Op ed on proposed sign ordinance changes compared to environmentalism.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The following letter to the editor by me was printed on line by the Cambridge Chronicle on September 13, 2010, under the heading “Cambridge Sign op-ed ‘Refreshingly Well Written’”.
It was printed in the hard copy on September 17, 2010, page 12, the editorial page. It was the middle of only three letters printed, all on the editorial page, same title. An op ed was printed two pages later. Very nice handling.
I note in brackets a typo deleted by the editor. I appreciate the correction.
The oped you printed opposing the proposed sign ordinance amendments was refreshingly well written and thought out.
The arguments I have been seeing more commonly are highly misleading.
Opposing this zoning change has been branded as “defending” the Charles River.
These self-proclaimed defenders of the Charles River certainly look like the same old environmentally destructive group, and they certainly look like they are playing yet another con game.
Loudly calling themselves “environmentalists” for initiatives which distract from their environmental destruction.
The same old group has no problems with destroying hundreds of trees on the Charles River. This group has no problems with poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach. This group has no problems with the ongoing killing off of all resident animals on the first ten miles of the Charles River. This group has no problems with decreasing the size of Magazine Beach to drain off poisons which should not be dumped there in the first place. This group has no problems with walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with bizarre introduced bushes which have no business on the Charles River. This group has no problems with heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese as part of the long series of bizarre projects on the Charles River.
But they sure do[ing] run around praising their supposed defense of the Charles River.
Thank you to the writer for a well written, informative piece.
And thanks to the writer for not making her oped part of the non stop con games in which environmental destroyers try to fool people into looking away from the Charles River and their destruction of the Charles River.
It takes reality to be an environmentalist, not shell games. In Cambridge, altogether too often, we get shell games.