Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Report.
2. Ellen Schloss comments.
3. Response to Ellen.
1. Report.
Yesterday, November 10, I showed an interested person the situation with regard to the Charles River White Geese.
A lot of them were huddled under the tree where they had been hiding on the day their nesting area was destroyed. It was definitely not a spirited group.
They wandered under the trees in the mud left from the state’s destruction of ground vegetation.
Many more than usually would be were at the top of the hill toward the Grand Junction railroad tracks. This area has been unused in the past except during nesting. The ganders go up there to strut for the hens.
But there is no place else.
Another visitor produced a large plastic bag full of goodies for the Charles River White Geese. He said that local markets are quite helpful.
I have been aware of past contributions by Trader Joe’s, by the Coop in Central Square and by the wet shelter up the Grand Junction. They are good people in the world of a bad city government.
The actual numbers of the gaggle, not doing a count, would appear to be less than in the past. That is not at all surprising considering the heartless cruelty being inflicted on them.
Work, including permanent work has been done at the entrance toward the Memorial Drive / BU Bridge rotary.
This entrance was illegally created by BU and the DCR in 1999 as part of that outrage. Fencing which had kept the area wild and safe was torn open and access stairs and a ramp installed, here and a wooden stair with metal rail at the eastern end.
Marilyn Wellons had a meeting with the State Senator at that time. She complained about the destruction and mentioned that fencing had been left. She intended and wished that the fencing be put back where it had been. In front of her, the state senator got on the phone and promised that the situation would be corrected. The fencing was promptly removed.
The work commenced in 1999 with construction equipment entering the nesting area the morning BEFORE a scheduled Cambridge Conservation Committee meeting on the work. It was completed before the first day on which it could legally commence.
Boston University denied doing the 1999 work for something like six months, until the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it. Then BU started bragging about the destruction and blamed their President’s secretary for the false denials.
The work I saw yesterday was as follows:
The 1999 stair case at the rotary was barely visible, buried and hidden in construction access. The ramp created then had been totally obscured with a dirt roadway.
The sidewalk at the rotary has been widened, space taken from the roadway. The widening ends a few feet onto the on ramp so that there is a bump out at the rotary.
2. Ellen Schloss comments.
Geez Bob these Cambridge officials really suck don’t they? When will they be replaced with people that have hearts?
3. Response to Ellen.
The big problem with Cambridge officials and the state officials with whom they are in bed is that the Cambridge pols do such effective lying about themselves.
Among other things, they loudly lie that they are pro environment and fool people into thinking they would never stoop so low.
The technique is to brag about things which have next to no value and frequently are really in the wrong direction while keeping the outrages as quiet as possible.
This is combined with massive organizations, especially supposed interest groups created in concert with the City Manager’s people. These supposed interest groups give a commonly false impression that they are independent of the city. The groups normally squelch meaningful activists as much as they can, and keep quiet the outrages while publicizing the city’s “beneficial” activities.
It is a house of cards. A lot of people involved in keeping a concerned public down.
The outrage on the Charles is one of the very major weaknesses.
The fact that the City Manager should be fired in response to the decision of judge and jury in the Monteiro case is another major weakness.
The numbers are highly distressing. The only member of the city council who, in my opinion, has possible redeeming attributes is Mr. Cheung. A very major factor in this is that he has not been around long enough to earn a negative feeling. His vote on the sign changes was definitely not encouraging.
