1. Background.
2. Proposed letter.
3. Marilyn’s response.
1. Background.
A couple of week’s ago, I published a response by Marilyn Wellons to a front page question and answer session between the Cambridge Chronicle and the so-called Charles River Conservancy. Last week, March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle dominated its editorial page with Marilyn’s response.
I gave the bad guys a week to respond to Marilyn. I have not seen the hard copy yet. As of Thursday morning, nothing had appeared on line.
I understand this letter will be published next Thursday.
2. Proposed letter.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Some elaboration could be useful about the so called Charles River "Conservancy."
Trees whose pending destruction this group has praised number in the hundreds and are in excellent condition. Diseased trees were destroyed years ago. These trees (and hundreds more threatened in related projects) are CURRENTLY between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach on Memorial Drive.
The CRC’s highway project would decimate an excellent 105 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split in addition to wetlands and animal habitat.
The CRC conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach to cheerlead the bizarre and needless project at Magazine Beach.
A wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles has been created. It nearly totally blocks access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. Everywhere else bordering vegetation needed by migrating waterfowl is destroyed twice a year. This stuff just grows. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has bragged that this introduced wall starves the now native Charles River White Geese.
How is there to be swimming through this thicket?
The 7 acres of grass destroyed at Magazine Beach survived the better part of a century without use of poisons. The sickly stuff which has been introduced in its place requires poisons to survive. So a massive system has been substituted for playing fields to drain off the poisons needed to keep the sickly stuff from dying.
Now we have smaller playing fields to minimize the destructiveness of poisons which should not ever be dumped on the banks of the Charles.
Since 2003, almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed. Nothing has grown since. More poisons? And the CRC is the DCR’s environmental destroyer.
I have witnessed members of the Boston Conservation Commission expressing distress at the destruction of protective vegetation bordering the Charles by the CRC.
The CRC, starting in 2003, ran around poisoning the eggs of as many migratory waterfowl as it could get away with.
A very visible member of the CRC was discussed by the Boston Conservation Commission with the DCR. The commission objected to his wanton chain saw use on trees near the Charles. The DCR disowned him. To my knowledge, the CRC has not disowned him or his activities.
I condemn the CRC’s use of the word "Conservancy". The presence of "Conservancy" in its name is false and misleading. Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.
3. Marilyn’s response.
Marilyn was very favorable.
She provided a few more details about the CRC leader with the chainsaw.
He and his name have been published in the Boston Globe.
The reality is that, being active in Cambridge politics, I am forced to associate with a lot of people I simply do not consider fit to associate with. I really would rather not honor them by providing their names any more than I can help.
