1. Magazine Beach Walled off from the Charles River, Phase 1.
2. Prior status at Magazine Beach, the norm everywhere else on the Charles River Basin.
3. Situation at Magazine Beach between phase 1 and phase 2 destruction.
4. Situation at Magazine Beach Phase 2 destruction.
5. Current situation at Destroyed Nesting Area.
6. The lie of improved playing fields.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
The following was addressed to the Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council on August 20. Some typos have been corrected.
All of these items have never been publicly discussed or are exactly the opposite of what has been publicly discussed.
1. Magazine Beach Walled off from the Charles River, Phase 1.
This is the current status of Magazine Beach viewed from the Boston side.
Exactly ZERO public discussion has been allowed as to whether you would close off access between the playing fields and the Charles River. These bushes have grown without limit since you planted them.
The tiny opening used to be a boat dock, but you have blocked access to the boat dock from the Cambridge side.
The state’s manager has bragged that this outrage starves the Charles River White Geese by keeping them out of their home, their feeding grounds since 1981.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” conducted a media event bragging that this outrage assists swimming in the Charles.
The second picture shows the same opening from the Cambridge side. Vegetation on the Boston side is small bushes on a steep incline. The Cambridge side is flat. Obstructions to vehicle access to this light and previously unnecessary bridge can be seen just in front of the camera.
2. Prior status at Magazine Beach, the norm everywhere else on the Charles River Basin.
This is a photo of the area just to the west of Magazine Beach.
Cambridge is on the far side of the Charles River. The reddish structure appears to be the Magazine Beach pool.
At the river’s edge in Cambridge is native vegetation which is normal on the Charles River.
I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission express shock at destruction of such vegetation on the Boston side because of harm to migratory waterfowl. Destruction is commonly done by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” as agent for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
During the period the CRC has worked for the DCR pretty much all native ground vegetation between the BU Boathouse has been destroyed and does not regrow, indicating a likelihood of poisoning.
Native vegetation bordering the Charles River is commonly destroyed twice a year. The vegetation shown on the Cambridge side is a continuation of and very similar to the native vegetation at the playing fields destroyed as part of the playing fields project. The bizarre introduced wall which replaced the native vegetation at Magazine Beach is never trimmed.
The small size of the bushes on the Boston side of the Charles is clear in this photo. The wooden structure is Soldiers Field Road’s guard rail separating pedestrians and bicyclists from the bushes and from the steep incline on the Boston side on which they grow. The distance to the Charles River, horizontally, is small. Vertically, the distance is larger. The bases of the Boston trees, I should think, are a fair distance below the highway.
3. Situation at Magazine Beach between phase 1 and phase 2 destruction.
On planting the outrage blocking off Magazine Beach from the water, you left an opening at the destroyed boat dock through which the Charles River White Geese entered and fed. This photo was taken by an MWRA official in 2006.
The vegetation to the right is the status of that bizarre wall in 2006. Note that in 2006, the boat dock was not accessible. The following is an additional photo from the same event and photographer. It shows the status of that bizarre wall in 2006. The orangish items are likely the destroyed boat dock.
4. Situation at Magazine Beach Phase 2 destruction.
The Cambridge Administration and its friends were offended that the Charles River White Geese could get food by walking through the destroyed dock. In phase 2 you created a second wall to prevent entrance through the destroyed boat dock, of course never explained or even publicized. This is the current situation. All access to food is blocked.
The barriers have not been moved from the prior photo. The artificial bridge is unchanged as well. It is on the far side and left of the trash bin.
5. Current situation at Destroyed Nesting Area.
You have confined the Charles River White Geese to the area east of the BU Bridge. Your intended starvation has been prevented by volunteers feeding them.
This year you / your friends introduced bushes into the area where, for most of the last more than 30 years, the Charles River White Geese have made most of their nests.
I would suggest you compare these photos to the photos of the impenetrable wall in 2006, the second and third preceding photos.
This is also the area where the small vehicle highway is intended to go after crossing under Memorial Drive.
The grey areas look like they are intended small vehicle highways.
6. The lie of improved playing fields.
Another totally unannounced change by you came in your destruction of grass which had been in the playing fields for the better part of a century and its replacement with sickly grass which cannot survive without poisons.
You did not destroy the grass on the top of the hill to the west which is the same as the grass you casually destroyed.
The sickly stuff needs poisons to survive. You destroyed major portions of the playing fields to drain off these poisons “needed” only to keep alive sickly grass which should not have been introduced in the first place.
These are photos from 2010.
This is only part of the playing fields which you have destroyed to drain off poisons to keep alive sickly grass which should not even be there.
To look at the grass you destroyed on the playing fields, go to the hillside just to the west. You did not destroy that portion of the grass. It is still there, thriving without poisons.
The solution is simple. Stop spending money on poisons. Start spending money on the healthy grass you destroyed. When the healthy grass is returned, fill in the drainage ditches and get back the playing fields you used to have.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
This report was submitted a few weeks ago to the Cambridge City Council as an appendix to my letter objecting to plans to attack the Charles River White Geese and other resident animals by destroying their tiny remaining urban wild by ringing the main portion with a new highway and splitting it off from the adjacent urban wild with a fence.
In this printing, I have cleaned up presentation of the plans (computer problem off line), and corrected one distressing typo.
The Cambridge City Clerk’s posting of the letter may be seen as appendix 3 at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/LaTremouille%20com.pdf.
The rather clear pattern of dishonesty on this matter very much fits the large scale existence of “independent” organizations with interlocking friendships to the Cambridge Administration. My report on the passing of the first of the City of Cambridge’s City Manager regency went into massive environmental destruction with such a group in the middle of it.
The situation has simply gotten much more massive and more destructive since then.
