advance for whatever you can do.
Workers, telephoning / writing and money are key.
We need leafleters, especially at the BU Bridge, but also at key meetings. Please contact Bob at 617-491-7181 or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Money for the fliers is crucial. We do not need much, but we do need a few hundred dollars for materials and other organizing costs. Please send contributions to:
Friends of the White Geese
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139.
Our Financial Director is Ellen Schloss, 978-362-8786, birdimom@comcast.net.
These contributions are NOT tax deductible.
Contact Information for people to contact:
President Barack Obama needs to be contacted because millions of Obama stimulus dollars are being requested for destruction of hundreds of healthy trees between the BU Boathouse and the Longfellow Bridge, PLUS being used for destruction of even more goose food across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
His email contact form is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/. His telephone number is: 202-456-6213.
Governor Deval Patrick is at the heart of this situation on the state side. His managers do not merit attention. His own contact information is:
Email form: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us
888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.
It is pointless to contact the Cambridge City Manager. It may be useful to contact the Cambridge Conservation Commission although its members are the Manager's appointees. (One former appointee in a different city agency has won a $4.5M judgment against the City Manager for his retaliation against her when he found her work displeasing. The judge in that case, Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, referred to the Manager's acts as "reprehensible." Cambridge has filed a Notice of Appeal.)
The Cambridge Conservation Commission may be reached by e-mail:
Director Jennifer Wright, jwright@CambridgeMA.GOV; telephone: 617-349-4680.
The Cambridge City Council and other city officials and their supporters dismiss concerns about these environmental outrages to the extent they comment at all. 2009 is, however, an election year and voters need to know where the candidates stand.
Incumbent City Councillors are:
Mayor David P. Maher
mailto:dmaher@cambridgema.gov
617-547-7219 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis
mailto:hdavis@cambridgema.gov
617-547-0877 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Leland Cheung,
mailto:LCheung@cambridgema.gov
617-491-2692 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Marjorie C. Decker
mailto:mdecker@cambridgema.gov
617-349-4280 (W)
Craig A. Kelley
mailto:ckelley@cambridgema.gov
617-354-8353 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Kenneth E. Reeves
mailto:kreeves@cambridgema.gov
617-661-1635 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Samuel Seidel
mailto:sseidel@cambridgema.gov
617-547-1067 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
E. Denise Simmons
mailto:dsimmons@cambridgema.gov
617-491-7435 (H), 617-349-4321 (W)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.
Also State Representative
mailto:TimToomey@aol.com
617-576-6483 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Cambridge School Committee incumbent:
Marc McGovern
617-945-1866 (H)
State Representatives:
Martha M. Walz
Rep.MartyWalz@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2460
Alice K. Wolf
Rep.AliceWolf@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2460
State Senators:
Sal N. DiDomenico
Sal.DiDomenico@state.ma.us
617-722-1650
Anthony Petruccelli
mailto:Anthony.Petruccelli@state.ma.us
617-722-1634
Rationale behind this list may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/visibility-367-october-15-2008-nice.html in section 3, Distinction among the bad guys.
It is our opinion that, in order to end the attacks on the Charles River, the Cambridge City Manager must be fired. The Cambridge City Council has a very strong court opinion calling the City Manager “reprehensible” for civil rights violations. We have posted that opinion at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and have a YouTube analysis at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
Thank you in advance for whatever you can do.
Archie Mazmanian on the Geese and the Urban Ring
Archie Mazmanian left us the following comment which led to the report after it.
I put up two more comments (7 and 8) on the current Urban Ring installment at www.onbrookline.com that should be of interest, especially #8 final paragraph on your subject.
From http://www.onbrookline.com/on-brookline-previous-columns/the-urban-ring-facing-darker-days/, comment 8:
Archie Mazmanian on October 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm:
ACADEMIC HONKING ON THE BOSTON SIDE OF THE CHARLES?
While a small gaggle of White Geese being deprived of their habitat on the Cambridge side of the Charles River at the BU Bridge are honking to get the attention of residents interested in preserving what little fauna and flora remain in this urban area, a battle is going on for what I term the “Boston Bank of the Charles River Beanpot Tourney” featuring Harvard University and Boston University that may at some point break out into a hockey game without ice (unless the Charles is frozen over). While Harvard has long been ensconced on the Boston side with its Business School, this was far enough away from the BU Bridge and the BU campus as to be tolerable to the latter. But then Harvard trumped even BU institutional blockbusting of past years with its “Harvard’s Got A Secret” acquisition of many acres in Allston, with plans to expand its campus there.
This was bad enough, especially since the Harvard elephant’s trunk got under the Urban Ring Phase 2 tent and has overwhelmed and complicated Phase 2 routes in the area of the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue that would provide connections to the Harvard affiliated LMA.
For years, BU has envisioned expanding its campus westerly to and including portions of the Beacon Yards when available for development. But BU never closed the deal with CSX, assuming it tried and had the financial wherewithal. So in came Harvard and acquired the underlying land of the Beacon Yards, subject of course to CSX easements for rail, and perhaps other, transportation. As noted in an earlier comment on this installment of the Urban Ring series, the Commonwealth and CSX have been negotiating some sort of a deal. Harvard’s involvement in such negotiations has not been disclosed. It is doubtful that BU would have standing to participate in them. So it would appear that BU further westward expansion (assuming it had the funds) would require the largess of Harvard. There is so much acreage potential involved that Harvard could probably accommodate BU with a few acres, with an appropriate quid pro quo, of course. (Business is business, even – especially – in academia.)
As time goes on, we’ll learn more about the CSX negotiations as well as Harvard’s plans for its Allston campus and the potential development of the Beacon Yards, perhaps comparable to the Prudential Center as suggested in an earlier comment. Meantime, BU may be between the rock (BU Bridge) and the hard place (Beacon Yards) as the Phase 2 route to accommodate Harvard may disrupt BU’s West campus.
For the time being, BU seems to be quiet but if events develop to accommodate Harvard, then the honking on the Boston side of the Charles may overwhelm that of the White Geese on the Cambridge side.
By the way, drivers on Memorial Drive should proceed with care in the area of the BU Bridge to protect and accommodate the White Geese crossing between their habitat and new feeding grounds forced upon them by the Commonwealth and Cambridge. In fact, give a couple of honks of your horns in support of the White Geese of Cambridge; I’ll be listening here in Brookline just across the Charles. Also, the Cambridge Conservation Commission has rescheduled a hearing relative to the BU Bridge that should address White Geese issues on November 17th. Maybe we can start up a fund for “Make Way for Goslings.”
I put up two more comments (7 and 8) on the current Urban Ring installment at www.onbrookline.com that should be of interest, especially #8 final paragraph on your subject.
From http://www.onbrookline.com/on-brookline-previous-columns/the-urban-ring-facing-darker-days/, comment 8:
Archie Mazmanian on October 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm:
ACADEMIC HONKING ON THE BOSTON SIDE OF THE CHARLES?
While a small gaggle of White Geese being deprived of their habitat on the Cambridge side of the Charles River at the BU Bridge are honking to get the attention of residents interested in preserving what little fauna and flora remain in this urban area, a battle is going on for what I term the “Boston Bank of the Charles River Beanpot Tourney” featuring Harvard University and Boston University that may at some point break out into a hockey game without ice (unless the Charles is frozen over). While Harvard has long been ensconced on the Boston side with its Business School, this was far enough away from the BU Bridge and the BU campus as to be tolerable to the latter. But then Harvard trumped even BU institutional blockbusting of past years with its “Harvard’s Got A Secret” acquisition of many acres in Allston, with plans to expand its campus there.
This was bad enough, especially since the Harvard elephant’s trunk got under the Urban Ring Phase 2 tent and has overwhelmed and complicated Phase 2 routes in the area of the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue that would provide connections to the Harvard affiliated LMA.
For years, BU has envisioned expanding its campus westerly to and including portions of the Beacon Yards when available for development. But BU never closed the deal with CSX, assuming it tried and had the financial wherewithal. So in came Harvard and acquired the underlying land of the Beacon Yards, subject of course to CSX easements for rail, and perhaps other, transportation. As noted in an earlier comment on this installment of the Urban Ring series, the Commonwealth and CSX have been negotiating some sort of a deal. Harvard’s involvement in such negotiations has not been disclosed. It is doubtful that BU would have standing to participate in them. So it would appear that BU further westward expansion (assuming it had the funds) would require the largess of Harvard. There is so much acreage potential involved that Harvard could probably accommodate BU with a few acres, with an appropriate quid pro quo, of course. (Business is business, even – especially – in academia.)
As time goes on, we’ll learn more about the CSX negotiations as well as Harvard’s plans for its Allston campus and the potential development of the Beacon Yards, perhaps comparable to the Prudential Center as suggested in an earlier comment. Meantime, BU may be between the rock (BU Bridge) and the hard place (Beacon Yards) as the Phase 2 route to accommodate Harvard may disrupt BU’s West campus.
For the time being, BU seems to be quiet but if events develop to accommodate Harvard, then the honking on the Boston side of the Charles may overwhelm that of the White Geese on the Cambridge side.
By the way, drivers on Memorial Drive should proceed with care in the area of the BU Bridge to protect and accommodate the White Geese crossing between their habitat and new feeding grounds forced upon them by the Commonwealth and Cambridge. In fact, give a couple of honks of your horns in support of the White Geese of Cambridge; I’ll be listening here in Brookline just across the Charles. Also, the Cambridge Conservation Commission has rescheduled a hearing relative to the BU Bridge that should address White Geese issues on November 17th. Maybe we can start up a fund for “Make Way for Goslings.”
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Visibility 364. Destruction of Magazine Beach: Reports by Bob La Tremouille and Marilyn Wellons
1. Visibility.
2. White Geese cross the street.
3. Marilyn Wellons on her discussion with Councillor Kelley.
Bob La Trémouille reports about leafleting at the BU Bridge against Cambridge's destruction of Magazine Beach, now underway. Marilyn Wellons reports about her conversation with Councillor Craig Kelley on the same topic.
Bob La Tremouille:
1. Visibility.
I did a visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area for an hour or two this afternoon.
People were very concerned and very interested. They would drive by with their hands out of their windows for fliers.
A couple of people who took fliers yesterday stopped by for further questions.
Clearly, a lot of support.
2. White Geese cross the street.
A little later than half way through the visibility, I looked back and saw a large number of geese crossing the ramp to Memorial Drive from grass under Memorial Drive to the Destroyed Nesting Area.
The state bureacrats and nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors have taken almost all their food away from them. So they brave crossing an on ramp to Memorial Drive to get to luscious grass under Memorial Drive.
They are excellently responsible pedestrians. They will stand on the side of the road and stand on the side of the road until they think it is safe to cross. Trouble is that when they cross, they walk like geese. This time, there were quite a few of them. So I wandered behind them, on the grass under Memorial Drive, and sushed them to move them faster. One straggler got separated. I sushed him, and he half flew.
And through all this, the drivers patiently waited because they love the Charles River White Geese. The drivers are normal people. They have no resemblance to the heartless people who constitute the Cambridge pols.
3. Marilyn Wellons on her discussion with Councillor Kelley.
2. White Geese cross the street.
3. Marilyn Wellons on her discussion with Councillor Kelley.
Bob La Trémouille reports about leafleting at the BU Bridge against Cambridge's destruction of Magazine Beach, now underway. Marilyn Wellons reports about her conversation with Councillor Craig Kelley on the same topic.
Bob La Tremouille:
1. Visibility.
I did a visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area for an hour or two this afternoon.
People were very concerned and very interested. They would drive by with their hands out of their windows for fliers.
A couple of people who took fliers yesterday stopped by for further questions.
Clearly, a lot of support.
2. White Geese cross the street.
A little later than half way through the visibility, I looked back and saw a large number of geese crossing the ramp to Memorial Drive from grass under Memorial Drive to the Destroyed Nesting Area.
The state bureacrats and nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors have taken almost all their food away from them. So they brave crossing an on ramp to Memorial Drive to get to luscious grass under Memorial Drive.
They are excellently responsible pedestrians. They will stand on the side of the road and stand on the side of the road until they think it is safe to cross. Trouble is that when they cross, they walk like geese. This time, there were quite a few of them. So I wandered behind them, on the grass under Memorial Drive, and sushed them to move them faster. One straggler got separated. I sushed him, and he half flew.
And through all this, the drivers patiently waited because they love the Charles River White Geese. The drivers are normal people. They have no resemblance to the heartless people who constitute the Cambridge pols.
3. Marilyn Wellons on her discussion with Councillor Kelley.
So now is the time for all of us to let the Council know directly that the project must stop immediately:
It is a crime against the environment that destroys wetlands and will undo $60 million spent so far to clean up the Charles River.
It destroys the habitat of migrating as well as resident waterfowl, including the Charles River White Geese.
Please contact the Cambridge City Council to register your strong objection to this project:
491-7435 (H) 349-4321 (W)
Vice Mayor Brian Murphy mailto:bmurphy@cambridgema.gov
492-7426 (H) 349-4280 (W)
(617) 547-0877 (H) (617) 349-4280 (W)
(617) 349-4280 (W)
(617) 354-8353 (H) (617) 349-4280 (W)
David P. Maher mailto:dmaher@cambridgema.gov%29
547-7219 (H) 617-349-4280 (W)
(617) 661-1635 (H) (617) 349-4280 (W)
Sam Seidel mailto:sseidel@cambridgema.gov
617-547-1067 (home) 617-349-4280 (work)
(617) 576-6483 (H) (617) 349-4280 (W)
Marilyn Wellons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)