Environmental Destruction at Cambridge Common to be worse than stated in Environmental Notification Form?
On October 4, 2012, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/22-trees-proposed-to-be-destroyed-on.html, I reported major environmental destruction slated for the Cambridge Common. The Environmental Notification form, at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2012/090512em/nps/enf/14947.pdf. announced Cambridge’s intention to destroy 22 trees because they are blocking the view.
Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley announced in a motion in front of the Cambridge City Council last Monday, that
1. the project includes “plans to remove close to one hundred significantly sized trees; and”
2. “There has been no tree hearing for these trees nor is there any clear indication on the Cambridge Common or readily available online to help people determine which trees will be removed”.
Cambridge being Cambridge and Kelley being Kelley, Kelley does not object in his motion to this massive destruction of trees, he just wants to know if the public objects. He wants the slated trees to be marked so that the public can tell him if he objects to the destruction.
Kelley delayed action on his motion to November 19.
Kelley fits the lack of environmental conscience of all long term Cambridge city councilors except possibly for the Councilor who was added in the last election. He has no problems with the outrages on the Charles River. He voted for the outrages at Alewife. He has no problems with the outrages at Fresh Pond.
His people are treating the very clear plans to massively increase destruction at Alewife in the usual Cambridge Machine fashion. They are loudly proclaiming their concern and telling those who respect them to look at everything other than the outrages Cambridge is accomplishing.
Destruction at Alewife is for “flood storage” the project cannot provide and which can be provided next door and across the street. All Cambridge has to do is take easements under a massive parking lot and under two condo projects which WILL GO FORWARD WITHOUT THE PROTECTION because the “protectors” as usual are telling people to look at everything else. Trouble with the one possible “protector” is that she posed for a publicity shot telling people to look at everything else.
I have gone in great detail lately as to the outrages on the Charles River and to the fake “protective” group fighting for the outrages in the manner of the Cambridge Machine.
And the City Councilors constantly yell about everything except for the destruction they support. As I said, Kelley does not object to the destruction of 100 trees on the Cambridge Common (or to the many other outrages), he just wants to find out if people will persuade him to be outraged.
I certainly do hope people MEANINGFULLY concerned about the many environmental outrages including the Cambridge Common will communicate to this very bad city council their outrage.