Bob La Trémouille Reports.
On January 29, 2009, I sent the following letter to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with copies to: The Governor, The Department of Conservation and Recreation, former Transportation Secretary Francis Salvucci and the Cambridge City Council.
The letter has some oddities in it because it is a patchwork. It concerns the fake meeting of January 27, 2009 concerning BU Bridge repairs but the letter is an expansion of my letter of November 19, 2008 to the Governor concerning the first fake meeting on the subject. An extended portion of this letter is a copy of part of my ongoing draft comments concerning the Urban Ring environmental document.
************
RE: BU Bridge Reconstruction Project
Gentlemen:
The bulk of this letter is based on my letter of November 19, 2008 to Governor Deval Patrick, with one addition.
Tuesday evening, January 27, 2009, I attended what claimed to be a public meeting on the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project.
This was one of three recent meetings concerning construction in the BU Bridge area. Only one, reconstruction of the bridge over Memorial Drive to Magazine Beach, is environmentally neutral. Only that one is being held in the neighborhood.
The first meeting on BU Bridge reconstruction was conducted in response to a request by the Cambridge Conservation Commission in response to the fact that the environmental destruction is occurring in Cambridge. That meeting was conducted in Boston on the Boston University campus.
A follow on meeting in the neighborhood was promised.
The follow on meeting was conducted combined a totally different project and located in Kendall Square, far from the destruction.
The total lack of environmental comment by the speakers and the absence of anybody other than me in the room concerned about the BU Bridge area emphasized a clear agreement among residents and bureaucrats that the meeting was being conducted in bad faith.
There is nothing surprising about this, this incident of bad faith repeats a decade of bad faith in the DCR’s ongoing fight to destroy the environment of the Charles River.
I demand that the DCR be obliged to at least go through the motions of being a decent, responsible organization.
A meeting should be conducted in the neighborhood.
Notwithstanding that, Secretary Salvucci is to be commended for repeating his advice that the project be delayed to coordinate it with related work on the Boston side.
I think the project should be delayed to reverse damage on the Cambridge side as stated below.
I find it unlikely that the project will be delayed because, more than anything else, it is the goal of the DCR to destroy the natural environment on the Charles River.
My prior letter, with one addition to the text and an added addendum:
************
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.
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.
9. Change the drainage to the Cambridge side so that it goes into the existing Memorial Drive drainage. The complicated system IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ANIMAL HABITAT is just another technique to destroy the natural environment for which the DCR has such great contempt. Just another piece of bad faith.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
ADDENDA:
1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”
2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.
3. Example of “independent activity.”
4. Response to DCR / City of Cambridge Characterization of the Charles River White Geese.
A. Introductory.
B. Wide recognition of value.
C. Other residents and visitors.
D. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.
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.
4. Response to DCR / City of Cambridge Characterization of the Charles River White Geese.
A. Introductory.
Most valuable among the Charles River residents and very popular are the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.
The standard insults tossed at the Charles River White Geese reaffirm the fact that heartless animal abusers sound a lot like heartless wife beaters when discussing their victims. The fact that the DCR has spent nearly a decade lying that the DCR has no intent to harm them is very strong proof that the insults as well are lies.
The gaggle consists mostly of Emden Geese and White China Geese with a limited population of Toulouse Geese / Toulouse descendents. Some of the White China descendants bear vestigial Brown China markings.
For most of the past 30 years, they have lived in a habitat of about a mile east and west on the north side of the Charles River centering on the BU Bridge. Within that habitat, they did a minimigration, living in other parts of the habitat for 9 months of the year, and returning to their nesting area in the spring for mating and rearing of the young. The Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese is the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side.
They are a unique population. They are a tourist attraction which surprises people who encounter them. People go out of their way to visit them from various Boston suburbs. They are popular with local commuters who enjoy their beauty. If properly publicized they would be an even more valuable part of the Charles River world.
These are free animals who have survived on their own with very little human assistance for nearly 30 years until Cambridge and the DCR started their ongoing attempts to destroy them.
The uniqueness of a gaggle which has lived in this wild area surrounded by civilization for nearly three decades cannot be understated.
The DCR has noted the importance of the Charles River White Geese by the DCR’s repeated and flat out lies over the past ten years that the DCR had no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. The DCR defines starving the Charles River White Geese as not harming them. The DCR defines as taking the most environmentally destructive possible alternatives in various projects as not hurting them.
The DCR has irresponsibly confined the Charles River White Geese to the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side, directly impacted by Grand Junction plans. The statement that these proposals (page 5-67, section 5.7.2, Environment Consequences) “would not result in adverse impacts” is a knowing lie. The characterization of this important gaggle as “low value” is similarly a knowing lie.
B. Wide recognition of value.
The beauty of these excellent and unique animals may be viewed at the follow sites. Their importance, their very presence, and the presence of many other animals, may be recognized through the fact that this list includes but a portion of the references obtained through Google. I offer this information and these citations in response to the continued lies coming out of the DCR:
· The Charles River White Geese website: http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org.
· The Charles River White Geese blog: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com.
· Historic Pages Photo Appreciation, proving historical analysis dating back to 1989: http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.
· Della Huff’s Show on goslings: http://www.pbase.com/dellybean/goslings
· Roy Bercaw: Visit to the Charles River White Geese, June 16, 2007: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/charles_river_white_geese_June_16_2007.html.
· Roy Bercaw, A day at the Goose Meadow, April 2000 (note date in framing portion differs from the date in the video): http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends_of_charles_river_white_geese.html
· Cambridge Candle, January-February 1999: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html
· Zip Docs 02139, documentary about Charles River White Geese: http://cctvcambridge.org/node/2037
· MOVIE: “White Geese” by Akai Hoto, on deviantART: http://akaihato.deviantart.com/art/MOVIE_quot_White_Geese_quot_25167453
· Pictures taken along the Charles, 2004.07.16: http://www.aq.org/js/gallery/2004.07.16_charles/
· Freeman A. Report: 07/22/01, Charles River Wildlife Killings, The Charles River White Geese: http://www.freemanz.com/fzdc/political/01_07_22/index.htm
· Radio Boston, The Charles River (photos of the White Geese): http://www.flickr.com/groups/782470@N21/pool/with/2566129288/
· Charles River White Geese, YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM
· Photos of the Charles River White Geese, Linden Tea: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linden_tea/2196474800/
· iNaturalist.org report, observations by Tueda: http://inaturalist.org/observations/185
· White Geese video by Amy Rothwell: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=_6983789396318540077
· Fun on Foot in America’s Cities by Warwick Ford, Nola Ford: The Cambridge White Geese greet visitors: http://books.google.com/books?id=gAmIj4gh_7oC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22Charles+River%22+and+%22White+Geese%22&source=bl&ots=qUMjZm1ZPN&sig=2IRf_Rnz7cnP1xX4IkEB31x9wr8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
The Grand Junction rail and bridge use would be devastating to this valuable and threatened population of animals.
I will post this letter at charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com. That will simplify your check of these URL’s.
C. Other residents and visitors.
The meadow to which the DCR in its extreme misbehavior has confined the Charles River White Geese also has included hawks, sea gulls, Canadas and various types of ducks. It is a haven for migratory waterfowl in spite of nearly ten years of DCR misbehavior.
D. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.
This ongoing pattern of lying would appear to come from the severe lack of fitness of key people in the DCR for their jobs. The mentality of these individuals is parks surrounded by cities. The seem to constantly attack and destroy living creatures in their jurisdiction under whatever guise presents itself.
These individuals have no use for any areas which are wild as opposed to urban. They are aggressively destroying the wild areas on the Charles River because the wild areas on the Charles River do not fit their preconceived and incompetent ideas.
They are very simply and aggressively unfit to manage environmentally sensitive environments because their reflexes are the reflexes of the 19th century which caused so much environmental destruction and which continue to destroy our world because these incompetents are so active in the 19th Century equivalent of environmental management.
The DCR has a goal of and actively works for the driving away or killing water fowl in the water habitats controlled by the DCR. This is in sharp contrast to responsible environmentalists who object to the ongoing destruction of areas used by and needed for the survival of migrating waterfowl.
The key DCR people are unfit for their jobs.
