State Senate Candidates' forum, May 8, 2007

The State Senate candidates’ forum at the LBJ apartments in Cambridge was last night.

Barrios's endorsee, Revere City Councilor Dan Rizzo was, he said, not clear on all the details of the Urban Ring.

East Boston State Representative Anthony Petrucelli seemed aware of the various Phases and repeatedly endorsed rail. There was one question on the Urban Ring (not mine) and a second reference from someone who said she would have asked about it if the first person hadn't.

I asked about plans for regulation Little League fields at Magazine Beach and the algae bloom last summer just offshore the new “Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox” Little League fields at Lederman Park.

Runoff there from the 6 acres of commercial sod, with its necessary regimen of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides (as applied last August and September) led to the unprecedented algae bloom last August and September. I pointed out that the state Department of Conservation and Resources' plans to put in 7 acres of the same stuff at Magazine Beach. We can anticipate the same results. Petrucelli seemed very concerned about beaches, is on the Beaches committee so I'll try to follow up with him on that.

Afterwards I spoke with Rep. Marty Walz about my e-mail to her about the algae bloom and plans for Magazine Beach. She asked if she could forward my e-mail to the DCR for information and I said yes, even a denial of any relation would be useful.

I intended to speak to Marc McGovern, the former Cambridge school committee member who’s pushing for the Little League fields at Magazine Beach, to ask him his opinion of the standard and extraordinary applications of chemicals to the stressed commercial turf on those fields, but missed him. My e-mail to Representative Walz on this subject was addressed to him as well.

Heather Hoffmann in her question time referred to my comments about the algae bloom and said the power plant in East Cambridge has been pumping out hot water into the Charles and that could help answer the question about cause.

Representative Walz and I, speaking after the question session and before I spoke with Heather, agreed that we didn't know any changes with the power plant, but assuming there had been a change, it was possible the changes at Ebersol fields and the power plant could together cause the algae bloom.

Heather told me after that that the power plant has increased operation from 4 to 20 hours a day since its sale by NSTAR to the current owners and is "cooking the Charles." She says the EPA is going after the owners.

She said the current owners, in trying to get out of building the pedestrian walk along the canal in front of the plant (mitigation), has offered Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy a half-million dollar “contribution,” to be paid to the Manager and used at his complete discretion for whatever he wants, with the sole exception that it not be spent in East Cambridge. The payment would be to release them current owners from the obligation of the pedestrian walk, mitigation for an undone mitigation, I guess. (I remember being at a meeting of the Cambridge Conservation Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeal at which the owners said they didn’t want to provide the “mitigation” promised, i.e., the walkway.)

The owners cited security then and now. Heather says there is none at the plant. A group of 12 East Cambridge residents, probably members of the East Cambridge Planning Team, met at the plant and were alone there for 15 minutes while they searched for the person who was supposed to meet them there on the matter of the walkway.

Security consists of a closed gate and lock, when the plant’s owners remember to do that. Otherwise the thing is wide open.

Kathy Podgers asked a question about harborage and habitat for urban wildlife, and only Rizzo had any clue what she was talking about. Petrucelli told her after the meeting his family had had skunks under the porch, that they had had them removed, and now they have problems with squirrels.

Kathy pointed out the skunks would keep the squirrels away, but she says he still didn't understand. He seems part of the leadership, she said, and look where we are on protecting the environment.

Nevertheless I'll follow up with him on Magazine Beach and the DCR.

In the forum and afterwards Petrucelli pointed with pride to his help getting more money for the DCR. I told him I didn’t think giving the DCR more money would help anything. They use it not for maintenance of what they have but to keep Plans and its design-development constituents happy, at public expense.

He seemed aware of the DCR’s history of neglecting its assets, so as to be able to replace them at greater cost than what ordinary maintenance would cost. I pointed this is how the DCR services its design-development constituents, and also mobilizes public support for the survival of its own Planning group.

On reflection now I see DCR Plans works to identify itself in the public mind as the “good” DCR and is happy to let Maintenance, which Plans consistently underfunds so it can have its major development projects, be the “bad” DCR

Marilyn Wellons

Destroyer Advocates Volunteers Planting Flowers on Magazine Beach

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

1. Bad Guy Gushes.
2. Reality.
3. Response of the Cambridgeport Listserve.

1. Bad Guy Gushes.

To: cport
From: Bad Guy [Anonymous name omitted to protect the guilty.]
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 20:48:53 -0400
Subject: [cportneighbors] Park Serve Day, Magazine Beach, Sat., May 12, 9 a.m.

This Saturday, May 12, is Park Serve Day in Massachusetts. I thought many of you would be interested in a project taking place nearby and might like to participate:

Magazine Beach - 719 Memorial Drive, Cambridge
http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_listing# magazine
Park Description: Magazine Beach is a well-used active and passive recreation area along the Charles River in Cambridge. The parkland includes a small boat dock, a picnic area, two baseball fields, a swimming pool and a wading pool. This area is connected to the Cambridge neighborhoods by a footbridge over busy Memorial Dr.
Directions: Memorial Dr. is Rte. 3. Magazine Beach is located between Riverside Rd. and Magazine St.
MBTA bus #47.
Event Specifications:
Project: Plant flowers
Time: 9am-noon
Meeting location: Pool
Appropriate ages: 10 years and above
Partner: Cambridge Little League
Register Now

http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_registrati on

There are also numerous other parks that are participating. The full list is here:
http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_listing

Please don't harangue me about how planting flowers is code word for some insidious DCR goose destruction plan or how Magazine Beach is state-sanctioned historical inaccuracy.
__._,_.___

2. Reality.

[Ed: Limited edits made below to the response I sent to the censoring ListServe. I blind copied to the Free Cambridgeport List and to all Cambridge City Councilors.]

Sounds sort of like the "swim in" conducted a year after 9 city councilors started starving the Charles River White Geese. The "swim in" claimed that the heartless behavior of nine city councilors was justified by making swimming possible off Magazine Beach.

So the nine city councilors installed a wall of designer bushes which they called "native" and which had so little business on the Charles River that they kept dying. Finally the outrageously non-native "native" bushes took hold and created a wall BLOCKING SWIMMING.

Now a Little League "leader" is fighting for destruction of the balance of the animal habitat and even more outrageous and heartless starvation.

Why?

They want Little Leaguers to have the right to roll in poisons in a location which has been historically free of poisons. They want to starve animals that much more in an area which has been shared by animals until a really destructive city council and a bunch of blatant liars from the DCR behaved exactly the opposite of their propanda.

But the nine destructive city councilors are joining forces with proven liars at the DCR. The DCR says it wants "historical" uses on Memorial Drive, and in the opinion of the DCR, POISONS are historical in a location which has never seen poisons.

So don't look at the poisons to come. Don't look at the heartless behavior of nine hypocrites. Don't look at the fake downzoning of Memorial Drive which was, in reality, exactly the opposite of downzoning.

Don't look at the outrageous censoring of the Cambridgeport list to keep, as much as possible, people from knowing just how outrageously destructive nine city councilors and their friends are. Don't look at the suppression of negative comments about the friends of the censors, no matter how true the negative comments are. Don't look at the suppression of positive comments by the Cambridgeport list about those who live in reality, no matter how true the positive comments are.

Look at the lovely flowers. Look at the beautiful hypocrisies from very destructive people.

Look at the lovely words which so often are exactly the opposite of reality.

Look at a "Green" organization whose founders could give a damn less about aggressive destruction of the Green, but who love their fancy light bulbs.

Pass me a handkerchief.

3. Response of the Cambridgeport Listserve.

Last I heard, reality was censored.

Analyses of Urban Ring - Phase III

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. General Analysis of the Urban Ring.
A. Introduction.
B. The transportation goals are all on the side of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
(1) Get people off the downtown subway.
(2) Provide clean connections with other transit lines and meaningful support for the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.
(3) Support Fenway Park.
C. The environmental and financial goals are all in favor of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
3. Cambridge Chronicle letters.
A. Marilyn - Urban Ring Finances.
B. Your Editor.
(1) Introduction to the Chronicle editor - Issue in context.
(2) Environmental Harm to Cambridge - the neighborhood and the Charles River.
(3) Harvard Allston.
(4) Summary.


1. Introduction.

I have been actively defending the Charles River in Boston for nearly ten years now.

It has been distressingly amazing to learn the many, many attacks ongoing. It has also been surprising to see how many items are matters I have worked on even longer.

One of those attacks is the option for the Urban Ring transportation proposal supported by, of course, the City of Cambridge and its buddies in the state bureaucracy.

Yesterday, I gave you the MBTA maps for the Charles River crossings of the Urban Ring subway. Those maps date back to 2001.

I deliberately presented the maps in as neutral a manner as possible.

2. General Analysis of the Urban Ring.

A. Introduction.

Currently the state is proposing a massive highway build for a phase 2 of the Urban Ring, to precede phase 3 full scale subway.

Interestingly, some of the options certainly look like their expense pushes the cost of subway construction, and particular proposals would very much ensure that the inferior of the two Charles River crossings, the BU Bridge crossing, would be the one to go.

I support the Kenmore Crossing. My general reasons for supporting it were stated with the maps. From a transportation point of view, the Kenmore crossing is by far the better alternative.

B. The transportation goals are all on the side of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.

(1) Get people off the downtown subway.

The main purpose of the subway system is to get people off the downtown subway.

Full scale Orange Line construction (Kenmore crossing) can do that.

Green line construction (BU Bridge crossing) cannot possibly get people off the downtown subway in any meaningful scale.

There is no comparison.

(2) Provide clean connections with other transit lines and meaningful support for the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.

With regard to connections, there are major differences in the connections to the three green line branches and to the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.

The proposal is intended to integrate the Worcester/Framingham commuter rail into the subway system.

This train could very easily drop hundreds of passengers onto the Green Line during rush hour.

The Green Line / BU Bridge crossing would drop those hundreds of passengers all on the already overloaded Commonwealth Avenue / Boston College / B branch. The transfer would include walking across Commonwealth Avenue even in the worst of weather.

The Orange Line / Kenmore crossing would provide covered transfers to all three Green Line branches.

There is no comparison.

(3) Support Fenway Park.

The Green Line / BU Bridge crossing would move Fenway Park's commuter rail station away from Fenway Park by a couple of blocks. The Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing would provide excellent, close connection.

There is no comparison.

C. The environmental and financial goals are all in favor of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.

These are discussed below.

There is no comparison.

3. Cambridge Chronicle letters.

On April 19, 2007, the Cambridge Chronicle published a letter signed by among other people, Marilyn Wellons. She did not write it. It had major problems.

The following letters were published in the April 26, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle. Marilyn’s was published in full. Mine omitted the Harvard Allston analysis.

Subdivisioning is added.

A. Marilyn - Urban Ring Finances.

Editor, Cambridge Chronicle

To the Editor:

Thank you for the letter about the Urban Ring signed by me, among others. However, although it accurately states many objections to the buses (Phase 2) and properly endorses going directly to the rail part of the project (Phase 3), it seems to have a typographical error about rail that somehow slipped by.

Simply put, a light rail system is NOT a “smart choice.” According to the Urban Ring Major Investment Study, light rail’s capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, costs of mitigating vibration and electromagnetic interference with instruments at MIT and Longwood Medical Area, all are higher than for heavy rail. (The MBTA Green Line is light rail. The Orange and Red Lines are heavy rail.)

Comparing the cost effectiveness of bus, light rail, and heavy rail, the Study found that “the cost per passenger mile [of] the bus mode is the highest, followed closely by light rail and the heavy rail has the lowest cost.” Compared to Phase 2 buses and Phase 3 heavy rail, “Light Rail is the most expensive in both costs per vehicle revenue mile and per vehicle revenue hour by a large margin.” (MIS , 7-4.)

Given effective transportation’s critical importance to our region’s jobs and cost of living, we cannot afford to squander funds on Urban Ring buses or light rail. Short-sighted decisions, lack of strategic thinking, and lack of investment in transportation have contributed to the loss of population and businesses here, placing us at a tremendous disadvantage relative to other regions. Officials and the attentive public are well aware of these very real problems.

In this context, light rail, like the buses, would continue the errors of the past.

I hope this clarifies the situation regarding the Urban Ring, a very complicated subject.

B. Your Editor.

(1) Introduction to the Chronicle editor - Issue in context.

Editor: I realize this is a bit long for a letter. That is why I suggest, as an option, an op ed. Another possibility is to cut out the Harvard Allston analysis.

I am uncomfortable with the timing of this initiative, especially since an op-ed was printed at the same time from Stosh Horowitz concerning the North Point project. My discomfort comes from the fact that the project concerning the Hotel near Trader Joe's is perhaps the major current issue in this part of the city.

The problem with that hotel is a fake downzoning which legalized (with fake reviews) the Hotel's initiatives. Horowitz led that fake downzoning, and there has been distressingly aggressive censorship of issues relating to the hotel in the Cambridgeport listserve. See my blog for a sample of the censorship.

Kelley voted for that fake and very destructive fake downzoning. Is the Urban Ring noise a red herring? Nevertheless, correction is needed for incorrect statements.

(2) Environmental Harm to Cambridge - the neighborhood and the Charles River.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

In your 4/19/07 edition, you printed an extended discussion of the state’s Urban Ring plans. While the letter seems well intended, there were enough errors in it that people could be confused.

First of all, the letter supported amendment of a motion by Councilor Kelley. I understand Councilor Kelley does not seem to support amendment of his motion and amendment does not seem feasible.

Kelley’s motion seems to support a new state highway on top of the Grand Junction railway tracks in East Cambridge / Cambridgeport. This new highway could be another Inner Belt.

Secondly, the letter supported certain elements of “Phase III” of the Urban Ring plans but does not seem to understand Phase III.

Phase III is a proposal for a new subway line connecting Charlestown to Lechmere to MIT to the Harvard Medical Area to Ruggles.

The key differences are in the way the subway would cross the Charles River and in the type of vehicle used.

I proposed one option which is now a formal state option for crossing the Charles River. This is the Kenmore crossing.

I proposed the Kenmore crossing because the other crossing, the BU Bridge crossing, is so destructive to Cambridgeport.

The BU Bridge crossing would put a subway stop at the end of Putnam Avenue with obvious destructive impact on Cambridgeport. The BU Bridge crossing would also be highly destructive to a sensitive part of the Charles River in Cambridge.

That two pronged destructive impact on Cambridgeport is the reason I proposed the Kenmore crossing instead of the BU Bridge crossing in 1986. The state picked up the Kenmore crossing as a formal alternative in 1991.

The two different types of vehicle are: full scale subway in the manner of the Orange Line, and street cars in the manner of the Green Line. The Kenmore crossing is Orange Line technology. The BU Bridge crossing, with its very destructive Putnam Avenue and Charles River impacts, is Green Line technology.

The letter you printed included language favorable to the Green Line technology while opposing the destructiveness of Councilor Kelley’s highway. The difference in damage to Cambridgeport between the Green Line Phase III crossing and Kelley’s highway is only a matter of degree.

If you oppose Kelley’s highway, you should oppose the Green Line BU Bridge Phase III and you should support the Orange Line Kenmore Phase III.

(3) Harvard Allston.

Similarly, Councilor Kelley in 2005 gave people the impression that the Green Line BU Bridge crossing would support Harvard’s Allston project from the east. I went so far as to bring in the project managers to disprove this statement, but Councilor Kelley has never withdrawn this statement.

Currently, the state’s consultants have proposed four different ways to support Harvard Allston.

Every one of the current state options support Harvard Allston from the east with connections from Boston, Brookline and the Harvard Medical Area and on the west with connection to Harvard Square.

There would be a much better way to do the eastern connection with a new Green Line branch from the Boston end of the BU Bridge, but there is no meaningful eastern proposal (except for Councilor Kelley’s 2005 statement) from Cambridge.

(4) Summary.

I hope this analysis if of assistance. I have lived the Urban Ring since the mid-80's. It can be very distressing to see people fighting for items they might not support if they had full information.

Thank you.

Representative Walz supports environmental destruction at Magazine Beach

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Bob La Trémouille Response.
3. Marilyn Wellons Response, Letter to Representative Walz.

1. Introduction.

Several weeks ago, a former Cambridge School Committee member published a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle supporting destruction of Magazine Beach without saying he was supporting destruction of Magazine Beach. He said he was "improving" an unidentified Little League field. A week later, the Cambridge Chronicle published an anonymous supporting comment also not identifying the place being destroyed.

About three weeks after the anonymous communication, the original signer, Marc McGovern cosigned with State Representative Marty Walz a letter bragging about the destruction and identifying Magazine Beach.

The following are my and Marilyn Wellons' response to the more recent communication.

2. Bob La Trémouille Response.

It is always interesting to see the bad guys at work in Cambridge.

In November 1999, nine members of the Cambridge City Council voted for environmental irresponsibility at Magazine Beach, being fully aware of the harm to wildlife.

Since then nine members of the Cambridge City Council, with individual incumbents varying from time to time, have done their best not to know what they were doing.

When heartless killers targeted the Charles River White Geese, nine Cambridge City Councilors were "neutral" with what amounted to the usual complicant wink and a nod.

When the leader of the gaggle was brutally killed and the Cambridge Chronicle headlined our memorial ceremony, the Cambridge City Council was neutral with what amounted to the usual complicant wink and a nod.

When a young woman was murdered in what seemed to be clearly a graduation from killing geese, the Cambridge City Council spent an extended period discussing the killing. They just did not want to know where she was killed. Another wink and a nod.

The killer was sentenced to life and clearly looked like the goose killer.

The DCR took a poll. A majority thought that the Charles River was fine without "improvements."

Over a period of seven years, nobody could see any value in the most reprehensible part of the "improvements," the destruction of Magazine Beach.

Walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with designer bushes in place of wetlands was heralded with a swim-in that claimed that walling off the Charles River was a way to assist swimming in the Charles.

The starvation attacks involved in that bizarre walling off with vegetation which had no business on the Charles River was described by the DCR as doing "no harm" to the Charles River White Geese who were being starved by the project.

The DCR defined starvation as "no harm."

Finally, about a month ago, a former school committee member, Marc McGovern, supported in the Cambridge Chronicle a little league improvement at a location which that former school committee member did not identify.

One week later an anonymous message in the Chronicle agreed on the "improvement" at the unidentified location.

This looked to me like the sort of underhanded game that goes on.

Normal people consider the Magazine Beach playing fields perfectly adequate. The plans are dig up all the dirt, cart it away and replace it with dirt and poisons.

The DCR claims to want only water related activities on the banks of the Charles. They starve water birds, poison eggs of water birds and instal poisons to support "improvements" which are unnecessary for playing fields which are most definitely not water related.

The last time the DCR applied poisons to one of their water related playing fields was at Ebersol Fields near Mass. General Hospital.

This was last spring. The next day, the Charles was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge.

So Thursday, State Representative Marty Walz bragged about these destructive, environmentally wasteful "improvements" in the Cambridge Chronicle in response to the letter which did not identify the target. Walz identified the target as Magazine Beach.

Business as usual. Starve the animals, poison the environment and do it in response to a letter which identified nothing.

Truly reprehensible.

2. Marilyn Wellons Response, Letter to Representative Walz.

Dear Rep. Walz,

I was disturbed to read that you support the DCR's plan to install
commercial sod on the playing fields at Magazine Beach. Such sod will need
continuing applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
These chemicals are not good for young athletes or for the Charles
River's water quality.

The prototype of this project is the DCR's Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox
Fields at Lederman Park in Boston. In the spring of 2006 the agency
replaced 6 acres of grasses adapted to the water's edge there with commercial
sod. The unprecedented algae bloom in the Charles River just offshore
from these fields followed in August. "We've never seen an algae bloom
like this before," the Boston Globe quoted a Charles River Watershed
Association spokesperson as saying. There had never been runoff from 6
acres of chemically treated sod there before, either.

In fact, the algae bloom followed by days the application of "Tartan,"
a fungicide. The label warning for "Tartan" states it is not to be
used near bodies of water. Nevertheless, the DCR, citing the need for the
"quality of turf our players deserve," applied it to the stressed
grass. I attended the Boston Conservation Commission hearing at the DCR
representative made this statement.

In a part of the river that had been safe enough for swimming, the
algae bloom created a public health hazard, dangerous to humans and
wildlife. The DCR has never denied that runoff from the newly installed,
heavily fertilized, and chemically treated sod, including the use of
"Tartan," led to the algae bloom and cancellation of the second Charles River
swim.

The DCR now proposes to repeat the blunder at Magazine Beach's 7 acres.

Organized, regulation baseball at "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at
Lederman Park" is not a "water-dependent activity" supposedly privileged
on Charles River parkland. Casual riverside ball playing, cited as
suitable by the Charles River Reservation's original designers a century
ago, bears no resemblance to the klieg lights on 60' high poles,
extensive fences, and chemically treated sod there or what is planned for
Magazine Beach.

Please also note that childrens' soccer leagues have backed off from
their endorsements of chemical lawn-care companies when they discovered
what exposure to the chemicals meant for the children. I do not know if
Little League teams have similar agreements or are aware of the
dangers.

Please reconsider your support for the duplication of this disastrous
project at Magazine Beach.

Urban Ring Options - Detailed Maps

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. BU Bridge / Green Line option in Cambridge.
3. Kenmore / Orange Line Option in Cambridge.
4. Boston Side.
a. General.
b. BU Bridge / Green Line Crossing.
c. Kenmore / Orange Line Crossing.
d. Need for Green Line Technology on BU Bridge / Green Line Option.
5. Summary.
6. Application to my suggestion that Harvard Allston be serviced by a Green Line Branch.

1. Introduction.

We have done a lot of discussing of the various Urban Ring options for the subway, third phase.

To clarify things, I am providing the official MBTA maps of the two crossings. First are two maps showing Cambridge impact. Alternatives 1 / 3 is the BU Bridge / Green Line technology option. Alternative 2 is the Kenmore / Orange Line technology option.

The semi-solid line on both Cambridge maps is the proposed subway alignment. Both routes have a stop under Mass. Ave. at the Grand Junction Railroad tracks. Also shown are other stops in the east part of Cambridge. Both alternatives, after the variation in crossings and related stops, have stops in the Harvard Medical Area.

The third map is a very detailed map showing the alternatives on the Boston side. It is complicated and is not ideally presented.

The maps are best viewed if you double click on them for blow-ups.



2. BU Bridge / Green Line option in Cambridge.

The BU Bridge / Green Line option continues under the Grand Junction after the MIT stop. It apparently cuts left after going under Memorial Drive, destroying the woods and then in Boston traveling under the small connector from Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive.



3. Kenmore / Orange Line Option in Cambridge.

The Kenmore / Orange Line technology crossing continues a little bit under the Grand Junction after the MIT stop. It then travels under the MIT playing fields and under the Charles River. It would apparently enter Kenmore Square under the eastern of the two north south side streets.



4. Boston Side.

a. General.

The dark area at the top of the map is the Charles River. Very careful viewing will identify broken lines starting at the Charles River in the left and right top areas. The two lines come together sort of in the lower left. The combined line then curves and goes to the right.

The left line is the BU Bridge / Green Line Crossing. The right line is the Kenmore / Orange Line crossing. The combined line starts on Brookline Avenue near the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and curves under Longwood Avenue for the Longwood Medical Area service.


b. BU Bridge / Green Line Crossing.

The left, BU Crossing / Green Line technology, line has two oblong areas along its route.

The higher of these is a proposed station under Mountfort Street at St. Mary's Street (St. Mary's is marked above the station). The proposal calls for the Yawkey Commuter Rail stop to be moved away from Fenway Park and be located just east of this station.

Connection between the Urban Ring subway and Commonwealth Avenue's B line would be accomplished by a tunnel under St. Mary's which would let people off on the southern Commonwealth Avenue sidewalk. Travellers would then cross Comm. Ave. traffic to BU Central station.

Commuter Rail travelers from Worcester, Framingham, etc. would walk through the Urban Ring station and tunnel to the B Line for Green Line connections.

The second oblong is under Park Drive for a new Urban Ring station to be located between the current D line Fenway Park station and Beacon Street. A new C line station would be built under Beacon Street to make that connection.

c. Kenmore / Orange Line Crossing.

The right line has only one oblong / station. That station would be located under the Brookline Avenue bridge over the Mass. Pike. It would directly connect to Kenmore station on one end and Yawkey Station on the other.

In contrast to the BU Bridge crossing, this station would provide excellent connection to Fenway Park and ready transfers for hundreds of commuter rail travelers to all three green lines.

d. Need for Green Line Technology on BU Bridge / Green Line Option.

The BU Bridge crossing has to use Green Line technology. It cannot use Orange Line technology because of a sharp right turn where Mountfort Street turns to Park Drive. This turn is slightly to the right of the Mountfort station.

5. Summary.

I hope these maps are of value.

6. Application to my suggestion that Harvard Allston be serviced by a Green Line Branch.

On the first of these maps, if you look at the bottom of the map, you are looking at Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. There are a lot of T’s on Comm. Avenue, denoting Green Line B stops.

Just to the left of the crossing is a solid north-south line indicating the BU Bridge.

Just to the left of the BU Bridge can be seen the Mass. Pike and just below the Mass. Pike is another solid line.

That last solid line is the Commuter Rail line from Worcester / Framingham to Boston.

Harvard owns pretty much everything from that line going up the left side of the map.

The Green Line B branch goes up the middle of Commonwealth Avenue.

My proposal would have a branch created by putting in switches on the Green line rails just west of the BU Bridge. Tracks would be laid ABOVE the commuter rail first on Commonwealth Avenue, then on a bridge directly above the commuter rail.

The bridge would extend above the rail yard which you see on the left and then drop so that a stop for Harvard Allston could be created between Cambridge Street and Western Avenue under a street which currently connects the two. Harvard wants this street to be made a major boulevard running to North Harvard Street just south of Harvard Stadium.

The Harvard Allston spur would continue under this boulevard, under the Charles River and under JFK Park at JFK Street and Memorial Drive.

Just north of JFK park is a tunnel which has never been removed by the MBTA which connected a temporary station at the JFK School to the Harvard Station. That tunnel could create a terminus for the Harvard Allston connector which would directly connect to the underground bus tunnels at Harvard Station.

State Senator Travellini to be Replaced

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.
2. Evaluation of Senator Travellini.
3. Evaluation of Senator Barrios.
4. Announcement of Senate Candidates Debate.

1. General.

I have received an announcement of a debate by the potential replacements for Senator Robert Travellini, the State Senator representing the Charles River White Geese.

The announcement is below in part 4.

2. Evaluation of Senator Travellini.

The situation with regard to Travellini was as follows:

The earliest clear, unambiguous understanding we had of the pending destruction of the goose habitat was when the goose meadow was destroyed by Boston University acting on behalf of the DCR (then MDC) in October 1999.

As part of the destruction, the former solid fence at the sidewalk was opened up. This, of course, encouraged the geese to wander out and bad guys to wander in. Marilyn went to Travellini's office to complain about the opening.

The minute Travellini heard that the fence had been opened up and the pieces left to one side, he said he would take care of it. He got on the phone in front of her to show her his sincerity.

The next day, the pieces which had been taken out of the fence had been removed.

3. Evaluation of Senator Barrios.

Barrios, of course, has been one of the worst. Barrios was the State Representative representing the Charles River White Geese. He timed the announcement of his candidacy for State Senate in such a manner that he encouraged the destruction of his district as part of a general redistricting.

Barrios's lead action was a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle in the beginning of August 2000, cosigned by the MSPCA. Barrios and the MSPCA proposed "humane treatment" for the Charles River White Geese.

I posted sarcastic fliers reporting his initiative and proposing "humane treatment" for Barrios. Barrios then went on Cambridge Community Television objecting to what he called my inciting his assassination.

4. Announcement of Senate Candidates Debate.

RNA Moderator wrote:

Ward 5 Democratic Committee and the Cambridge City Democratic Committee are jointly sponsoring a forum for the two Democratic candidates, Anthony Petroccelli and Dan Rizzo, who are running for election to the recently vacated Senate seat of Robert Travaligni. I believe it is the First Middlesex and Suffolk District, but don't quote me on that.

The forum will be held on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 7:00 - 8:30 P.M., at LBJ Apartments, 150 Erie Street, between Brookline and Pearl. It's important that we get as many people there as possible so the new Senator understands that Cambridge is part of the district.

Censorship in Cambridge, MA

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

1. Introduction.
2. The leader of the core group’s communication.
3. Your editor’s censored response.
4. Censorship Notice.
5. Your editor’s response.
6. Yahoo! Groups Notification wrote.
7. Roy Bercaw Responds.


1. Introduction.

I have mentioned the problems with “grass roots organizations” in Cambridge which have nebulous connections to the City of Cambridge.

One of these groups, the so-called Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association used to have a rather vibrant listserve, until it started censoring things.

What follows is a series of emails and censorships with names deleted to protect the guilty.

“Derogatory stereotyping of a group" is given as the reason to censor disagreement with statements of the leader of the CNA core group concerning the CNA and its record.

Outrageous, yes!!!

I understand the leader of the CNA core group earns a living in a municipal field.

The guy doing the actual censoring leads a related and just formed “Green” group. I had an extended discussion with him about the fact that the group's organizers could give a damn less about destruction of the Green ongoing by the powers that be in Cambridge. He did not see any problem with that.

Censored document is in section 3. “Reasons” for censorship are in section 4.

2. The leader of the core group’s communication.

[Ed. This series of communications, in typical email fashion, led with section 6 and continued in reverse order. There was doubling of communications. I have deleted the doubling and structured chronologically.

[Additionally, I do not remember the letter in this section as the communication to which I (section 3) was responding. My response was intended to specifically respond to particular comments. This document does not track. Could it have been substituted in the process or could I have responded to the wrong email?

[If I find the one I remember, I will substitute. I am confused, but there is key stuff here in sections 3, 4 and 5 which are of value.]

Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association letter opposing setback reduction in front of Radisson Hotel site attached. Letter urges that open space and parkland uses along the river are cherished, unique, used by thousands from neighborhood and region and setback reduction along a river would be very bad precedent. Other reasons included. Letter follows vote by general membership at last meeting of Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association. Letter was hand-delivered to Planning Board today to meet March 13th deadline for inclusion in package sent to Board members.

FYI, next Planning Board meeting on Radisson setback and Radisson zoning is March 20th. Notice of meeting was previously forwarded to group.

Signed: The leader of the Core Group.

3. Your editor’s censored response.

Bob LaTrémouille wrote:

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob "LaTrémouille"
Subject: Re: [cportneighbors] Letter re Radisson Hotel zoning from Neighborhood Association
To: Cambridgeport Neighbors

The one thing you are doing a terrific job on is patting yourself on the back. This undeserved self-praise gives the false impression that you are on the side you claim to be on.

I would have responded to this yesterday, but we seem to have an Animal Farm situation here. I am quite certain this is not the ONLY communication from you on Monday. All animals are created equally, but some are more equal than others. [Ed: The Core Group previously limited posts to one per day. The Core Group's leader had two posts on this particular day. His self-praising was the second of the day.]

On Blessed Sacrament, you did a great job yelling about it being too large. So you made it LARGER.

We are faced with massive and highly irresponsible destruction of the green on Memorial Drive, 449 to 660 trees, all wetlands, all animal habitat. So you created a "green" organization which has no business calling itself "green." "Look at our fancy light bulbs. Don't look at the massive destruction of the green."

And now you are falsely calling yourself on the neighborhood side with regard to the outrageous zoning destruction between Putnam Avenue and Memorial Drive and between the MicroCenter and Riverside Press. You have destroyed yard requirements at the WHIM of appointees of your buddy, the City of Cambridge. You have massively increased the retail district.

Now, with crocodile tears, you claim to be concerned about yard requirements after you have thrown out the yard requirements. You have trashed meaningful protections for the right to near meaningless objections. So, with crocodile tears, when it has almost no value because of your destructive zoning, you are objecting.

You are as much on the neighborhood side on zoning as you are on the neighborhood side on destruction of the green.

But you love fancy light bulbs and you love next to meaningless objections.

4. Censorship Notice.

The head of the “green group” which could care less about destruction of the Green wrote:

This posting was deleted because it did not conform with a rule of the list:

"...language that is defamatory, libelous, personally insulting, profane, threatening, obscene, or indecent --including but not limited to name-calling, vulgarity, and derogatory stereotyping of groups--is inappropriate, is not allowed, and/or should be avoided on Cportneighbors." [Ed.: Bolding in original]

click below to read the full "Cportneighbors Rules and Procedures":

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/UKD2RS4TR1A8eY4qI78M3zoppyUa7xwTMZ_3Olv-vZHqDtm9y_CGEoLz1emXSlge_5_COb1CBNSNjhYtpcXBew/CportneighborsRulesandProcedures5.24.pdf

Thank you.

5. Your editor’s response.

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: Cambridgeport Neighbors
From: Bob "LaTréémouille"
Subject: RE: Re: [cportneighbors] Letter re Radisson Hotel zoning from Neighborhood Association

How dare anybody talk reality.

Something might get done that people CLAIM to stand for.

You have a group which is lying about itself to the great damage of the cause for which it claims to stand.

It is prohibited to say that your group is lying about itself because that is "stereotyping of a group."

So what is allowed is the sort of nonsense that the CNA and YOU pat yourself on the back for screwing the causes you claim to stand for.

I would call that shameless.

6. Yahoo! Groups Notification wrote:

Date: 17 Apr 2007 07:37:47 -0000
From: Yahoo! Groups Notification
To: boblat@yahoo.com
Subject: Message to cportneighbors group not approved

Hello,

Your message to the cportneighbors group was not approved. The owner of the group controls the content posted to it and has the right to approve or reject messages accordingly.

In this case, your message was automatically rejected because the moderator didn't approve it within 14 days. We dothis to provide a high quality of service for our users. A complete copy of your message has been attached for your
convenience.

Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups

Regards,

Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

7. Roy Bercaw Responds.

What I find amazing is the great difference in standards between the CNA list and the City's standards. The City violated laws unless there is a high likelihood of being sued. At CNA it is what if someone does not like what is posted?

[Ed: I see the censorship as part of a pattern of Core Groups with nebulous relationships to the City of Cambridge doing whatever it takes to achieve the environmentally destructive goals of the City of Cambridge and taking advantage of well-intentioned people in th process.]

Urban Ring Phase 2 Policy Order before the Cambridge City Council Monday, April 23, 2007

Marilyn Wellons sent the following e-mail to two neighborhood associations in Cambridge about three transportation meetings she attended in the week ending April 13, 2007.

Presentations at those meetings bear on a Policy Order about the Urban Ring Phase 2 tabled at the Cambridge City Council session on April 9. On April 23, 2007, the Council will again consider the Order. Although the Order identifies compelling reasons that justify rejection of Phase 2, it nevertheless asks the Council to endorse the project.

In addition to the Order's self-contradiction, Wellons gives other reasons to reject both the Order and the Urban Ring Phase 2.

****************

Dear Neighbors,

The recent transportation meetings I've attended have focused on the costs to
the region of poor transportation planning in the past. Just this morning [April 13, 2007] Secretary Bernard Cohen recited a litany of items in the region's "declining [transportation]infrastructure" that must be addressed. Last night we heard a projected increase of Storrow use in the next 23 years of 3%, which is close to nothing. On Wednesday the RTAC heard a presentation on "How Massachusetts's Neighbors are Responding to 21st Century Transportation Challenges," and the message was, Much Better Than Here.

In New England we're at the end of every supply line, and the costs of living
reflect that. Even so, the state has done little to improve efficiency and reduce
transportation costs. Short-sighted decisions, lack of strategic thinking, and
lack of investment in this sector have contributed to the loss of population and
businesses. They now place us at a tremendous disadvantage relative to other regions.

To take only the example of the Urban Ring Phase 2: while other cities--New York,
San Francisco among them--are building rail for rapid transit, Metro Boston is going
for buses. Phase 2 buses, grade-separated or not, are a false economy that will
only confirm the region's stagnation. Councillor Kelley's proposed Order
itself, while paradoxically endorsing the bus highway, indicates some of Phase 2's
costs: air pollution, asthma, heart and lung disease, diversion of resources from
better projects. And there are additional costs not mentioned in that order, i.e.,
damage to freight capacity at the Beacon freight yards in Allston, corresponding
damage to roads and highways from the resulting increased truck traffic, loss of
public parkland, damage to our neighborhoods.

While other regions--NY-NJ-CT and VA-WVA-OH--are actually building (not just thinking
about or studying) multi-modal freight infrastructure to create jobs at the ports
and from the ports throughout the transportation corridors, Massachusetts is not.
These other states' investments in multi-modal freight reduce the money costs
of fuel, air pollution, and damage to roads and highways, and corresponding costs
to quality of life. They're investments that make things better.

In Massachusetts we have the Turnpike Authority selling the Beacon yards to Harvard
for a pittance. In this deal, all the lawyers for Harvard and the Pike somehow
missed the need for an easement for the freight yards--the closest to the Port of
Boston--and for the Pike itself. Only the intervention of the Attorney General,
at the very last minute, at the Registry of Deeds, prevented the obliteration of
this public interest in the property.

It is simply not true that the universities, bio-tech, and the medical industry
or the like will keep everything ok, or at least ok for those now relatively well-off.
In the past, medical interns and residents competed for who would stay in Boston.
Now they leave, knowing they can't afford to live here. Fidelity is moving
out as quickly as possible, taking thousands of jobs to North Carolina, for example,
where the company's costs are less and their employees will live better for
much less. Here, with the continuing loss of population and businesses, tax revenues
will fall. There will be even less money for ordinary maintenance of public assets,
let alone the improvements necessary for the region's competitiveness.

Officials and attendees at the transportation meetings mentioned are well aware
of these very real problems.

In this context, building another bus route, grade-separated or not, would continue
the errors of the past. It would also squander whatever funds might be available
for real public transportation.

As voters and members of the attentive public, we also bear some responsibility
for our planners' and elected officials' short-sightedness in the past.
The Urban Ring bus highway, grade-separated or not, is planning consistent with
what has brought us to a difficult spot. I believe we and our elected officials
should reject it.

Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons

Secretary of Transportation Reaffirms Interest in Grand Junction Railway in Cambridge

Bob La Tremouille Reports:

1. General.
2. The Grand Junction according to Secretary Cohen.
3. The Grand Junction’’s Importance, comments from Port Authority representatives.
A. General.
B. Importance of the Allston Freight Yards.
C. Container Service Drives Moving the Allston Freight Yards.
D. Port Authority Position.

1. General.

At the MOVEMassachusetts monthly meeting this morning, April 13, 2007, the guest was the Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bernard Cohen.

Secretary Cohen gave the packed room an impressive presentation which was both comprehensive and lacking in detail. In the middle of his long list of ongoing efforts was a comment on negotiations with CSX about obtaining rights of way for state transportation use.

2. The Grand Junction according to Secretary Cohen.

Marilyn Wellons was the first member of the audience to be recognized for questions. She did not even blink. She did not ask if he was talking about the Grand Junction. She simply translated his words as the Grand Junction and asked for the details.

Secretary Cohen declined to provide details since negotiations are in process. He did comment that freight transportation is being encouraged through plans for raising bridges to allow double stacked freight cars to be able to pass.

3. The Grand Junction’s Importance, comments from Port Authority representatives.

A. General.

After the meeting, Marilyn was addressed by representatives of the Port Authority who were quite interested in the freight issues. One thing that they were proud of was inserting language into the deed of the freight yards to Harvard in which a tiny portion of the yards could not be taken away from freight use.

There are a whole bunch of things going on, as usual.

Clearly and very visibly, the state is working to put in the inner belt on top of the Grand Junction railway.

In its usual manner, the City Council has a motion on its table claiming to protect Cambridge from this new highway while supporting the initiative if the initiative is done in a manner that the state says it wants to do it. The city council calls this “protection.” I call it being on the wrong side and tossing nonsense at their constituents.

B. Importance of the Allston Freight Yards.

The freight yards in Allston that Harvard has purchased are of major importance.

Harvard is not a charitable institution. Harvard did not buy the Allston freight yards out of a charitable impulse. Harvard bought those freight yards four months after the MBTA proved the Grand Junction bridge capable of taking traffic from the Mass. Pike and moving that traffic to Cambridge.

The rail traffic on the Grand Junction moves cars between the Allston yards and the North Station yards. If there is no meaningful Allston yards, there is no need for the Grand Junction.

If there is no need for meaningful Allston yards, Harvard has that much more room for easy expansion.

C. Container Service Drives Moving the Allston Freight Yards.

CSX has long been considering moving the freight yards outside I-495.

This is because of container service. Containers are carried on freight cars over long distances and moved to/from truck beds for local delivery. When containers were first used, they were only used one high on the freight cars. In more recent years, two containers high has become the norm. A very, very large number of bridges over railroad tracks inside I-495 were not built high enough above the railroad tracks to allow double container cars to be able to go under them.

If the freight yards are moved to I-495, our highways would be subjected to a lot more truck traffic.

If the freight yards are moved to I-495, Harvard can build on the yards.

If the freight yards are moved to I-495, the need for the Grand Junction railroad disappears.

If the freight yards are moved to I-495, the inner belt can be built on the Grand Junction using whatever sales pitch works.

D. Port Authority Position.

The gentleman from the Port Authority rather clearly had no problems with moving the freight yards. He rather clearly thought providing adequate bridge clearance for double container trains to be an impractical use of money.

4. Summary.

But thanks to Marilyn, an excellent question brought out some good information.

State Conducts Urban Ring Update in Fenway

1. Introductory.
2. Charles River Crossing.
3. Harvard’s Allston Campus.
4. Summary.

1. Introductory.

Last night, April 9, the state conducted the middle of three urban ring updates in the collegiate arts building behind Fenway Park on Ipswich Street. The last update meeting will be conducted next Tuesday, April 17, 6:30 to 8:30 pm at the Somerville High School Auditorium.

The Urban Ring is a massive transportation project supposedly designed to ease public transportation needs for a ring one to two miles outside Downtown Boston. The part which makes sense is rapid transit. The state is talking buses and new highways before doing anything on the rapid transit.

There were significant changes in that part of the proposal which most impacts us. As usual, key comments from the state differed significantly from Cambridge reports.

2. Charles River Crossing.

As an option, the state has proposed conversion of the Grand Junction railroad bridge under the BU Bridge to a two way highway. Contrary to the Cambridge reports, at no time has this highway been proposed to go to Harvard’s Allston campus.

This latest report has changed the point at which this new bridge would connect to Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. The DOT consultants are proposing that the traffic lanes go under the BU Bridge on an expanded Grand Junction bridge and then be elevated on a new bridge which would go over the Mass. Pike. The new state highway would connect to Commonwealth Avenue apparently above the Mass. Pike, west of the BU Bridge.

There clearly is plenty of room on Commonwealth Avenue above the Mass. Pike to make this connection. The new connection, however, would greatly complicate what is already a complicated intersection. It would have devastating environmental impacts in Cambridge.

Other alternatives suggested for crossing the Charles River as part of new highway construction include a possible bridge / tunnel to the east of the BU Bridge. I remember the discussion but do not see it on my copy of the slides. The handout differs from what was shown in several aspects.

Archie Mazmanian, a Brookline activist from the Cottage Farm neighborhood spoke against use of the Grand Junction bridge, among other things because of the environmental destruction on the Cambridge side. He tells me that the Citizen’s Advisory Committee has also been informed of a third Charles River construction option, to add two lanes to the BU Bridge.

Archie referred me to the "On Brookline" website, which can be read at www.onbrookline.com.

They clearly present his reports quite visibly. He was modest in communicating the level of visibility. I will add a link to this website for the benefit of people.

3. Harvard’s Allston Campus.

The very big change was the formal addition of proposals for bringing Harvard Allston into the scheme. At no time (contrary to Cambridge nonsense) has the state ever proposed connecting the Grand Junction to Harvard Allson.

I had to drag this information out of the presenter, frequently having to correct him on street names and to dig out exact details. The rest of the audience clearly was closely listening because I was immediately corrected at one point when I made an error in referring to Harvard Avenue / Street in Allston Village.

The straight bus option would be quite simple, just go out Comm. Ave. to Brighton Avenue, turn at Allston Village, to Cambridge Street to North Harvard, to Harvard Square, with grade separation at Harvard Stadium.

As they get fancier, the level of new construction increases dramatically.

The next level of complexity calls for turning off Commonwealth Avenue at Packard’s Corner on the street which hits the Packard's Corner intersection from the north. This would include a bridge over the Harvard owned railroad yard, a left turn, and up Cambridge Street. This proposal uses a new road Harvard is proposing on the major road which goes north from Cambridge Street between North Harvard and the river. Harvard is proposing that this road be upgraded and connect to North Harvard Street, I guess just before Harvard Stadium. This proposal includes a lot of grade separation on Harvard's upgraded street.

The extreme proposal would service Harvard Allston by a tunnel which starts at Mountfort Street. Mountfort Street is just south of the Mass. Pike connecting the BU Bridge spaghetti to Park Drive. The tunnel would start very close to St. Mary’s Street which ends at Marsh Chapel, the current core of the BU Campus. This location is the proposed location for an Urban Ring Rapid Transit stop in phase 3.

4. Summary.

The spaghetti in the BU Bridge - Harvard Medical Area is getting so massive it is silly to call the complicated options anything other than Phase III with the decision made for the worse of the two Charles River crossing options.

I spoke against the spaghetti.

Instead of connecting the Grand Junction Bridge to Commonwealth Avenue just west of BU Bridge, I suggested that area be used to connect to Harvard Allston. My proposal would put switches in the Green Line in this area and run a new street car line off Commonwealth Avenue just south of the Mass. Pike, following the Mass. Pike to the south to Harvard's railroad yards.

Such a green line spur would be far less intrusive than the Grand Junction connection. There is quite a bit of slack in this complicated intersection, and the location where the tracks would cross highway traffic can handle this added activity, particularly since the street cars would be going onto the existing tracks and not be added to the traffic pattern except to cross.

Read "From the Port" - On Censorship in the People's Republik

The following blog report is strongly recommended to you: http://fromtheport.blogspot.com/2007/03/veneer-of-civility.html.

It is from Kathy Podgers concerning very severe censorship being practised on the listserve of the "Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association."

I cannot say it better than she did.

White Goose Song from The Netherlands

Phil Barber reports as follows, Bob La Trémouille passing on with capitalization edits only, and responding as stated at the end:


1. Report from the Netherlands.
2. Phil Barber.
3. Your Editor.


1. Report from the Netherlands.

Hi Phil,

This morning at Dutch time, I published my third song for the album 'songs for fairy tails' called ' White Goose'.

The song is hidden under the word white goose. I have some errors running on my website,and don't know where to look. Some things may not work properly, sorry for that.if you like to hear the song without my voiceyou can listen to it at this location.

Thanx for the image and best regards,

Ferrie (artist name is differentieel)
notitieblogje.nl
ferrie@notitieblogje.nl

2. Phil Barber.

Hi Bob

Hope this finds you well. A fellow in the Netherlands (!) asked me for permission to use a photo of our friends on his Website, so their fame is spreading. Here's a copy of the e-mail he sent me, with address and particulars.

All the best,
Phil

3. Your Editor.

Thank you very much, Phil.

I have checked out the website. The photo is excellent.

I am not in a position to listen, but I will add your communication to the blog, along with a link. I think that would be ok with everybody.

Copying Elizabeth, among others, with a request that she add a link on the website.

Making the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association principal addressee to pass on this news through them. This is a very nice reaction, and a very common reaction in truly Green circles.

Marilyn's Letter to the Governor

As Bob La Tremouille reported previously here, the governor's proposed budget includes funds for the DCR's destruction of Magazine Beach.

Blog co-editor Marilyn Wellons delivered this letter to Governor Patrick's office by hand on Wednesday, March 14, 2007:

Dear Governor Patrick:

Please review and reject your budget item for the misconceived DCR project at Magazine Beach in Cambridge. It is a poison pill for the river and for your administration.

This boondoggle would destroy a fine public park and deprive us of passive open space and habitat for wildlife. It would substitute 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, an irrigation system, fences, and chemical-drenched sod for the beautiful fields there now. It would involve you in the destruction of parkland for the revival of the Inner Belt, a highway connecting the Mass. Pike and I-95 that Harvard University and others now work to create. These are toxic issues.

Chemical runoff from the project's prototype, "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" near Mass. General Hospital in Boston, gave us 2006's unprecedented algae bloom in the immediately adjacent Charles River. In 2005, the water there was clean enough for swimming. However, to maintain the 6 acres of new sod the DCR applied "Tartan" fungicide on August 8, 2006. The algae bloom was detected the next day, August 9, and was at astronomical levels by August 11. "We've never seen an algae bloom like this before," said a Charles River Watershed Association official quoted in the Boston Globe on August 16, 2006. Those 6 acres had never had an application of "Tartan" before, either--it's not approved for use near water.

At Magazine Beach, where proponents hope for swimming, the DCR--having learned nothing--is set, with your help, to replicate the disaster of the 6 acres downriver. The project in Cambridge will require the same fertilizers and herbicides as in Boston.

Further, "native" plants (a prior part of the project you would fund) already introduced at Magazine Beach have failed and will continue to fail, contrary to the hype for such items. The project removed sturdy natives planted by the birds, wind, and water, and has introduced purple loosestrife (never before seen at Magazine Beach), which thrives in disturbed soil. The DCR will work, unsuccessfully to eradicate it with herbicides when physical methods fail, as they will. Magazine Beach will thus get a continuing double dose of herbicides.

The DCR has previously failed to secure the funding you now would grant because the public does not support the destruction of this much-loved, undeveloped bend of the river.

The DCR acknowledges those riverfront acres at Magazine Beach are ordinarily rich wildlife habitat, but claims human activity has so altered them that they are no longer habitat. Any causal visitor to Magazine Beach can see this is a patent lie. Many thousands of people know and cherish their moments of calm here, in the midst of the city. The Mass. Pike, Storrow Drive, commuter rail, and the Boston skyline are in clear sight, but we can also gaze at the river, sky, and waterfowl. The DCR project will destroy this refuge for humans and animals alike.

The project has hidden implications. You may not be aware of plans for the Inner Belt, the highway river crossing to connect the Massachusetts Turnpike to I-95, cancelled in 1972 and now revived as the Urban Ring Phase 2, for the benefit of Harvard University, among other private entities. In 2003 the Pike Authority negotiated the sale of 51 acres (containing the Cambridge-Allston ramps and tolls, 3000' of the Pike, and the Beacon freight yards) to Harvard University. Harvard is working to move the Mass Pike exit from its 51 acres to the Inner Belt's proposed river crossing, i.e., the Magazine Beach-BU Bridge-Grand Junction rail bridge nexus. The move would free Harvard to develop its valuable new riverfront land for its own purposes.

The DCR development of Magazine Beach is part of the infrastructure for this new Pike exit. The 7-acre project will stabilize what the DCR calls a riverfront Magazine Beach "multipurpose path" whose specifications, on file at the Cambridge Department of Public Works, are for a two-lane road suitable for cars and small trucks. The DCR has temporarily shelved plans to connect Magazine Beach to the Grand Junction rail bridge under the BU Bridge via this service road.

Funding the DCR at Magazine Beach will allow it to restore the connection as well, of course, as destroy a unique public asset. The funds you would grant the DCR here is [sic] not for water-dependent activities! The quiet enjoyment of the river and its denizens--now in place, at no expense to the taxpayers, but in grave danger--is very much so.

Please remove this budget item and protect passive open space and wildlife habitat at Magazine Beach. Your administration would thus demonstrate its commitment to protecting the environment--by not destroying a successful public park.

Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons

Governor budgets $235,601 for continued environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in Cambridge.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Governor Patrick has included $235,601 in his budget to proceed with the DCR / MDC’s strikingly irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. This project is so irresponsible that the DCR / MDC manager spent years flatly and simply lying about what he was doing.

The governor's budget for Magazine Beach destruction is specified in his budget for the Department of Conservation and Recreation. It is at http://mass.gov/budget/brec08/dpt08/hdcr.htm.

It is difficult to think of a project which by the terms that the proponent claims to stand for, has more to oppose it.

I today hand delivered the following letter to the Governor's Office (some edits added):

March 12, 2007

Governor Deval Patrick
State House, Beacon Hill
Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Patrick:

Your budget calls for $235,601 for continued environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in Cambridge.

Your have included $235,601 to proceed with the DCR / MDC’s strikingly irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. This project is so irresponsible that the DCR / MDC manager spent years flatly and simply lying about what he was doing. The details of your budget proposal call for environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in Cambridge as specified in the request for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

It is difficult to think of a project which by the terms that the proponent claims to stand for, has more to oppose it.

This is a project for a department which has claimed it is fighting for swimming in the Charles River. The department has proceeded to wall off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with a wall of designer plants which the DCR calls "native," but which are unfit for the Charles River. The DCR had major delays because its falsely native plants kept dying.

The DCR claims to be concerned about wetlands. The DCR spent many thousands of dollars destroying the wetlands at Magazine Beach to put in the designer plants. Then they put in an artificially created puddle several feet from the Charles River, the Bumpy Memorial Pool. This artificial pool was quite popular with the native Charles River White Geese and other aquatic birds in the area until, apparently, the geese sensed the death coming to Magazine Beach. The DCR calls this artificial pool wetlands.

The DCR’s "Charles River Master Plan" calls for a lawn stretching to the Charles River at Magazine Beach. But those designer plants directly conflict with their claimed wishes.

The Charles River White Geese have been the DCR’s most valuable possession in this part of the Charles River. The DCR recognized their importance by guaranteeing, repeatedly over a period of four years, that their project would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese. In September 2004, the DCR, simultaneously with the City of Cambridge, walled off the Charles River from the luscious grass that the Charles River White Geese had been eating for 26 years. The Charles River White Geese have been living in this one mile habitat centered on the BU Bridge throughout that 26 year period. In one big swoop, the DCR and the City of Cambridge took all their food away from them.

When asked how this starvation campaign fit his promise to do no harm, the manager stated that starving them is not harming them.

The DCR took a poll on the public’s opinion of the Charles River. A majority of respondents said do nothing. So the DCR is spending millions not just on the continuing outrage at Magazine Beach, but also in destroying between 449 and 660 trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.

The DCR’s explanation for the tree destruction translates as "Won’t it look great in 40 years!" Part of the mumbo jumbo is historical ranting for a history that never existed, and this non-existent history is their justification for destroying hundreds of trees, killing all the resident animals, and destroying all the wetlands.

The forthcoming project that you are funding fits the pattern. Normal human beings looking at Magazine Beach see no need to "improve" it. The concept is flatly and simply foreign to the sane viewer.

The plan of the DCR is to exacerbate the starvation they spent fours years denying they would do.

They are digging up all the grass at the Magazine Beach playing fields.

This is in furtherance of the DCR’s emphasis on water-related activities on the Charles River. But they are starving aquatic animals for "improvements" to athletic fields which are anything but water related and the "improvements" are a waste of money.

After digging up and removing all the grass and topsoil, the DCR intends to put in grass, plus topsoil, plus poisons, plus sprinklers. The sprinklers are needed to replace the wetlands which were destroyed to put in that wall of bushes which has no business on the Charles River.

This project follows on a similar equally "water related" project at Ebersol Fields near Massachusetts General Hospital.

Until this project, there was no need for poisons at Magazine Beach, but the DCR is putting in poisons. If the poisons do not work, they can be expected to receive similar treatment that the DCR did at Ebersol Fields. The DCR put in more powerful poisons, poisons labelled with prohibitions against use near water. The next day the Charles River was dead from the Mass. Ave. bridge to the harbor.

The most important real results of this project will be corporate welfare to the companies paid to do the project and a significantly worse situation at Magazine Beach.

The moral and fiscal bankruptcy of the work on the Charles River is nothing less than outrageous.

The key DCR people should be fired for their part in this project and for the lies which have gotten them this far.

The project should be killed and the money put toward open space expenditures which make sense.

It is my very strong hope that you will immediately reverse your support for this outrageous and wasteful project.

Sincerely,


Robert J. La Trémouille

Brown Beauty loses a daughter

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Over the winter, Brown Beauty, daughter of Bumpy, lost one of her two daughters, Little Girl.

Brown Beauty was hatched in 1996. Her parents were Bumpy, the long time leader of the gaggle, and his mate. She, through recessive genes, was for many years the only brown member of the gaggle of the White Geese. She bears markings similar to those of a Brown China Goose, and has the characteristic bump.

She, because of her distinctive looks and because of her very clear pride as the daughter of Bumpy, has long been a key part of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese.

Brown Beauty’s three sons from 1999 all had black wing tips and bore the distinctive look of White China Geese. She was training them for gaggle leadership. Her two daughters were less easy to spot.

Two of these sons have died. One died very quickly after being shot. The second was shot at the same time and apparently died of complications.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the third son continues to survive, has just become lost in the gaggle or is Brown Beauty’s mate.

I find the son / mate analysis hard to believe because she had the five babies by somebody and nobody has ever shown me that her current mate is different from her prior mate. Additionally, the three sons had black wing tips. The current mate does not have black wing tips.

With the winter’s death, one daughter survives.

Brown Beauty was one of the gaggle most severely hurt by the October 1999 destruction of the nesting area by Boston University acting on behalf of the DCR / MDC. The vegetation in the middle of the nesting area, in which she had nested, was destroyed. She was sufficiently disturbed that she did not nest in 2000.

In 2001, at one point her eggs were broken on her head. Later large scale nest destruction was accomplished by the DCR / MDC or by a functional equivalent entity. Brown Beauty defended her nest. Brown Beauty was beaten severely. At the same time as Bumpy was killed in July 2001, five other geese were severely beaten including Brown Beauty. More large scale nest destruction occurred in a subsequent year.

In 2003 and 2004, sickos from the Charles River Conservancy ran around poisoning eggs of the Charles River White Geese. This sick organization has poisoned every goose egg it could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. These are the same guys who are destroying all the protective vegetation they can on the edge of the Charles River and who have threatened the lair of the Charles River White Ducks.

In 2006, Brown Beauty had a proud son, a real beauty whom I call Angel. Angel stands out with very distinct markings that I compare to a hood.

The CRUWI people think that L.C. who also hatched in 2005 is a son of Brown Beauty. He certainly looks similar to Brown Beauty. L.C. begs to differ since he does not consider Brown Beauty his mother.

Brown Beauty bore the several barren years from 1999 to 2005 not well. For a period in 2005, she showed symptoms of being mentally imbalanced because of her problems. Since she bore her beautiful son in 2006, she has regained her characteristic pride and excellent carriage.

By 2006, the vegetation in the middle of the goose meadow had finally regrown after the sick initial and continued destruction by BU / MDC / DCR / whoever is doing the dirty work. For the first time, Brown Beauty was able to nest where she nested in 1999. The geese get quite possessive of the places where they nest. Birth of their babies has great meaning to them. The result, in 2006, was Angel.

Brown Beauty’s deceased daughter, Little Girl also had two babies in the 2006 nesting season. They may have been adopted by Brown Beauty, but she would normally have a close relationship with her grandchildren.

Thank you to CRUWI for reporting on this distressing passing and on the 2006 grandchildren. I was aware of neither.

There was no apparent cause of Little Girl's death. One day Little Girl was alive and alert. The next day she was gone. It was during the coldest part of the winter, but her death was isolated. That is the way of the world.

Desolation at Cambridge Public Library Site.

1. The current status of the Cambridge Public Library Site.
2. Brief environmental context.
3. Frederick Rindge, the Library and High School Block.
4. The law suit.
5. Phase 2.
6. That is the way things are done in the City of Cambridge, MA.
7. After words.

Except for section 1, Bob La Trémouille reports the following.

1. The current status of the Cambridge Public Library Site.

Roy Bercaw reports:

Except for two large ones all of the trees in front of the Main Public Library campus are now gone, along with the pile of wood chips they generated.

2. Brief environmental context.

The Cambridge Public Library site is an excellent example of the environmental depravity of the Healy - Sullivan monarchy as Cambridge City Manager, dating back to 1974.

Differences now, however, include:

A. We have three city council incumbents who have run for office a environmentalists.

B. The entire city council loudly calls itself environmentalist.

C. Phase I of the Library site development was an isolated instance of environmental depravity.
Now it is part of a consistent pattern of large scale environmental depravity. The louder an incumbent calls him or herself an environmentalist, the greater I cringe.

3. Frederick Rindge, the Library and High School Block.

I will try to be as specific as I can be in my historical analysis, trying to avoid statements which may or may not be correct. In the 70's, I knew the history very well.

It is difficult to imagine a greater contributor of land and property to the City of Cambridge.
Frederick Rindge gave the City Hall to the City of Cambridge. I think he built it.

Frederick Rindge gave the Public Library site to the City of Cambridge. I am quite certain he built the oldest building in the public library. Rindge probably gave the sites to the east and west of the public library to the City of Cambridge and he probably gave buildings which were located on that site.

Rindge clearly gave the Public Library site to the City of Cambridge on condition that it be used for a Public Library and not for ordinary city purposes such as a school house.

The public library site extended from Broadway to Cambridge Street in the heart of the City of Cambridge. The public library site was the centerpiece of that part of the city and a library was a jewel in the middle of that centerpiece. The site visibly connected the two streets and was a unifying factor in the City of Cambridge.

There are now perhaps 10 massive trees located between the public library and Cambridge Street. They could very easily date back to the gift of Frederick Rindge in the late 18th Century. In the early 70's, there were 30 or more.

To the west of the public library site was Cambridge Rindge Technical School, a high school level trade school. The site was accumulated over the years and grew to fill the area between Broadway and Cambridge Street. Rindge Tech grew to fill that site.

On the east was Cambridge High School which consisted of two older buildings, the older of which, to the rear, was probably the gift of Frederick Rindge. In perhaps the 1950's, there was added in the northern part of the site a gymnasium / pool complex. Three to six houses continue to this day to site between the high school complex and the northeast corner of what would otherwise be a rectangle totally owned by the City of Cambridge.

4. The law suit.

In the 70's, the City of Cambridge wanted to modernize its high schools. The construction in the 70's decreased the land and floor space occupied by the high schools. The city could very easily have phased the construction to replace one high school building and then the other. The result would have been a campus style school centered on the public library and excellently using its open space.

Instead, the city combined the high schools on top of those century old trees.

I conducted a law suit on behalf of 10 taxpayers to save that excellent park based on the wishes of Frederick Rindge when he gave the city the Public Library site to "be used for a Public Library and not for ordinary city purposes such as a school house." In the middle of the suit, the state Supreme Judicial Court came down with a decision which seemed to change the law of public trust. The change was on an issue not really in dispute in the case, but the words were said. So in the middle of the case, I was faced with a case that had to go to the Supreme Judicial Court to correct that language. The language was corrected the way I expected it would be, in the 80's.

I got a preliminary injunction against destruction of that excellent woods on appeal, which was generally considered next to impossible. At one point, my case was simultaneously in front of the Superior Court, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court. On consecutive days, at one point, I had hearings in front of two different levels of Court, fully briefed.

We were faced with a judge at Superior Court who decided as a matter of "fact" that the excellent woods on the Broadway portion were not open space, were not a park. The judge, as a matter of factual finding, found that the wooded open space was part of the public library and was thus not available for protection under state law protecting open space.

I could have appealed and won on legal issues. The finding by the judge that, as a matter of "fact," that excellent park was not a park killed the law suit and killed the park.

Two buildings were built on top of those excellent trees.

An undeveloped expanse of grass was created where the two Cambridge High School buildings had stood on Broadway. Large numbers of trees were constructed between the Public Library and Broadway.

Broadway residents stabbed their neighbors in the back for the benefit of this blood money.
But the large expense of grass was OBVIOUSLY land banking.

5. Phase 2.

When phase 2 was announced, in that open space, the back stabbers fought to defend their blood money. They lost.

If those neighbors had not stabbed their neighbors, their neighborhood and their city in the back, the excellent open space which Rindge had created and demanded to continue would have been laid out such that further construction would have been impossible.

But the back stabbers gave the open space destroyers the position they needed to go forward.
As Roy said in the beginning, the magnificent collection of trees which were in front of the library in the first place and which were added as part of the blood money in the 70's has been destroyed except for two trees.

6. That is the way things are done in the City of Cambridge, MA.

Thank you, Roy.

7. After words.

For what it is worth, this report is being posted off the Public Internet connection in the temporary public library.

Charles River White Ducks still search for a replacement for their irresponsibly destroyed home

Bob La Trémouille reports:

It looks like I may have been wrong in reporting that the Charles River White Ducks found a new lair.

A tiny minority of very destructive people have led me to cling to pretty much any straw. It is entirely possible I saw two Charles River White Geese setting up nesting and, with nobody to compare for size near them, I incorrectly assumed they were Andrake and Daffney. Andrake and Daffney are BIG ducks, not as large as the Charles River White Geese, but nevertheless quite big.

This afternoon, the Charles River White Geese pretty much filled the destroyed nesting area, looking around for places to call home.

The Charles River is thawing. It never fully froze. There is a lot of free water under the Grand Junction railroad bridge. The ice next to the destroyed nesting area still is separated from the shore in the same spot it has been throughout the coldest part of the river, but now it is a big sheet of ice with free water beyond.

Most of the ice sheet was occupied by mallard ducks, with a couple of white geese and one sole gander. On the furthest point were the Charles River White Ducks.

The situation on the Charles River is the same as in Cambridge, MA. Some very destructive hypocrites are doing a lot of damage. The hypocrites on the Charles River are agents of the state bureaucrats who run the place. All have contempt for nature and aggressively are destroying nature.

The vegetation which has protected the Charles River White Ducks since their freedom has been destroyed by these sickos, the Charles River Conservancy. This vegetation is part of a well established wild part of the Boston side of the Charles River very close to Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road. The vegetation has vastly improved the view from the Cambridge side because it hid the highway. This vegetation has been terrific for water born animals.

But we have sick people with contempt for nature and for the Charles River. The Charles River Conservancy destroys, destroys, destroys. They fit in very nicely with the Cambridge City Council.

The Charles River White Ducks find a new lair

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have frequently reported on the status of the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney.

They were abandoned at Magazine Beach last summer on the day before our memorial for Bumpy the leader of the gaggle, on the fifth anniversary of his very political killing. During the celebration a sick alleged human being loosed his dog on them. I saved the two. I used the dog as a football when he had his teeth on Andrake's neck.

Bill Naumann taught them what the Charles River was for. He backed into the Charles River while feeding them. They followed him and were overjoyed by their discovery of the Charles River. They established a lair under vegetation on the south side which has since been destroyed by sickos from the Charles River Conservancy.

I was very pleased today to get the impression that they have a new lair. It looks very safe and could be a good place for baby ducks to hatch.

*********

Caveat: I have been putting out reports on the Charles River since March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to the Destroyed Nesting Area to learn that sickos from Boston University had destroyed in on behalf of the DCR/MDC.

My reports since then, combining email newsletters and this blog, have easily exceeded 700.

One thing I have always done is realize that there are truly reprehensible people in this world: Boston University, the state bureaucrats, the Cambridge City Council, and loads of people who are either pulling their strings or having their strings pulled.

Given this truly belligerent, but very destructive, minority, I have been extremely careful about divulging information which could lead to harm to the animals of the Charles River if the wrong sicko got that information.

I am not going to say any more about the new location of the lair of the Charles River White Ducks.

Thank you.

Cambridge Chronicle - Odd Environmental Actions

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Recent Environmental Destruction.
2. This week's Cambridge Chronicle.
A. Silver Maple Forest.
B. Fake Environmental Group.
3. Proposed letter to the Editor, Silver Maple, Fake Environmental Group in Context.
4. Existing Record of the City of Cambridge and its "Groups."
5. The Bad Guys respond.
6. Cambridge Chronicle prints letter.

1. Recent Environmental Destruction.

A couple of weeks ago we reported about strikingly irresponsible tree destruction coming in the City of Cambridge.

The Cambridge Chronicle promptly dispatched a photographer who took some excellent photos of Kathy Podgers, her companion dog and me under eight excellent and threatened trees. Their reporter interviewed me on Friday, Monday (the photo session) and Tuesday.

But nothing appeared in that Thursday's issue and what appeared in today's issue is exactly the opposite.

2. This week's Cambridge Chronicle.

A. Silver Maple Forest.

They printed a letter concerning the planned private destruction of the silver forest in Belmont / Cambridge near Alewife and Cambridge Highlands. Excellent letter. Writer with strikingly problematic record.

B. Fake Environmental Group.

They devoted an entire section front page to a new, fake green group.

The group claims to be pro-environment, but could give a damn less about the massive environmental destruction ongoing by their friends, the City of Cambridge. But they love fancy light bulbs.

Interestingly, they look like friends of incumbent Cambridge City Councilors. Standard position of the Cambridge City Council: "How dare you look at our massive environmental destruction. Look at our fancy light bulbs."

3. Proposed letter to the Editor, Silver Maple, Fake Environmental Group in Context.

I just submitted the following proposed letter to the editor, some edits added:

************

I appreciated the letter about the impact of proposed construction on Route 2 on Cambridge Highlands. That is a very major concern, but it must be placed in context.

The context is that the greatest environmental threat is irresponsible environmental behavior by the City of Cambridge and its friends in the state bureaucracy.

Cambridge Highlands is across the street from the Fresh Pond Reservation. Cambridge is in the process of destroying thousands of trees at the Fresh Pond Reservation. The reason is that Cambridge wants to put in saplings so that Cambridge can brag about all the saplings that Cambridge has installed without mentioning the healthy, mature trees destroyed to put in saplings.

At Alewife, next to the private project on Route 2, Cambridge plans massive environmental destruction of near virgin woodlands to put in a drainage tank which should be installed under a parking lot about 500 feet to the south.

Hundreds of trees are being destroyed on the Charles River along with all wetlands and all animal habitat.

Pretty much every city project starts with the destruction of trees, almost all the destruction not only unnecessary but silly. Street trees and trees in new construction are constantly destroyed, even the largest.

The city's response to objections about their environmental destuction? The city's friends create "green" groups which could care less about massive government destruction of the green, but the "green" groups love their fancy light bulbs. But they sound so good while their friends at the city and state aggressively destroy Cambridge's green heritage.

4. Existing Record of the City of Cambridge and its "Groups."

Cambridge is a very active community.

The City of Cambridge started creating grass roots groups back in the 70's. They would talk with their friends and their friends would create the groups.

It was not at all surprising that the friends would work to make these groups as fake as possible, that is work to make the supposed grass roots organizations work to accomplish the dirty tricks that the City of Cambridge is trying to do.

There are all sorts of lovely techniques to make a group look real and to have it be REALLY FAKE. But the fake groups can be used to achieve their supposed purposes because, usually, there are more real people in the group than there are fakes, but you are fighting against major, very real institutional obstacles.

Thus groups which give the impression of being created to control the government in reality act to control the activists.

In the middle of this reprehensible situation are fake environmental groups.

I have no problems if friend of the Cambridge City Council want to run around fighting for fancy light bulbs. I just expect their groups to be honestly named.

"The Group Fighting for Fancy Light Bulbs" sounds like an excellent name.

"Greenport" strikes me as a name which is a flat out lie for a group which is managed to prevent defense of the Green when the friends of the organizers (city councilors) are aggressively destroying the Green in Cambridge.

And there is no way the organizers of these fake green organizations will name their groups in an honest manner.

But this is business as usual in Cambridge.

Reprehensible, for all practical purposes fraudulent, but business as usual.

5. The Bad Guys respond.

I have discussed the above analysis of this alleged Green organization with one of its founders.

Her response was to give them a few years and see how they look. That, to me, sounded like just another con in a city very consistent for its con jobs.

I passed on to the Cambridgeport list an announcement from an incipient Green organization in Allston in which the incipient Green organization was talking about all sorts of Green things.

But this Cambridge "Green" organization is talking about fancy light bulbs and is very visibly being organized by people who don’t want to hear about REAL Green issues in Cambridge.

And their friends on the Cambridge City Council have consistently used this fraud on the voters of claiming environmental sainthood, but the only sainthood they have is fancy lightbulbs.

Do I think it is just an extension of the environmental fraud on the Cambridge City Council? Of course, I do.

And they would not even dream of using an honest name for their fancy light bulb group.

6. Cambridge Chronicle prints letter.

My original draft of the letter in section 3 was printed by the Cambridge Chronicle in its March 1, 2006, edition, at page 10. The title they gave was "Trees are more important than light bulbs." The letter printed, being the original draft, has differences from what I have given you above, but does not differ at the bottom line.

The Cambridge Chronicle printed the letter close to an op-ed piece by another of Cambridge's "Green" groups which could care less about Cambridge's and the state bureaucrats' ongoing destruction of Cambridge's green heritage.

The "Green" group's piece said pretty much nothing, as usual. They did not even mention their fancy light bulbs.

Flooding of Innocent Victims - Reality impacts Harvard's Application for Sainthood

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have recently quoted a number of comments about Harvard University in a report quoting extensively from the Cambridgeport (Cambridge) listserve.

The following is a report today from the Riverside (Cambridge) listserve. I have added paragraphing and nothing else.

The Mahoney's site is just west of Western Avenue across Memorial Drive from the Charles River. The neighborhood got shafted with an outrageous upzoning to maximize Harvard's development potential there. Key people in the shafting sounded tremendously like the people I was calling "Bad Guy 1" and "Bad Guy 2" in my report.

Riverside Place is between Western Avenue and the part of the project Lawrence is mostly mentioning. Actually, the Harvard project is on both sides of Western Avenue

*****************

From Lawrence Adkins:

Today I was with the Ashe Family who has ran into some bad luck.

This is the family living on Riverside Place Street, directly behind the former Mahoney site. The home on the street is flooded with 3 ft. of water in there basement.

They called Ed Laflore (Harvard mitigation manager) to be told that when he gets to work on Tuesday he will see what can be done. If you recall some of our concerns were the lack of proper drainage due to the ADA cross walks, this trapped the rain water on the entire street. The Ashes' are renting a pump to get the water out of the basement.

I did call Tom Lucey (Harvard Director of Community Relations), only able to leave a message. Someone from the University told the Ashes they did have access to a pump.

This is strange with the university having their power station directly across the street.