0. Introductory.
1. Summary.
2. One very telling piece of the DCR’s Record — the Creation of an annual blight by the DCR's use of poisons on the Charles River..
3. The DCR adds Contempt for Resident Animals to its Contempt for the Land and Water of the Charles River.
4. The DCR uses blatant lies in its fight for destruction on the Charles River.
A. General.
B. Lies in the attacks on the Charles River White Geese.
C. Lies in the construction of the bizarre wall walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River.
D. Lies in the reduction of playing fields at Magazine Beach.
E. Lies in the DCR's fight to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.
F. Fight for destruction by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”
G. The latest project of the fighters for destruction — the Grand Junction outrage.
H. Some Destruction by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy:”
I. The most visible victims of these multiple outrages — the Charles River White Geese.
J. More destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese — Railroad Worker destruction blessed by the DCR in spite of Cambridge Conservation Commission objections.
K. Cambridge’s planned destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.
L. The DCR is unfit for environmental management in general and, in particular, management of the open space being created.
M. Have the legislature prohibit this irresponsible entity from responsibility for the new open space and Soldiers Field Road.
5. The DCR’s Cheerleaders and related, fighting for more destruction, should be rejected along with the DCR whom they idolize.
6. Use the terrible DCR Record as the basis for prohibitions in use of created open space.
7. Green Line A spur from Comm. Ave. and the BU Bridge in Boston to Harvard Station in Cambridge.
8. The context.
0. Introductory.
This report, of necessity, only reflects a tiny part of the problem with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and its friends, whether declared friends or supposedly independent.
The original draft was written on my smart phone on the set of a major movie on which I was working, during down time in “holding.” The original drafts has been expanded and clarified, but the core is unchanged.
I am amazed at how much good work I got done under those circumstances, and amazed at the subsequent amount of work which was necessary to expand, refine and clarify while realizing that very major parts of this terrible record must, of necessity, be omitted.
Here are the most recent plans of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for the largest part of the work they are doing on the Mass. Pike at the future home of the Harvard Medical School. The Charles River is on the right. The proposed new green space is the area marked green abutting the Charles River.
The lower right corner of the above map shows on the left of my following marked up edit of an MBTA provided apparent satellite photo. That area is still present. It is under the proposed rearrangement of the Mass. Pike in the above plan.
The Magazine Beach playing fields are above the Charles River. In the middle of the photo is the BU Bridge. Running under the BU Bridge from left to right is the Grand Junction railroad bridge.
1. Summary.
The biggest defect in the current plan of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for the rearrangement of the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) on the Boston side of the Charles River is the reprehensible record of the entity which has charge of the environmental improvements which would be created.
The biggest problem with too many those who want the most important changes to the MassDOT plan is that too many of the change seekers are hand in glove with the environmentally destructive entity which is the likely manager of the environmental improvements and are fighting for the destructive cause of that vile organization.
It must be recognized that this report, of necessity, is a very abbreviated report of the vile record of the DCR and its fellow destroyer, the City of Cambridge.
2. One very telling piece of the DCR’s Record — the Creation of an annual blight by the DCR's use of poisons on the Charles River..
One, and by no means not the only, excellent example of the problem with the Department of Conservation and Recreation is the annual algae infestation on the Charles River.
This infestation originates in the DCR’s love of dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River. Several years ago, their beloved poisons were not performing up to snuff at Ebersol Field near Massachusetts General Hospital. MGH, in turn, is located not far from the dam which turns the eastern end of the Charles River into a managed pond.
So the DCR dumped on Ebersol Field poisons marked “Do not use near water.”
The next day, the Charles River was dead with algae from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge.
Since then, this outrage is an annual infestation.
3. The DCR adds Contempt for Resident Animals to its Contempt for the Land and Water of the Charles River.
The DCR adds to its contempt for its land and its waters contempt for the animals who live there whom it has a duty to protect.
The DCR’s “master plan” for the Charles River calls for the killing or driving away of all animals residing there.
The bizarre wall the DCR has built walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River has no apparent purpose except to starve the 34 year resident and valuable tourist attraction, the Charles River White Geese.
This bizarre 14 foot high wall of introduced vegetation exists nowhere else on the Charles River Basin. It has only one tiny opening, the former location of a boat ramp which was destroyed by the DCR without explanation.
Here are some photos of this introduced wall.
The first photo is from the Boston side of the Charles River.
The tiny figure is that of an adult woman. She is standing in the only opening of this outrage.
This is a before picture.
4. The DCR uses blatant lies in its fight for destruction on the Charles River.
A. General.
Added to the contempt for water, land and animals, is the flat out lying by which the outrages are achieved.
B. Lies in the attacks on the Charles River White Geese.
In the Boston Sunday Globe’s section leading report of the DCR’s commencement of this heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, the Globe combined a telling photo with their quote of a flat out lie which has been repeated by the DCR for most of the last 15 years.
The photo was that of a small goose standing next to and overwhelmed by earthmoving equipment being used to take away its food and its home at Magazine Beach by keeping it from the playing fields.
The flat out lie was printed right next to that photo. The key manager never stopped lying of his lack of intention to harm the beautiful animals he and the DCR have been heartlessly abusing. Except in small meeting when he claimed the right to this heartless abuse was justified by the irresponsible provisions in the “Charles River Master Plan.”
That Charles River Master Plan calls for the killing and / or driving away of all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.
Here is a photo of friends of the Charles River White Geese feeding the hungry animals when they were first deprived of their food and home of most of the last 34 years.
And cheerleaders praise the heartless abuse of this valuable gaggle which has survived on its own for 34 years in the middle of civilization, loved by decent human beings and an active tourist attraction until the heartless abuse.
C. Lies in the construction of the bizarre wall walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River.
The bizarre wall was implemented as a blatant falsehood in violation of yet another provision of that “Charles River Master Plan.” That was the direct promise to build a lawn to the river. When the DCR, by the introduction of the bizarre wall, proved that the DCR was lying, the DCR simply changed the lie after the fact.
The DCR’s official explanation of the starvation wall may be that proclaimed by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.” The CRC conducted a swim in to brag of the IMPROVEMENTS TO SWIMMING supposedly provided by the poisons and by the bizarre wall constructed by the DCR and Cambridge.
D. Lies in the reduction of playing fields at Magazine Beach.
The DCR also promised improvements to the playing fields. This was proven a lie by the destruction of playing field space to put in an expensive drainage system to drain off the DCR’s beloved poisons. ..
The DCR and Cambridge destroyed native grass on the playing fields which had survived without poisons for the better part of a Century. The DCR and Cambridge then destroyed the playing fields to drain off the poisons being dumped on the shores of the Charles to keep alive sickly grass which has no business on the banks of the Charles.
The DCR’s beloved poisons and sickly grass have been ineffectual. The sickly poison drinking grass which replaced responsible grass is scheduled to be destroyed again. It is scheduled to be rebuilt and replaced with more poison drinking sickly stuff. Additionally, the DCR wants to destroy the responsible native grass on the hillside to the west of the playing fields and the responsible native grass in the wetlands behind the swimming pool.
You guessed it. They are putting in more sickly grass which needs poisons, poisons not needed by the responsible NATIVE grass they want to add to their destructive record, and which has survived responsibly for the better part of a Century.
E. Lies in the DCR’s fight to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.
You add to this the fight to destroy hundreds of excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges. The “explanation” for this outrage varies with the audience.
The earliest “explanation” for the destruction translated as “won’t it look great in 40 years.”
In 2009, the Boston Globe did a story on the DCR seeking Obama recession fighting moneys to destroy the hundreds of trees currently threatened. The lie then was that the DCR was DESTROYING ONLY SICKLY TREES. I have the plans and am happy to provide them. As may be readily observed, none of the targeted trees are diseased, and none of the destruction plans call any of them diseased.
But the Boston Globe thought they were dealing with a responsible agency and the Boston Globe happily printed this blatant lie.
In 2014, the State House blessed the destruction with an allocation of $20 million.
Here are some of the targeted, excellent trees. It really is impossible to fully communicate the scope of this outrage.
The first tree looms over the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. It is located very close to the BU Bridge.
Destruction plans are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html
F. Fight for destruction by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” bragged when money was first put on the table in the 2014 legislative cycle that the money was the implementation of a petition the CRC had distributed WHICH MADE NO MENTION OF MASSIVE TREE DESTRUCTION. Naturally, this falsely named group used the latest excuse for massive destruction.
The project which this destructive entity obtained signatures in support of for was an irresponsible project to create “underpasses” under the next three bridges. MassDOT, being a responsible agency has condemned this project as environmentally irresponsible and a waste of state money.
G. The latest project of the fighters for destruction — the Grand Junction outrage.
Now a lot of people who fought for all of this irresponsible destruction, and who want the irresponsible DCR to manage the MassDOT proposed increase in open space in Boston, are spouting pious about spending money on yet another destructive project. Their latest supported outrage involves more destruction on the Cambridge side of the Charles River as a result of the misuse of the Grand Junction railroad bridge.
The DCR’s tree destruction plans call for all trees EXCEPT ONE to be destroyed in the Wild Area between the railroad and the BU Boathouse.
Here is the relevant part of their destruction plans. The broken lines running from bottom to top in the middle of the plan is the Grand Junction railroad. To the right of the plan is BU's Cambridge Boat House. The DCR shows one tree NOT destroyed. They do not even dignify the massive destruction by pointing out destroyed trees.
This picture was taken in the worst of the last very bitter winter.
This photo was taken September 12, 2015, during the preparation of this blog report. The small white figures are part of the Charles River White Geese.
Here are the Charles River White Geese in the water beneath the Wild Area during that terrible winter. This was the only free water available..
Here is an older picture of the desperate Charles River White Geese hunting for some food in the railroad right of way.
H. Some Destruction by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy:”
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has, by agreement with the DCR, acted as environmental destroyer for the DCR. After the agreement, all ground and hillside vegetation was destroyed in the Wild Area between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse. This is the same heavily treed area where the DCR plans call for destruction of all trees but one.
About half the ground vegetation in the area between the railroad and the BU Bridge was destroyed. The DCR’s overly destructive BU Bridge repair plans destroyed most of the undestroyed ground vegetation. “Remediation” of the DCR’s destructiveness in the BU Bridge repair plans has been nonsensical. To the extent introduced vegetation lives, it is vegetation comparable to the irresponsible stuff walling off the Charles River from the playing fields.
I. The most visible victims of these multiple outrages — the Charles River White Geese.
Who does this heartlessly abuse? The Charles River White Geese, of course.
This area is the portion of their habitat they used as their Nesting Area and for protection during bad weather. It was lush and beautiful, supporting a variety of wild animals, all condemned by the vile provisions in the Charles River Master Plan to kill off or drive away all resident animals.
The 34 year resident Charles River White Geese are confined to this destroyed area without food.
The DCR have made it worse.
J. More destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese — Railroad Worker destruction blessed by the DCR in spite of Cambridge Conservation Commission objections.
The Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned irresponsible use of the not destroyed portion for parking on a project on the tracks by railroad workers. They were too lazy to park next to Memorial Drive in a manner comparable to the responsible parking accomplished by MassDOT in its implementation of the DCR’s irresponsible BU Bridge repair plans.
So the DCR told the workers to get out of the tiny portion of the area in the CCC’s jurisdiction. The DCR BLESSED THE IRRESPONSIBLE AND DESTRUCTIVE PARKING elsewhere, which added to the destruction of the ground vegetation and which destroyed larger vegetation.
The DCR’s bedfellows dumped crushed stone in this previously lush area. When they left an additional load of truck stone was dumped in the area after parking use had ceased.
MassDOT implemented the DCR's plans for BU Bridge repair as responsibly as possible, with none of this outrageous parking. Here are two photo of the highway ramp where responsible management would have parked.
Under the Memorial Drive overpass was being used for another project (the fence). There was still plenty of room to park to the left of the on ramp, if the people in charge are / were fit for their jobs. The corner to the right in the first photo is the entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area.
The next photo shows the staircase illegally constructed by Boston University at about the location of the car further away in the above photo.
K. Cambridge’s planned destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.
Cambridge has its own destructive plans which include building in the Destroyed Nesting Area and building a fence preventing direct access between the Destroyed Nesting Area. The Charles River White Geese have been forced to nest in the dirt of the Wild Area because it is less destroyed than the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Cambridge pols are publicly campaigning for the destruction with the usual lies of omission. They praise the overall proposal and “neglect” to mention the destruction and heartless animal abuse on the banks of the Charles River.
Here is a copy of the plan the Cambridge pols keep as secret as possible.
Not only should the environmental outrages on the Cambridge side not be expanded as part of the Mass. Pike work, this irresponsible, rogue department should have no responsibilities for any area created as part of the Mass. Pike work.
L. The DCR is unfit for environmental management in general and, in particular, management of the open space being created.
Ideally, the DCR should be barred from management of the open space being created and barred from Soldiers Field road.
M. Have the legislature prohibit this irresponsible entity from responsibility for the new open space and Soldiers Field Road.
The legislature, in its wisdom, has shown its contempt for the DCR / its predecessor by transferring the river bridges to MassDOT.
The truly irresponsible DCR should be barred from any expansion of its irresponsible behavior, and from management of Soldiers Field Road..
5. The DCR’s Cheerleaders and related, fighting for more destruction, should be rejected along with the DCR whom they idolize.
And its cheerleaders, including those complicit in this terrible record of the DCR, should simply be treated with the lack of respect due the destructive agency they support without condition.
Harvard bought the prime area of this study a few month's after the MBTA showed how this railroad and railroad bridge could be converted to an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge. So many outrages fit a pattern of upgrading Cambridge to handle this traffic. So we get lovely sounding con games.
6. Use the terrible DCR Record as the basis for prohibitions in use of created open space.
The terrible DCR record should stand, at minimum, as the basis for a point by point prohibition of action in Boston which follows on the outrages in Cambridge. Description of prohibited acts should point by point condemn further outrages and lying by the DCR in Boston.
Naturally, this is only a far inferior alternative to barring the DCR from the created lands and Soldiers Field Road because of its proven irresponsibility.
7. Green Line A spur from Comm. Ave. and the BU Bridge in Boston to Harvard Station in Cambridge.
This is an ideal time to go forward with this project, which is badly needed by the residents and employers of North Allston.
I have provided an extensive series on this matter. The most recent report is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/charles-river-olympics-rapid-transit_23.html
8. The context.
Here are 33 photos of destruction in Cambridge of which the Charles River outrage is just a part.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/charles-river-more-money-for.html.
