H4009, destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat on Charles River, Complaint to Cambridge, MA, City Council
1.
Report.
[a.
Opposition.]
[b.
Documents.]
[c.
Response to claims city council has no business defending the Charles River from attack.]
2.
Cambridge Machine position.
3.
Links to latest reports of outrages.
4.
Contacts: Protect against destruction.
5.
Tip.
1.
Report.
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, I filed a complaint with the Cambridge City Council seeking their objections to the H4009, bill in the Massachusetts legislature which will destroy hundreds of excellent trees on the Cambridge side of the Charles River if passed. The key part is Section 2C, line item 2890-7020.
The letter is structured to present the objections, the plans for destruction, and then my response to the standard con that the Cambridge City Council has no business objecting to destruction in Cambridge on the Charles River. It has already been posted on line and will be formally transmitted to the Cambridge City Council Monday night. There are only two “communications” on the agenda, this one and my letter posted yesterday, objecting to the destructive aspects of the Grand Junction proposal.
The City Clerk has posted the letter at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/140616%20latremouille%20memorial%20dr_1.PDF
Here is my reprint of the letter.
It read as follows, and I will insert the relevant graphics.
****************
To the Honorable, the Cambridge City Council:
[a.
Opposition.]
I am writing individually and as chair of Friends of the White Geese, an Attorney General registered non profit since 2001.
•
I request you oppose destruction associated with House Bill H4009.
I very strongly think that the Cambridge City Council should go on record opposing moneys included in House Bill H4009, Section 2C, line item 2890-7020. This is the much more specific spinoff of H3332 which included $24 million for destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge on Memorial Drive and $4 million for “underpasses” under the next three highway bridges destruction which has been condemned by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation as a waste of money and a waste of natural resources.
This is not a minor situation. As is demonstrated by the below plans, this proposal would destroy hundreds of excellent trees. It would devastate Cambridge’s treasure of Memorial Drive.
This destruction was coordinated between the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge city staff. It has been rejected when Obama moneys were sought in 2009. The lie to the public then was that the trees were diseased. The below plans clearly show no diseased trees.
The closest any entity fighting for destruction of these trees comes to supporting destruction is the local Company Union whose position translates as: It is anti Charles River to defend the Charles River. But have they got a deal for you. A comparable Company Union used similar arguments to achieve first stage governmental destruction of the irreplaceable Alewife woodlands.
On pages 3 through 10 are the destruction plans including a photo of the most visible single victim, the excellent now mature grove at the Memorial Drive split.
This grove would be devastated and these trees are the smaller of the victims. This destruction is even viler than the currently impending destruction of the Cambridge Common.
The Cambridge City Council proudly proclaims it is pro environment.
THIS IS THE ENVIRONMENT. These hundreds of trees should not be wasted. The world needs these trees a lot more than the contractors paid to destroy them need the money they get paid to destroy.
I will follow the plans with multiple arguments rebutting the nonsensical Cambridge position that the Cambridge City Council should be bothered with destruction on the Charles River by its ongoing accomplice the Department of Conservation and Recreation. These responses to this nonsensical position start on page 11.
The euphemisms used for the destruction in House Bill H4009, section 2C, read as follows:
************
2890-7020 . . . $32,000,000 shall be expended to complete the planning, design and construction of Phase II of the Historic Parkways Initiative along the section of the Memorial Drive between the Longfellow Bridge and the Boston University Bridge, also known as the BU Bridge, in the city of Cambridge, to construct and make improvements to pedestrian pathways,bike and paths, . . .................................
*************
As usual, the environment destruction is “omitted” but authorized.
Here are the plans and that key photograph. I will follow the plans and photograph with a devastating reponse to yet another piece of silliness offered in place of responsible behavior. The silly contention that the Cambridge City Council has no business on Memorial Drive.
•
The outrage on Memorial Drive, H4009.
The following are the tree destruction plans submitted by the DCR in 2009 when they were seeking Obama moneys to destroy these same hundreds of trees. At that time, they lied to the press that all the trees were diseased. There is no indication of diseased trees in these plans, nor when inspecting the doomed trees. Just more lies from an entity which does a lot of destroying and a lot of lying.
It would be silly to think that there are or will be significant changes, although teasing suggestions are commonly used to further destruction in Cambridge, MA.
The plans start at the BU Bridge, where you are in the process, it would appear of adding to the destruction in your Grand Junction bicycle highway plans.
The darkened, numbered circles designate healthy trees slated for destruction. Inserted after the 5th plan is a photo of the excellent grove of trees being destroyed in plans 6 and 7 presented on the following page. Should you or others wish the electronic version of these plans, the electronic version totals 481 MB.
I will go into the animal habitat part of the outrage in the opposition to this part of the Grand Junction proposal.
The short of it is that H4009 includes in the very first plan furthers the heartless abuse of the long term resident, beautiful and valuable Charles River White Geese, following up on the outrage this city council paid for at Magazine Beach. More environment outrage from a city council which loudly calls itself pro environment.
Further casual destruction of animal habitat will proceed throughout the destruction area.
This, most importantly, furthers the outrageous relevant goal of the DCR’s “Charles River Master Plan”, that of killing off or driving away all resident animals, a goal which is also striking contradictory to the City Council’s claim of being pro environment.
Text follows on page 11. [ed: section [c]., below.]
[b.
Documents.]
Grove at Memorial Drive Split before
Destruction, Winter Photo
Destruction plans for this excellent
grove on next page. [ed: two plan pages per page. Next two below are of the photo.]
[c.
Response to claims city council has no business defending the Charles River from attack.]
•
City Council has no business on Memorial Drive?
I have been hearing some strange comments that the Cambridge City Council has no business getting involved in Memorial Drive.
•
Save the world but don’t talk to us about Cambridge.
Last I heard, the Cambridge City Council has routinely spoken out on matters in South America, Africa, and wherever. Memorial Drive, by contrast, is in Cambridge, MA, and this destruction was run past the Cambridge Development Department.
The contrast between saving the world and being “neutral” on irresponsible destruction in Cambridge, MA is striking to someone looking for the truth.
•
“Underpasses”
Additionally, the Cambridge City Council has blessed the “underpasses” outrage which has been condemned by MassDOT. This destruction is targeted at the Western Avenue, River Street and Anderson (Harvard Square) Bridges and their environs.
Last I heard, the destructive “underpasses” you have gone on record supporting were located on Memorial Drive.
The most visible proponent has called the $24 million (H3332, predecessor to H4009) for massive tree destruction incidental to $4 million for the destructive “underpasses.” So it would appear that the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” claims that your irresponsible support of $4 million destruction included even more irresponsible support of $24 million destruction.
•
Magazine Beach
Additionally, the Cambridge City Council spent between one and two million on the project at Magazine Beach which included destructive work which was either kept secret and which was a flat out lie directly in conflict with public contrary positions. Portions of your achievement there include a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River.
The supposedly sacred “Charles River Master Plan” called for a lawn to the river. It was modified to undo the blatant lie.
You were promised better playing fields. But you installed sickly grass to replace the healthy responsible grasses there for more than half a century. You then fed it poisons to keep it alive, and then put in a complicated drainage system to drain off the poisons keeping alive the sickly introduced grasses. The drainage system decreased the size of playing fields in contrast to the improvements which you were promised.
Your manager of the project repeatedly lied of “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese. You have blocked them from their food of most of the last 33 years at Magazine Beach and have proceeded to starve them. This does not sound like “no intent” to harm, but I speak English. Additionally your agent has publicly bragged of starving them.
The fine print of the “Charles River Master Plan” calls for killing off or driving away all resident animals, an achievement you and the DCR did in many acres when you destroyed irreplaceable woods at the Alewife reservation with the assistance of Company Union groups.
My letter of September 19, 2012 to the City Council is attached to my letter on the Grand Junction highway proposal being filed at the same time as this letter.
It includes persuasive photos of the outrage at Magazine Beach in its appendix 3.
Last I heard, Magazine Beach is on Memorial Drive.
•
Grand Junction bike highway to be extended beyond common sense.
You recently authorized preparation for funding of a bike highway along the Grand Junction.
The responsible ending for this bike highway would come where the Grand Junction approached the bend in Vassar Street. There is a tiny distance which would need to be taken through a parking lot there to connect to Vassar Street the distance of one building on either side of Vassar Street to Memorial Drive.
Instead of the responsible ending, the plans you are organizing funding for go beyond this point and cause major destruction in the formerly lush area to which you have confined the Charles River White Geese. Plus you would install a fence dividing the animal habitat at the railroad tracks, preventing direct access between two areas to which major destruction has been done by your accomplice.
The supposed plans show photographs all over the place but lie through omission by not showing the goose habitat. Your friends have helped you in the heartless abuse of these beautiful animals by doing very terrible things to the environment in that location already.
Photos of the destruction areas are below and in the appendix.
•
False description to you of state plans for the Grand Junction area.
An excellent example of the quality of the staff with which you are working is further information which was suppressed in the 2000s when the City of Cambridge upzoned the area near Putnam Avenue and the railroad tracks.
The staff clearly communicated that, if the Urban Ring subway went forward, a train stop would go there. Your staff lied by telling you there was only one Urban Ring option. At the end of this report, I will provide the MBTA plans for both the alternative options in Cambridge. The one your staff has lied does not exist was adopted as an option in 1991, five years after I first suggested it. The one which “does not exist” is the likely winner of the two options.
Appendix 1 to the attachment, pages 2, 5, 6 and 7 provide the MBTA’s maps. The Kenmore Crossing is the one that the Development Department has lied for more than 20 years that it does not exist, and which is now most likely to be the winner.
•
Summary on argument which should not exist.
I have no respect for claims that the Cambridge City Council has no business on Memorial Drive.
The claim translates as a claim that the Cambridge City Council has a right to destroy but not to defend the environment. The claim has the same value as the Development Department Staff’s 20 year insistence that the Urban Ring option which is likely to be the winner does not exist.
•
Unexercised rights of the Cambridge City Council on Memorial Drive.
The deal by which you inflicted destruction on Magazine Beach included a provision that the City of Cambridge would take over management.
That has not happened.
I would anticipate it has not happened because the Cambridge City Council does not want to “know” of the outrages achieved there by Cambridge and the DCR.
Exercise your rights. Insist first, however, that the bizarre wall be treated the same way as bordering vegetation everywhere else on the Charles River Basin, and be chopped down.
Insist that the poisons be stopped and the responsible grasses returned.
Insist that the playing fields delivered to you be the same or better than they were before the destruction commenced.
Insist that the expansion of this outrage blessed through corrupt action of the local Company Union not take place.
•
The outrage on Memorial Drive, the secret part of the Grand Junction proposal.
The supposed plans do not show what you are destroying. This is part of the usual packages of omissions. Keep it secret. I will go into this outrage in a separate communication concerning this deliberately secret destruction.
•
Conclusion.
I beg of you.
You claim to be pro environment.
This outrage is most definitely not pro environment. It is highly destructive of the environment and exactly the opposite of your claims of being pro environment.
Please oppose House Bill H4009, Section 2C, line item 2890-7020.
2.
Cambridge Machine position.
This is one of the many things which the Cambridge Machine’s fake group is fighting for as a company union. Loudly claim to be on the side of the good guys and prevent and all meaningful action while slapping in destructive stuff even if corrupt tactics are necessary.
We are the be all and end all. How dare anybody discuss anything except what we dictate!
The same tactic used to fight for acres of irreplaceable woodlands at Alewife.
Standard company union corrupt tactics .
3.
Links to latest reports of outrages.
The plans for destruction under House Bill H4009 are at
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.
These are the official plans posted when they sought Obama moneys, lying of disease to the public. They have been fighting to destroy these trees for 10 years. Do not be conned. Any deviation from these plans will be minor.
The exact citation is House Bill H4009 is Section 2C, line item 2890-7020.
The photos of trees marked for destruction on the Cambridge Common are posted in two parts:
a.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-cambridge-common-another-target-of.html.
b.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/cambridge-ma-usa-prepares-to-destroy.html.
My letter of objection to the Cambridge City Council is posted at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/destruction-of-cambridge-common-3.html. The letter includes smaller reproductions of the actual photos.
The Cambridge City Clerk's Printing of my letter and the attachments far surpasses in quality my records. It is posted at:
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/140602%20latremouille%20com_1.PDF.
On June 3, 2014, I posted on YouTube my presentation of that letter, at
http://youtu.be/FgQ9ojVuMxM.
4.
Contacts: Protect against destruction.
I have repeatedly reported on the outrages being inflicted on the Charles River and the Cambridge Common.
I included in the letter to the Cambridge City Council objecting to its imminent outrages on the Cambridge Common my objections to House Bill H4009 initiated by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. This will destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, and ALL such destruction is coordinated with the City of Cambridge. Passage could be imminent.
I summarized many other ongoing and recently accomplished environmental outrages for the City Council of the City of Cambridge has filthy hands.
The imminent target of destruction is the excellent common just north of Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA, USA.
If you would like to be recorded opposing to these outrages, please send an email to
dlopez@cambridgema.gov. That will get your email to Donna Lopez, the City Clerk. As part of your email, ask that your email be forwarded to the Cambridge City Council and included in their Communications for the next meeting.
Support of my letter opposing the destruction on the Cambridge Common and the destruction in H4009 concerning multiple destruction of trees and animals on the Charles River would be helpful.
Of greater value in opposing the outrages on the Charles River would be communications to state officials as follows:
Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form:
http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituentservices/contact/.
All Massachusetts Legislators’ emails:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/emails-for-all-massachusetts.html.
The list of legislators’ emails is set up so that you can copy and paste them into addresses on your email, either original addressees or, better, blind copies. Please do not miss the addendum at the beginning in which I list the local State Representative who was recently elected.
5.
Tip.
The key with the Cambridge City Council is that their weakness is a very distressing and continued lie that they are pro-environment.
It is a very major weakness, but the lack of response to complaint concerning their destruction on the Cambridge Common is not encouraging.
There are four out of nine newcomers. One might be subject to persuasion. The balance could be possibly be embarrassed into decency. I have major zoning victories as an environmental technique in Cambridge. It was common to get approvals from the “conservatives.” The “liberals” were then embarrassed into compliance with their claimed positions.
Of major importance with legislators is a widespread contempt for the Department of Conservation and Recreation and its destructiveness. Cambridge, MA, is a distinctive entity which is in sync with the problems that the DCR embodies.
