1. Introduction.
2. A word from the bad guys.
3. The notice.
4. Response.
1. Introduction.
I have been passing on relevant state environmental notices a list in Cambridgeport for some time.
This is the first time anybody has responded that it is politically incorrect to wonder about somebody building in the Charles.
2. A word from the bad guys.
>In the Environmental Monitor report linked below is a listing for a Chapter 91 application in Cambridge.
>On following that posting, it turns out that MIT apparently wants to cover 13,940 square feet of the Charles River and be exempted from environmental protections in the process.
Just to clarify, here's what MIT is asking:
"Public notice is hereby given of the application by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to install and maintain approximately 13,940 square feet of floats at the MIT Sailing Pavilion located at 134 Memorial Drive in the municipality of Cambridge in and over formerly flowed tidelands of the Charles River. The proposed use of the project is to provide for docking and boating access to navigable waters and is a water dependent project."
Though I'm not sure, this may be just an extension or revision of the permit that has existed at that location for a long time. In any case, what objection could there be to this?
3. The notice.
http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2011/012611em/pn/5.pdf.
4. Response.
“In any case, what objection could there be to this?”
Last I heard, it was politically correct to be concerned about the environment of the Charles River. I have had one city councilor who rather clearly is associated apparently with the writer brag that Cambridge Pols have their own secret definition of environmentalism. According to this city councilor, it is politically incorrect to support the world’s definition of environmentalism, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Then again, there is a minor matter of the state, with the support of MIT and a lot of pols, working to destroy hundreds of Memorial Drive trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. It is politically incorrect to be concerned about this massive destruction or about the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach, or the heartless animal abuse associated with many bizarre projects.
Then again, I am told it is politically incorrect to wonder about the proposed / possible severe downgrading of Worcester/Framingham rail service.
I hear it is politically correct and pro-transportation to fight to change that service
a. from grade separate service to a South Station whose trackage is being increased in size for South Coast Rail with future connections to heavy rail subway at Yawkee / Kenmore Stations,
b. to grade crossings in Cambridge and a longer trip to North Station.
The key aspect to declaration of political correctness could be benefit to MIT.
Now, I see a pattern, a pattern which has been very much nonstop from the Cambridge pols as long as I have had the displeasure to be forced to be associated with them.
I am concerned about the world, and when I hear that it is politically incorrect to wonder about construction in the Charles because it “may be just an extension or revision”, of already destructive behavior, I have very real questions about what I am being told is political correctness.
