Reported by Bob La Trémouille
An old friend wrote to seek help for an injured Canada near WBZ on Soldiers Field Road in Allston - Brighton.
The following are his comments and my reply. If anybody can help, it would be appreciated.
Since this was initially published, comments have come in from Marilyn, Cheri and Ellen as well, plus a few others.
I have added a nice summary from Cheri. Of necessity, this is the end and I cannot include all the comments. This is getting too long.
1. Injured Goose.
2. Your editor's reply.
3. Marilyn.
4. Cheri of Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA.
5. Bob in Response to Cheri.
6. Cheri - Summary.
1. Injured Goose.
William Budington writes:
*********
Hello friends of the Charles River White Geese,
I am contacting you because Cheri from Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA alerted me to a situation which has been troubling her. A man that works for a radio station in Boston located at 1200 Storrow Drive called Cheri and told her that there is a Canadian Goose with one foot living near his place of work, and that this goose would often cross Storrow when looking for food and water. He is concerned that the Goose will get hit by oncoming traffic, especially given its disabled condition.
The goose is also ostracized from the other geese living there because of its condition.
Since Cheri has to take care of the animals on the farm, she doesn't really have any time to come into Boston. So she called me to see if I could look into it and hopefully bring the duck to her, so that it can live out its life in peace on the farm. Today, myself and a friend of mine went to investigate, and we found the goose. After numerous attempts to approach the goose, he just flew away.
Recognizing that the attempt was futile, we stopped and figured we would need some additional help in this situation.
We were wondering if any of you have any experience with this sort of stuff, and if not, if you can refer us to someone that can help us.
Cheri has a net that we can possibly use, but we personally have no experience with capturing geese.
If you can help, please let me know. I am available at this email and my phone number is 857 204 6906.
Thank you,
Bill
Volunteer, Boston Animal Defense League
2. Your editor's reply.
I am copying a number of people who might be interested. (Aside to Marilyn: I can't find our Brighton contacts.)
Unfortunately, Little Brook, the Native American who cared for the Charles River White Geese for a number of years and who also does not live that far from you (1) does not have direct email access and (2) is not in very good physical shape.
Little Brook, however, is the only person I am aware of with experience providing comfort and native medications to water fowl in need.
I will also post your notice of the Charles River White Geese blog.
A few thoughts, however. In 2001, a nut ran around the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. He killed a number of nesting geese and finally graduated to the rape and murder of a young woman for which he has been tried and convicted.
He was emulating the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation. These two entitities egged him on with the silence of the guilty.
The nut's attacks on animals reached a pinnacle in July 2001 when, in an clearly political act, he apparently was the killer of Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle. WBZ-TV telecast the removal of Bumpy's body from the Charles as the lead of its 11 pm newscast.
Our first knowledge that something was wrong when Bumpy was killed was when some youths found a young female goose who had been stabbed in the side. She was one of five other geese, besides Bumpy, attacked in that outrage.
Iowa, as we called her, hopped around on one foot until the following November or December when she finally was able to start using that leg. She got a lot of treatment from Little Brook. After a period of years, she recovered so much that her prior infirmity was fully healed for all practical purposes.
I find the fact that the Canada is flying away from you to be a positive thing.
Iowa hopped around on one leg for many months, either fully off her injured leg or, then, favoring the injured leg. Iowa also kept away from all humans other than Little Brook. I would think that your one-legged Canada should be able to survive quite adequately, especially since he has retained his ability to fly.
Iowa was never rejected by the gaggle. The fact that he is ostracized is ominous. [I, however, remember a Canada who was similarly ostracized. I saw him during the spring in the park between the Gardner Museum and the Museum School. If this is the same one, the fact that he is still alive says a lot. This other guy's problem, however, looked like angel-wing, an odd wing formation.
My and Marilyn Wellons' (my co-chair with the Friends of the White Geese) experience has been that free animals, more than anything else, want to remain free. When they are so hurt that they allow themselves to be carried by somebody wishing to help, especially to be carried away from their habitat, they commonly have been beyond help.
Thank you for your true concern about animals (and your name is familiar).
PS: I also remember Cheri, and I do so with good feelings. I am copying her as well.
3. Marilyn.
Bob, Mr. Budington,
I'm trying to see Little Brook sometime this week and
will raise the issue of the injured goose.
My own reaction is that if the goose can fly and is
eating, it will recover or not, as nature decides.
Iowa, the goose Bob mentions, wasn't excluded by the
flock when she was so hurt. She definitely kept
herself apart to nurse her wounds, though. In time
she recovered and rejoined the group.
I've seen solitary geese over the years of walking on
the Charles. Since geese are social animals this is
unusual. Given all the water traffic from big motor
boats in the summer and shells leading up to and
including the Head of the Charles, it wouldn't
surprise me if there were injuries among migrating
birds whose flocks moved on without them.
There are, apparently, ways of treating injured geese,
and Little Brook knows them. I will ask him what he
recommends.
Thank you so much for caring about the goose! I'll
get back to you asap.
Marilyn Wellons
4. Cheri of Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA.
I received your email that you also sent Bill regarding the goose on Soldier's Field Rd. The fellow who originally called me (from the radio station) called me a few minutes ago, still concerned. I explained I had several people that went there over the weekend to observe the goose.
Like you, I'd rather see a wild animal remain where it feels safe and live out it's life. If he were in desperate pain I would take a different action. But it sounds like the goose can fly (although it can't push off as well as a normal goose) and it eats well. According to this concerned fellow, the flock left and this goose is all by itself now. This fellow has found another group in Bellerica that is willing to take the goose in but they need someone to bring the goose to them (the group is Beaks and Noses I believe). I tried to discourage him from putting the goose through that trauma but ultimately I can't control his final decision.
Any further words of wisdom would be deeply appreciated...
Peace,
Cheri
Maple Farm Sanctuary
5. Bob in Response to Cheri.
It sounds like we are in agreement.
My only words of wisdom (aside from passing your comments on to the same key people who got the original transmittal of my response to him) are that I would love to add your comments to the blog report.
As far as the Canada being left back by his gaggle, my strongest wish is that he find the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese in such a manner that he is comfortable going there.
The Charles River Urban Wilds people (one of the bcc's) regularly feed needy water fowl. I have been aware of, in one case, a Canada whose mate was killed who simply stayed her. I and some others referred to him as the lone Canada.
Food is available for this valiant bird in addition to what he would normally find anyway. I hope he finds it, but birds survive during the off season.
You are a good person and an old friend. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in you.
6. Cheri - Summary.
Bob, Ellen, Marilyn,
It's been so wonderful having this support system even though my instincts have certainly guided me to our combined opinion. The fellow who first contacted about this goose is very concerned about the wellbeing of this bird, and I'm grateful for anyone having concern for the environment and it's inhabitants. I think his concerns brought him to the conclusion that captivity would protect and heal the goose.
Hopefully he is beginning to understand that the best thing is to allow the goose to live out it's life in the wild, with some assistance. Some of my friends are now making regular visits to make certain the goose has food. At some point I'm hoping the goose will find the feeding station by the BU bridge.
My thoughts, prayers and respect go out to Little Brook if anyone talks to him...
I will contact Bob if there are any changes we need to be concerned
about. Thank-you all for your kind hearts.
Peace,
Cheri
Maple Farm Sanctuary
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Do Cambridge Pols Have a right to Lie about Environmentalism?
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
4. Editor's Response.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.
1. Introduction.
On the front page of the October 4, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle, the newspaper reported that Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley's campaign manager acted in a key capacity in a candidate's night without being disclosed as his Campaign Manager.
This failure to disclose struck me as business as usual from Kelley and his buddies on environmental issues, so I wrote a letter to the editor saying that. The letter I sent is reprinted in section 2.
I was rather pleased with the letter, so I distributed it to 400 or 500 of my closest friends on about a third of an email list I used for perhaps 500 environmental reports before Friends of the White Geese started this blog.
One of the members of the list is Kelley's campaign manager. She responded with the email quoted in section 3.
Section 4 is my response to a key point in her response.
The Cambridge Chronicle printed my letter very prominently this morning, Thursday, October 11. It was preceded only by Kelley's response to the article. The Chronicle omitted two paragraphs of my letter. That reporting is quoted in section 5.
The secret definition of "environmentalism" as elaborated by Sam Seidel on behalf of the Cambridge pols may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I appreciated your front page exposure of Craig Kelley giving people the false impression that his campaign manager was a neutral party at East Cambridge ’s candidate’s night. On environmental matters people giving the false impression about where they are coming from is the norm in Cambridge. Kelley's 2005 race was an excellent example.
Kelley went so far in 2005 as to put on a special presentation telling people about environmental protection. He actually gave people the impression that he was pro-environment, rather than being as environmentally destructive as all nine of the then incumbents.
Sam Seidel did an excellent presentation in The Alewife a few months ago in which he mocked me for being consistent in my protection of the environment. Seidel bragged that the Cambridge pols have their own (secret) definition of environmentalism which he called much better than the one I (and most people in our world) live by.
Kelley and the rest of the active pols have shown flat out contempt for the environment on matters particular to the City of Cambridge and particular to the REAL powers of the Cambridge City Council.
The continuing outrage on Memorial Drive is only one example.
Nine city councilors told their constituents that they were protecting the Radisson Hotel area by the Memorial Drive Overlay District. They neglected to mention that their protections were a flat out lie as is demonstrated by the building soon to come there towering over the sidewalk.
Kelley and the others claim to be "green." They neglect to mention that the green they are talking about includes algae they are inviting to the Charles River by the second part of the outrage continuing on Magazine Beach. Poisons are not now necessary to protect the playing fields at Magazine Beach. Kelley and the others have demanded that the governor go forward with digging up our perfectly good playing fields and replacing them with dirt, sod and poisons. Cambridge kids are expected to roll around in this stuff.
The predecessor project to Magazine Beach , Ebersol Fields near MGH, saw the DCR dump on Tartan (prohibited near water) when the basic poisons did not work. The next day, the Charles River was infested with algae from the harbor to Mass. Ave.
I could go on with massive, needless destruction of healthy trees. I could go on with destruction of wetlands. I could go on with the encouragement of WORSE traffic on Memorial Drive. I could mention the apparently thousands of healthy trees being destroyed at Fresh Pond.
I, and the rest of us, live in reality. Kelley and the rest of the Cambridge pols live in a fake reality in which they casually define "environmentalism" to include environmental destruction.
Once again, thanks for the front page article and the editorial. On Kelley's key issue, environmentalism, I see only one candidate so far who is fit to be respected, and there is no similarity between the spelling of "Podgers" and the spelling of "Kelley."
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
Bob,
I thought the American Justic System stated that a person was innocent until proven guilty. You don't know me nor have you asked me what has happened. How sad. To go from a simple error which could not have been corrected to stating I was not a neutral party without knowing the facts to Kelley is against the environment leads me to think there is something very wrong with your thought process. The two are not related. Please take me off your list.
4. Editor's Response.
The outrage which passes for environmentalism in Cambridge is based exactly on your argument.
Kelley and the other destroyers claim to have a right to destroy our city's environment while loudly calling themselves environmental protectors.
"It is improper to call me a flat out liar without a jury decision calling me a liar. I have a flat out right to lie and lie and lie while at the same time destroying and destroying and destroying."
That is a little bit clearer than Sam Seidel's piece.
Thank you.
PS: You are off the list.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.
In the first of the two letters, Kelley's second paragraph of two (referring to his campaign manager activities in that candidate night) read:
***********
People in Cambridge rightly expect me and everything I'm associated with, to be as open and transparent as possible. I blew it in this case and will strive to learn from this mistake to make sure my actions are even more open and transparent in the future.
***********
The Chronicle deleted two paragraphs in my letter. The result was that Kelley's letter and mine were pretty much the only letters on the letters/editorial page. They printed the beginning of a third letter on that page.
The Chronicle's printing deleted the third paragraph of my letter, starting with "Sam Seidel" and deleted the third paragraph from the end providing more general examples of environmental destruction by Kelley and his friends.
1. Introduction.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
4. Editor's Response.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.
1. Introduction.
On the front page of the October 4, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle, the newspaper reported that Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley's campaign manager acted in a key capacity in a candidate's night without being disclosed as his Campaign Manager.
This failure to disclose struck me as business as usual from Kelley and his buddies on environmental issues, so I wrote a letter to the editor saying that. The letter I sent is reprinted in section 2.
I was rather pleased with the letter, so I distributed it to 400 or 500 of my closest friends on about a third of an email list I used for perhaps 500 environmental reports before Friends of the White Geese started this blog.
One of the members of the list is Kelley's campaign manager. She responded with the email quoted in section 3.
Section 4 is my response to a key point in her response.
The Cambridge Chronicle printed my letter very prominently this morning, Thursday, October 11. It was preceded only by Kelley's response to the article. The Chronicle omitted two paragraphs of my letter. That reporting is quoted in section 5.
The secret definition of "environmentalism" as elaborated by Sam Seidel on behalf of the Cambridge pols may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I appreciated your front page exposure of Craig Kelley giving people the false impression that his campaign manager was a neutral party at East Cambridge ’s candidate’s night. On environmental matters people giving the false impression about where they are coming from is the norm in Cambridge. Kelley's 2005 race was an excellent example.
Kelley went so far in 2005 as to put on a special presentation telling people about environmental protection. He actually gave people the impression that he was pro-environment, rather than being as environmentally destructive as all nine of the then incumbents.
Sam Seidel did an excellent presentation in The Alewife a few months ago in which he mocked me for being consistent in my protection of the environment. Seidel bragged that the Cambridge pols have their own (secret) definition of environmentalism which he called much better than the one I (and most people in our world) live by.
Kelley and the rest of the active pols have shown flat out contempt for the environment on matters particular to the City of Cambridge and particular to the REAL powers of the Cambridge City Council.
The continuing outrage on Memorial Drive is only one example.
Nine city councilors told their constituents that they were protecting the Radisson Hotel area by the Memorial Drive Overlay District. They neglected to mention that their protections were a flat out lie as is demonstrated by the building soon to come there towering over the sidewalk.
Kelley and the others claim to be "green." They neglect to mention that the green they are talking about includes algae they are inviting to the Charles River by the second part of the outrage continuing on Magazine Beach. Poisons are not now necessary to protect the playing fields at Magazine Beach. Kelley and the others have demanded that the governor go forward with digging up our perfectly good playing fields and replacing them with dirt, sod and poisons. Cambridge kids are expected to roll around in this stuff.
The predecessor project to Magazine Beach , Ebersol Fields near MGH, saw the DCR dump on Tartan (prohibited near water) when the basic poisons did not work. The next day, the Charles River was infested with algae from the harbor to Mass. Ave.
I could go on with massive, needless destruction of healthy trees. I could go on with destruction of wetlands. I could go on with the encouragement of WORSE traffic on Memorial Drive. I could mention the apparently thousands of healthy trees being destroyed at Fresh Pond.
I, and the rest of us, live in reality. Kelley and the rest of the Cambridge pols live in a fake reality in which they casually define "environmentalism" to include environmental destruction.
Once again, thanks for the front page article and the editorial. On Kelley's key issue, environmentalism, I see only one candidate so far who is fit to be respected, and there is no similarity between the spelling of "Podgers" and the spelling of "Kelley."
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
Bob,
I thought the American Justic System stated that a person was innocent until proven guilty. You don't know me nor have you asked me what has happened. How sad. To go from a simple error which could not have been corrected to stating I was not a neutral party without knowing the facts to Kelley is against the environment leads me to think there is something very wrong with your thought process. The two are not related. Please take me off your list.
4. Editor's Response.
The outrage which passes for environmentalism in Cambridge is based exactly on your argument.
Kelley and the other destroyers claim to have a right to destroy our city's environment while loudly calling themselves environmental protectors.
"It is improper to call me a flat out liar without a jury decision calling me a liar. I have a flat out right to lie and lie and lie while at the same time destroying and destroying and destroying."
That is a little bit clearer than Sam Seidel's piece.
Thank you.
PS: You are off the list.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.
In the first of the two letters, Kelley's second paragraph of two (referring to his campaign manager activities in that candidate night) read:
***********
People in Cambridge rightly expect me and everything I'm associated with, to be as open and transparent as possible. I blew it in this case and will strive to learn from this mistake to make sure my actions are even more open and transparent in the future.
***********
The Chronicle deleted two paragraphs in my letter. The result was that Kelley's letter and mine were pretty much the only letters on the letters/editorial page. They printed the beginning of a third letter on that page.
The Chronicle's printing deleted the third paragraph of my letter, starting with "Sam Seidel" and deleted the third paragraph from the end providing more general examples of environmental destruction by Kelley and his friends.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Cambridge City Council votes to pollute the Charles, expose children to pesticides and other chemicals
On September 24, 2007 the Cambridge City Council voted to endorse the joint Cambridge-DCR project at Magazine Beach. Councillor Davis's Order, described here on September 23 ("Environmental Destroyer"), passed, 8-0-1. Councillor Galluccio was absent.
The September 23 blog also posted the text of Marilyn Wellons's letter to the City Council and a copy of her July 29, 2007 e-mail to to Rep. Marty Walz ("Reality on the 'Renovation' of Magazine Beach").
After the Council's vote, Wellons sent the following letter to the Cambridge legislative delegation and attached the July 29 e-mail to Walz as documentation. (This entry reposts that e-mail.) She sent similar letters, with the attachment, to the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, and to the Governor.
Since these elected officials represent non-Cambridge municipalities and voters who have paid to clean up the Charles River and Boston Harbor, they may bring some common sense to the issue if the Cambridge City Council will not or cannot.
Cambridge voters might ask themselves and candidates this election year why we should pay for the ill-conceived project. Like Ebersol Fields, it will create toxic algae blooms in the river. According to the city's agreement with the DCR, it will give Cambridge public school children first priority for exposure to the herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides needed to maintain the 7 acres of commercial sod.
Voters might also ask candidates for City Council and School Committee how this project affects natural ecosystems, water quality, pollution of the environment, and exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.
Leaving aside fears of brain-eating amoebas that feed on algae in warm water, anyone with hopes of swimming in the Charles should ask how this project advances that goal.
****
Dear Members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation:
Last night the Cambridge City Council voted to urge you to "assure that work goes forward [with the joint Cambridge-DCR project] at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline," i.e., contract out to bid in October, construction in 2008. Cambridge has placed $1.5 million in escrow for it, to be released at the Governor's discretion.
The project will replace 7 acres of dirt and grass adapted to the riverfront environment with 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, an irrigation system, and fences.
Its prototype is "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" in Boston, near MGH. Runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod there polluted the Charles River in 2006 and 2007, creating a public health hazard. As a result of DCR ongoing maintenance of the professional-level turf, pollution from this source and resulting dangerous algae blooms will continue.
The fields now at Magazine Beach simultaneously accommodate an existing regulation Little League field, soccer, frisbee, golf practice, other active uses, and "Bordering Land Subject to Flooding"--rich wildlife habitat and important passive open space for us city dwellers. A second regulation Little League field is less than 200 yards away, at Lindstrom Field between Memorial Drive and Granite Street.
As at Ebersol, at Magazine Beach the commercial sod will get repeated applications of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides to maintain it. Children and adults, pets and wildlife, all will be exposed to these chemicals. As downstream, runoff from the fields will pollute the river and, subsequently, the harbor.
You represent not only Cambridge but other municipalities in the Charles River watershed, whose taxpayers have already paid $60 million to clean it up. Another $19 million will be spent before 2013 for this purpose. Please exercise judgment and urge the Governor to protect the river, not destroy it.
I am writing the Governor and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, to alert them to these problems and ask for common sense from them as well.
Attached please find my e-mail of July 29, 2007, to Rep. Marty Walz. It outlines the connection between installation and maintenance of Ebersol Fields and the resulting algae blooms of 2006 and 2007.
****
July 29 e-mail:
Dear Rep. Walz,
Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).
The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.
Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)
Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)
Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)
In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)
The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.
The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.
In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.
With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.
The September 23 blog also posted the text of Marilyn Wellons's letter to the City Council and a copy of her July 29, 2007 e-mail to to Rep. Marty Walz ("Reality on the 'Renovation' of Magazine Beach").
After the Council's vote, Wellons sent the following letter to the Cambridge legislative delegation and attached the July 29 e-mail to Walz as documentation. (This entry reposts that e-mail.) She sent similar letters, with the attachment, to the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, and to the Governor.
Since these elected officials represent non-Cambridge municipalities and voters who have paid to clean up the Charles River and Boston Harbor, they may bring some common sense to the issue if the Cambridge City Council will not or cannot.
Cambridge voters might ask themselves and candidates this election year why we should pay for the ill-conceived project. Like Ebersol Fields, it will create toxic algae blooms in the river. According to the city's agreement with the DCR, it will give Cambridge public school children first priority for exposure to the herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides needed to maintain the 7 acres of commercial sod.
Voters might also ask candidates for City Council and School Committee how this project affects natural ecosystems, water quality, pollution of the environment, and exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.
Leaving aside fears of brain-eating amoebas that feed on algae in warm water, anyone with hopes of swimming in the Charles should ask how this project advances that goal.
****
Dear Members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation:
Last night the Cambridge City Council voted to urge you to "assure that work goes forward [with the joint Cambridge-DCR project] at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline," i.e., contract out to bid in October, construction in 2008. Cambridge has placed $1.5 million in escrow for it, to be released at the Governor's discretion.
The project will replace 7 acres of dirt and grass adapted to the riverfront environment with 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, an irrigation system, and fences.
Its prototype is "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" in Boston, near MGH. Runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod there polluted the Charles River in 2006 and 2007, creating a public health hazard. As a result of DCR ongoing maintenance of the professional-level turf, pollution from this source and resulting dangerous algae blooms will continue.
The fields now at Magazine Beach simultaneously accommodate an existing regulation Little League field, soccer, frisbee, golf practice, other active uses, and "Bordering Land Subject to Flooding"--rich wildlife habitat and important passive open space for us city dwellers. A second regulation Little League field is less than 200 yards away, at Lindstrom Field between Memorial Drive and Granite Street.
As at Ebersol, at Magazine Beach the commercial sod will get repeated applications of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides to maintain it. Children and adults, pets and wildlife, all will be exposed to these chemicals. As downstream, runoff from the fields will pollute the river and, subsequently, the harbor.
You represent not only Cambridge but other municipalities in the Charles River watershed, whose taxpayers have already paid $60 million to clean it up. Another $19 million will be spent before 2013 for this purpose. Please exercise judgment and urge the Governor to protect the river, not destroy it.
I am writing the Governor and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, to alert them to these problems and ask for common sense from them as well.
Attached please find my e-mail of July 29, 2007, to Rep. Marty Walz. It outlines the connection between installation and maintenance of Ebersol Fields and the resulting algae blooms of 2006 and 2007.
****
July 29 e-mail:
Dear Rep. Walz,
Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).
The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.
Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)
Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)
Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)
In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)
The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.
The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.
In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.
With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Environmental Destroyer Putting Cambridge City Council on Record Supporting Poisoning of the Charles River
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
3. 2004 Destruction.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.
1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
The following is proposed Order number 13 submitted by Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis for the September 24, 2007 meeting:
WHEREAS: The DCR has informed the City Manager that the bid package for Magazine Beach was once again delayed due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system which will result in a construction delay; and
WHEREAS: Richard Corsi of the DCR anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out in mid-October of this year; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to urge the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to assure that work goes forward at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to inform the City Council of any changes in the work schedule at Magazine Beach.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
Davis’ record is very clear. Environmentally, on the matters that count, Cambridge has nine City Councillors who are heartlessly destructive of the environment. Davis is the worst.
3. 2004 Destruction.
The Magazine Beach project is a continuation of two actions taken by the City of Cambridge and its agents in 2004 when they started starving the Charles River White Geese.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
Part of the vile behavior in 2004 was supposedly sewerage work on an outlet across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel. This grassy slope was part of the habitat and food of the Charles River White Geese since the beginning, 26 years ago. It was the eastern end of the habitat.
The sickos from the City of Cambridge finished the sewerage work and left a wall of plastic blocking access to the food from the Charles River. Absolutely no excuse. Truly vile, truly in character with the pols and bureaucrats of the state and the City of Cambridge.
The wall was installed in September 2004.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
In September 2004, strictly by “coincidence” (I do not believe in sick “coincidences”), Cambridge and the DCR dug up all the wetlands at Magazine Beach, preventing access to all that food from the water. This was the western end of the habitat, and the balance of the food of the Charles River White Geese.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation, from 2000 to about 2006, repeatedly insisted they had no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.
Corsi, referenced in Davis’ order, explained the apparent contradiction in about 2006. He explained that he does not consider starving the Charles River White Geese harming them.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
Cambridge and the DCR sicced representatives on the project at Magazine Beach in 2005. The representatives did a swim in, bragging that the project was assisting in swimming in the Charles River. That part of the project constructed a physical wall PREVENTING access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. The FLAT OUT LIE was part a package of pretty much non-stop lies on the projects on the Charles River.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
The wall consists of a bunch of designer plants so unfit for the Charles River environment that they kept dying. The LIE which explained this wall of plants called them “native.” As near as I can gather, the secret definition of “native” used by these people translates as “unfit for the local environment.”
There has been a tiny gap left exactly where sickos like to run dogs off leash. The Charles River White Geese have started to feed very early in the morning and leave when the dogs show up. 95% of their feeding ground at Magazine Beach is denied them. 100% of their feeding ground at the Hyatt has never stopped being denied them.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
The sick portion of the sick project which Davis is now pushing constitutes digging up all the grass and soil at the Magazine Beach playing fields, trucking it away and replacing this perfectly good grass and soil with grass, soil, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers replace the wetlands which did not need to be destroyed. The poisons protect the commercial grade grass from problems which are not problems before the project.
The precursor for this project is another ball field at Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. The poisons were not effective enough to keep the bureaucrats happy, so they installed Tartan fungicide. The DAY AFTER THE TARTAN was installed, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, algae all over the place.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
The pols and the bureaucrats has tested this concept at Magazine Beach. They created an artificial puddle at the eastern end of the Magazine Beach playing fields. The artificial puddle is separated from the Charles River by perhaps 20 feet and has no water flow contact with the Charles River, so the puddle becomes stagnant and algae loaded.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
The Cambridge City Council took the key vote in December 1999 and has proceeded to implement their vile vote by not wanting to know what they were doing. There has been significant turnover on the Cambridge City Council in that period. None of them wanted to know what they were doing.
One of the more demonstrative occurrences came in 2001. There have been many, many attacks on the Charles River White Geese over the years. Many of those attacks looked highly professional and thus the work of the bureaucrats or their friends. The starvation attacks, of course, were the public actions of the bureaucrats and the pols.
In 2001, a nut started beating to death nesting Mother Geese. Nine city councilors were belligerently neutral in spite of repeated pleas that such a person graduates to humans. In October 2001, he graduated. He and his friends raped and murdered a young woman where he had been beating Mother Geese to death. The brutality was strikingly similar.
Nine city councilors discussed the rape and murder for more than an hour. Only Davis mentioned where it occurred. She looked around in a guilty manner and swallowed her words. They did not want to know where it happened.
These reprehensible people have done their best not to know what they were doing on the Charles River.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
Last Sunday, Friends of the White Geese leafleted an event by a insider pol, Sam Seigel, running for Cambridge City Council. Seigel, as member and chair of the Cambridge Conservation Commission has really filthy hands from the outrages on the Charles River.
Even more so, Siegel has gone on record BRAGGING about environmental outrages by the City of Cambridge. He has bragged that this environmental destructiveness is a new form of environmentalism that he and the other pols in the City of Cambridge are doing brilliantly.
Friends of the White Geese leafleted the event, communicating the truly reprehensible environmental record.
We have leafleted the first city council debate of the election season.
Thursday, there was a school committee debate. Marc McGovern, former School Committee member running for return to the board, has public fought for the irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. We leafleted the debate and leafleted this School Committee candidate fighting to have children rolling in poisons at Magazine Beach.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
So now Davis has filed this motion putting nine members of the Cambridge City Council on record in favor of this reprehensible project.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.
They will probably approve it without comment.
If you are pro-environment, you should have contempt for nine members of the Cambridge City Council and their lies about being pro-environment, using their secret definition which includes environmental destruction in their definition of environmentalism.
I say nine with very deliberate thought. All nine liars using the fake definition of environmentalism which was repeated at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Outrageous, irresponsible. This is the City of Cambridge, MA.
1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
3. 2004 Destruction.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.
1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
The following is proposed Order number 13 submitted by Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis for the September 24, 2007 meeting:
WHEREAS: The DCR has informed the City Manager that the bid package for Magazine Beach was once again delayed due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system which will result in a construction delay; and
WHEREAS: Richard Corsi of the DCR anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out in mid-October of this year; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to urge the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to assure that work goes forward at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to inform the City Council of any changes in the work schedule at Magazine Beach.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
Davis’ record is very clear. Environmentally, on the matters that count, Cambridge has nine City Councillors who are heartlessly destructive of the environment. Davis is the worst.
3. 2004 Destruction.
The Magazine Beach project is a continuation of two actions taken by the City of Cambridge and its agents in 2004 when they started starving the Charles River White Geese.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
Part of the vile behavior in 2004 was supposedly sewerage work on an outlet across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel. This grassy slope was part of the habitat and food of the Charles River White Geese since the beginning, 26 years ago. It was the eastern end of the habitat.
The sickos from the City of Cambridge finished the sewerage work and left a wall of plastic blocking access to the food from the Charles River. Absolutely no excuse. Truly vile, truly in character with the pols and bureaucrats of the state and the City of Cambridge.
The wall was installed in September 2004.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
In September 2004, strictly by “coincidence” (I do not believe in sick “coincidences”), Cambridge and the DCR dug up all the wetlands at Magazine Beach, preventing access to all that food from the water. This was the western end of the habitat, and the balance of the food of the Charles River White Geese.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation, from 2000 to about 2006, repeatedly insisted they had no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.
Corsi, referenced in Davis’ order, explained the apparent contradiction in about 2006. He explained that he does not consider starving the Charles River White Geese harming them.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
Cambridge and the DCR sicced representatives on the project at Magazine Beach in 2005. The representatives did a swim in, bragging that the project was assisting in swimming in the Charles River. That part of the project constructed a physical wall PREVENTING access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. The FLAT OUT LIE was part a package of pretty much non-stop lies on the projects on the Charles River.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
The wall consists of a bunch of designer plants so unfit for the Charles River environment that they kept dying. The LIE which explained this wall of plants called them “native.” As near as I can gather, the secret definition of “native” used by these people translates as “unfit for the local environment.”
There has been a tiny gap left exactly where sickos like to run dogs off leash. The Charles River White Geese have started to feed very early in the morning and leave when the dogs show up. 95% of their feeding ground at Magazine Beach is denied them. 100% of their feeding ground at the Hyatt has never stopped being denied them.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
The sick portion of the sick project which Davis is now pushing constitutes digging up all the grass and soil at the Magazine Beach playing fields, trucking it away and replacing this perfectly good grass and soil with grass, soil, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers replace the wetlands which did not need to be destroyed. The poisons protect the commercial grade grass from problems which are not problems before the project.
The precursor for this project is another ball field at Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. The poisons were not effective enough to keep the bureaucrats happy, so they installed Tartan fungicide. The DAY AFTER THE TARTAN was installed, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, algae all over the place.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
The pols and the bureaucrats has tested this concept at Magazine Beach. They created an artificial puddle at the eastern end of the Magazine Beach playing fields. The artificial puddle is separated from the Charles River by perhaps 20 feet and has no water flow contact with the Charles River, so the puddle becomes stagnant and algae loaded.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
The Cambridge City Council took the key vote in December 1999 and has proceeded to implement their vile vote by not wanting to know what they were doing. There has been significant turnover on the Cambridge City Council in that period. None of them wanted to know what they were doing.
One of the more demonstrative occurrences came in 2001. There have been many, many attacks on the Charles River White Geese over the years. Many of those attacks looked highly professional and thus the work of the bureaucrats or their friends. The starvation attacks, of course, were the public actions of the bureaucrats and the pols.
In 2001, a nut started beating to death nesting Mother Geese. Nine city councilors were belligerently neutral in spite of repeated pleas that such a person graduates to humans. In October 2001, he graduated. He and his friends raped and murdered a young woman where he had been beating Mother Geese to death. The brutality was strikingly similar.
Nine city councilors discussed the rape and murder for more than an hour. Only Davis mentioned where it occurred. She looked around in a guilty manner and swallowed her words. They did not want to know where it happened.
These reprehensible people have done their best not to know what they were doing on the Charles River.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
Last Sunday, Friends of the White Geese leafleted an event by a insider pol, Sam Seigel, running for Cambridge City Council. Seigel, as member and chair of the Cambridge Conservation Commission has really filthy hands from the outrages on the Charles River.
Even more so, Siegel has gone on record BRAGGING about environmental outrages by the City of Cambridge. He has bragged that this environmental destructiveness is a new form of environmentalism that he and the other pols in the City of Cambridge are doing brilliantly.
Friends of the White Geese leafleted the event, communicating the truly reprehensible environmental record.
We have leafleted the first city council debate of the election season.
Thursday, there was a school committee debate. Marc McGovern, former School Committee member running for return to the board, has public fought for the irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. We leafleted the debate and leafleted this School Committee candidate fighting to have children rolling in poisons at Magazine Beach.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
So now Davis has filed this motion putting nine members of the Cambridge City Council on record in favor of this reprehensible project.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.
They will probably approve it without comment.
If you are pro-environment, you should have contempt for nine members of the Cambridge City Council and their lies about being pro-environment, using their secret definition which includes environmental destruction in their definition of environmentalism.
I say nine with very deliberate thought. All nine liars using the fake definition of environmentalism which was repeated at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Outrageous, irresponsible. This is the City of Cambridge, MA.
Reality on the "Renovation" of Magazine Beach
On September 23, 2007, Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Cambridge City Council about the city's ill-conceived "renovation" of Magazine Beach. Cambridge's $1.5 million project will pollute the Charles River. It will expose our children to the toxic chemicals needed to maintain the 7 acres of commercial sod there.
The letter refers to an e-mail Wellons sent in July to State Rep. Marty Walz on the same topic. The text of that e-mail follows this letter.
Dear Mayor Reeves, Vice Mayor Toomey, and other members of the Cambridge City Council:
For your information, please find the attached copy of my reply to State Rep. Marty Walz, dated July 29, 2007, about the joint Cambridge-DCR project at Magazine Beach and its prototype, the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park in Boston.
My e-mail cites documents at the Boston Conservation Commission and other sources regarding runoff from the renovated playing fields at Ebersol. Although the DCR says it doesn't usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles, it did so at Ebersol. Although it didn't plan to use the fungicide "Tartan" there, it did so. It does not deny the use of pesticides.
Runoff from these chemicals at Ebersol Fields polluted the river in 2006 and 2007. They also exposed Little League players to the long-term effects of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Children are at particularly high risk from exposure to pesticides.
You may remember the Council's own concern regarding the use of harmful chemicals expressed in Councillor Simmons's Policy Order No. O-8, December 4, 2006, regarding ChemLawn on the Cambridge riverfront.
Our children have access to the benefits of Little League ball without this project. The adequate, functioning, regulation Little League field at Magazine Beach is less than two hundred yards from a second, at Lindstrom Field. Will you "renovate" Magazine Beach and give our children access to all the chemicals required to maintain the turf there?
Please reconsider this project and reject it. It will pollute the river--undoing millions of dollars and years of work to clean up the river--and adversely affect our children's health.
P.S. There is an error in the attached e-mail to Rep. Walz. Cambridge's $1.5M project at Magazine Beach will install 7 acres of commercial sod, not 6.
E-mail from Marilyn to Rep. Marty Walz attached to this letter:
Dear Rep. Walz,
Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres [sic] at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).
The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.
Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)
Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)
Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)
In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)
The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.
The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.
In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.
With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.
The letter refers to an e-mail Wellons sent in July to State Rep. Marty Walz on the same topic. The text of that e-mail follows this letter.
Dear Mayor Reeves, Vice Mayor Toomey, and other members of the Cambridge City Council:
For your information, please find the attached copy of my reply to State Rep. Marty Walz, dated July 29, 2007, about the joint Cambridge-DCR project at Magazine Beach and its prototype, the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park in Boston.
My e-mail cites documents at the Boston Conservation Commission and other sources regarding runoff from the renovated playing fields at Ebersol. Although the DCR says it doesn't usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles, it did so at Ebersol. Although it didn't plan to use the fungicide "Tartan" there, it did so. It does not deny the use of pesticides.
Runoff from these chemicals at Ebersol Fields polluted the river in 2006 and 2007. They also exposed Little League players to the long-term effects of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Children are at particularly high risk from exposure to pesticides.
You may remember the Council's own concern regarding the use of harmful chemicals expressed in Councillor Simmons's Policy Order No. O-8, December 4, 2006, regarding ChemLawn on the Cambridge riverfront.
Our children have access to the benefits of Little League ball without this project. The adequate, functioning, regulation Little League field at Magazine Beach is less than two hundred yards from a second, at Lindstrom Field. Will you "renovate" Magazine Beach and give our children access to all the chemicals required to maintain the turf there?
Please reconsider this project and reject it. It will pollute the river--undoing millions of dollars and years of work to clean up the river--and adversely affect our children's health.
P.S. There is an error in the attached e-mail to Rep. Walz. Cambridge's $1.5M project at Magazine Beach will install 7 acres of commercial sod, not 6.
E-mail from Marilyn to Rep. Marty Walz attached to this letter:
Dear Rep. Walz,
Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres [sic] at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).
The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.
Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)
Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)
Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)
In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)
The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.
The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.
In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.
With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
There Exists one Cambridge City Council Candidate fit to Vote For
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have just posted a link to the secret definition of environmentalism which really drives Cambridge and State Pols and Bureaucrats.
I noticed, however, a comment by me in that link saying that, if Cantabridgians were concerned about the environment, the Cambridge pols gave them good reason not to vote.
So far I am aware of one Cambridge City Council candidate this year fit to be voted for, Kathy Podgers.
Please note that this post was placed without discussion with my co-blogger, Marilyn Wellons.
I have just posted a link to the secret definition of environmentalism which really drives Cambridge and State Pols and Bureaucrats.
I noticed, however, a comment by me in that link saying that, if Cantabridgians were concerned about the environment, the Cambridge pols gave them good reason not to vote.
So far I am aware of one Cambridge City Council candidate this year fit to be voted for, Kathy Podgers.
Please note that this post was placed without discussion with my co-blogger, Marilyn Wellons.
Environmental Hypocrites on the Move at Magazine Beach, on Charles River
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The following is Communication number 19 from the Cambridge City Manager to the Cambridge City Council at the meeting of September 17, 2007:
To the Honorable, the City Council:
In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-95, regarding a report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:
We were informed on September 11, 2007 by Richard Corsi from the DCR that the bid package for Magazine Beach was delayed once again, due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system, which required further review and revisions to the drawings. He anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out for bids in mid-October of 2007. This latest delay will result in a construction delay, thus the field will not be renovated in time for next year’’s Little League season. No projected completion date was provided.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
The following is Communication number 19 from the Cambridge City Manager to the Cambridge City Council at the meeting of September 17, 2007:
To the Honorable, the City Council:
In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-95, regarding a report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:
We were informed on September 11, 2007 by Richard Corsi from the DCR that the bid package for Magazine Beach was delayed once again, due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system, which required further review and revisions to the drawings. He anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out for bids in mid-October of 2007. This latest delay will result in a construction delay, thus the field will not be renovated in time for next year’’s Little League season. No projected completion date was provided.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Response to Boston Globe editorial, "In jittery Allston, a lack of trust," August 27, 2007
On August 30, Marilyn Wellons sent the following response to the Globe's August 27 editorial, "In jittery Allston, a lack of trust."
There are plenty of reasons why Allston residents may not trust assurances of benefits they're supposed to get from Harvard's plans for their neighborhood. The letter outlines reasons to doubt the supposed benefits to the larger public of Harvard's plans for its Allston holdings.
To the Editor:
To quiet the neighborhood’s concerns, you propose a community center on Harvard-owned land in Allston. The site, described as “between Western Avenue and the Mass. Pike,” is land the university sees as “blighted” and “underutilized.” It would convert this land to an “academic precinct.”
Before you sign on to Harvard’s limited vision, consider its impact on an issue also in the news, our state’s transportation infrastructure.
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s April, 2007 Freight Study says the industry, trucks, and trains here constitute the intermodal freight yard closest to the Port of Boston. As such, they reduce the cost of delivered goods, the wear and tear on our roads, and help maintain the region’s increasingly fragile competitiveness.
The university is a private entity. It understandably failed to include an easement for the Beacon Yards in its deed for the land. Only the intervention of the Attorney General, over the protests of Harvard and the Pike's lawyers, protected the public interest here.
Given the pickle the state is in economically, and given the importance of the Beacon Yards for any improvement, endorsing a project--while invoking the public interest--that nibbles away at it is short-sighted, to say the least.
There are plenty of reasons why Allston residents may not trust assurances of benefits they're supposed to get from Harvard's plans for their neighborhood. The letter outlines reasons to doubt the supposed benefits to the larger public of Harvard's plans for its Allston holdings.
To the Editor:
To quiet the neighborhood’s concerns, you propose a community center on Harvard-owned land in Allston. The site, described as “between Western Avenue and the Mass. Pike,” is land the university sees as “blighted” and “underutilized.” It would convert this land to an “academic precinct.”
Before you sign on to Harvard’s limited vision, consider its impact on an issue also in the news, our state’s transportation infrastructure.
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s April, 2007 Freight Study says the industry, trucks, and trains here constitute the intermodal freight yard closest to the Port of Boston. As such, they reduce the cost of delivered goods, the wear and tear on our roads, and help maintain the region’s increasingly fragile competitiveness.
The university is a private entity. It understandably failed to include an easement for the Beacon Yards in its deed for the land. Only the intervention of the Attorney General, over the protests of Harvard and the Pike's lawyers, protected the public interest here.
Given the pickle the state is in economically, and given the importance of the Beacon Yards for any improvement, endorsing a project--while invoking the public interest--that nibbles away at it is short-sighted, to say the least.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Environmental Waste at Fresh Pond, Using State Money
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
3. Request to Use.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.
1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
We have stated any number of times that the outrages on the Charles River are anything but unusual with regard to the City of Cambridge. Another excellent example is the wild areas at Fresh Pond in West Cambridge. The City of Cambridge is destroying thousands of healthy trees to put in saplings.
And they get state subsidies for this outrage as a part of which they neglect to tell the state about the needless destruction.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
I was just riding at Fresh Pond on my bicycle.
I saw the work they are doing there, although they are putting some nice plants in that are pretty to look at. I asked some passerbys what they thought about all of the work, did they think it was good or bad, and they said, bad, because they are destroying the natural plants and they are not native the stuff they are putting in now.
I said, thank you and I agree, I will tell my friends.
Too bad, I did not have a flyer with me to pass along.
Just wanted you to know.
3. Request to Use.
You normally say it is ok to quote you.
I would be pleased to post this on the blog.
Thank you.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.
Its never a problem, if it were I would let you know. I figured everyone would be glad to hear this.
The other thing is I mentioned the plants they put at Charles River keep dying and they will at Fresh Pond probably.
The people agreed. They said they didn't like the change at Fresh Pond.
You can copy all of this.
Karen
1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
3. Request to Use.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.
1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
We have stated any number of times that the outrages on the Charles River are anything but unusual with regard to the City of Cambridge. Another excellent example is the wild areas at Fresh Pond in West Cambridge. The City of Cambridge is destroying thousands of healthy trees to put in saplings.
And they get state subsidies for this outrage as a part of which they neglect to tell the state about the needless destruction.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
I was just riding at Fresh Pond on my bicycle.
I saw the work they are doing there, although they are putting some nice plants in that are pretty to look at. I asked some passerbys what they thought about all of the work, did they think it was good or bad, and they said, bad, because they are destroying the natural plants and they are not native the stuff they are putting in now.
I said, thank you and I agree, I will tell my friends.
Too bad, I did not have a flyer with me to pass along.
Just wanted you to know.
3. Request to Use.
You normally say it is ok to quote you.
I would be pleased to post this on the blog.
Thank you.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.
Its never a problem, if it were I would let you know. I figured everyone would be glad to hear this.
The other thing is I mentioned the plants they put at Charles River keep dying and they will at Fresh Pond probably.
The people agreed. They said they didn't like the change at Fresh Pond.
You can copy all of this.
Karen
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Most of Show on Cambridge's Jim Crow Attack is on the web
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post two more segments from Kathy Podgers' August 12, 2007 appearance on The Cambridge Environment.
I have not been able to review these in detail. However, clearly these segments include the first portion and the last portion of the show. I will amend our links to place the links in the proper order. These clips are edited, and are not the complete show.
Thanks Roy.
First segment: http://tinyurl.com/2wgzzx.
Final segment: http://tinyurl.com/2m7c29.
Cambridge, MA, has a terrible city government which spends a lot of time saying false things about itself.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post two more segments from Kathy Podgers' August 12, 2007 appearance on The Cambridge Environment.
I have not been able to review these in detail. However, clearly these segments include the first portion and the last portion of the show. I will amend our links to place the links in the proper order. These clips are edited, and are not the complete show.
Thanks Roy.
First segment: http://tinyurl.com/2wgzzx.
Final segment: http://tinyurl.com/2m7c29.
Cambridge, MA, has a terrible city government which spends a lot of time saying false things about itself.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Letter to the Boston Globe about Mirant-Kendall power plant and the algae blooms
This letter from Marilyn Wellons responds to an editorial in the Boston Globe that managed to discuss the algae bloom without mentioning Ebersol Fields' contribution to the phenomenon.
Among other reasons, since it is over the Globe's 200-word limit for letters, it may not be published.
To the Editor:
Your editorial on the Charles, “A river system in hot water” (August 13, 2007), oddly subsumes a major factor in the 2006 and 2007 algae blooms under the rubric of “runoffs from nutrient-rich fertilized lawns.”
It’s no secret that runoff from 6 acres of commercial sod, installed in the spring of 2006 at “Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park,” have fed the algae and disrupted the river’s chemistry. These DCR fields by Mass General Hospital are directly opposite the Mirant-Kendall power plant in Cambridge, where other pollutants collect before discharge into Boston Harbor.
While you hesitate to ascribe full responsibility for the algae blooms to Mirant-Kendall, you omit this other, critical piece of the puzzle. Mirant-Kendall ran at an even higher capacity in August, 2005, but there was no explosion of algae. A year later, in August, 2006, your paper quoted a water quality scientist as saying of the astronomical counts, “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before.” (“Toxic algae levels feared in lower Charles River,” August 16, 2006, p. A1.) There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.
Boaters could smell the fertilizer offshore from the fields all last summer. Other chemicals applied to the 6 acres also disrupted the river’s chemistry. In July, 2006, Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf. The DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres, to provide the “quality of turf our players deserve.” (Boston Conservation Commission hearing, August 2, 2006.)
The label for “Tartan” warns against its use near water. (“Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The first application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. The DCR supplemented the two treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation.” (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.) The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million to clean up the river for swimming. By 2013 we will have spent $19 million more. Now Cambridge is paying $1.5 million to pollute the river. It will install 7 acres of commercial sod at the DCR’s Magazine Beach this summer, to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and make swimming impossible there. Since the project’s puddle, billed as a “wetland” and far upriver from Mirant-Kendall, has already had an algae bloom this summer, we can expect really spectacular Cyanobacteria once the fields go in.
Among other reasons, since it is over the Globe's 200-word limit for letters, it may not be published.
To the Editor:
Your editorial on the Charles, “A river system in hot water” (August 13, 2007), oddly subsumes a major factor in the 2006 and 2007 algae blooms under the rubric of “runoffs from nutrient-rich fertilized lawns.”
It’s no secret that runoff from 6 acres of commercial sod, installed in the spring of 2006 at “Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park,” have fed the algae and disrupted the river’s chemistry. These DCR fields by Mass General Hospital are directly opposite the Mirant-Kendall power plant in Cambridge, where other pollutants collect before discharge into Boston Harbor.
While you hesitate to ascribe full responsibility for the algae blooms to Mirant-Kendall, you omit this other, critical piece of the puzzle. Mirant-Kendall ran at an even higher capacity in August, 2005, but there was no explosion of algae. A year later, in August, 2006, your paper quoted a water quality scientist as saying of the astronomical counts, “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before.” (“Toxic algae levels feared in lower Charles River,” August 16, 2006, p. A1.) There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.
Boaters could smell the fertilizer offshore from the fields all last summer. Other chemicals applied to the 6 acres also disrupted the river’s chemistry. In July, 2006, Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf. The DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres, to provide the “quality of turf our players deserve.” (Boston Conservation Commission hearing, August 2, 2006.)
The label for “Tartan” warns against its use near water. (“Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)
The first application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. The DCR supplemented the two treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation.” (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.) The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.
Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million to clean up the river for swimming. By 2013 we will have spent $19 million more. Now Cambridge is paying $1.5 million to pollute the river. It will install 7 acres of commercial sod at the DCR’s Magazine Beach this summer, to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and make swimming impossible there. Since the project’s puddle, billed as a “wetland” and far upriver from Mirant-Kendall, has already had an algae bloom this summer, we can expect really spectacular Cyanobacteria once the fields go in.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Video on Jim Crow attack, August 4, 2007, Cambridge, MA
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have now done two posts on the apparent police abuse of Kathy Podgers because she had the nerve to expect Cambridge, MA to obey federal civil rights law.
I have also had Kathy on my Cambridge, MA Cable Show, The Cambridge Environment, twice concerning this matter. The first was on the day after the attack, Sunday, August 5. The second was Sunday, August 12.
The second show was taped by Roy Bercaw and a key part posted on his blog. He has been kind enough to provide a link, it is: http://tinyurl.com/338had. I have also posted the link in the active links to this blog.
I have now done two posts on the apparent police abuse of Kathy Podgers because she had the nerve to expect Cambridge, MA to obey federal civil rights law.
I have also had Kathy on my Cambridge, MA Cable Show, The Cambridge Environment, twice concerning this matter. The first was on the day after the attack, Sunday, August 5. The second was Sunday, August 12.
The second show was taped by Roy Bercaw and a key part posted on his blog. He has been kind enough to provide a link, it is: http://tinyurl.com/338had. I have also posted the link in the active links to this blog.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Comments on Police Brutality, Cambridge, MA USA
Bob La Trémouille edits:
1. Joe, 8/6.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
3. Bob, 8/12.
The following respond to our report of August 6, 2007, "Cambridge Woman Alleges Abuse by Cambridge Police in Cambridge Police Station Because of her Handicap."
1. Joe, 8/6.
Every day I get more and more frustrated with this City's management, politicians and upper echelon officials and how they thumb their noses at the public they are supposed to serve. It seems that every year, for the past decade, it's been nothing but getting worse and worse.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
August 9, 2007.
The vicious attack on my service dog, Shannon, was a sick and cowardly act of brutal terror. Shannon lay crying on the floor, attached to me by a 2 1/2 foot lead. She did not fight back, as per her training, as I would have been seriously injured. She was brave and true.
None of the police present did anything to protect Shannon nor myself.
I am 64 years old, sick and totally disabled.
Also, I have just received notice that my MCAD complaint vs. CVS for discrimination based on I entered the store accompanied by my service dog was dismissed based upon police perjury, false police reports, and the refusal of the police to accept internal complain, more perjury, and 3 other laws were violated by police, including my civil rights.
BTW, Is there not a law that makes it a crime to provide false statements in a civil rights investigation?
Take care folks
this will be over when it's over
Your neighbour
Kathy
3. Bob, 8/12.
A young woman has been raped and murdered on the Charles River as part of the ongoing problems there. The rapist/murderer had good reason through silence and through their/their friends mistreatment of the Charles River White Geese to think that he was implementing the policies of the City of Cambridge / Department of Conservation and Recreation as he killed nesting geese. He then graduated.
The City of Cambridge, along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation is aggressively moving the environmental approach to the Charles River into the 19th Century. The DCR brags about it as explanation for their pending (with Cambridge blessing) destruction of hundreds of mature trees.
The City of Cambridge is aggressively now in the company of the 50's and 60's South in the realm of civil rights.
The City of Cambridge PUBLICLY calls itself above federal civil rights law. The City of Cambridge in its attack on Kathy Podgers having her guide dog at a Cambridge City Council meeting PUBLICLY confronted her individually.
The City of Cambridge with this apparently clear abuse of Kathy through her guide dog, BY A ROGUE COP IN A ROOM FULL OF SILENTLY COMPLICENT "POLICE OFFICERS", has removed the most important distinction between Cambridge, MA, 2007, and the South in the 50's and 60's.
Will we hear that this also "did not happen"?
Will Cambridge change its stripes and start behaving like the city it claims to be?
1. Joe, 8/6.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
3. Bob, 8/12.
The following respond to our report of August 6, 2007, "Cambridge Woman Alleges Abuse by Cambridge Police in Cambridge Police Station Because of her Handicap."
1. Joe, 8/6.
Every day I get more and more frustrated with this City's management, politicians and upper echelon officials and how they thumb their noses at the public they are supposed to serve. It seems that every year, for the past decade, it's been nothing but getting worse and worse.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
August 9, 2007.
The vicious attack on my service dog, Shannon, was a sick and cowardly act of brutal terror. Shannon lay crying on the floor, attached to me by a 2 1/2 foot lead. She did not fight back, as per her training, as I would have been seriously injured. She was brave and true.
None of the police present did anything to protect Shannon nor myself.
I am 64 years old, sick and totally disabled.
Also, I have just received notice that my MCAD complaint vs. CVS for discrimination based on I entered the store accompanied by my service dog was dismissed based upon police perjury, false police reports, and the refusal of the police to accept internal complain, more perjury, and 3 other laws were violated by police, including my civil rights.
BTW, Is there not a law that makes it a crime to provide false statements in a civil rights investigation?
Take care folks
this will be over when it's over
Your neighbour
Kathy
3. Bob, 8/12.
A young woman has been raped and murdered on the Charles River as part of the ongoing problems there. The rapist/murderer had good reason through silence and through their/their friends mistreatment of the Charles River White Geese to think that he was implementing the policies of the City of Cambridge / Department of Conservation and Recreation as he killed nesting geese. He then graduated.
The City of Cambridge, along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation is aggressively moving the environmental approach to the Charles River into the 19th Century. The DCR brags about it as explanation for their pending (with Cambridge blessing) destruction of hundreds of mature trees.
The City of Cambridge is aggressively now in the company of the 50's and 60's South in the realm of civil rights.
The City of Cambridge PUBLICLY calls itself above federal civil rights law. The City of Cambridge in its attack on Kathy Podgers having her guide dog at a Cambridge City Council meeting PUBLICLY confronted her individually.
The City of Cambridge with this apparently clear abuse of Kathy through her guide dog, BY A ROGUE COP IN A ROOM FULL OF SILENTLY COMPLICENT "POLICE OFFICERS", has removed the most important distinction between Cambridge, MA, 2007, and the South in the 50's and 60's.
Will we hear that this also "did not happen"?
Will Cambridge change its stripes and start behaving like the city it claims to be?
Monday, August 06, 2007
Cambridge Woman Alleges Abuse by Cambridge Police in Cambridge Police Station Because of her Handicap
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Kathy Podgers has a long standing “disagreement” with the City of Cambridge and its police department over her guide dog. Kathy has the odd impression that the City of Cambridge should be obeying and enforcing Federal laws on the matter. Cambridge considers Cambridge’s local ordinance more important than federal law.
Federal law, according to Kathy, gives her a right to have her guide dog accompany her in public places to assist her because of neurological problems. The City of Cambridge’s local ordinance does not give her that right and Cambridge is downright offended that Kathy would expect Cambridge to obey and respect federal laws.
The confrontations with city officials over Kathy’s use of the guide dog have been quite public including one situation in a meeting of the Cambridge City Council in which the chair tried to evict Kathy from the room because of the presence of her guide dog.
Saturday morning, August 4, Kathy was at the main lobby of the Cambridge Police Station reviewing complaint files because of public distress at difficulties getting the Cambridge Police to accept citizen complaints.
Kathy says that a police officer opened a door between the main lobby and the police area. Kathy says that a pit bull came through that door and immediately latched onto her dog’s leg.
Not only did the officer with the dog fail to defend Kathy’s dog, the officer expressed lack of concern about the matter. The “police officer” finally removed the dog from her dog by picking up the pit bull with the guide dog’s leg still in the pit bull’s mouth. The pit bull was finally removed with added pain to the guide dog.
At no time did the guide dog do anything to defend itself, in accordance with its training.
Kathy thinks the police were trying to goad her dog into self defense so that they could charge her dog as the aggressor. Police refused to take a complaint on the attack. Police stated no harm because the pit bull had no teeth.
An animal control office was called. The animal control officer demanded to see the guide dog’s papers. The police refused to provide to Kathy the relevant papers on the pit bull, and, to Kathy’s knowledge, no demand for papers was made by the animal control officer on the police.
The guide dog was treated at Angell Memorial Hospital. Kathy was treated at Mass. General. All medical personnel expressed distress at the behavior of the Cambridge Police and the refusal by the Cambridge Police to obey minimal paper exchange requirements.
Kathy Podgers may be contacted at 617-642-3154. Your reporter has no personal knowledge of the incident on Saturday morning.
Kathy Podgers has a long standing “disagreement” with the City of Cambridge and its police department over her guide dog. Kathy has the odd impression that the City of Cambridge should be obeying and enforcing Federal laws on the matter. Cambridge considers Cambridge’s local ordinance more important than federal law.
Federal law, according to Kathy, gives her a right to have her guide dog accompany her in public places to assist her because of neurological problems. The City of Cambridge’s local ordinance does not give her that right and Cambridge is downright offended that Kathy would expect Cambridge to obey and respect federal laws.
The confrontations with city officials over Kathy’s use of the guide dog have been quite public including one situation in a meeting of the Cambridge City Council in which the chair tried to evict Kathy from the room because of the presence of her guide dog.
Saturday morning, August 4, Kathy was at the main lobby of the Cambridge Police Station reviewing complaint files because of public distress at difficulties getting the Cambridge Police to accept citizen complaints.
Kathy says that a police officer opened a door between the main lobby and the police area. Kathy says that a pit bull came through that door and immediately latched onto her dog’s leg.
Not only did the officer with the dog fail to defend Kathy’s dog, the officer expressed lack of concern about the matter. The “police officer” finally removed the dog from her dog by picking up the pit bull with the guide dog’s leg still in the pit bull’s mouth. The pit bull was finally removed with added pain to the guide dog.
At no time did the guide dog do anything to defend itself, in accordance with its training.
Kathy thinks the police were trying to goad her dog into self defense so that they could charge her dog as the aggressor. Police refused to take a complaint on the attack. Police stated no harm because the pit bull had no teeth.
An animal control office was called. The animal control officer demanded to see the guide dog’s papers. The police refused to provide to Kathy the relevant papers on the pit bull, and, to Kathy’s knowledge, no demand for papers was made by the animal control officer on the police.
The guide dog was treated at Angell Memorial Hospital. Kathy was treated at Mass. General. All medical personnel expressed distress at the behavior of the Cambridge Police and the refusal by the Cambridge Police to obey minimal paper exchange requirements.
Kathy Podgers may be contacted at 617-642-3154. Your reporter has no personal knowledge of the incident on Saturday morning.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Visibilities 356-362 at the Goose Meadow of the Charles River White Geese — Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1, Visibilities 356-362.
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
C. Summary.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.
1. Visibilities 356-362.
Monday, July 23 (356), Tuesday, July 24 (357), Wednesday, July 25 (358), Thursday, July 26 (359), Friday, July 27 (360), Tuesday, July 31 (361) and Wednesday, August 1 (362), Marilyn did visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The visibility on August 1 started at the BU Bridge and moved to the nearby City of Cambridge ball field.
Her response, as usual was excellent.
Marilyn reports:
Lots of people are taking the flyers, and I get thumbs-up signs and waves.
[ed: The latter come from passing motorists. The visibility location takes on a love-in type of thing based on the general love of the commuters for the Charles River White Geese and for the Charles River. This love is recognized by the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats. That love is exactly the reason for the repeated flat out lies.]
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
The evening of July 28, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers responded at Cambridge City Council to a motion from the Cambridge City Council asking the governor the status of the next stage of environment destruction at Magazine Beach funded by the Cambridge City Council.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
Marilyn did an excellent job of summarizing her position on the Cambridge City Council’s funding of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in a letter printed in the Cambridge City Council today, August 2, 2007.
It read as follows:
********
David Harris, Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
To the Editor:
Your otherwise excellent article and editorial on the First Annual Charles River Swim Race failed to mention the cause of last summer’s unprecedented, astronomical algae bloom: 6 acres of commercial sod installed in the spring of 2006 at the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park, by Mass General Hospital in Boston. “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before,” one water quality scientist was quoted as saying. There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.
The matter is especially important for the Chronicle’s readers, since our city is poised to install 7 acres of the same sod at Magazine Beach.
At Ebersol Fields, the DCR replaced existing ball fields with professional-level ones, to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve,” as a DCR spokesperson put it.
In the river offshore from those 6 acres before they became "professional level," water quality was B+ in August, 2005. A year later, in August, 2006, the river was dead from the Museum of Science dam to the Mass. Avenue Bridge. Runoff from those 6 acres’ fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicide created a major public health hazard for humans and wildlife.
Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million so far to clean up the river. We’ll spend another $19 million by 2013, without factoring in the algae. Taxpayers in Cambridge — where water rates continue to rise — are about to pay $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach and make swimming impossible. The joint Cambridge-DCR “restoration” at Magazine Beach, even before the 7 polluting acres, has already caused an algae bloom in the puddle installed as there as “wetlands”
In this election year, it would be interesting to hear candidates’ justifications for the project. Our City Council has approved it and given the Governor the funds to proceed. With wisdom and enough calls from the public, he will think twice about water quality and withhold the funds.
I’m hoping to read all about it in the Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
Mr. Rob Johnson, a director of the Charles River Conservancy, was the only person, including members of the Cambridge City Council, who spoke in favor of the Magazine Beach project.
Mr. Johnson was a leader of the predecessor organization to the Charles River Conservancy, the “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
One of the first things that Friends of the White Geese did after organizing was to demonstrate at a supposed environmentally favorable project by “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
The Friends of the White Geese demonstration was in opposition to the destruction of the Goose Meadow a few months, and to the balance of these people’s destructive plans which include but very much are not limited to:
(1) The wall of designer bushes which has replaced the wetlands at Magazine Beach and should be removed; and
(2) The current proposal to poison Magazine Beach and the Charles River.
Not long after our demonstration against the "Friends of Magazine Beach," the "Friends of Magazine Beach" for all practical purposes disappeared and, Da Da, we had the Charles River Conservancy, which included directors of the "Friends of Magazine Beach."
The Charles River Conservancy conducted a “swim in” at this project in 2005, the year after they, the City of Cambridge and the state pols and bureaucrats, destroyed the wetlands and started to starve the Charles River White Geese.
The CRC claimed that this batch of stuff would assist swimming in the Charles.
A quick view of the wall of designer bushes now blocking access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River readily shows just how much of a flat out lie the "swim in" was.
The poisons that nine city councilors and their pol and bureaucrat buddies are poised to introduce once again demonstrate just how much the CRC (and their pols and bureaucrats) lack credibility.
The CRC has run around for the past five years poisoning the eggs of water fowl on the Charles River. For the same period, they have run around destroying more and more protective vegetation on the Charles River needed by migrating birds such as cranes.
For one of the directors of the CRC to be the only public supporter of poisoning Magazine Beach and the Charles River, says a lot about the project at Magazine Beach and about this developer funded group.
The only person standing in the way of this continuing outrage is Deval Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
C. Summary.
Is Governor Patrick on the side of our world or on the side of the destroyers of our world? The latter group includes NINE Cambridge City Councilors, and the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats.
There is a very major difference between reality and the repeated lies of the destroyers.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
Motorists and passers-by are very concerned about the White Geese's trips across the road to get to the grass.
I always point out that the geese can no longer get to their primary sources of food, the grass at Magazine Beach and on the river by the Hyatt. Since 2004 the White Geese have been confined to their nesting area, now their ghetto, by the Cambridge and DCR projects in both places. They cross the road now because they have to--and didn't for 20 years previous to the joint Cambridge-DCR starvation campaign.
Then people ask why the DCR and Cambridge would do that. I mention the cover story, that the White Geese are said to be "not a native species." We all know that humans are "native" to Africa only, but apparently humans are exempt from this stringent standard for living on and around the Charles River.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese frequently commute from their Goose Meadow to grass located under Memorial Drive. This was extremely difficult before the first attack on the Charles River White Geese, by Boston University acting on behalf of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. In October 1999, BU removed sections of fence which kept the Goose Meadow safe from people at the same time that BU destroyed the goose meadow.
Since the starvation campaign was commenced in September 2005 by nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors and by their pols and bureaucrats at state and local level, the Charles River White Geese have hunted for food wherever they can find it.
Their search for food includes a dangerous walk across the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge. This on ramp constitutes the northern boundary of the goose meadow.
The Charles River White Geese are extremely cautious pedestrians, especially given their lack of formal education in traffic laws. The Charles River White Geese will stand on the sidewalk next to the on ramp. They will look and look and look until they think it is safe to cross. Trouble is that, after all that cautious looking, they cross the on ramp like a bunch of geese. They walk with very little speed. Many of them will wander all about in the process of crossing the on ramp.
I have frequently seen commuters patiently watching their progress with admiration for their individual beauty and determination. Many will get out of their cars and take photos. I have never seen drivers treat these travels with lack of respect.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.
Robb Johnson was the only person who spoke in favor of
the MB scandal. Remember too that his Friends of
Magazine Beach organized the annual volunteer cleanups
of Magazine Beach a week or two before BU's graduation
ceremony there--without telling the volunteers they
were subsidizing BU as well as the DCR.
When we pointed out the timing, FOMB rescheduled the
next cleanup for after the graduation and then
dissolved, discontinuing them altogether.
His organization was the one the DCR solicited the
anti-White Geese memo from. When I followed up on
their statements about the White Geese, I found the
people they quoted disavowed what the memo attributed
to them. In fact, one official has been completely
misrespresented.
While Johnson was speaking about the plan for Magazine
Beach he favored, Kathy Podgers pointed out to me that
his organization approved the plans in secret, that in
subsequent public meetings people told the DCR the
plans didn't do what they had wanted done--clean up
the pool and fix the old stone building at Captain's
Island made from granite in the original magazine.
As it is, the plans Johnson and the DCR are pushing
will do away with the turnout and parking at the
swimming pool. Everyone I talk to about that says
it's not only crazy, but should be stopped.
1, Visibilities 356-362.
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
C. Summary.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.
1. Visibilities 356-362.
Monday, July 23 (356), Tuesday, July 24 (357), Wednesday, July 25 (358), Thursday, July 26 (359), Friday, July 27 (360), Tuesday, July 31 (361) and Wednesday, August 1 (362), Marilyn did visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The visibility on August 1 started at the BU Bridge and moved to the nearby City of Cambridge ball field.
Her response, as usual was excellent.
Marilyn reports:
Lots of people are taking the flyers, and I get thumbs-up signs and waves.
[ed: The latter come from passing motorists. The visibility location takes on a love-in type of thing based on the general love of the commuters for the Charles River White Geese and for the Charles River. This love is recognized by the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats. That love is exactly the reason for the repeated flat out lies.]
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
The evening of July 28, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers responded at Cambridge City Council to a motion from the Cambridge City Council asking the governor the status of the next stage of environment destruction at Magazine Beach funded by the Cambridge City Council.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
Marilyn did an excellent job of summarizing her position on the Cambridge City Council’s funding of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in a letter printed in the Cambridge City Council today, August 2, 2007.
It read as follows:
********
David Harris, Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
To the Editor:
Your otherwise excellent article and editorial on the First Annual Charles River Swim Race failed to mention the cause of last summer’s unprecedented, astronomical algae bloom: 6 acres of commercial sod installed in the spring of 2006 at the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park, by Mass General Hospital in Boston. “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before,” one water quality scientist was quoted as saying. There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.
The matter is especially important for the Chronicle’s readers, since our city is poised to install 7 acres of the same sod at Magazine Beach.
At Ebersol Fields, the DCR replaced existing ball fields with professional-level ones, to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve,” as a DCR spokesperson put it.
In the river offshore from those 6 acres before they became "professional level," water quality was B+ in August, 2005. A year later, in August, 2006, the river was dead from the Museum of Science dam to the Mass. Avenue Bridge. Runoff from those 6 acres’ fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicide created a major public health hazard for humans and wildlife.
Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million so far to clean up the river. We’ll spend another $19 million by 2013, without factoring in the algae. Taxpayers in Cambridge — where water rates continue to rise — are about to pay $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach and make swimming impossible. The joint Cambridge-DCR “restoration” at Magazine Beach, even before the 7 polluting acres, has already caused an algae bloom in the puddle installed as there as “wetlands”
In this election year, it would be interesting to hear candidates’ justifications for the project. Our City Council has approved it and given the Governor the funds to proceed. With wisdom and enough calls from the public, he will think twice about water quality and withhold the funds.
I’m hoping to read all about it in the Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
Mr. Rob Johnson, a director of the Charles River Conservancy, was the only person, including members of the Cambridge City Council, who spoke in favor of the Magazine Beach project.
Mr. Johnson was a leader of the predecessor organization to the Charles River Conservancy, the “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
One of the first things that Friends of the White Geese did after organizing was to demonstrate at a supposed environmentally favorable project by “Friends of Magazine Beach.”
The Friends of the White Geese demonstration was in opposition to the destruction of the Goose Meadow a few months, and to the balance of these people’s destructive plans which include but very much are not limited to:
(1) The wall of designer bushes which has replaced the wetlands at Magazine Beach and should be removed; and
(2) The current proposal to poison Magazine Beach and the Charles River.
Not long after our demonstration against the "Friends of Magazine Beach," the "Friends of Magazine Beach" for all practical purposes disappeared and, Da Da, we had the Charles River Conservancy, which included directors of the "Friends of Magazine Beach."
The Charles River Conservancy conducted a “swim in” at this project in 2005, the year after they, the City of Cambridge and the state pols and bureaucrats, destroyed the wetlands and started to starve the Charles River White Geese.
The CRC claimed that this batch of stuff would assist swimming in the Charles.
A quick view of the wall of designer bushes now blocking access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River readily shows just how much of a flat out lie the "swim in" was.
The poisons that nine city councilors and their pol and bureaucrat buddies are poised to introduce once again demonstrate just how much the CRC (and their pols and bureaucrats) lack credibility.
The CRC has run around for the past five years poisoning the eggs of water fowl on the Charles River. For the same period, they have run around destroying more and more protective vegetation on the Charles River needed by migrating birds such as cranes.
For one of the directors of the CRC to be the only public supporter of poisoning Magazine Beach and the Charles River, says a lot about the project at Magazine Beach and about this developer funded group.
The only person standing in the way of this continuing outrage is Deval Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
C. Summary.
Is Governor Patrick on the side of our world or on the side of the destroyers of our world? The latter group includes NINE Cambridge City Councilors, and the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats.
There is a very major difference between reality and the repeated lies of the destroyers.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
Motorists and passers-by are very concerned about the White Geese's trips across the road to get to the grass.
I always point out that the geese can no longer get to their primary sources of food, the grass at Magazine Beach and on the river by the Hyatt. Since 2004 the White Geese have been confined to their nesting area, now their ghetto, by the Cambridge and DCR projects in both places. They cross the road now because they have to--and didn't for 20 years previous to the joint Cambridge-DCR starvation campaign.
Then people ask why the DCR and Cambridge would do that. I mention the cover story, that the White Geese are said to be "not a native species." We all know that humans are "native" to Africa only, but apparently humans are exempt from this stringent standard for living on and around the Charles River.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese frequently commute from their Goose Meadow to grass located under Memorial Drive. This was extremely difficult before the first attack on the Charles River White Geese, by Boston University acting on behalf of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. In October 1999, BU removed sections of fence which kept the Goose Meadow safe from people at the same time that BU destroyed the goose meadow.
Since the starvation campaign was commenced in September 2005 by nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors and by their pols and bureaucrats at state and local level, the Charles River White Geese have hunted for food wherever they can find it.
Their search for food includes a dangerous walk across the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge. This on ramp constitutes the northern boundary of the goose meadow.
The Charles River White Geese are extremely cautious pedestrians, especially given their lack of formal education in traffic laws. The Charles River White Geese will stand on the sidewalk next to the on ramp. They will look and look and look until they think it is safe to cross. Trouble is that, after all that cautious looking, they cross the on ramp like a bunch of geese. They walk with very little speed. Many of them will wander all about in the process of crossing the on ramp.
I have frequently seen commuters patiently watching their progress with admiration for their individual beauty and determination. Many will get out of their cars and take photos. I have never seen drivers treat these travels with lack of respect.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.
Robb Johnson was the only person who spoke in favor of
the MB scandal. Remember too that his Friends of
Magazine Beach organized the annual volunteer cleanups
of Magazine Beach a week or two before BU's graduation
ceremony there--without telling the volunteers they
were subsidizing BU as well as the DCR.
When we pointed out the timing, FOMB rescheduled the
next cleanup for after the graduation and then
dissolved, discontinuing them altogether.
His organization was the one the DCR solicited the
anti-White Geese memo from. When I followed up on
their statements about the White Geese, I found the
people they quoted disavowed what the memo attributed
to them. In fact, one official has been completely
misrespresented.
While Johnson was speaking about the plan for Magazine
Beach he favored, Kathy Podgers pointed out to me that
his organization approved the plans in secret, that in
subsequent public meetings people told the DCR the
plans didn't do what they had wanted done--clean up
the pool and fix the old stone building at Captain's
Island made from granite in the original magazine.
As it is, the plans Johnson and the DCR are pushing
will do away with the turnout and parking at the
swimming pool. Everyone I talk to about that says
it's not only crazy, but should be stopped.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Michael Vick and the Cambridge and MA Pols and Bureaucrats
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Michael Vick, a National Football League quarterback, has been indicted on felony counts related to dog fighting with pit bulls.
I received an email from Grey2K at about the same time I heard of the indictment. Grey2K is an excellent organization dedicated to ending dog racing. They consider that sport abusive of greyhounds, animals who are lovely beings, much like properly raised pit bulls.
Reports in the press indicate severely injured pit bulls as a result of Mr. Vick’s operations. Other reports indicate his ordering the killing of pit bulls who did not fight up to his standards.
In the City of Cambridge, MA, we have large scale animal abuse by the state and local government: starvation is considered normal treatment of beings living in the wild parts of Cambridge who are on the receiving end of government action destroying their homes as part of bizarre and commonly large scale government projects.
We have the strikingly bizarre position that the bastards are heartlessly starving beautiful, valuable animals, while loudly saying they are not “harming” them. In their sick minds, starving them is not harming them. Correction, not even these people have such sick minds. They are just lying.
The most important difference between the accusations against Mr. Vick and very clear behavior by Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats, in my opinion, is that Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats loudly call themselves pro-environment. In short, the important difference is belligerent hypocrisy.
There is a secondary difference of importance: the abuse and mistreating of children by the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats. This is a matter of truly reprehensible behavior, in both cases, by role models. And thus bending the twig to become as reprehensible as the role models.
In the case of the pit bulls, the behavior accused of Mr. Vick was fairly secretive. In the case of the reprehensible Cambridge and state pols and bureacrats, the behavior is very, very public from people who loudly proclaim themselves holier-than-thou.
Frankly, Mr. Vick looks a heck of a lot less reprehensible than do the Cambridge, MA and state pols and bureaucrats.
But then again, there is a major matter of a rape and murder of a young woman by one of the people apparently egged on by the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats combined with a wink and a nod when he started off attacking the Charles River White Geese.
This is an excellent example of truly vile results of “leaders” who are unfit to lead.
They observed repeated very vile attacks on animals. They were begged to stand up to the reprehensible behavior.
They were warned that people who do these terrible things graduate to human beings.
When their protege graduated, the Cambridge City Council spent an extended period of time discussing the rape and murder and DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where it occurred, exactly where he had been killing geese with a wink and a nod from sick pols and bureaucrats.
The rape and murder is another situation in which the National Football League is one heck of a lot more responsible than the City of Cambridge and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The National Football League has suspended Vick. The City of Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats run around calling themselves holier-than-thou, and look to see what further vile thing they can do.
And the governor of Massachusetts?
Michael Vick, a National Football League quarterback, has been indicted on felony counts related to dog fighting with pit bulls.
I received an email from Grey2K at about the same time I heard of the indictment. Grey2K is an excellent organization dedicated to ending dog racing. They consider that sport abusive of greyhounds, animals who are lovely beings, much like properly raised pit bulls.
Reports in the press indicate severely injured pit bulls as a result of Mr. Vick’s operations. Other reports indicate his ordering the killing of pit bulls who did not fight up to his standards.
In the City of Cambridge, MA, we have large scale animal abuse by the state and local government: starvation is considered normal treatment of beings living in the wild parts of Cambridge who are on the receiving end of government action destroying their homes as part of bizarre and commonly large scale government projects.
We have the strikingly bizarre position that the bastards are heartlessly starving beautiful, valuable animals, while loudly saying they are not “harming” them. In their sick minds, starving them is not harming them. Correction, not even these people have such sick minds. They are just lying.
The most important difference between the accusations against Mr. Vick and very clear behavior by Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats, in my opinion, is that Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats loudly call themselves pro-environment. In short, the important difference is belligerent hypocrisy.
There is a secondary difference of importance: the abuse and mistreating of children by the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats. This is a matter of truly reprehensible behavior, in both cases, by role models. And thus bending the twig to become as reprehensible as the role models.
In the case of the pit bulls, the behavior accused of Mr. Vick was fairly secretive. In the case of the reprehensible Cambridge and state pols and bureacrats, the behavior is very, very public from people who loudly proclaim themselves holier-than-thou.
Frankly, Mr. Vick looks a heck of a lot less reprehensible than do the Cambridge, MA and state pols and bureaucrats.
But then again, there is a major matter of a rape and murder of a young woman by one of the people apparently egged on by the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats combined with a wink and a nod when he started off attacking the Charles River White Geese.
This is an excellent example of truly vile results of “leaders” who are unfit to lead.
They observed repeated very vile attacks on animals. They were begged to stand up to the reprehensible behavior.
They were warned that people who do these terrible things graduate to human beings.
When their protege graduated, the Cambridge City Council spent an extended period of time discussing the rape and murder and DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where it occurred, exactly where he had been killing geese with a wink and a nod from sick pols and bureaucrats.
The rape and murder is another situation in which the National Football League is one heck of a lot more responsible than the City of Cambridge and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The National Football League has suspended Vick. The City of Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats run around calling themselves holier-than-thou, and look to see what further vile thing they can do.
And the governor of Massachusetts?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Visibility at the Charles River Annual Swim - Reality Check in the Face of False Representation
Yesterday, July 21, 2007, I attended the "First Annual Charles River Swim," from 7 to 10 am. After the race I handed out flyers about the cause of the algae bloom on the river--the DCR's 6 acres of commercial sod at the Ebersol Red Sox fields at Lederman Park by Mass General Hospital in Boston.
The DCR replaced the existing riverfront ball fields in the spring of 2006 with professional-level ones. Runoff from the fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and the fungicide applied to those 6 acres caused the unprecedented algae counts in August and September, 2006.
Once the algae are in the river they're there forever. After the bloom, the spores sink, go dormant, and overwinter at the bottom of the river. When summer comes they re-emerge and bloom again.
So organizers were racing the algae this year. The real "First Annual Charles River Swim" was to have been in late August, 2006, but it was canceled because of the algae bloom that month. Even so, for the 2007 "First Annual Charles River Swim," it was a close call this year, since the algae also began a month earlier. Should we attribute that to global warming? In any case, only a change in the weather saved the day for the race on July 21, 2007.
Swimmers entered the water from the boat dock nearest the band shell where the Pops July 4th concerts are held. (The Charles Station on the Red Line is the closest T stop.) They swam an oval course around 6 bouys between the Longfellow and Mass. Ave. bridges. It was quite thrilling to watch such excellent swimmers. And the day was brilliant.
Everyone was very aware of the dangers of the algae bloom. Race organizers cautioned the swimmers before the start. The algae are toxic after they die, and the bloom had only begun. So they said the water was safe enough for swimming, but could cause an allergic reaction. They recommended washing off after the swim in the portable showers provided. They asked that anyone with an allergic or other reaction notify them, since this was a public health matter.
The race had been oversubscribed--100 swimmers was the limit--but there were cancellations and only 69 competed. I talked with one Masters swimmer who opted not to swim because of the algae. He was there to support a teammate, who in fact came in first, at 20 minutes 20 seconds. I also talked with the winning woman, who swam it in 21 minutes 46 seconds. As I said, it was thrilling.
All but one of the swimmers (the man who came in first) I talked with after the race had blue-green algae inside their suits. It wasn't pretty, and they were eager to get out of their suits and wash off.
What the so-called environmental organizations were handing out about water quality and the algae bloom is disturbing. There is no mention of the DCR's Ebersol fields. Not one glossy handout mentioned how the millions of dollars spent on the DCR's 6 "professional level" acres is undoing the work of 17 years and $60 million so far to clean up the Charles.
There's another $19 million budgeted for now to 2013, without factoring in the algae. Since the DCR and the "environmentalist organizations" do not even acknowledge the effect of the Ebersol fields on the river's health, we have no reason to believe they will address the problem, or how much it might cost to remedy it, assuming a remedy is possible. This is all the more disturbing because they are doing nothing to prevent Cambridge and the DCR from installing another 7 acres of commercial sod at Magazine Beach.
Since Friends of the White Geese first sounded the alarm about the Ebersol fields and the algae bloom, these "environmental organizations" have done their best to point their fingers in any direction other than the DCR's blunder there. CRWA informational boat rides, for example, mention everything but the Ebersol fields' chemical runoff.
Yet the 2006 bloom, fed by fertilizers at Ebersol fields, exploded the day after the DCR applied "Tartan," a fungicide not to be applied near water. And, after a decline, the count rose again in early September when the DCR reapplied "Tartan" on September 1. ("Tartan" was necessary, the DCR explained at the time, to provide "the quality of turf our players deserve.")
The "environmental organizations" even mention goose poop as a cause of the algae bloom. What can account for this disregard of the truth?
The DCR has worked for years to rid the river of waterfowl, although the Charles is on the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds. With its agent the Charles River Conservancy, it routinely destroys plants that provide cover for herons, ducks, geese, and other birds.
The DCR and the CRC have worked for at least 5 years to get rid of Canada geese. They have worked for at least 9 years to get rid of the Charles River White Geese. They poison eggs, they use teams of border collies, they use plastic coyotes, and they have used other, less visible "volunteers" to get rid of these animals. By 2004, by the DCR's own estimate, there were no more than 200 resident Canadas on 10 miles of river and the count was going down. The population of White Geese was far less and also decreasing because of the DCR's efforts, including starvation.
(For three years, the DCR and Cambridge have denied the White Geese access to their primary source of food, the grass at Magazine Beach and by the Hyatt Hotel in Cambridge. Only the heroic efforts of the public have kept the White Geese from starvation.)
These animals did not cause an algae bloom of unprecedented proportions in 2006 or the ones this summer.
As part of the DCR-Cambridge project at Magazine Beach, the DCR and Cambridge plan 7 more acres of playing fields with commercial turf, like Ebersol fields. The project will dig up, truck out, and replace the dirt and natural grass there now with gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, and fences.
It will gold-plate the playing fields there now, and destroy "Bordering Lands Subject to Flooding," a wetland category that is both rich habitat for waterfowl and supports ball games during the season. The DCR says that human activity has already destroyed waterfowl habitat at Magazine Beach, and the City of Cambridge accepts that lie. Both are working to pollute the river at Magazine Beach by repeating the environmental crime at Ebersol fields.
As "mitigation" for the loss of what they claim is no longer habitat at Magazine Beach, the DCR and Cambridge have cut down healthy trees and installed a large puddle with a bridge over it. Water does not circulate in it, so it collects filth. The DCR routinely refuses to maintain whatever its assets are, and this is no exception. In addition to trash, the puddle now has what seems to be a fine bloom of algae and its toxic byproducts. Swimming in or near such a sump is unthinkable.
The DCR and CRC had a swim-in at Magazine Beach to celebrate thiss "restoration," which last year blocked human and animal access to 95% of the river. Contractors hired to deal with the wall of plants there faced three work order changes within a week. They concluded the DCR and Cambridge officials didn't know what they were doing.
Ignorance?
"Nothing is so frightful as ignorance in action," it is said. Cambridge gave permission to reproduce the Ebersol field disaster last September, after it was on notice of the August, 2006 algae bloom caused by runoff from those fields. It is difficult to believe Cambridge and DCR officials are ignorant, or that they really want a "swimmable Charles." It may be more frightful to see the wanton, deliberate pollution of the Charles River.
These are the same officials who are wantonly destroying every cherry tree on Memorial Drive between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, in addition to hundreds of others there, as part of a "restoration."
The "environmentalist" organizations and officials, including nine Cambridge City Councilors, depend on a secret definition of the term that bears no relation to a healthy environment, including a clean river, for humans and wildlife. To be in on their secret, see elsewhere in these reports, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Marilyn Wellons
The DCR replaced the existing riverfront ball fields in the spring of 2006 with professional-level ones. Runoff from the fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and the fungicide applied to those 6 acres caused the unprecedented algae counts in August and September, 2006.
Once the algae are in the river they're there forever. After the bloom, the spores sink, go dormant, and overwinter at the bottom of the river. When summer comes they re-emerge and bloom again.
So organizers were racing the algae this year. The real "First Annual Charles River Swim" was to have been in late August, 2006, but it was canceled because of the algae bloom that month. Even so, for the 2007 "First Annual Charles River Swim," it was a close call this year, since the algae also began a month earlier. Should we attribute that to global warming? In any case, only a change in the weather saved the day for the race on July 21, 2007.
Swimmers entered the water from the boat dock nearest the band shell where the Pops July 4th concerts are held. (The Charles Station on the Red Line is the closest T stop.) They swam an oval course around 6 bouys between the Longfellow and Mass. Ave. bridges. It was quite thrilling to watch such excellent swimmers. And the day was brilliant.
Everyone was very aware of the dangers of the algae bloom. Race organizers cautioned the swimmers before the start. The algae are toxic after they die, and the bloom had only begun. So they said the water was safe enough for swimming, but could cause an allergic reaction. They recommended washing off after the swim in the portable showers provided. They asked that anyone with an allergic or other reaction notify them, since this was a public health matter.
The race had been oversubscribed--100 swimmers was the limit--but there were cancellations and only 69 competed. I talked with one Masters swimmer who opted not to swim because of the algae. He was there to support a teammate, who in fact came in first, at 20 minutes 20 seconds. I also talked with the winning woman, who swam it in 21 minutes 46 seconds. As I said, it was thrilling.
All but one of the swimmers (the man who came in first) I talked with after the race had blue-green algae inside their suits. It wasn't pretty, and they were eager to get out of their suits and wash off.
What the so-called environmental organizations were handing out about water quality and the algae bloom is disturbing. There is no mention of the DCR's Ebersol fields. Not one glossy handout mentioned how the millions of dollars spent on the DCR's 6 "professional level" acres is undoing the work of 17 years and $60 million so far to clean up the Charles.
There's another $19 million budgeted for now to 2013, without factoring in the algae. Since the DCR and the "environmentalist organizations" do not even acknowledge the effect of the Ebersol fields on the river's health, we have no reason to believe they will address the problem, or how much it might cost to remedy it, assuming a remedy is possible. This is all the more disturbing because they are doing nothing to prevent Cambridge and the DCR from installing another 7 acres of commercial sod at Magazine Beach.
Since Friends of the White Geese first sounded the alarm about the Ebersol fields and the algae bloom, these "environmental organizations" have done their best to point their fingers in any direction other than the DCR's blunder there. CRWA informational boat rides, for example, mention everything but the Ebersol fields' chemical runoff.
Yet the 2006 bloom, fed by fertilizers at Ebersol fields, exploded the day after the DCR applied "Tartan," a fungicide not to be applied near water. And, after a decline, the count rose again in early September when the DCR reapplied "Tartan" on September 1. ("Tartan" was necessary, the DCR explained at the time, to provide "the quality of turf our players deserve.")
The "environmental organizations" even mention goose poop as a cause of the algae bloom. What can account for this disregard of the truth?
The DCR has worked for years to rid the river of waterfowl, although the Charles is on the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds. With its agent the Charles River Conservancy, it routinely destroys plants that provide cover for herons, ducks, geese, and other birds.
The DCR and the CRC have worked for at least 5 years to get rid of Canada geese. They have worked for at least 9 years to get rid of the Charles River White Geese. They poison eggs, they use teams of border collies, they use plastic coyotes, and they have used other, less visible "volunteers" to get rid of these animals. By 2004, by the DCR's own estimate, there were no more than 200 resident Canadas on 10 miles of river and the count was going down. The population of White Geese was far less and also decreasing because of the DCR's efforts, including starvation.
(For three years, the DCR and Cambridge have denied the White Geese access to their primary source of food, the grass at Magazine Beach and by the Hyatt Hotel in Cambridge. Only the heroic efforts of the public have kept the White Geese from starvation.)
These animals did not cause an algae bloom of unprecedented proportions in 2006 or the ones this summer.
As part of the DCR-Cambridge project at Magazine Beach, the DCR and Cambridge plan 7 more acres of playing fields with commercial turf, like Ebersol fields. The project will dig up, truck out, and replace the dirt and natural grass there now with gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, and fences.
It will gold-plate the playing fields there now, and destroy "Bordering Lands Subject to Flooding," a wetland category that is both rich habitat for waterfowl and supports ball games during the season. The DCR says that human activity has already destroyed waterfowl habitat at Magazine Beach, and the City of Cambridge accepts that lie. Both are working to pollute the river at Magazine Beach by repeating the environmental crime at Ebersol fields.
As "mitigation" for the loss of what they claim is no longer habitat at Magazine Beach, the DCR and Cambridge have cut down healthy trees and installed a large puddle with a bridge over it. Water does not circulate in it, so it collects filth. The DCR routinely refuses to maintain whatever its assets are, and this is no exception. In addition to trash, the puddle now has what seems to be a fine bloom of algae and its toxic byproducts. Swimming in or near such a sump is unthinkable.
The DCR and CRC had a swim-in at Magazine Beach to celebrate thiss "restoration," which last year blocked human and animal access to 95% of the river. Contractors hired to deal with the wall of plants there faced three work order changes within a week. They concluded the DCR and Cambridge officials didn't know what they were doing.
Ignorance?
"Nothing is so frightful as ignorance in action," it is said. Cambridge gave permission to reproduce the Ebersol field disaster last September, after it was on notice of the August, 2006 algae bloom caused by runoff from those fields. It is difficult to believe Cambridge and DCR officials are ignorant, or that they really want a "swimmable Charles." It may be more frightful to see the wanton, deliberate pollution of the Charles River.
These are the same officials who are wantonly destroying every cherry tree on Memorial Drive between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, in addition to hundreds of others there, as part of a "restoration."
The "environmentalist" organizations and officials, including nine Cambridge City Councilors, depend on a secret definition of the term that bears no relation to a healthy environment, including a clean river, for humans and wildlife. To be in on their secret, see elsewhere in these reports, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
Marilyn Wellons
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Goose Meadow Visibility 355, Algae en Masse at Bumpy Pond
Report 355 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese; Outrageous situation at the Bumpy Memorial Pond
1. Visibility Report.
2. Status of Bumpy Memorial Pool.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility Report.
On Friday, July 20, 2007, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers conducted a visibility at the Goose Meadow's BU Bridge entrance. I joined them for part of the visibility.
Clearly, people are very supportive and quite concerned.
2. Status of Bumpy Memorial Pool.
One of the nuttier things (of many nutty things) done on the Charles River was the creation of a small pond perhaps 10 feet from the Charles River at the Magazine Beach parking lot.
Several healthy trees were destroyed in the process.
The local animals loved the pool, so, a year ago, we named it after Bumpy, the killed leader of the gaggle.
This year, the Charles River White Geese have been driven away from Magazine Beach in general and from the Bumpy Pond in particular. They visit, if at all, early in the day. 95% of the shore is now blocked to them.
Their only access is through a tiny break near the Bumpy Pond. They leave immediately when dogs start coming. Some of the environmentally destructive lobby rather clearly let their dogs run free as a means of attacking free animals.
As a result, this year, few birds use the Bumpy Pond except for ducks.
Thursday and Friday a mother duck was visiting there with babies. It was quite distressing because the Bumpy Pond is so filthy.
The filth was fully predictable and was a main reason why we opposed it.
The DCR DOES NOT MAINTAIN its properties. The DCR expects the public to do normal maintenance.
The Bumpy Pond is nothing but a hole in the ground which became an excuse to put in a bridge over it.
There is no means of circulation of water. There is no means of adding water and no means of removal of water. When it rains, we get water. If we get too much water, it overflows. The silly clay pathway which replaced a bituminous walkway is eroding because of overflows.
When no rain comes for awhile, the obvious happens. Water evaporates. The water level decreases, and there is no defense against algae.
As of yesterday, there was a depth of the Bumpy Pond measurable in inches. And it was filthy with algae and trash.
But the DCR and its apologists are proud of the DCR not maintaining its property.
And the DCR and its apologists are very happy to limit the DCR's contribution to the environment to make work projects for their most vocal apologists. Silly projects like the Bumpy Pond get built with serious environmental harm and no maintenance. The apologists do not make money out of maintenance. They make money out of make work projects.
So we have a filthy hole ten feet from the Charles River, and the pols and bureaucrats and their friends are fighting for even worse environmental destruction at Magazine Beach.
Outrageous? Yes!!!
Business as usual with the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge and their friends at the state level, pols, bureacrats and contractors one and all.
1. Visibility Report.
2. Status of Bumpy Memorial Pool.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility Report.
On Friday, July 20, 2007, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers conducted a visibility at the Goose Meadow's BU Bridge entrance. I joined them for part of the visibility.
Clearly, people are very supportive and quite concerned.
2. Status of Bumpy Memorial Pool.
One of the nuttier things (of many nutty things) done on the Charles River was the creation of a small pond perhaps 10 feet from the Charles River at the Magazine Beach parking lot.
Several healthy trees were destroyed in the process.
The local animals loved the pool, so, a year ago, we named it after Bumpy, the killed leader of the gaggle.
This year, the Charles River White Geese have been driven away from Magazine Beach in general and from the Bumpy Pond in particular. They visit, if at all, early in the day. 95% of the shore is now blocked to them.
Their only access is through a tiny break near the Bumpy Pond. They leave immediately when dogs start coming. Some of the environmentally destructive lobby rather clearly let their dogs run free as a means of attacking free animals.
As a result, this year, few birds use the Bumpy Pond except for ducks.
Thursday and Friday a mother duck was visiting there with babies. It was quite distressing because the Bumpy Pond is so filthy.
The filth was fully predictable and was a main reason why we opposed it.
The DCR DOES NOT MAINTAIN its properties. The DCR expects the public to do normal maintenance.
The Bumpy Pond is nothing but a hole in the ground which became an excuse to put in a bridge over it.
There is no means of circulation of water. There is no means of adding water and no means of removal of water. When it rains, we get water. If we get too much water, it overflows. The silly clay pathway which replaced a bituminous walkway is eroding because of overflows.
When no rain comes for awhile, the obvious happens. Water evaporates. The water level decreases, and there is no defense against algae.
As of yesterday, there was a depth of the Bumpy Pond measurable in inches. And it was filthy with algae and trash.
But the DCR and its apologists are proud of the DCR not maintaining its property.
And the DCR and its apologists are very happy to limit the DCR's contribution to the environment to make work projects for their most vocal apologists. Silly projects like the Bumpy Pond get built with serious environmental harm and no maintenance. The apologists do not make money out of maintenance. They make money out of make work projects.
So we have a filthy hole ten feet from the Charles River, and the pols and bureaucrats and their friends are fighting for even worse environmental destruction at Magazine Beach.
Outrageous? Yes!!!
Business as usual with the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge and their friends at the state level, pols, bureacrats and contractors one and all.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Visibilities at the BU Bridge, numbers 353 and 354
Marilyn reports:
There were lots of drivers and pedestrians, even some cyclists, taking the flyers Monday and Tuesday, July 16 and 17, at the BU Bridge. There was a good number of thumbs-up as people drove by.
Some people who stopped to talk were mystified why anyone would want the project there. Others commented that it was the usual cynical stuff.
I try to tell people, briefly, that we've paid almost $4 billion to clean up the Charles River (this is the figure I got from the Charles River Watershed Association) and now Cambridge taxpayers are paying $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
Chemical runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod at the Ebersol Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park caused the algae bloom last August and September. Now Cambridge will be installing 7 acres of the same at Magazine Beach. We'll have astronomical algae blooms even farther upriver every year if Cambridge gets its way.
And our water rates that include the costs of the Charles River cleanup have just gone up.
There were lots of drivers and pedestrians, even some cyclists, taking the flyers Monday and Tuesday, July 16 and 17, at the BU Bridge. There was a good number of thumbs-up as people drove by.
Some people who stopped to talk were mystified why anyone would want the project there. Others commented that it was the usual cynical stuff.
I try to tell people, briefly, that we've paid almost $4 billion to clean up the Charles River (this is the figure I got from the Charles River Watershed Association) and now Cambridge taxpayers are paying $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
Chemical runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod at the Ebersol Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park caused the algae bloom last August and September. Now Cambridge will be installing 7 acres of the same at Magazine Beach. We'll have astronomical algae blooms even farther upriver every year if Cambridge gets its way.
And our water rates that include the costs of the Charles River cleanup have just gone up.
Pit Bulls and the Aggressive Destroyers of our World
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
2. Application.
1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
I practice law in an office in a modern building between Harvard and Central Squares in Cambridge, MA, USA (across from the "People's Republik" bar).
I am frequently in the office late working on various projects. Last night, July 17, 2007, there was a group of three people and a dog on our front steps for half an hour to an hour at least.
I first encountered them on the way out. I had things I was doing in the neighborhood, so I went by several times after that.
The dog was a black shorthair, intermediate in size between a small dog and a medium sized dog, in excellent physical condition, not the slightest fat and appropriately muscular for his size.
I said hello to the people and the dog, being very careful the first time to properly introduce myself to the dog.
Each time I went by, I happily pet the dog and briefly spoke to the folks. He was clearly a pleasant, friendly being, out in the world and very pleased to meet the inhabitants of his world.
I asked during the first discussion whether he was a baby Labrador Retriever.
The response was that he was a adult black pit bull, but that he commonly passes for a black Lab, and the master clearly indicated that that was to his advantage.
At that point, I had been in the process of going my way, but I reversed myself to look at the dog's face, clearly not a Lab, clearly a Pit Bull.
2. Application.
The general group that the enemies of this beautiful, friendly animal belong to is the same sick people who are fighting to destroy all wildlife on the Charles River.
These destructive people use whatever lie or false analogy (lie, lie, lie) they can get away with to destroy anything and everything that has a semblance of nature in our world.
The destructive people cannot get away with killing all dogs, as they are aggressively trying to kill the Charles River White Geese, so they regulate them to death, and they try to restrict dogs to bizarre "sanctuaries" as in the sick situation on the Charles River.
Not all attackers of pit bulls are aggressively destroying our world. The tiny minority of world destroyers manipulate people all over the place.
I was in the legislative hearing a few months ago on the latest attempt by this sick organization to attack nature at whatever weak links these sick people can find. This was an attempt to apply bizarre restrictions on pit bulls.
The testimony at that hearing mentioned the tendency of the press to identify a pit bull as the aggressor in all bad situations involving pit bulls, but to downplay attacks by other dogs.
One example of a difficult attack mentioned in that hearing was an attack by a large size Golden Retriever. My brother has a large Golden. The most minimal thing that can be said about her is that she is an excellent example of extreme but intelligent pleasantness.
Nevertheless, I had one incident in which I scratched the ear of my brother's Golden and she responded defensively and quite rapidly and aggressively. Apparently she had some sort of infection and was defending herself.
I am a dog patter. My brother's Golden walks around the world intelligently looking to be friends with every human and every dog she encounters. I am the same way with dogs.
I had a situation in Central Square, Cambridge, in which I encountered a Golden with a face similar to that of my brother's dog. I pet her and, as with my brother's dog, did something inadvertently to hurt her. She defended herself. The owner's reaction went from pleasure to surprised mortification. I tried to placate her explaining that I must have hurt the animal in some way.
In the case of the attack I mentioned above by a Golden Retriever, I can imagine some fool tormenting that poor dog and the dog defending itself.
Similarly the folks fighting against the legislative attacks on pit bulls report similar fact patterns involved in pit bull attacks, problems with humans, not dogs.
We live in a world which is generally very, very good. There is a truly reprehensible minority aggressively destroying our world while piously claiming sainthood.
This reprehensible minority includes Cambridge pols and bureaucrats and their friendly pols and bureaucrats at the state level.
In order to prevent the destruction of our world, we must stand up to these reprehensible people, particularly those, such as nine Cambridge City Councilors, who abuse their power and lie about which side they are on.
We should regulate the destroyers of our world. We should not regulate their victims.
1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
2. Application.
1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
I practice law in an office in a modern building between Harvard and Central Squares in Cambridge, MA, USA (across from the "People's Republik" bar).
I am frequently in the office late working on various projects. Last night, July 17, 2007, there was a group of three people and a dog on our front steps for half an hour to an hour at least.
I first encountered them on the way out. I had things I was doing in the neighborhood, so I went by several times after that.
The dog was a black shorthair, intermediate in size between a small dog and a medium sized dog, in excellent physical condition, not the slightest fat and appropriately muscular for his size.
I said hello to the people and the dog, being very careful the first time to properly introduce myself to the dog.
Each time I went by, I happily pet the dog and briefly spoke to the folks. He was clearly a pleasant, friendly being, out in the world and very pleased to meet the inhabitants of his world.
I asked during the first discussion whether he was a baby Labrador Retriever.
The response was that he was a adult black pit bull, but that he commonly passes for a black Lab, and the master clearly indicated that that was to his advantage.
At that point, I had been in the process of going my way, but I reversed myself to look at the dog's face, clearly not a Lab, clearly a Pit Bull.
2. Application.
The general group that the enemies of this beautiful, friendly animal belong to is the same sick people who are fighting to destroy all wildlife on the Charles River.
These destructive people use whatever lie or false analogy (lie, lie, lie) they can get away with to destroy anything and everything that has a semblance of nature in our world.
The destructive people cannot get away with killing all dogs, as they are aggressively trying to kill the Charles River White Geese, so they regulate them to death, and they try to restrict dogs to bizarre "sanctuaries" as in the sick situation on the Charles River.
Not all attackers of pit bulls are aggressively destroying our world. The tiny minority of world destroyers manipulate people all over the place.
I was in the legislative hearing a few months ago on the latest attempt by this sick organization to attack nature at whatever weak links these sick people can find. This was an attempt to apply bizarre restrictions on pit bulls.
The testimony at that hearing mentioned the tendency of the press to identify a pit bull as the aggressor in all bad situations involving pit bulls, but to downplay attacks by other dogs.
One example of a difficult attack mentioned in that hearing was an attack by a large size Golden Retriever. My brother has a large Golden. The most minimal thing that can be said about her is that she is an excellent example of extreme but intelligent pleasantness.
Nevertheless, I had one incident in which I scratched the ear of my brother's Golden and she responded defensively and quite rapidly and aggressively. Apparently she had some sort of infection and was defending herself.
I am a dog patter. My brother's Golden walks around the world intelligently looking to be friends with every human and every dog she encounters. I am the same way with dogs.
I had a situation in Central Square, Cambridge, in which I encountered a Golden with a face similar to that of my brother's dog. I pet her and, as with my brother's dog, did something inadvertently to hurt her. She defended herself. The owner's reaction went from pleasure to surprised mortification. I tried to placate her explaining that I must have hurt the animal in some way.
In the case of the attack I mentioned above by a Golden Retriever, I can imagine some fool tormenting that poor dog and the dog defending itself.
Similarly the folks fighting against the legislative attacks on pit bulls report similar fact patterns involved in pit bull attacks, problems with humans, not dogs.
We live in a world which is generally very, very good. There is a truly reprehensible minority aggressively destroying our world while piously claiming sainthood.
This reprehensible minority includes Cambridge pols and bureaucrats and their friendly pols and bureaucrats at the state level.
In order to prevent the destruction of our world, we must stand up to these reprehensible people, particularly those, such as nine Cambridge City Councilors, who abuse their power and lie about which side they are on.
We should regulate the destroyers of our world. We should not regulate their victims.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Report 352, Video of the Goose Meadow, April 2000; Perspective
Report 352 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese - Roy Bercaw posts his report of the geese in April 2000 - Thoughts on the changes which have come since.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility Report.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
4. Marilyn Responds.
5. Further Thought.
1. Visibility Report.
Yesterday, Saturday, July 14, 2007, I did another visibility on the edge of the Goose Meadow, saying hello to people on the BU Bridge. I went fairly late. There was a Red Sox game. They commonly get a lot of traffic over the BU Bridge, but traffic in that direction was a lot quieter than I expected. I anticipate that I was later than the game rush.
People were, as usual, quite friendly. One gentleman followed up on discussions with Marilyn.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post a video on the internet that he took of the Charles River White Geese in April 2000. Marilyn Wellons performed as commentator. Roy brought a camera to the Destroyed Nesting Area shortly after the geese returned to the BU/DCR imposed desolation. His video ended with an excellent shot of some very strong flying by one member of the goose gaggle.
I have created a link to one of the postings in the right margin. The video may be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/ypd6sh and at at video.google.com.
The developer lobby tends to descend upon people who have the nerve to talk reality when it comes to the environmental attacks by state and Cambridge bureaucrats and pols. They sound so good, but they toss out one lie after another lie after another lie.
One of their bizarre explanations for the pols and bureaucrats destroying wildlife on the Charles River was a lie that the Charles River White Geese do not fly.
The end of this video shows one Charles River White Goose flying, and flying very high.
Well, when one lie does not work, they switch to another lie. Their definition of THE TRUTH is that lie which works. Their world is a non-stop search for this very bizarre "truth." The Cambridge City Council's definition of "environmentalism" is an excellent example.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
The lie this week is that they want to create a "sanctuary" in the goose meadow, where there is no food. That "sanctuary" promise has no more credibility than the four years of promise of "no intent to harm" the Charles River White Geese. Then they disclosed that their definition of "harm" does not include starvation.
We are dealing with people who are proud of having no ethics.
Decent people cannot imagine how low the people they are trying to deal with are.
Promises have no value. Decency is treated as a weakness. And they will lie and lie and lie until they find a lie that works and call that lie the TRUTH.
4. Marilyn Responds.
You're right.
To call the White Geese's ghetto a sanctuary is an
abomination.
5. Further Thought.
The true sickness of the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats and the developer-types who are so prominent in the tiny minority egging them on is demonstrated by the fact that Marilyn is right.
But much more than that.
These reprehensible people took a thing of beauty and turned it into a ghetto.
For the first more than 20 years that the Charles River White Geese were proud, beautiful residents of the Charles River, this place was their holiest place. The Charles River White Geese lived in a mile long habitat.
Three quarters of the time, they lived at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
The other quarter of the time, they migrated to their place of life, their place of mating and of raising their babies.
These sick people have wantonly destroyed three quarters of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese for their use and turned the holiest part of their habitat into a ghetto.
And they are doing it as part of a package in which they are destroying all animal habitat, all wetlands and all wild areas in the City of Cambridge along with repeated, needless destruction of trees and trees and trees.
The pols and bureaucrats of the City of Cambridge and the state along with their tiny gathering of sycophants are nothing less than reprehensible.
And they have the nerve to call themselves "environmentalists" using a secretly redefined term in which environmental destruction becomes "environmentalism."
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility Report.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
4. Marilyn Responds.
5. Further Thought.
1. Visibility Report.
Yesterday, Saturday, July 14, 2007, I did another visibility on the edge of the Goose Meadow, saying hello to people on the BU Bridge. I went fairly late. There was a Red Sox game. They commonly get a lot of traffic over the BU Bridge, but traffic in that direction was a lot quieter than I expected. I anticipate that I was later than the game rush.
People were, as usual, quite friendly. One gentleman followed up on discussions with Marilyn.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post a video on the internet that he took of the Charles River White Geese in April 2000. Marilyn Wellons performed as commentator. Roy brought a camera to the Destroyed Nesting Area shortly after the geese returned to the BU/DCR imposed desolation. His video ended with an excellent shot of some very strong flying by one member of the goose gaggle.
I have created a link to one of the postings in the right margin. The video may be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/ypd6sh and at at video.google.com.
The developer lobby tends to descend upon people who have the nerve to talk reality when it comes to the environmental attacks by state and Cambridge bureaucrats and pols. They sound so good, but they toss out one lie after another lie after another lie.
One of their bizarre explanations for the pols and bureaucrats destroying wildlife on the Charles River was a lie that the Charles River White Geese do not fly.
The end of this video shows one Charles River White Goose flying, and flying very high.
Well, when one lie does not work, they switch to another lie. Their definition of THE TRUTH is that lie which works. Their world is a non-stop search for this very bizarre "truth." The Cambridge City Council's definition of "environmentalism" is an excellent example.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
The lie this week is that they want to create a "sanctuary" in the goose meadow, where there is no food. That "sanctuary" promise has no more credibility than the four years of promise of "no intent to harm" the Charles River White Geese. Then they disclosed that their definition of "harm" does not include starvation.
We are dealing with people who are proud of having no ethics.
Decent people cannot imagine how low the people they are trying to deal with are.
Promises have no value. Decency is treated as a weakness. And they will lie and lie and lie until they find a lie that works and call that lie the TRUTH.
4. Marilyn Responds.
You're right.
To call the White Geese's ghetto a sanctuary is an
abomination.
5. Further Thought.
The true sickness of the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats and the developer-types who are so prominent in the tiny minority egging them on is demonstrated by the fact that Marilyn is right.
But much more than that.
These reprehensible people took a thing of beauty and turned it into a ghetto.
For the first more than 20 years that the Charles River White Geese were proud, beautiful residents of the Charles River, this place was their holiest place. The Charles River White Geese lived in a mile long habitat.
Three quarters of the time, they lived at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
The other quarter of the time, they migrated to their place of life, their place of mating and of raising their babies.
These sick people have wantonly destroyed three quarters of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese for their use and turned the holiest part of their habitat into a ghetto.
And they are doing it as part of a package in which they are destroying all animal habitat, all wetlands and all wild areas in the City of Cambridge along with repeated, needless destruction of trees and trees and trees.
The pols and bureaucrats of the City of Cambridge and the state along with their tiny gathering of sycophants are nothing less than reprehensible.
And they have the nerve to call themselves "environmentalists" using a secretly redefined term in which environmental destruction becomes "environmentalism."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Fliers Available in PDF
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
The most recent visibility included one pleasant surprise.
One lady informed me that she had received our flier at her door. Trouble is we have not gone door to door with that flier.
Clearly, somebody got a flier from us, copied it and has distributed it.
People are soo good on these issues and soo supportive, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend all the materials which are on the street.
I have all three fliers we are currently distributing in PDF format. I would be pleased to provide these PDF files to interested friends.
Available are:
***********
1. Cambridge / state Pols and Bureaucrats are at it again on the Charles River.
This is the main flier, telling people about the imminent destruction of the grass and earth at Magazine Beach for replacement by grass, dirt and poisons.
2. DCR poll: Most people think no improvements are needed on the Charles River.
This fact sheet provides an 18 point bulleted list of environmental destruction on the Charles River in the past 10 years by the city and state pols and bureacrats.
It is normally printed back to back with number 3, but that is not necessary.
3. Cambridge / state pols and bureaucrats are implementing a 19th Century "Environmentalism".
Definitely the prettiest flier of the three. Features graphics of a tree, goose, chipmunk, possum, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel and heron. All are threatened by the vile Cambridge and state pols and bureacrats.
This flier, with 15 bulleted counts, provides a brief summary of major items of environmental destruction in Cambridge.
It is normally printed back to back with number 2, but that is not necessary.
*******
It would be best to communicate with me on these items at my personal email address, boblat@yahoo.com.
Thanks in advance.
The most recent visibility included one pleasant surprise.
One lady informed me that she had received our flier at her door. Trouble is we have not gone door to door with that flier.
Clearly, somebody got a flier from us, copied it and has distributed it.
People are soo good on these issues and soo supportive, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend all the materials which are on the street.
I have all three fliers we are currently distributing in PDF format. I would be pleased to provide these PDF files to interested friends.
Available are:
***********
1. Cambridge / state Pols and Bureaucrats are at it again on the Charles River.
This is the main flier, telling people about the imminent destruction of the grass and earth at Magazine Beach for replacement by grass, dirt and poisons.
2. DCR poll: Most people think no improvements are needed on the Charles River.
This fact sheet provides an 18 point bulleted list of environmental destruction on the Charles River in the past 10 years by the city and state pols and bureacrats.
It is normally printed back to back with number 3, but that is not necessary.
3. Cambridge / state pols and bureaucrats are implementing a 19th Century "Environmentalism".
Definitely the prettiest flier of the three. Features graphics of a tree, goose, chipmunk, possum, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel and heron. All are threatened by the vile Cambridge and state pols and bureacrats.
This flier, with 15 bulleted counts, provides a brief summary of major items of environmental destruction in Cambridge.
It is normally printed back to back with number 2, but that is not necessary.
*******
It would be best to communicate with me on these items at my personal email address, boblat@yahoo.com.
Thanks in advance.
Report 351, Clarification
Report 351 from the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
On Monday, July 9, I conducted a visibility outside the Goose Meadow. People, as usual, were very responsive and friendly.
In my last posting, I spoke of a less vile time. Most people are not vile. Most people are not the nine members of the Cambridge City Council. Most people are not the lying bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and Resources.
Most people are good people. The trouble is too many rotten people have power and too many rotten people indulge in really vile tactics to do really vile things.
The bad guys are responding to the leaflets. They are shocked at the detail in the fact sheets. From their sick sense of entitlement, we are being unfair to them. We are providing too much information. Their lies won't work if we inform people of the very sick reality the bad guys are.
We will continue to tell the truth. We will continue to try to protect people from the repeated lies of the bad guys.
But they have had such sick successes on the Charles River.
Once again, the secret definition of "environment" used by these reprehensible people may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html.
The phone number of Governor Patrick is 617-725-1100.
Our fliers tell people to call the Cambridge City Council as well. The reality is that Governor Patrick right now is very very much more important than these nine destructive people.
The weakness of nine Cambridge City Councilors is their repeated lies. Governor Patrick has the money.
Governor Patrick has the power to do the latest terrible things on the Charles River. A lot of developer types want further destruction.
Tell him NO.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
On Monday, July 9, I conducted a visibility outside the Goose Meadow. People, as usual, were very responsive and friendly.
In my last posting, I spoke of a less vile time. Most people are not vile. Most people are not the nine members of the Cambridge City Council. Most people are not the lying bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and Resources.
Most people are good people. The trouble is too many rotten people have power and too many rotten people indulge in really vile tactics to do really vile things.
The bad guys are responding to the leaflets. They are shocked at the detail in the fact sheets. From their sick sense of entitlement, we are being unfair to them. We are providing too much information. Their lies won't work if we inform people of the very sick reality the bad guys are.
We will continue to tell the truth. We will continue to try to protect people from the repeated lies of the bad guys.
But they have had such sick successes on the Charles River.
Once again, the secret definition of "environment" used by these reprehensible people may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html.
The phone number of Governor Patrick is 617-725-1100.
Our fliers tell people to call the Cambridge City Council as well. The reality is that Governor Patrick right now is very very much more important than these nine destructive people.
The weakness of nine Cambridge City Councilors is their repeated lies. Governor Patrick has the money.
Governor Patrick has the power to do the latest terrible things on the Charles River. A lot of developer types want further destruction.
Tell him NO.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Memories from a less openly vile time
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I was just checking the links on this blog to ensure they are still valid, when I clicked on the Cambridge Candle link to the first public comment on this outrage, entitled "Who would want to destroy the homes of a bunch of harmless, beautiful geese?"
The Link is: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html.
It was published in February 1999 when my big problem was convincing people anybody could stoop so low.
A brief quote may suffice:
****************
When I try to tell most people that these beautiful geese are in danger, they only answer with incredulity. People cannot conceive that there are people irresponsible enough to attack these beautiful creatures.
A totally different story appears if you talk to a tiny number of people who claim to be “friends” of Magazine Beach. Many of these people fought, unsuccessfully, to put large trailer trucks on Memorial Drive a few years ago. Many if not most of them, seem to make their livings from development or from planning for development.
Many of these people have a dream. It is a dream which most people would consider unattractive, but you see, developer types live in a different world from most people and developer types know how to get things done that most people would consider offensive. Developer types call this “creativity.”
****************
Now we have nine proudly reprehensible City Councilors falsely calling themselves "environmentalists" as they indulge in truly sick behavior on the Charles River.
The issue is no longer whether they could possibly stoop so low. The issue now is how low they can go.
I was just checking the links on this blog to ensure they are still valid, when I clicked on the Cambridge Candle link to the first public comment on this outrage, entitled "Who would want to destroy the homes of a bunch of harmless, beautiful geese?"
The Link is: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html.
It was published in February 1999 when my big problem was convincing people anybody could stoop so low.
A brief quote may suffice:
****************
When I try to tell most people that these beautiful geese are in danger, they only answer with incredulity. People cannot conceive that there are people irresponsible enough to attack these beautiful creatures.
A totally different story appears if you talk to a tiny number of people who claim to be “friends” of Magazine Beach. Many of these people fought, unsuccessfully, to put large trailer trucks on Memorial Drive a few years ago. Many if not most of them, seem to make their livings from development or from planning for development.
Many of these people have a dream. It is a dream which most people would consider unattractive, but you see, developer types live in a different world from most people and developer types know how to get things done that most people would consider offensive. Developer types call this “creativity.”
****************
Now we have nine proudly reprehensible City Councilors falsely calling themselves "environmentalists" as they indulge in truly sick behavior on the Charles River.
The issue is no longer whether they could possibly stoop so low. The issue now is how low they can go.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Report 350, Mental Health Input
Report 350 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, Mental Health Input
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Yesterday, Friday, July 6, 2007, Marilyn and I did a visibility at the Goose Meadow. The entrance created in October 1999 is very close to the Cambridge end of the BU Bridge. It sees a great deal of rush hour traffic.
I had my long time sign with me and on display: an excellent photo of the gaggle by Anne Lynch with the message, "Save the Geese." As we always have had, there was a lot of very favorable input.
I had an extended discussion with a mental health professional from Marlboro Street in Boston.
We were specifically talking about the rape and murder of the young woman in October 2001 with regard to the level of blood on the hands of the then nine Cambridge City Councilors.
Her analysis was that the person who killed multiple mother geese on their nests with great brutality was always a danger to human beings. The difference and the culpability of nine city councilors lies in his getting up the nerve to do the same sort of thing to humans.
The goose killings were cowardly acts. He used a blanket or the equivalent to prevent self defense by throwing it over the nesting geese before he proceeded to beat them to death. The rape and murder of the woman in October was accomplished by a gang which overwhelmed her on the nearby rail bridge after one person raped her in the goose meadow.
Nine Cambridge City Councilors repeatedly heard pleas to stand up to these actions. The silence of the guilty was their reaction even after the clearly political killing of the leader of the gaggle. Channel 4 led their evening news with video footage of his body being dragged out of the Charles River. The Cambridge Chronicle dominated their front page with reports of our memorial service.
Nine city councilor with a wink and a nod sent exactly the message the killer wanted to hear. Nine city councilors told the killer by their silence that they saw nothing wrong with his behavior.
Nine city councilors reemphasized their venality by spending more that an hour discussing the rape and murder WHILE NOT WANTING TO KNOW WHERE IT HAPPENED. Councilor Davis briefly mentioned the location of the rape and murder. She looked around with a guilty look, swallowed her words and did not say it again.
Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors are showing the reason why they were silent and encouraged that rape and murder.
Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors have indulged in three years of heartless, undeserved, abuse to the Charles River White Geese by their deliberate starvation attacks on them at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency.
Now the next step is coming. Nine truly reprehensible people intend to dig up their food itself, the grass at Magazine Beach, and the dirt upon which that grass sits. They intend to replace it with dirt, grass and poisons, poisons which are not now necessary.
Like their protege in 2001, they have built up the nerve. Like their protege in 2001, they have looked to see if there was any sanction coming.
Their pious lies of environmental sainthood, their holier than thou lies, with the support of their syncophants, have worked.
Like their protege in 2001, they have gotten up the guts to take the next step.
They are now going, very quickly, to expose the children of Cambridge to poisons when the children of Cambridge play on those athletic fields. They are very quickly going to increase the level of poisons in the Charles River by the run-off from these fields of poison into the Charles River.
They could very quickly kill off the Charles River as the DCR rather clearly did at Ebersol Fields LAST YEAR.
And they will continue their holier-than-thou lies of environmental holiness.
Once again, please see the analysis on their behalf by the head of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. It is republished below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html. He goes into the theoretical nonsense of their lies about environmental sainthood. He clearly claims to speak for them.
And a governor who certainly looks no better (and just as holy in his proclamations) will be the weapon.
I appreciate the excellent insight of this mental health professional. Her analysis is not new. It is the same analysis we repeated over and over again before and after the rape and murder.
I have a great deal of concern for disturbed people who live in anguish.
I have flat out contempt for these nine disturbed people who spout holier-than-thou lies while doing these terrible things.
Oh, yes, the sign will be updated. The front with its photo and message will stay the same. The back will read: "Save Magazine Beach!"
But these nine reprehensible people, like their protege in 2001, will get worse and worse and worse as long as their lies work.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Yesterday, Friday, July 6, 2007, Marilyn and I did a visibility at the Goose Meadow. The entrance created in October 1999 is very close to the Cambridge end of the BU Bridge. It sees a great deal of rush hour traffic.
I had my long time sign with me and on display: an excellent photo of the gaggle by Anne Lynch with the message, "Save the Geese." As we always have had, there was a lot of very favorable input.
I had an extended discussion with a mental health professional from Marlboro Street in Boston.
We were specifically talking about the rape and murder of the young woman in October 2001 with regard to the level of blood on the hands of the then nine Cambridge City Councilors.
Her analysis was that the person who killed multiple mother geese on their nests with great brutality was always a danger to human beings. The difference and the culpability of nine city councilors lies in his getting up the nerve to do the same sort of thing to humans.
The goose killings were cowardly acts. He used a blanket or the equivalent to prevent self defense by throwing it over the nesting geese before he proceeded to beat them to death. The rape and murder of the woman in October was accomplished by a gang which overwhelmed her on the nearby rail bridge after one person raped her in the goose meadow.
Nine Cambridge City Councilors repeatedly heard pleas to stand up to these actions. The silence of the guilty was their reaction even after the clearly political killing of the leader of the gaggle. Channel 4 led their evening news with video footage of his body being dragged out of the Charles River. The Cambridge Chronicle dominated their front page with reports of our memorial service.
Nine city councilor with a wink and a nod sent exactly the message the killer wanted to hear. Nine city councilors told the killer by their silence that they saw nothing wrong with his behavior.
Nine city councilors reemphasized their venality by spending more that an hour discussing the rape and murder WHILE NOT WANTING TO KNOW WHERE IT HAPPENED. Councilor Davis briefly mentioned the location of the rape and murder. She looked around with a guilty look, swallowed her words and did not say it again.
Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors are showing the reason why they were silent and encouraged that rape and murder.
Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors have indulged in three years of heartless, undeserved, abuse to the Charles River White Geese by their deliberate starvation attacks on them at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency.
Now the next step is coming. Nine truly reprehensible people intend to dig up their food itself, the grass at Magazine Beach, and the dirt upon which that grass sits. They intend to replace it with dirt, grass and poisons, poisons which are not now necessary.
Like their protege in 2001, they have built up the nerve. Like their protege in 2001, they have looked to see if there was any sanction coming.
Their pious lies of environmental sainthood, their holier than thou lies, with the support of their syncophants, have worked.
Like their protege in 2001, they have gotten up the guts to take the next step.
They are now going, very quickly, to expose the children of Cambridge to poisons when the children of Cambridge play on those athletic fields. They are very quickly going to increase the level of poisons in the Charles River by the run-off from these fields of poison into the Charles River.
They could very quickly kill off the Charles River as the DCR rather clearly did at Ebersol Fields LAST YEAR.
And they will continue their holier-than-thou lies of environmental holiness.
Once again, please see the analysis on their behalf by the head of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. It is republished below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html. He goes into the theoretical nonsense of their lies about environmental sainthood. He clearly claims to speak for them.
And a governor who certainly looks no better (and just as holy in his proclamations) will be the weapon.
I appreciate the excellent insight of this mental health professional. Her analysis is not new. It is the same analysis we repeated over and over again before and after the rape and murder.
I have a great deal of concern for disturbed people who live in anguish.
I have flat out contempt for these nine disturbed people who spout holier-than-thou lies while doing these terrible things.
Oh, yes, the sign will be updated. The front with its photo and message will stay the same. The back will read: "Save Magazine Beach!"
But these nine reprehensible people, like their protege in 2001, will get worse and worse and worse as long as their lies work.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)