Charles River: Comments to MassDOT, basic criteria for Created Open Space Managed by DCR.
1. Introduction
2. Summary of Responsible Criteria for Created Open Space, based on DCR’s Outrages in Past.
3. Final Link.
1. Introduction
I recently published an analysis of the horribly irresponsible Department of Conservation and Recreation in was posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/charles-river-massdot-plan-for-mass.html.
This analysis converted into a written package I submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on September 17, 2015 at its final advisory committee meeting before it decides on it favorite package for the Mass. Pike rebuild on the Boston side of the Charles River.
The written package seems to have pushed the limits for document size when I included the graphics.
What I am going to try to do is report added sections,
2. Summary of Responsible Criteria for Created Open Space, based on DCR’s Outrages in Past.
Here is section 5 of the letter, with this title. The analysis is based on my prior report, link above. The listings which are not specifically justified were justified in the prior report which became with some embellishments, the prior sections of the DCR letter.
These are criteria which should be imposed on the DCR if the DCR is managing open space created as a result of the Mass. Pike work. This, of course, assumes that MassDOT does not seek or does not obtain legislative permission to have a responsible manager for created open space rather than the DCR.
These are issues which, when dealing with a responsible entity, would be obvious.
The fact that they have to be spelled out for the DCR demonstrates just how bad the department is.
******
These criteria should apply with or without getting rid of the DCR. Continued participation of the DCR mandates formalization. Explanation is only provided where necessary, assuming the presence of justification elsewhere in this report.
A. Prohibit the walling off of the Charles River from the open space being constructed, as has been done by the bizarre 14 foot or so high wall of INTRODUCED BUSHES created by the DCR which prevents access between the Magazine Beach playing fields and the Charles River for humans and for the Charles River White Geese.
B. Prohibit wanton destruction of ground vegetation.
C. Prohibit wanton destruction of larger vegetation.
D. Prohibit use of poisons in general and in maintenance of vegetation in particular. Expensive drainage systems, in particular, are no excuse for irresponsible dumping of poisons.
Use of poisons next to the Charles River by the DCR is routine and is expanding.
The annual algae infestation on the Charles River was created by the DCR dumping poison marked “do not use near water” on Ebersol Fields by MGH when their beloved poisons did not satisfy them. The next day the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge with the algae infestation which is now annual.
The Magazine Beach playing fields has seen its healthy environmentally responsible grass destroyed and replaced with sickly stuff which requires poisons. To “protect” the Charles River from the poisons, an expensive drainage system has been installed. The responsible alternative: do not destroy the responsible grass in the first place.
The healthy grass was in place successfully for the better part of a Century. The sickly stuff is not working.
So the DCR is planning to dig all the sickly INTRODUCED GRASSl up and put in more poison requiring grass.
PLUS the DCR wants to destoy the UNDESTROYED RESPONSIBLE GRASS on the top of the hill west of the Magazine Beach playing fields and behind the swimming pool. The DCR want replacement with poison drinking grass.
E. Punish routine lying by sanctions up to and including firing of the individuals in question. In particular, the long time manager of the Magazine Beach playing field area should be barred from participation in this project and in all matters related to this project based on many years of multiple lies.
The participation of such a belligerently dishonest person is inexcusable. His lies have kept outrages on the Cambridge side going when the outrages should have been killed immediately.
F. Prohibit destruction of vegetation for parking. Require workers to park AND DRIVE outside vegetated areas.
Long before the outrage of the railroad workers, we had wondered about patterns of vegetation destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area. The contempt for the environment displayed by these workers and by THAT SAME IRRESPONSIBLE DCR MANAGER show that the destruction was from irresponsible DCR behavior.
G. Prohibit destruction of existing parking.
The destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive has been fought for for more than a decade based on multiple, varying excuses. All that counts is the destruction, not the latest excuse.
The same applies to plans for destruction of existing parking on the top of the hill west of the playing fields.
That parking is needed for poor people who use the picnic area. Destruction was simply demanded in the only “public discussion” to date, in which the entire package was rejected so soundly that the fake group conducting the “public discussion” refused to conduct a vote and instead indulged in corrupt tactics to steal a “vote.”
The fake group has repeatedly insisted they are not fighting for destruction, but the fake group has stopped mentioning the parking lot.
That is the latest game. They, in their sick way, contend they are not fighting for destruction. They are dictating that it is not politically correct to mention the soon to be deceased victim.
This is the latest technique in fights for destruction, company union organizations that lie they are defending and fight for destruction by suppressing discussion while loudly proclaiming their sainthood and the sainthood of the people pulling their strings.
H. Prohibit implementation of the DCR’s policy of killing off or driving away resident animals.
I. Prohibit killing off or driving away resident animals, directly or “incidental” to other efforts.
J. Prohibit destruction of animal habitat for open space creation, not just of “protected” animals, but of all resident animals.
K. Prohibit “replacement” of habitat as an excuse for destruction.
Once you have destroyed habitat, you have killed the residents.
L. Prohibit destruction of bird nests and / or of materials needed for nesting.
M. Prohibit the use of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” in any manner. Their destruction is wanton. In addition to comments elsewhere in the report, I have seen the CRC condemned by members of the Boston Conservation Commission for environmental destruction in the area in question. CRC’s explanation: incompetence of CRC. CRC’s contempt for resident animals is wanton.
M. Require that open space be created around existing trees to the extent they exist. Prohibit the destruction of trees in the “creation” of open space.
Note the 33 photos in the final link in this report.
3. Final Link.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/charles-river-more-money-for.html.
