Public Hearing on Tree Destruction: Cambridge Protecting Its Environment from Trees?

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.
A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.
B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.
2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.
A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.
B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.
C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.
D. Memorial Drive plans.
E. Cherry Trees.
3. Summary.

Wednesday evening, February 7, 2007, I attended the public hearing on tree destruction in Harvard Square and behind the Hyatt Regency near Memorial Drive.

1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.

A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.

The City of Cambridge's Development Department defended the destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square on two grounds:

(1) The trees are in the way of their beautiful pavers (fancy bricks) that they are using to replace the cobble stones.

(2) Trees block light.

B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.

As near as I can gather, the Development Department and the City Arborist justified moving / destroying all but one tree on Church Street to make Church Street more compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Trouble is they are moving the trees closer to the existing buildings. How moving / replacing trees to get them closer to existing buildings increases the ADA's wish to make room for wheel chairs is beyond me.

But then I find the Development Departments explanation for Palmer Street flatly and simply sick.

2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.

Sixteen trees are being destroyed on Vassar Street. Eight are being destroyed at the demand of MIT, eight at the demand of the City Arborist.

A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.

All sorts of lovely reasons were given for MIT's eight.

The reason MIT really pushed at the end was that the trees are in the way of MIT's lovely bike path.

Additionally, MIT is widening the sidewalk and does not want trees in the middle of their lovely new sidewalk.

B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.

The City Arborist is the one fighting for the destruction of those eight magnificent trees behind the Hyatt Regency. These magnificent eight trees grew over the street and have massive root systems in place to support that growth. The city arborist is afraid they will fall over. And he is going to replace them with saplings.

But those trees have only been able to grow in one direction. The buildings are at the lot line. It is very obvious that, as the trees grew, their root system grew, and the root system, of necessity grew to hold up the trees. This argument is an argument against putting trees in districts where buildings are allowed to the lot line.

But then, the Development Department representative was very serious when she said she was destroying every tree on Palmer Street because trees block light (and are in the way of her lovely bricks, oh, I beg your pardon, pavers).

To my point of view, the city does not want to embarrass MIT. MIT is putting in a lot of saplings. Those massive trees would make MIT's saplings look small. So the massive trees "have to go."

Cambridge cannot have its eight mature street trees overwhelming MIT's baby street trees.

C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.

The arborist gave other, technical reasons for destruction.

The reality is that the city has a bad reputation with regard to saving street trees.

I hear these other, lovely reasons. They sound oh so technical and oh so impressive.

The trouble, among other things, is the timing. How is that the city has suddenly gotten so concerned about these matters at the same time as MIT is rebuilding Vassar Street?

I know of other excellent street trees in the way of "improvement" which were casually destroyed and suddenly disappeared and got out of the developer's way.

I am not at all comfortable with findings which, to put it as delicately as possible, certainly look self-serving on the part of the City of Cambridge.

They are excellent trees. Period.

D. Memorial Drive plans.

This portion of Vassar Street hits Memorial Drive across from a thick woods which is slated for destruction. To the west of the woods is the goose meadow of the Charles River White Geese. Sickos from the City of Cambridge and the state bureacracy have aggressively starved them and propose to destroy pretty much all those trees as well.

The eight massive trees are on the north side of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The south side faces on the Charles River and Memorial Drive.

The plans are to destroy more than 449 to 660 trees from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach. Across from the Hyatt and going east to the split of Memorial Drive, off the top of my head approximately 85 out of 110 trees are being destroyed.

The state bureacrats and their buddies explain the destruction on the grounds that Memorial Drive will look great in 40 years.

A thick woods just before the Memorial Drive split is slated for destruction. The woods is in the way of their lovely bike path. The Memorial Drive split is a block or two east of the Hyatt.

E. Cherry Trees.

Vassar Street is slated to have a number of young cherry trees planted.

The state bureaucrats are destroying every cherry tree on Memorial Drive from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach because cherry trees are not the IN tree this week.

This is being done in collusion with MIT and the City of Cambridge. You will recall that a Cambridge planner justified destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square because trees block light.

3. Summary.

Business as usual in the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.

Respect for Law, Harvard University and the City of Cambridge

Bob La Trémouille reports:

A. Bad Guy #1.
B. Roy Bercaw.
C. Bad Guy #2.
D. Response of Roy Bercaw.
E. Bad Guy #1 again.
F. Roy Bercaw.
G. Terry McKay - Which side is Bad Guy on?
H. Your Editor.

The following exchange occurred on a local listserve. I am not positive what the omissions refer to. The omissions are not from me. Passed on because I like Roy’s and Terry's input, obviously.

This report has expanded and expanded as good comments have come from good guys. The bad guy comments are reported to maintain context. I have kept in some comments by me which are now dated, once again to provide context.

Based on comments from Jeff Manzelli, I have added some commas to Roy's input, corrected one or two spellings and split one run-together sentence. Thank you Jeff.

Actually I think I made one comparable edit to Bad Guy #2 as well, and I may have corrected a spelling in Bad Guy #1.

It should be noted that, as of this point (February 15), at least three other people have jumped on Bad Guy #1. I am getting tired of this line and this entry really has gotten as large as I want it to get.

It, however, is a very major item of pleasure to me to see so many people doing so much good on that listserve right now. Roy Bercaw deserves very major praise for his efforts.

[Added 2/16/07] I gave in. Item H is my response to all the nice comments, with a couple of edits.

A. Bad Guy #1.

1. The complaints about the former Mahoney's site and Radisson sound similarly overblown. [Ed. The Mahoney’s site is a Harvard project going up just west of Western Avenue on the North Side of Memorial Drive. Truly outrageous stunts were pulled to obtain an upzoning there a few years ago. The Radisson site received its own upzoning last year, I believe. It is across from the Magazine Beach Swimming Pool. The usual characters ran around getting both upzonings, although the latter featured a smaller number of the usual characters] [...]

2. The Allston opponents of Harvard expansion will never be satisfied. If the sites were going to be developed privately rather than by Harvard, there would be similar "noise, air, and visual pollution," without a lengthy public meeting and comment process. [...]

3. Stem cell research and other biological research is actually not that controversial, especially in Massachusetts, and concerns about protests or threats are both unlikely and premature, given the early planning stage.

4. Harvard has dozens of plans out, newspaper articles, websites, meetings, etc. but apparently that is not enough for them to be considered "forthcoming. "

B. Roy Bercaw.

1. The legal process for the Mahoney's site was corrupted about 22 times. The Open Meetings Law was violated about 20 times. The permanent easement for the land under Hingham Street was transferred to Harvard before the City complied with the Procurement Act, another state law violation. The City's ordinance on transferring city land to a private person was ignored because of Harvard's offer of affordable housing.

2. Harvard is a private developer. All developers must go through a public process. What rules are you thinking about?

3. Like stem cell research abortion, is not controversial in Massachusetts. Yet there are regular protests.

4. The idea of Harvard being forthcoming depends upon the beholder, like beauty. Historically they never made neighbors aware of their plans. It is a major reason for much of the distrust among Cambridge residents. It is why at University Relations Committee meetings the facilitator bars negative comments, preventing the search for truth and any ability to correct past abuses.

C. Bad Guy #2.

1. Let's keep recall Cambridge is what is is mostly because of Harvard. Denying that would be a stretch.

2. Not sure about the details of how the legal processes were corrupted or which laws were violated, but it would be great if specifics could be provided. Otherwise, the comments are likely to be dismissed as zany opinion, at least by this member. [...]

3. I kind of liken it to the way President Clinton responded about his use of marijuana or his relations with "that woman." [...] I'd understand if Harvard were to do the same.

4. Anyway, I think Cambridge is such a thriving city in part becuase of Harvard and MIT and the trickle down effects [...]

Thank you.

[Bad Guy #2]

D. Response of Roy Bercaw.

1. Now that the working class has been forced out of Cambridge, and all of the factories have left and are being converted into upscale condos, yes, Harvard and MIT and the Biotech companies are what remains of Cambridge. But the charm and the safety is also gone replaced by uncaring yuppies who worship Harvard and MIT and the Biotech companies. That is not what made Cambridge unique.

2. If I took the time to repeat all of the details, the "member" would also think of it as "zany." So let's save my time, and leave him with his fantasy view of the legal process between Harvard and the city facilitators.

3. Actually the comparison of Harvard to Clinton's follies is a good one for different reasons. Until Summers resigned, five top administrators were former Clinonistas. If I don't name them for you will you think that is "zany" also?

4. "Trickle down effects?" Now that's a great system of sharing that always worked in this country.

E. Bad Guy #1 again.

[Ed. I have had past experiences with Bad Guy #1 in the past in which he kept tossing in personal insult after personal insult after personal insult.

[I find Bad Guy #1's subsequent response falling into the same level of lack of meaning, but Roy responded to it again. I will not follow this line any more. If we get constructive add-on's, I will further amend. Otherwise, this is it.]

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

1. And? If whatever they supposedly did was so egregious, why didn't you and all of the other frequent opponents do something about it then?

2. Harvard voluntarily has gone above and beyond what is required of it and what the average private developer does.

3. Abortion is much more controversial than stem cell research, in Massachusetts and everywhere else. Have you ever seen a stem cell research protest at a research lab in Massachusetts?

4. I have yet to see anything of much benefit come out of these meetings, certainly not the "search for truth," as you called it, and I am rather busy, so I generally don't have time to attend. This also goes to Carolyn's very fair point about my anonymity, but I don't believe understanding these local issues requires first-person interaction and attendance at every community meeting.

F. Roy Bercaw.

1. At Harvard and other institutions, there are well-paid men and women who spend their time teaching people like you history. There are as you may have noticed many different versions of history. Seldom are the official versions accurate. But it usually takes 50 or 100 years for the truth to be revealed.

2. You report Harvard's version of history. Harvard promotes your version and denies all others.

3. You report your version of what is more controversial.

4. No one else is busy. In fact all of us have nothing to do, so we go to meetings and then we make up stories for others about what happened at the meetings. If you weren't there we can say what we want because you are too busy to check. And anyway those of us who don't have anything else to do, we represent you and all the others who are too busy to go to the meetings. Sometimes, we get 150 votes each because so few people show up.

That is what we did in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. You didn't listen when Woody Allen said, 90 percent of life is just showing up. I always show up because I'm never busy. I'm bored and never have anything to do.

I never sleep either, no time, too many meetings. I just wait for people who are too busy so I can tell them all of what happened over the past five years at the meetings so they don't have to attend.

Thanks for explaining what happened and what we should do for you. We are here to serve you better.


Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM P.O. Box 400297
Cambridge MA 02140 USA [...]

G. Terry McKay - Which side is Bad Guy on?

[Ed. I said the above was the last one. Well, I will try this for the last. Paragraphing added by ed.]

It's curious to me that some on this listserve feel that we (the commuity) should feel beholden to Harvard University and sit holding our breath....for the 'trickle down' of good things that come when a major University is within ones community. We should be happy that Harvard gobbles up any and every parcel of land that it can get its hand on and then proceeds to overdevelop it...frequently as the powers that be at Harvard smile and tell the community "we will work with you...this will be good for your neighborhood. "

Well Mr. Listserve individual (who shall remain un-named)some of us have been around long enough to know how things really work when Harvard is involved. And although it may be hard to comprehend, some of us have nothing at all to do with Harvard and are not so impressed with this University and its tactics. Some are concerned about something called 'quality of life' and how the areas that we inhabit are effected by things such as overdevelopment, benefit to the community as a whole, affordable housing, parking,etc. This is why we take time out of our busy lives (yes, we're busy too)and try to keep tabs on what is happening within our community and how it will effect us.

Your being on this listserve would suggest that you too care about the community in some way but your words suggest something else....curious?

Terry McKay

H. Your editor.

I have done a lot of leafletting at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

You will recall that Boston University, in October 1999, as agent for the DCR/MDC destroyed the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. They started their actions BEFORE a meeting of the Cambridge Conservation Commission to discuss it. BU then DENIED doing the destruction until the CCC condemned their destruction. BU then blamed all the false denials of the secretary to their president.

It was a pleasure talking to normal people at the Destroyed Nesting Area, and most people were normal people. They sounded strikingly different from TWO people telling us how great Harvard is.

Then there were several people who sounded strikingly similar to the TWO people telling us how great Harvard is.

Oh, these people sounded so terrific. They would toss out one piece of nonsense after another piece of nonsense after a piece of blatant insults at the geese.

They would offer to resolve all our problems with fast solutions which sounded so great, unless you knew what they were really talking about.

I have seen people with similar smoothness destroy citizen zoning initiative after citizen zoning initiative. They always sound so great, and they are always so destructive.

I have read the thread of the responses to the TWO people who tell us how great Harvard is.

I have counted with pleasure the many people who have stood up to the TWO.

Thank you to all of you.

Massive Tree Destruction Proposed Behind Hyatt Regency; Blocks to be destroyed in Harvard Square

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. The legal advertisement.
3. "Public hearing."
4. Vassar Street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
A. General.
B. Importance to the Charles River White Geese and other Water Fowl.
C. Outrageous destruction proposed.
5. Harvard Square.
A. Recent History in Harvard Square.
B. The latest make work project in Harvard Square.
C. Palmer Street and Church Street.
(1) General.
(2) Reality at Palmer and Church Streets.
6. Key motivation in an environmentally repulsive City of Cambridge, MA.

1. Introduction.

This is an update of a report issued a couple of days ago. I have already corrected some typos.

I just viewed what is being destroyed behind the Hyatt.

One of the biggest hypocrisies in the City of Cambridge is the city and its pols’ belligerent claim to environmental sainthood.

The large scale environmental destruction ongoing or pending on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond and at Alewife are excellent large scale examples of their very destructive hypocrisy.

The reality, however, is that in pretty much every public works project of any scope, the first thing that happens is tree destruction.

2. The legal advertisement.

The February 2, 2007 Cambridge Tab at the bottom of page 19 announces a "public hearing" in front of a City Manager appointee on the destruction of a lot of street trees.

It announces that they are considering destroying two 8 inch Norway Maples, an 18 inch, a 14 inch, an 18 inch, and a 13 inch Norway maple, two 12 inch Honey Locusts and 18 inch, 17 inch, 18 inch, 19 inch, 19 inch, 21 inch, 22 inc, and 20 inch Norway maples. All of these are being destroyed as part of "improvement" of Vassar Street between the Charles River and the MIT campus.

Some have "pruning damage." Guess whose friends did the pruning damage?

It also announces destruction in Harvard Square.

It announces destruction of five 3 inch dbh Ginkgo trees and one 12 inch dbh norway maple trees on the short Palmer Street. No sickness. No reason given except: "to be removed as part of the Palmer Street reconstruction."

The same advertisement states that the adjoining Church Street is proposed to see the excavation of eight 2 to 5 inch Gingkos to "recenter" them in the tree pit if possible. Golly gee, the trees are not centered in their tree pits. No thought to rearranging the tree pits. They are going to move the trees, IF POSSIBLE.

3. "Public hearing."

If you feel like talking with an appointee of the Cambridge City Manager to discuss whether the Cambridge City Manager should casually destroy even more trees, the "public hearing" is scheduled for February 7, 2007, at 5:30 pm in the conference room at 147 Hampshire Street, Cambridge, the city’s public works department. Comments are expected in writing.

4. Vassar Street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

A. General.

The reason for the rewrite and republication of this report is that I just drove up Vassar Street near the Charles River. I had deprecated the destruction of the Vassar Street trees in the prior report because I figured the trees were in the heart of the MIT Campus between Mass. Ave. and Main Street, an area which has seen major street work.

B. Importance to the Charles River White Geese and other Water Fowl.

The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts on part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

The Charles River White Geese fed on the banks of the Charles River across from the Hyatt Regency for 25 years. In 2004, the City of Cambridge did a sewerage project there.

When Cambridge was done, Cambridge left a wall barring access from the Charles River. The wall had nothing to do with the sewerage project and plenty to do with an environmentally really sick city government.

That wall continued to bar access until sickos from the Charles River Conservancy wiped out the riverfront vegetation. But by then, the Charles River White Geese had been trained that there was no food for them there.

At the same time as Cambridge created this wall across from the Hyatt Regency, Cambridge and the state bureacrats created another wall blocking access to Magazine Beach from the Charles River.

100% of the 25 year food of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously taken away from them.

This is a city in which the city and nine city councilors constantly claim environmental sainthood.

Massive tree destruction is proposed by state bureacrats friendly with the City of Cambridge on the banks of the Charles River across from and within a block or so from the Hyatt Regency. Planned tree destruction is between 80 and 90 of about 110 trees. Trees were destroyed as part of the sewerage project.

C. Outrageous destruction proposed.

One block off the Charles River is a row of eight magnificent street trees directly behind the block containing the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

These trees cover Vassar Street. Truly excellent.

Certainly there is pruning damage.

These excellent trees are so large that the buildings next to them are in the way of their normal limb growth. The buildings are built to the sidewalk.

Similarly, they have been pruned to allow for utility wires.

Most definitely the limbs are totally over the street, but they are really over the street. Massive, beautiful trees covering an entire block of Vassar Street. Clearly, they must have massive roots. There is no way these magnificent trees are dangerous.

But Cambridge has an environmentally sick City Government.

Cambridge’s city government routinely destroys excellent trees to make work for its contractor buddies.

These excellent trees fall into that category.

I see three less large trees about a block closer to the MIT campus which are also marked.

Clearly healthy, fine trees and quite mature, just not as massive as the eight behind the Hyatt. I am not certain where the other trees in the advertisement are.

Naturally, the hypocrites will brag of the saplings they put in to replace excellent trees.

Alleged "hearing" as stated above.

5. Harvard Square.

A. Recent History in Harvard Square.

A couple of years ago, the city showed its contempt for the environment in the Brattle Square part of Harvard Square in a small park next to the Harvard Square Hotel. This little park was constructed as part of the Red Line extension a couple of decades ago. Its trees were just reaching adult beauty.

Scorched earth destruction of all of these twelve healthy trees was followed by replacement with an equal number of saplings. The city’s brags of saplings. The city calls healthy trees destroyed to plant saplings "irrelevant." Nine destructive city councilors call themselves "environmentalists."

B. The latest make work project in Harvard Square.

Cambridge’s Harvard Square is in the middle of yet another contractor make work project. Most visible NOW is ongoing construction on Mt. Auburn Street near the Harvard Lampoon building. The city is putting in a strikingly useless traffic island. The most important "benefit" of that traffic island is that it forces yet more traffic through the heart of Harvard Square. It partially blocks a short cut to get through Harvard Square from central to west Cambridge. The short cut still exists. It is just necessary to drive an additional two blocks in the core part of Harvard Square.

The reality of these bizarre projects does not come when they are announced since the City Manager and nine city councilors keep tree destruction secret when announcing projects. The reality comes with the chain saws or in the legal notices should you read legal notices.

C. Palmer Street and Church Street.

(1) General.

In the fine print legal ad on February 2, 2007, the Cambridge Tab dropped the other shoe on one of the silliest parts of the Harvard Square boondoggle: Palmer Street and Church Street.
Cambridge's friend, the DCR / MDC, claims to be destroying hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive in the name of a history that never existed.

The Palmer Street project destroys the last cobble stone street in Harvard Square (and probably the last in Cambridge) to replace cobble stones with bricks.

Palmer Street is one short block out of Harvard Square proper. It is a one block long street which connects the beginning of Brattle Street to Church Street. Palmer Street is parallel to the highly visible leg of Massachusetts Avenue between the Coop and the MBTA subway entrance.
Palmer Street is a very quiet street. It sees a few pedestrians and almost no cars although it is located in the middle of a thriving municipal square. Those cobble stones, when they were maintained, were absolutely beautiful.

The idea of spending money to destroy a cobble stone street to replace the cobble stones with brick is so bizarre as to be flat out sick, but that is the part of the project they are bragging about.

(2) Reality at Palmer and Church Streets.

I looked at the logging site just before the prior publication of this, now modified, report.

This make work project will destroy EVERY tree on the one block Palmer Street.

There is only one tree on the two block Church Street which is not posted for destruction. That one tree has grown at a 60 degree angle to the ground rather than the usual 90 degree angle. It is entirely possible that this tree simply could not hold the notice given its odd growth.

As far as the tree pits go, if this were not part of a long time record of environmental irresponsibility, the claim of concern for centering would be downright silly.

6. Key motivation in an environmentally repulsive City of Cambridge, MA.

The obvious key to both projects is the city's tax for creating new open space. The voters approved the tax because the voters want new open space. The city manager does not want new open space. New open space takes property off the tax rolls. So the City Manager and City Council churn the existing environment, destroying healthy trees and bragging about saplings.
But people who look connected to Cambridge City Councilors are creating "Green" groups in the City of Cambridge, MA. The "Green" groups just could care less about massive destruction of the Green in the City of Cambridge. "Don't look at the destruction. Look at the fancy light bulbs."

Take a peak at the construction / logging zones before they are accomplished.

PARTICULARLY look at the block behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

The block does not have the political importance of the blocks in Harvard Square which are not particularly large trees.

The destruction of that block just constitutes truly sick environmental behavior.
And nine environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors and their fake "green" groups will simply not want to know what is going on.

Sick, bizarre? That is the way the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, is.

The Bad Guys brag of Environmental Sainthood on The Charles River - Response

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The February 1, 2007 issue of the Cambridge Chronicle printed a letter from a representative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He bragged about the efforts of MIT and its friends, including the Charles River Conservancy to clean up the Charles River and to otherwise "improve" the Charles River.

I have offered the following letter in response.

**********

I appreciated the letter from MIT emphasizing the need for cooperation in returning the Charles to a healthy environment.

MIT lauded the swim-in media event at Magazine Beach in July 2005 as an example of going in the right direction.

Only a brief look at Magazine Beach will show that the animal habitat and wetlands is now gone as a result of the effort praised by that swim-in. During the construction, animals, of course were heartlessly starved by having access from the Charles totally blocked. The wetlands have been replaced with a wall of designer bushes which have no place on the Charles River. They, in fact, repeatedly died since their introduction at Magazine Beach.

These introduced bushes create a wall blocking most animal access from the Charles and PREVENTING swimming from most of Magazine Beach.

The next phase of construction will dig up and remove the dirt in the playing fields at Magazine Beach. The dirt will be replaced with dirt, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers will replace the wetlands. The poisons will protect the new dirt from insects which are not a problem with Magazine Beach before "improvement."

There, of course, is no concern about starving local animals during this project either.

Similar "improvements" were made at Ebersol Field near Mass. General Hospital last year. The new poisons were not enough to protect against insects, so the DCR / MDC introduced even more powerful poisons. The more powerful poisons were labelled with a prohibition against use near water.

The next day, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, swamped with algae. A first annual "swim in" was cancelled because of the algae.

Before the ongoing "improvements" to the Charles River, the DCR / DCR took a poll. Most people said we do not need "improvements."

Some of the people swimming with MIT have been poisoning every goose egg they can get away with on the Charles for the last four years. These same people brag about running around destroying as much native vegetation as they can get away with.

The DCR / MDC is fighting for "water related uses" while attacking local aquatic animals and vegetation, and fighting for swimming while walling off the Charles River. Naturally, playing fields seem to be water related uses but water animals and water vegetation do not seem to be.

MIT's idea of cooperation is interesting. It seems to be cooperation in exactly the opposite direction of what most people want on the Charles River.

Weather and Animal Report on the Charles River

Bob La Trémouille reports:

We are now getting the cold, but we still have not seen a real snowstorm.

Last night we had single digits and have had very cold weather for perhaps two weeks.

Most of the Charles River has frozen over, but not next to the Goose Meadow just east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, MA, USA. The difference certainly looks like the Grand Junction railroad bridge, probably current action. The Grand Junction railroad passes through the goose habitat just east of the goose meadow. It then crosses the Charles River over this railroad bridge that, in turn, travels below the much more visible BU Bridge connecting highways on the Boston and Cambridge sides of the Charles River.

The water has never frozen under the bridge and down river (east) for at least the first two supports going south from the goose meadow.

In the morning, the Charles River White Geese can be seen in the water on the east side of the supports and pretty much spread out in the free water area.

In the afternoon, most of the gaggle can be seen on dry land in the goose meadow. Other water fowl can be seen either in the free water or on the ice to the west of the supports. The free water spreads west of the supports at the meadow, extending perhaps half the way.

During this cold snap, I have never seen the Charles River White Ducks in the water or in the meadow. I have seen them on the ice next to the free water which is next to the meadow. Commonly, there would be Canadas near the White Ducks. Very frequently, there would be Mallard Ducks in the water next to the White Ducks.

I have had nights in the past when I have come to visit the Charles River White Geese in the goose meadow as early as 3 am. In these days of extreme cold, they will sleep rolled up in their down jackets. Around 4 or so somebody will get up and sound a call, and groups will start wandering, either on the water or across the on ramp to the grass under the Memorial Drive bridge.

In recent months, the gaggle has been scared away from Magazine Beach. It could be because of nasty behavior not yet explained. It could be because they sense the soon to come destruction there.

The Charles River White Ducks are spending their first winter in freedom. I know that I have seen the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative walk to the shore line to toss contributed veggies to Andrake and Daffney. That could be the reason for their remaining in the location where I have seen them. They would be staying out of the water from concern for getting frozen in.

It is smart for the water fowl to stay out of the water overnight. That is when the water is most likely to freeze. It has not yet frozen and if it does not freeze overnight, it is less likely to freeze during the day, but very clearly possible. This a very cold period.

This extreme cold is slated to last the rest of the week, at least. It is very unlikely that the free water will continue.

We will see.

Environmental Response to Governor's Podcast

1. Response to Governor's Podcast, 1/29/07.
2. Governor's Podcast, 1/26/07.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Governor Patrick has started a weekly series of podcasts. Below is my response to this week's podcast left in the appropriate manner and the text of the podcast.

1. Response to Governor's Podcast, 1/29/07.

Dear Governor Patrick:

I appreciate your comments in your blog which give the impression of environmental concern. You also sound like you are concerned about the scarce resources of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

You have also spoken about increasing volunteerism.

An excellent example of very major environmental and volunteerism problems is the Department of Conservation and Resources, formerly the Metropolitan District Commission.

The DCR / MDC took a poll a few years ago. The poll found that most people did not think that the Charles River needs improvements. We have repeatedly heard about the problem the DCR / MDC has with scarce resources.

So the DCR / MDC is aggressively destroying the environment of the Charles River for supposed “improvements” which most people said are not necessary. The “improvements” are highly destructive to the environment and repeatedly violate the DCR / MDC’s publicly stated goals.

The “improvements” do, however, make money for contractors. The fact that the contractors could make money from the MDC / DCR in parts of the system which need improvement seems to be irrelevant.

Central to the “improvements” which are anything but are the DCR / MDC’s “volunteers.” Highly visible on the Charles River have been the “Charles River Conservancy” and Boston University. These entities certainly look like they are used for things the DCR / MDC does not dare to do on their own. Clearly both have quite destructive of the environment and the resources of the DCR / MDC.

The DCR / MDC seems to be driven to destroy all signs of living beings on the Charles River and seems determined to destroy as much trees, animal habitat and wetlands as they can get away with.

The ongoing attacks on the Cambridge side of the Charles River are an excellent example.

One of the supposedly highest goals of the DCR / MDC is swimming in the Charles River.

In September 2004, the DCR / MDC conducted a swim in at Magazine Beach as a media event to emphasize this goal. One of the most visible swimmers was the head of the Charles River Conservancy.

This project and a related project in September 2004 was a direct attack on the Commonwealth’s most valuable tourist attraction on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, the Charles River White Geese. These 25 year residents gather fans from miles around because of their beauty, their gregariousness and their natural existence. They have been major favorites with commuters.

In September 2004, the DCR / MDC and the City of Cambridge proceeded to starve the Charles River White Geese by walling off their food of 25 years from access from the Charles River at the Hyatt Regency and Magazine Beach.

When the Boston Globe did a story on the starvation at Magazine Beach, they showed these beautiful animals being fed by friends with a massive earth remover in the background destroying their access to food.

Next to this photo, the Boston Globe quoted the DCR / MDC manager, Richard Corsi as saying he had no intent to “harm” the Charles River White Geese, repeating the claims of the DCR / MDC for more than four years at that time.

Mr. Corse has since elaborated on his statement. In Mr. Corsi’s world, “harming” does not include starving.

The project destroyed the wetlands at Magazine Beach to put in a wall of “native” bushes which promptly died because these supposedly “native” bushes have no business on the Charles River. After repeated plantings the non-native “native” bushes finally seem to be taking, but for what purpose?

Why to wall off the Charles River from Magazine Beach and thus preventing use of Magazine Beach for swimming, exactly the opposite of the stated goals praised by the media event.

A sample swim last year was called off because of algae bloom in the Charles River.

The DCR / MDC claims to be converting the Charles River to water related uses. Toward that purpose, the DCR / MDC is rebuilding softball fields on the Charles River. Ebersol Fields on the Boston side near Mass. General was upgraded as part of the DCR / MDC’s emphasis on water related facilities. As part of the “upgrading,” poisons were installed at Ebersol Fields, but the poisons were not strong enough. So the DCR / MDC added even more powerful poisons, a poison which included in its instructions a warning against use near water.

THE DAY AFTER THE MORE POWERFUL POISONS were used at Ebersol Fields, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge with the algae outbreak which prevented the swimming.

The next part of the DCR / MDC’s emphasis on water-related activities on the Charles River is further “improvements” to the softball fields at Magazine Beach. These softball fields have been walled off from the Charles River by the wall of non-native “native” bushes I mentioned above.

Plans are to truck away all the dirt at Magazine Beach and to replace the dirt with dirt, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers are intended to replace the wetlands which were destroyed along with animal habitat to put in the non-native “native” wall of bushes. Currently, Magazine Beach does not need poisons in the playing fields. Most people cannot even see the “need” to dig up the playing fields.

The White Geese and other free animals used to have access to all of Magazine Beach. For awhile in 2006, they had access to a tiny part of Magazine Beach. Trucking away the soil will clearly deny all food at Magazine Beach to free animals. This is for a project that makes no sense to most people.

And if the poisons needed as a result of the “improvements” do not work? Well, we can expect the more powerful poisons, which certainly look like they destroyed the Charles River when used before.

This is part of a package in which the Charles River Conservancy, as agent for the DCR / MDC has poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River for the past four years.

This is part of a package in which the Charles River Conservancy has been aggressively destroying as much native vegetation as it can get away with. The CRC has problems with a river looking like a river. They want the Charles River to look like a college campus.

I have seen heron on the Charles River, protected by vegetation which the CRC and DCR / MDC routinely destroy. I know of resident water fowl whose lairs are being destroyed by this aggressive destruction.

The first attacks on the Charles River were undertaken by Boston University on behalf of the DCR / MDC in October 1999 as part of an apparently illegal agreement. Boston University destroyed the nesting area of the DCR / MDC in October 1999. They started the destruction before a meeting on the subject scheduled in front of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. BU then denied doing the work until they were condemned for it by the Cambridge Conservation Commission. As part of their withdrawal of their denials, BU blamed their president’s secretary.

From then until pretty much the present day, the DCR / MDC has denied any intent to “harm” the Charles River White Geese.

Years of attacks on the nests and habitat of the Charles River have followed.

Multiple goose killings have been greeted with highly communicative silence. An apparent goose killer graduated to rape and murder at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese right where he had apparently been brutally killing geese. He has since been sentenced to life in prison. The accomplices of the DCR / MDC on the Charles River, the Cambridge City Council, spent an extended period of time discussing the rape and murder. They just did not want to know where she had been raped and murdered. They had been part of the very communicative silence which apparently egged the killer on.

There are currently plans to destroy more than 449 to 660 trees on the Cambridge side from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach. The DCR / MDC brags of replacing mature trees with saplings. The DCR / MDC brags about how great the place will look in 40 years.

This is with public moneys.

Imminent is reconstruction of the BU Bridge. The DCR / MDC has been unable to starve the wildlife because of the activities of residents with greens provided by merchants.

Trouble is the wildlife, particularly the Charles River White Geese, has been confined in the Goose Meadow / Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. This has been because the DCR / MDC and Cambridge denied access to the rest of the habitat.

This last remaining wild area is adjacent to and just east of the BU Bridge. The very much not-tender mercies of the MDC / DCR are highly predictable with regard to residents driven into this area by their misbehavior.

The DCR / MDC is aggressively destroying all living beings on the Charles River (when they are not poisoning the Charles River or walling the Charles River off against swimming which they claim to support). What do you think the DCR / MDC will do to this last remaining piece of wild habitat as part of work on the bridge which abuts the habitat?

Once again, thank you for your great words. I will watch closely to see if they are carried into practice.

2. Governor's Podcast, 1/26/07.

Transcript: Our First Few Weeks

January 26th, 2007

Governor Deval L. Patrick

This is Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts. This is the first of a weekly internet Podcast that I intend to record as a way of talking directly with you about our work in state government on your behalf.

These first few weeks have been active ones. I made the difficult decision in the early hours of this administration to reverse a slate of funding cuts made by the outgoing governor. These were tough decisions and costly ones in some respects, but they also honor the commitments that the legislature and the outgoing government had made to people in need, people who needed food and shelter, valuable programs.

I made that decision in close consultation with our budget experts because I believe we will ultimately have the revenues necessary to meet those obligations. And I also warned our team and the public that we may not, given tough revenue forecasts, keep those commitments on a recurring basis. But for this fiscal year I believe that was the right thing to do.

We also launched our Commonwealth Corp, a new service program which will challenge 250 Massachusetts citizens in the first year to give their time, a year of service, full or part time, to help rebuild and revitalize our statewide community. Graduates from high school and college, people in mid-career, retirees, who will have a more formal way of re-engaging in community service.

The Lt. Governor and I met with local officials from the Massachusetts Municipal Association and began the critical work of rebuilding working relationships with leaders of cities and towns, people who are on the front line of delivering services to our people.

We joined the regional greenhouse gas initiative, to promote energy conservation and rate reduction for consumers, as well as job growth in an emerging industry around clean technology and clean energy, something I think is a big opening for us here in Massachusetts.

And I sent my first bill to the legislature. Working with Senator Fred Berry of Peabody and Representative Ted Speliotis of Danvers we filed a bill to provide immediate property tax relief to families whose homes were damaged or destroyed in the Danvers chemical plant explosion in November.

We also formed a development cabinet to coordinate the executive departments that are key to stimulating economic growth throughout the commonwealth because if we don’’t make a more successful economic environment, with broader opportunities for companies, for wealth creation and for you, then everything else we want to do is up for grabs.

Now, it has been an active first few weeks but it has not been without its bumps. There have been insignificant ones, like when I filled the executive suite with smoke when I first tried to light the fireplace in the governor’’s office. And more significant ones like dealing with the initial bids from healthcare providers in trying to implement the new health reform law. But we are committed to getting it all right. We’’ve gone back to the drawing board with those bidders to get those premiums lower, so that they are more affordable to people. Because we don’’t want hypothetical health care reform we want real and meaningful and lasting health care reform and its going to take work.

There are other challenges we’’re facing. We’’re in the midst of the budget season right now, developing a budget for the next fiscal year which begins July 1. The revenue picture is not as robust as we hoped it would be and there are other challenges we face. But I believe we can face those challenges, if we stick together, and we’’re candid with you about the challenges we face, and open to you in taking your best ideas and your best advice on how to meet those challenges. We’’re in this for the long run, you and me, we are about building lasting and meaningful change and improvement in all of our communities all across this commonwealth, and that’’ll take time.

Now I could respond like some governors have, with sound-bytes and gimmicks and photo-ops. I could tell you everything is fine, and it’’s going to be smooth sailing no matter what. But I came here promising you that we would face our challenges squarely, that we would bring the most meaningful reforms to the table, and that we would govern with our long term interests in mind, and that’’s exactly what I intend to do.

If you’’d like to send us your comments or feedback on this podcast or anything else, please visit the website, which is www.mass.gov/governor and click on ‘‘send us your ideas’’. Those are the words. And we’’ll be paying attention. Thanks for listening. Take care.

A Very Slight Thaw on the Charles River

Yesterday, January 27, at about 2 pm, I was on the Boston side of the Charles River.

It was still very cold although the high was supposed to be in the 30's. You can't prove that high temperature by me.

The Charles River White Geese were visible in unfrozen water next to the goose meadow. Further out, on the ice, were visible the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney.

I drove into the parking lot at Magazine Beach. Construction equipment and fencing is still present on the rise / park area at the far end of the playing fields. The Charles River was frozen with varying degrees of thickness whereever I could see. Resting on top of the ice were a number of sea gulls and, separately, two Canadas. One of the Canadas was calling out in the manner of a bird who is trying to reconnect with his flock.

I walked over to the goose meadow, just on the other side of the BU Bridge. Most of the Charles River White Geese were present there. They came to greet me, perhaps half of them flapping their wings half flying. I have had winter days in which the gaggle has actually flown to great me. It scared them silly. The goose meadow is quite small for a number of large birds to be flying all at the same time.

While I was there, a number of Canadas and mallard ducks came out of the water and joined the whites. The two Charles River White Ducks remained on the ice toward the middle of the river.

They essentially recreated the group which had been getting fed by CRUWI last Monday when I went by.

When I returned to Magazine Beach no Canadas were visible.

Report from the Charles River as Bitter Cold Sets In

In Cambridge and on the Charles River we are undergoing a very cold snap.

Temperatures starting Thursday, January 25, have dropped to single digits with bitter winds. A warm up is anticipated today, Saturday, January 27.

On Thursday and Friday mornings the Charles River White Geese were in free water off the Goose Meadow in the cold morning. Much if not most of the rest of the Charles River was either frozen or had at least a thin coating of ice.

They are happily swimming in that freezing water for two reasons. One is that they love their water. The other is that, although they have their goose down jackets, the water is quite a bit warmer than the air.

When the water freezes, they stay in the goose meadow and sleep as much as possible, storing their energy. This is the way of free animals.

After a freeze, the White Geese will eagerly seek out thawed parts of the river for happy play.

Report from the Goose Meadow after first snow accumulation and several days of cold

1. The Morning of January 23.
2. The Afternoon of January 23.


1. The Morning of January 23.

This morning, I was walking over the BU Bridge. As always, I looked down on the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River Geese which has become their year-around home, thanks to the heartlessly destructive Cambridge City Council and their friends in the state bureaucracy.

I have been concerned about several days of very cold weather, commonly single or double digits. In particular, I have been concerned about the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney. They are living through their first winter in freedom. I have passed their favorite spot in the Charles a number of times without seeing them and, given the temperatures, I have been worried.

In the DNA was a representative of the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative feeding a whole bunch of birds donated greens. It looked like Bill Naumann. Part of the gaggle was probably out hunting. It did not look like the full gaggle by any means.

There were more Canadas there than Whites. Smaller birds, mostly mallard ducks, but some pigeons, exceeded the combined population of geese.

I did not, however, see the Charles River White Ducks in the gathering. I walked a bit further and I saw them. They were off shore in water right next to the Destroyed Nesting Area. That water had not frozen yet and they really enjoy their water.

While I was watching, Bill, if it were Bill, came to the water’s edge and tossed them some greens in the water.

Thanks to the folks from CRUWI. They are all that has saved the animals of the Charles River from the ruthless destruction of the Cambridge City Council and their state bureaucrat friends.

It was quite cold today, definitely below 20, and CRUWI was doing their charitable deeds.

2. The Afternoon of January 23.

Coming back over the BU Bridge, it was striking to see how the various birds had separated themselves from the other breeds.

There were perhaps five pigeons roosting on the near wall of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

First visible at surface level were the Canadas, sitting on the ice. Then were the ducks in the free water next to the shore, including Andrake and Daffney. Andrake and Daffney had barely moved from the morning. They remained a few feet from shore. The number of mallards with whom they were swimming could possibly have been 30. A large percentage of the mallards very likely could be one brood of 12 to 14 hatched last summer which did not seem like moving.

The Charles River White Geese were spread out in the flat part of the Goose Meadow. In their midst was one lonesome Canada. The Canada was very likely a bird whose mate was killed several years ago. He simply stayed here, the lone Canada.

Boston Globe Reports Part of Harvard Plans for the Charles River

1. Your editor, Bob La Trémouille, forwarded the following from Boston.com/
2. Your Editor's Comment.
3. Marilyn Wellons.
a. First Comment.
b. PS.
4. Other excellent Boston.com report, on the destruction and starvation at Magazine Beach, October 2004.

1. Your editor, Bob La Trémouille, forwarded the following from Boston.com/

********

The following appeared on Boston.com:

Headline: Harvard unveils its vision of campus across Charles Date: January 12, 2007

"Harvard University unveiled a sweeping plan yesterday to transform a 250-acre swath of Boston into an expanse of academic facilities, student housing, and a new public square with a plaza, retail stores, theaters, and an art museum." ____________________________________________________________

To see this recommendation, click on the link below or cut and paste it into a Web browser: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/12/ harvard_unveils_its_vision_of_campus_across_charles?p1=email_to_a_friend
[Ed: I inserted a space in the URL for fear of mangling blog. Please delete the space inserted after the date to view the report. ("2007/01/12/" precedes the inserted space.)]

2. Your Editor's Comment.

Harvard provides an excellent map through to Cambridge Street, Allston (River Street, Cambridge). Harvard shows nothing and does not even comment on its ownership of the Mass. Pike off ramps East of Cambridge Street, or of the manipulations to move those off ramps to the Grand Junction Rail Bridge under the BU Bridge and smack dab through the most delicate habitat on the north side of the Charles.

Please see the Charles River White Geese website for an excellent photo by Della Huff in the Habitat tab putting it all in perspective.

3. Marilyn Wellons.

a. First Comment.

Harvard and the DCR will argue that the "increase" in Charles River parkland from covering Soldiers Field Road will compensate for the loss of parkland at the BU-Grand Junction bridges when they remove the Mass Pike exit from its current, Harvard-owned location and move it there.

b. PS.

Land isn't fungible, except of course that transferable development rights make it so.

Nevertheless, urban wilds on parkland land absolutely lost at the BU-Grand Junction rail bridges is gone.

4. Other excellent Boston.com report, on the destruction and starvation at Magazine Beach, October 2004.

boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/10/17/...?mode=PF provides their initial report on the destruction of Magazine Beach. Regrettably, the original, excellent photo is not included. This was of the gaggle looking for food with a massive earth remover in the background.

The report on Boston.com does include the quote of Corsi which originally appeared to the right of the gaggle / earth remover photo Corsi was denying any intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. Corsi has since elaborated that in his world starving the Charles River White Geese is not harming them.

Regrettably, the rest of us live in the real world.

"Historic Parkways" Policy

1. Letter to Department of Conservation and Recreation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, copy to Governor.
2. Marilyn Wellons Response.

1. Letter to Department of Conservation and Recreation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, copy to Governor.

The following was emailed at 7:50 am on January 12, 2007 by your editor, Bob La Trémouille. Patrick copy was completed at 8:02 am.

January 12, 2007

Victoria Bonarrigo
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114

DRC.Policies@State.MA.US

The "Historic Parkways" Policy on which you are seeking comment fits the DCR's bankrupt environmental and animal habitat policies in the areas where you are using this fake sale pitch of a name.

I believe the comment deadline is today

You propose no environmental and no animal habitat protections.

This is completely in accord with an area where Corsi spent four years promising to do no harm to the most visible and highly popular animal residents, the Charles River White Geese. Then you proceeded to starve them by walling off their 25 year feeding grounds from the Charles River at the Hyatt Regency and Magazine Beach in September 2004. Your / Corsi's explanation was that starving them was not harming them.

You took a poll. Most people said do nothing to the Charles River. So you are spending millions on environmental and animal habitat destruction which makes no practical sense.

Your idea of an Historic Parkway is to strighten out Memorial Drive into a configuration which has no historic justification. Your idea of an historic parkway is to destroy 449 to 660 trees between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach including every cherry tree and to replace them with a smaller number of saplings.

Your idea of an Historic Parkway is to use your agents (Charles River Conservancy) to destroy animal protective vegetation on both sides of the Charles River to the ground while loudly lying (your commissioner as I recall) that you never cut vegetation below one foot, and as I recall your commissioner is FULLY aware of the practices of your agents, based on our exchange at the boathouse near Charles Circle a few months ago.

Your idea of an Historic Parkway is to brag about swimming in the Charles and then to destroy animal habitat and wetlands to install bizarre designer bushes at Magazine Beach which have no business on the Charles, which wall off Magazine Beach prevent feeding and preventing swimming. Your "historic" bushes with no historic reality, of course, promptly died.

Your idea of an Historic Parkway is to truck away (soon to come) all the dirt at Magazine Beach to replace it with dirt, poisons, and HISTORIC sprinklers. The HISTORIC sprinklers replace the wetlands which should not have been destroyed.

Starving the local animals in your world is not harming them.

Your idea of Historic Parkways is installing poisons at Ebersol Fields and Magazine Beach which have no historic relevance. Your idea of historic parkways is the excess of poisons at Ebersol Fields which resulted in the Charles River being killed between the dam and the harbor THE DAY AFTER YOU implanted these poisons with prohibitions against use near water.

Your idea of an Historic Parkway is your practice for the last four years of poisoning every goose egg you can get away with for the first ten miles of the Charles River. Your sick definition of histroy has no animals in it on the Charles River. Senator Kennedy assisted your bizarre attack on nature. This combined with lies claiming to be pro-environment show where you are coming from.

Sanctifying 19th environmental destruction attitudes says everything about a truly reprehensible entity, the Department of Conservation and Recreation destroying the Charles River with help from the City of Cambridge, the Charles River Conservancy, and oh so many others who make money out of your depravity.

Robert J. La Tremouille

cc: Governor Patrick

2. Marilyn Wellons Response.

Thank you for doing this.

Thank you for responding.

Charles River White Goose website up.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Congratulatins to Elizabeth and Marilyn.

The website is up again, with a different look. I am not in the middle of the decision process as to what they are putting together, but this does look quite nice, realizing that the updating process is ongoing.

DCR Policy Under Review Reappears

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/documents/parkwayspolicy.pdf

It is there again.

DCR Policy Under "Review" Disappears

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

The Department of Conservation and Recreation was created by combining the old and striking bad Metropolitan District Commission with its counterpart for the rest of the state.

As Governor Mitt Romney leaves Massachusetts in search of a promotion, the creation of this department has been touted as one of Romney's big victories.

Trouble is that half of the group had a good reputation and half had a terrible reputation. The MDC's Planning Department was flatly and simply horrible if you are concerned about the environment or about the rapidly diminishing stock of free animals in our world.

That Planning Department is the brains (?) of the DCR. The DCR is terrible.

A few days ago, the DCR announced a Policy on Historic Parkways which it was putting up for comment. Comments were required by January 12.

One very major problem with the policy is that it does not seem to exist on the Internet any more.

The URL was: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/documents/parkwayspolicy.pdf. I got into it yesterday or the day before and printed out the proposal. I just went after it again and got a very clear equivalent of "Does not compute."

The reality is that the DCR and its replacement does a lot of lying. They do very the types from Flat out Lying to Euphemisms which are the Equivalent of a Lie to a whole bunch of other characteristics, and this nonsense fit the character.

The various outrages on Memorial Drive are excellent examples of the belligerent lying of these folks.

They spent four years denying any intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. In September 2004, they / Cambridge simultaneously walled off the entire 25 years established food of the Charles River White Geese, both the grass across from the Hyatt Hotel and the grass at Magazine Beach. Corsi, the key guy, explained in a public meeting that starving them was not harming them.

The work at Magazine Beach is lie after lie after lie.

First of all the starvation factor.

Secondly, the started the project with a show and tell on swimming on the Charles River. Got some excellent photos as a result.

But they are preventing swimming in the Charles River with the project. They have replaced wetlands and animal habitat with a bizarre wall of designer bushes which block access to the Charles from Magazine Beach.

Thirdly, the designer bushes were described with the flat out lie of "native vegetation." The bushes were not fit to live on the Charles River and did an awful lot of dying.

You name a euphemism and it is almost certain the MDC will use it with secret definitions that it does not tell anybody about.

We have a new governor. It would say a lot if a whole bunch of people got fired who are responsible for this continuing outrage on the Charles River, along with killing the various bizarre projects, and thus fitting the majority of people in the poll they took who said that nothing needs to be done to improve the Charles River.

It is highly unlikely that decency will prevail on the Charles River.

I see a lot of people in the middle of the destruction who sure look like Patrick people.

A suggestion for Governor Deval Patrick

Governor Deval Patrick's transition team is asking for ideas for the new administration. This is what I submitted today:

Dear Governor Patrick

Please stop the DCR's destruction of urban wilds on the Charles River. These are places nature’s reclaimed after the damming and landfill of the estuary a hundred years ago. Wildlife has retreated to them as the city continues to crowd in on the river and the DCR proceeds with development. They’re wonderful refuges for people, too, where we take our children to see the natural world close up. And they're right in the middle of the city.

The DCR is now working with Cambridge to destroy the beautiful fields at Magazine Beach and replace them with landfill, sod, an irrigation system, fences, and lots of chemicals. (Grace Ross has publicly opposed the poisons being placed in Magazine Beach as part of that project.)

The DCR maintains the land subject to flooding at Magazine Beach—which it admits is ordinarily rich wildife habitat—is so altered by human activity that it isn’t habitat now. Anyone can see that’s false, that the DCR-Cambridge project itself will destroy this irreplaceable Commonwealth resource.

The DCR and Cambridge have already destroyed the urban wild in Cambridge where birds, including red-tailed hawks, mallard ducks, and the Charles River White Geese nested. The waterfowl have returned but the DCR and Cambridge will drive them out again when they begin work on the BU Bridge. And in the meantime the project at Magazine Beach has been starving the White Geese since 2004.

Please halt the state’s support of this project. Runoff from its 7 acres of chemically-treated sod will create algae blooms in the Charles like the one we saw last August off 6 similarly treated acres at Lederman Field. It will expose humans as well as wildlife to poisonous chemicals at Magazine Beach, where anyone can now enjoy the nice mix of activities safely.

Thank you, and congratulations on your election and inauguration.

Marilyn Wellons

Website "Under construction" ?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Marilyn has been working on updating our website for quite awhile.

Working with Elizabeth Snow, they tell me that they are in the process of implementing their goals and I certainly have seen confirmations of the appropriate nature.

What I just saw on the website, Friends of the White Geese / Charles River White Geese, gives the impression it is for sale. I think this is a mistake. There is a message there saying to replace the message with your own. That could be a for sale or a notice to us that we are between things and we should put in something. I guess the latter is more likely.

In any case, apologies and I anticipate things will be improved very rapidly.

Thank you for your patience.

Magazine Beach on the New Year

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Once again, no sign whatsoever of the White Geese. They really have been scared off.

The Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond saw a thin layer of ice which was melting in what is now heavy rain.

There were a number of Canadas in the river just off Magazine Beach along with Andrake and Daffney, the Charles River White Ducks. They came quite close to the parking lot and the Goose Pond without coming ashore. They may be spooked by the so much destruction of their protective vegetation by the sicko Charles River Conservancy working as agents for the state bureacrats.

Fighting yet another upzoning

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Record of your editor.
3. Latest City Manager Initiative - General.
4. What the Cambridge City Manager is trying to destroy.
5. Excellent example of the good guys in action - the Inn at Harvard in East Harvard Square.
6. Further protections of the environment and neighbors achieved and under attack.
7. The Cambridge City Manager on the attack.
8. Destruction details, Cambridge Street in East Cambridge, Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge, general destruction of protections.
9. Goals of the good guys.

1. Introduction.

I have more than 30 years experience defending the environment in Cambridge. Most of it has been in the field of zoning, a field in which individuals who know what they are doing can have major successes and I have those successes.

The danger, as usual, is with the Uncle Tom organizations, the company unions. They have done a lot of damage.

In the last few days, I submitted a proposal for an oped piece to the Cambridge Chronicle. I will convert it with little change into a letter of objection to the Cambridge City Council.

The following is my email to the Cambridge Chronicle without edit except to add section headings. As I recall, the prior editor was quite pleased when I put my imputs onto this blog. I anticipate and hope that the current editor feels the same way. I am very encouraged by the behavior of the current editor.

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

2. Record of your editor.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The following is offered as an oped piece with the following information offered about the author. Clearly, the description is much longer than you might wish, but this gives you an opportunity to pick and choose should you wish the material.

Robert J. La Trémouille is an attorney with a law office located between Harvard and Central Square on Mass. Ave. near Cambridge City Hall. Over the past 30 years, he has been active in environmental protection matters in the City of Cambridge with major successes. He has opposed many initiatives of the City Manager and his staff. He has defeated quite a few of them and has major victories of his own.

La Trémouille has written zoning changes that have passed that have downzoned more than 80% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares. These changes mandated the provision of meaningful open space around new buildings and protected existing trees and vegetation there in many other parts of the city. His zoning required housing in most of that part of Mass. Ave. The changes restricted building size and height.

He has written zoning which saved the Three Aces building north of Harvard Law. His zoning forced the return to open space of a large parking lot near Alewife Station. His zoning forced Harvard to build the Inn at Harvard in East Harvard Square as it stands rather than 72% larger built out to the sidewalk. He has increased protections on Cambridge Street, Prospect Street, Western Avenue, River Street and in various other neighborhood districts in the city.

In the recent past, he has repeatedly stood up against environmental destruction on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond and in nearly every open space project managed by the city manager in recent years. He has defended the last habitats of free animals in Cambridge. He has opposed trees, wetlands and animal habitat needlessly being destroyed.

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

3. Latest City Manager Initiative - General.

The City Manager and his friends are off “improving” Cambridge again in a zoning petition expanding his already very destructive “special permit” powers.

Trouble is that, behind the lovely words, the City Manager’s tastes are commonly exactly the opposite of those of the people of the City of Cambridge. The manager just does not tell people. The manager uses very deceptive tactics to keep people from knowing that what he is doing is exactly the opposite of what Cambridge residents wish.

4. What the Cambridge City Manager is trying to destroy.

The latest citywide upzoning in front of the City Council fits the mold very well. The city manager says he’s protecting space required around buildings called “yards.” The city manager even provides two paragraphs “protecting” yards. Once again, “special permit” powers would be given to his appointees which greatly expand destructiveness possible in the city’s zoning and which take back the supposed yard protections.

The normal situation is that the very destructive appointees of the Cambridge Manager use the “special permit” powers to destroy “yard” requirements. That makes “yard requirements” just so much more nonsense when they are attached to the city manager’s “special permits.”

5. Excellent example of the good guys in action - the Inn at Harvard in East Harvard Square.

An excellent example what the City Manager’s people hold in contempt and are trying to destroy is the zoning which created the Inn at Harvard located in East Harvard Square at Mass. Ave. and Harvard Street.

This building is easily the most popular relatively new building in Harvard Square among normal human beings. This is because it has grass, because it has trees between it and the sidewalk, and because, as a result of the grass and the trees, the Inn at Harvard is environmentally responsible.

The City Manager opposed the key provisions which forced those yards and that grass on Harvard, exactly the attributes of the Inn at Harvard normal people cherish. The city manager’s friends refer to areas created by meaningful yard requirements as “underutilized” with a delicate shudder.

I, along with 7 members the City Council (an 8th vote was in the hospital) and a strong neighborhood group, forced the Inn at Harvard on the City Manager and on Harvard University over both their objections. That was the Natalie Ward Zoning Petition.

6. Further protections of the environment and neighbors achieved and under attack.

Construction of the Inn at Harvard destroyed valuable trees. 9 years after my victory in Harvard Square, with the support of 8 members of the City Council and with a different, strong neighborhood group, we cleaned up those problems. We required meaningful open space around buildings and provided special, meaningful protections for neighbors. We wiped out provisions rewarding tree destruction by requiring new buildings not only to have open space around them but by also prohibiting construction underground in the areas where open space is required. This was the Anderson Zoning Petition.

The petitioners filed the Anderson petition in response to destructive zoning initiatives by the City Manager. We defeated his initiatives. The city council asked us for our proposal. We gave our proposal. The city council passed it. Support was so strong that the city council ever rejected an attempt at compromise we offered. By rejecting our attempt at compromise, the City Council gave us more than we finally asked for.

We accomplished our objectives with a bang. The most obvious part of the petition protected Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Central Squares. It was quite deliberate, however, that we protected Cambridge Street in East Cambridge, and Inman Square. It was quite deliberate that we protected parts of Prospect Street, Bishop Allen Drive, Western Avenue, River Street, Memorial Drive, Blanchard Road, Concord Avenue, Broadway, Fresh Pond Parkway, and Huron Avenue.

7. The Cambridge City Manager on the attack.

It is no surprise whatsoever that the City Manager is attacking these very real yard protections which we established and trying to destroy our very real protection for neighbors with yet more “special permits.” “Special permits” destroy protections and do harm to neighborhood quality.

The people of the City of Cambridge did not elect our City Council to destroy protection after protection after protection.

The most important thing in the mind of the City Manager’s lobby is taxes, taxes, taxes. It does not matter that projects can be done responsibly, with open space benefits on all sides of buildings for the benefit of all. The city manager’s initiatives have no use for open space except where the developer lobby can make bucks off it.

8. Destruction details, Cambridge Street in East Cambridge, Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge, general destruction of protections.

Cambridge Street in East Cambridge should not be a wall of buildings right out to the sidewalk. Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge should not be a wall of buildings right out to the sidewalk. Our neighborhoods should not be threatened with buildings overwhelming our neighborhoods at the whim of people appointed by the City Manager.

Cambridge should have meaningful zoning, not special permits which routinely wipe out protections we are told are guaranteed to us.

The open space provided by the Inn at Harvard zoning and by other zoning requirements can and should be provided. Requirements for meaningful open space around buildings should not be destroyed in undisclosed fine print in zoning proposals which claim to be doing the opposite of what they really are doing.

9. Goals of the good guys.

If the city council wants to vote in the yard protections in the latest city manager package, great.

If the city council wants to extend the flexibility to destroy even more zoning protections that is in the main part of the City Manager’s latest package, shame on them.

Report from Magazine Beach

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. The White Geese continue their boycot.
2. Plans of the sick pols at Magazine Beach.
3. The chief bragger, Charles River Conservancy.
4. Impact on the White Ducks, danger of Freeze.
5. Initiative of the Cambridge City Council - Yet more fake environmental groups.
6. Summary.

1. The White Geese continue their boycot.

Yesterday, December 30, I saw the Charles River White Geese and I was at Magazine Beach.

I saw them from the Boston side of the river. They had left the Destroyed Nesting Area and were going East, in a flotilla, exploring.

They seem to be very, very, very spooked by their sense of the truly sick thing coming at Magazine Beach. Since they stopped coming to Magazine Beach, I have not seen them in the Charles next to it at all, and definitely not on Magazine Beach.

The sick plans of the Cambridge City Council and of the state bureaucrats would be appear to be sensed by them so strongly, and be so offensive to them.

2. Plans of the sick pols at Magazine Beach.

These reprehensible people, solely as make work for their contractor friends, are getting ready to dig up all the dirt in the Magazine Beach playing fields, except the bizarre project at the edge of the Charles which exactly conflicts with their stated goals for the Charles River.

Once they are done carting away the dirt, they will cart dirt back, plus poisons, plus sprinklers.

The poisons will be inserted to drive away insects which have been no problem in the 50 years the fields have been in existence. The sprinklers will be inserted to replace the wetlands they so irresponsibly destroyed.

The bizarre wall of designer bushes for which they heartless starved free animals for two years and counting walls off the Charles from animals and from SWIMMING, also these reprehensible people started off this outrate in 2004 with a swim bragging about (and lying about) their plans for Magazine Beach.

3. The chief bragger, Charles River Conservancy.

The chief bragger in 2004 joined in the swim, the head of the sickos at the Charles River Conservancy. These are the people who have poisoned every goose egg they could get away with in the first ten miles of the Charles River every year since 2003. We raised sufficient hell that they stopped their sick attacks against the eggs of the Charles River White Geese in 2005. Besides they were proudly starving them by them.

This sick entity, on behalf of the state bureaucrats,runs arounds destroyed the native vegetation protecting free animals on the Charles AND BRAGS ABOUT IT.

At one point Senator Kennedy's office stepped in to help their egg poisoning.

4. Impact on the White Ducks, danger of Freeze.

The Charles River White Ducks could be the big loser in the current round of reprehensible behavior.

The CRC Sickos have destroyed protective vegetation right up to the core habitat of the Charles River White Ducks on the Boston side.

They need to get out of the Charles River. Yesterday morning, the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond at Magazine Beach had a thin sheet of ice. The Charles will freeze one of these days, and the White Ducks need to be out of the water by the freeze.

Trouble is that, when the White Ducks arrived on Saturday, July 22 of this year, they were beautiful innocents.

The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative taught them to swim in the Charles on the following Wednesday and they have gleefully been living on the Charles ever since.

I would anticipate that, like the Charles River White Ducks, they have their winter coats to protect them, but, like the fact that they did not know the Charles River was for swimming, they do not know that the Charles River freezes.

Bill Naumann of CRUWI has done and continues to do an excellent job keeping an eye on them, and I am confident he will continue to do so. I am confident that he is concerned and I share his concern.

5. Initiative of the Cambridge City Council - Yet more fake environmental groups.

One of the favorite techniques of the developer owned city government in Cambridge is Uncle Tom organizations, company unions.

These give the false impression that public input is normal in Cambridge, but are designed to prevent public input insofar as is possible. These organizations can be used for meaningful input, and I have used them for meaningful input. The key is to make such a strong case that the good guys will not swallow the nonsense being put out by the bad guys.

But it should not be that way.

The key type of organization to worry about nowadays loudly and FALSELY claims to be green.

They loudly proclaim their concern for fancy light bulbs, but cannot understand the problem with government destruction of hundreds or thousands or trees and cannot understand the problem with poisoning land owned by the city or state.

In shortly, they blatantly lie with their choice of names, but they go ahead anyway.

6. Summary.

I am hoping, but we are dealing with a truly reprehensible situation which does a lot of lying.

Remembrance of good people - Byrle Breny, Isabella Halsted

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I do not routinely read obituaries, but I was just, belatedly, finishing up last week’s (12/21/06) Cambridge Chronicle. I skimmed over the page containing the obituaries without realizing what it was.

My eye caught the very visibly placed “Byrle Breny” and then caught “Isabella Halsted” in a less visible location but with a lot more type.

Good friends. I have seen Byrle perhaps once in five years and Isabella less than that, but good friends. Byrle was 78 but had been living in Somerville for the last 10 years. She lived in Cambridge for 53. Isabella died in her home in Cambridge at 99 on Memorial Drive extension, half a block off Memorial Drive. At her age, I did not seriously consider bothering her in the recent past.

Byrle was the sort of good government person who lived in and kept Cambridge going during the rent control years. Her long time friend and roommate passed away at about the time that rent control died. They lived in the sort of little cottage which little people lived in in Cambridge for most of Cambridge’s existence. As the crow flies, they lived about three blocks north of Massachusetts Avenue. That was one of many working class neighborhoods in Cambridge when they moved in.

Isabella conducted and won a one person fight to close about half of Memorial Drive in Cambridge on Sundays for about seven months a year, the good seven months. Isabella also lived in what may have been a fairly humble place when she moved in. She owned half of a house adjacent to the Half Crown Historic District between Mt. Auburn Street and Memorial Drive, a few blocks from Harvard Square. This was a humble neighborhood very close to a very rich neighborhood. It was an extension of what were humble properties close to Harvard Square when that part of Harvard Square was still small scale residential.

The two of them lived in the sort of tiny areas which were hidden in Cambridge and missed by the casual visitor, but they did a lot of good from those areas.

Byrle lost her home as of the results of her friend dying. One income was not enough to keep it. That home was on a block long workers’street which is now amalgamated from a formerly humble street, into a now expensive part of the Mid-Cambridge neighborhood.

Isabella lived on a park which was split from the Charles by Memorial Drive. Her neighborhood was confusing to the casual observer with its remnants of working people. It has not been at all confusing for many years.

Byrle was a volunteer for the League of Women Voters, a good government person who aggressively fought for rent control while living in a privately owned house. She was helpful in a lot of my zoning fights in the middle part of Cambridge, on Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Central Squares, three blocks from her home.

Isabella is almost solely known for her successful fight to protect about half of Memorial Drive.

For the last seven years, I and a lot of good people have been protecting the less developed parts of Memorial Drive.

There has been a very major change from when Byrle and Isabella were active in that the Cambridge City Council has become very destructive of the world around us while piously proclaiming their environmental virtue based on fancy light bulbs.

Byrle and Isabella were both good friends. I miss them now and I have missed them for the past ten years.

May they rest in peace.

Another Good Guy - Wikipedia

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I want to thank the folks at Wikipedia for modifying their report on the Charles River to include the deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese.

If you understand the situation, there are inaccuracies in the report, but I try not to nag people who are being good guys.

Thank you to Wikipedia because of their inclusion of the Charles River White Geese in their report on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA.

Report from Magazine Beach; Another Good Guy - Trader Joe's

1. Report from Magazine Beach.
a. The River.
b. Destruction moves forward.
2. Another Good Guy.

Bob La Trémouille reports

1. Report from Magazine Beach.

a. The River.

I visited Magazine Beach and its neighbors today.

The weather was a steady drizzle, a significant improvement over the drenching the area took last night.

Once again, the Charles River White Geese were missing.

I think they sense the outrageous further destruction coming. They have been subjected to nearly two years of total denial of their food, followed by a period in which part of their food has been allowed back to them.

Now they sense the further massive destruction and it is too much.

I started walking up the shore on the fancy walk which is steadily washing into the Charles.

I suddenly saw what looked to me like two geese about three quarters of the way up the shore to the rise which signals the rest of the Magazine Beach area.

I got a better look at their faces and realized that one was wagging his tail.

It was Andrake and Daffney, the Charles River White Ducks.

The sickos from the Charles River Conservancy have destroyed a major part of their habitat because the Sickos have contempt for rivers. They want the Charles River to look like part of a college campus, not like a river, and to H---- with the animals, and to H---- with our back yard.

Andrake and Daffney saw me and swam further out from the shore line. Their four mallard duck friends have left. They are exploring by themselves and looking for cover and for food.

b. Destruction moves forward.

Further work has been done on the staging area at the top of the hill to the west. Boards have been brought in and have been strapped around THOSE TREES on top of the hill.

Still no protections in the construction zone where the luscious grass of Magazine Beach is about to be destroyed. The silly pink flags still adorn the CREATED area which memorializes the wetlands destroyed by the Cambridge, MA City Council and the state bureaucrats.

2. Another Good Guy.

I stopped by the Trader Joe's across the way from Magazine Beach.

I realized that the mural behind the cashier's area included a painting of the Charles River White Geese in the goose meadow. I commended the cashier and bagger. The bagger commented that he frequently feeds them and wondered why they stopped visiting Magazine Beach. I explained to him, including the truly sick nature of the Cambridge City Council and the local state bureacrats.

I understand that Trader Joe's is another company providing greens to the Charles River Urban Wilds Institute for feeding and defending against the sickness of the Cambridge City Council and the state bureacrats.

They are to be commended for both.

It is always amazing how much fresher the air is when you get away from Cambridge, MA City Hall.

Signs of destruction real and to come accumulate at Magazine Beach and across from Magazine Beach.

Report by Bob La Trémouille.

Today, although the outdoors temperature is not low, there is a bitter wind at Magazine Beach.

The Sickos from the “Charles River Conservancy” brag of the environmental destruction they have achieved on the Charles River in their latest newsletter.

Coming west on Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road, the destruction is quite visible. Vegetation on the Charles has been destroyed right up to the pontoons that are the favorite resting spot of Andrake and Daffney, the Charles River White Ducks. These agents of the state's Department of Conservation and Recreation brag of destroying as much protective vegetation as they can get away with and the DCR is fully aware of and supportive of their destruction.

It has sunk in why the Charles River White Geese are keeping away from Magazine Beach: they can sense the destruction coming at Magazine Beach.

The only white figures visible on the Charles River are Mandrake and Daffney on the Boston side in their attacked habitat and perhaps 50 gulls swimming in the middle of the Charles.

Bizarre pink flags now surround the created “wetlands” at Magazine Beach. This artificially created “wetlands” is not wetlands as any normal person would call wetlands. The real wetlands was the wetlands the people destroyed who were sent by the City of Cambridge’s nine city councilors and by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. This protected “wetlands” is something constructed. Only destroyers would call this bizarre manufactured stuff “wetlands.” This bizarre created stuff is a memorial to a waste of money and a waste of the environment.

Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation are protecting their bizarre created “wetlands” from the destruction to come.

More construction vehicles can be seen on the hill to the west.

NONE of the trees which are here, at the playing fields and the parking lot from years past have been protected. These are trees which have to be fifty to sixty years old. They are so small for that age, but still so big. Trees like this and much larger are casually destroyed by an environmentally sick city council so that they can brag about saplings they put in to replace trees which should not have been destroyed. There are some smaller trees near the sewerage plant. I think five of them were destroyed in the first stage of destruction at Magazine Beach, as part of the creation of the ornamental "wetlands."

Thousand of trees are being destroyed by this irresponsible city government at Fresh Pond. More than 449 to 550 trees are scheduled to be destroyed between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge by the DCR and by other friends of the City of Cambridge. Hundreds of trees being destroyed are much larger than the older trees at Magazine Beach's playing fields and parking lot.

Nine environmentally destructive Cambridge City Councilors have the nerve to call themselves pro-environment.

The DCR can be relied on to simply toss out a few more outright lies as might be convenient. The key destroyer has publicly denied "harming" the Charles River White Geese. He spent years promising he would do no harm to them. When asked about the two years of total inflicted starvation and much more to come, he publicly said that starving them is not harming them.

A third party has informed me that the newly elected “pro-environment” Cambridge city councilor thinks I am being unfair to him.

I am looking at this sickness. I am thinking of this sickness. I have heard his dead silence.

One of the very many things unfair in the City of Cambridge is the nerve of such a person to make such a claim.

Interestingly, the third party who reported the councilor's comments is in the process of moving to Medford. He is being forced to leave his not-Rent Controlled home which would have been rent controlled in years past.

As I write this, the gulls have moved from the Charles River to the soon to be destroyed grass in the outfield.

That grass is soon to be destroyed so that nine environmentally destructive “environmentalists” can starve beautiful animals and so that they can put in new grass, poisons and sprinklers to replace the real wetlands they destroyed in 2004.

The last time the DCR did this sort of "creation" was at Ebersol Fields between the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Charles River Dam. The first dose of poisons was not enough to keep them happy, so they applied a second dose of poisons. The second dose was in containers with clear prohibition against use near water. The day after application, the Charles River was dead from the Massachusetts Avenue bridge to the harbor, loaded with algae.

And the DCR and its friends cry “poverty” while demanding money from the state, as they waste millions and waste massive amounts of environment on the Charles River. Their own survey told them most people thought the Charles River does not need improvement.

Normal people say the same thing when normal people are told that Magazine Beach is a construction zone.

T meetings - Urban Ring Rail Bridge and other things that "could not have been said"

1. Report on Meetings.
2. Marilyn Wellons on Presenters.
3. Arthur Comments.
4. Prior Report.
5. The City Councilor did separate himself from the stuff being put out this time.
6. Bad Guy Responds to point 2.
7. Response to Bad Guy.


Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Report on Meetings.

In a period of four days, I attended three pretty major meetings.

Saturday, I attended the Cambridge road show on the Urban Ring presented by the MBTA / Department of Transportation. Monday, I attended the Boston version. Tuesday morning, I attended Governor Patrick's roadshow to MOVEMassachusetts in which his people got the ideas of a bunch of transportation activists.

The thing that really stood out to me after the MOVEMass meeting was a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the Urban Ring strongly insisting that the Saturday and Monday meetings did not happen the way I said they happened because the MBTA simply would not put out such false information on the Urban Ring.

My wish list presented to the governor on transportation matters was (1) that we get the Urban Ring transit proposal (phase 3) with the Kenmore crossing because that alternative's connections to the green line's three branches and to commuter rail are excellent; (2) that all the spaghetti being proposed for phase 2 between the Harvard Medical Area and Cambridge be killed because the spaghetti would give the state no option but to implement the far inferior BU Bridge crossing on Phase 3; (3) that, inasmuch as our bicyclists belligerently have contempt for the laws of the commonwealth, the pedestrians are not much better and the drivers are terrible, the governor should bring Boston to civilization.

The CAC member was highly indignant about any mention of the spaghetti which was shown in the Cambridge and Boston meetings because that spaghetti is not part of the phase 2 proposal, so it could not possibly have been presented. The CAC member was highly indignant that I could mention any suggestion of use of the Grand Junction bridge as part of Phase 2 because it is not part of the package and "will not happen." "Nobody wants that but Harvard."

Former Representative John Businger has treated me rather consistently badly since we first met when I was an intern in Governor Sargent's office. Businger was at MOVEMass pushing the north-south rail link.

Businger came over to my table after I spoke and addressed me for the first time in my memory. He was effusive in his praise of my comments: "Exactly right on all points."

**********

Clearly, our Cambridge presentation on Saturday went into great detail on what was described as options being considered.

The detail on such things as the busway over the Grand Junction bridge with connection to Commonwealth Avenue by Buick Street certainly sounded like they were pushing essentially a sure thing.

Their comments on the connection over the Grand Junction Bridge to Harvard's Mass. Pike campus clearly stated that this was not part of the CURRENT proposal. They clearly stated, as I recall, that when they came back, this would be part of the official proposal.

Our Cambridge meeting lasted the full three hours with very astute questions and comments taking up the full time. The Boston meeting was scheduled for two hours. It ended in one and a half hour and the only official comment was mine.

In both meetings, I stated the positions (except for bikes, etc.) that I did at the Governor's Meeting, plus I pushed for a green line connection to Harvard-Mass. Pike, connecting at Commonwealth Avenue and the BU Bridge at a new switch on the Green Line B branch. This would be a new Green Line A Branch following the Mass Pike along its southern boundary, essentially straightening out the busway proposal. Instead of turning and going over the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge coming from Harvard Mass. Pike, it would go straight to the B Line with a very modest turn onto the B Line.

The connection to Harvard Mass. Pike would go from a nonsensical dead end with buses to a sensible street car line which could be extended to Harvard Square. Harvard Station, of course, still has tunnels from the Station to the JFK School which could be used as that station for a Green Line A Branch with, for all practical purposes, no interference with Harvard Station operations when doing the connecting.

But the CAC member said that my report of the MBTA / DOT presentation did not happen because the MBTA / Department of Transportation would not publicly present options which were not part of the official proposal.

2. Marilyn Wellons on Presenters.

Footnote to your excellent report:

The MBTA isn't doing the Urban Ring presentations at
this point. The EOT [ed: Executive Office of Transportation] took the UR away from the MBTA
because, they said, the T didn't have funds to go
forward with it.

Consultants hired for the redo of the UR Phase 2
DEIR/S [ed: Draft Environmental Impact Review? Not certain about the "S"] (CAC [Ed: Citizen's Advisory Committee. I said "citizens" above, might be "consumer"] and other public process now underway) is
the same as in the original version under the T's
auspices, EarthTech. Hence your friend Jay Doyle is
still giving the presentations.

T would take over and run the thing once built.
Transportation planners now with EOT Urban Ring group
now were previously with the T and may have moved over
with the project, except for Calcaterra. Steve
Woelfel for example is with EOT but was with the T.

At the RTAC [Ed: Regional Transportation Advisory Committee?] meeting I attended on Wednesday, Dec. 13,
he commented on the Urban Ring CAC meeting after I
gave a brief report about the Storrow tunnel (Nov. 29)
and Urban Ring meetings (Nov. 28 CAC, Dec. 9 Cambridge
meeting).

3. Arthur Comments.

This is one of the best postings on cportneighbors. You have really hit the nail on the head this time.

I found the following particularly humorous, but to the point.

"My wish list was (1) that we get the Urban Ring transit proposal (phase 3) with the Kenmore crossing because that alternative' s connections to the green line's three branches and to commuter rail are excellent; (2) that all the spaghetti being proposed for phase 2 be killed because they would give the state no option but to implement the far inferior BU Bridge crossing on Phase 3; (3) that, inasmuch as our bicycles belligerently have contempt for the laws of the commonwealth, the pedestrians are not much better and the drivers are terrible, the governor should bring Boston to civilization."

Give 'em hell!!!! No peace or concessions to the empty stuffed shirt bureaucrats!!!

Arthur DaPrato


4. Prior Report.

I sent the following to the Cambridgeport list just after the meeting:

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

It was encouraging to see a fair number of us at the MBTA meeting this morning.
The proposals are distressing, but at least there is a lot more honesty on these issues than we get from the City of Cambridge.

Those who were there will recall all the various discussions about the possible use of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

The presenters made it very clear that USE OF THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILROAD BRIDGE is not part of the Urban Ring package, but ONE ALTERNATIVE they are considering.

You will recall that last summer a current member of the City Council attempted to present Grand Junction Rail Bridge use to this group as part of the Urban Ring, and that I was chastized because I had the nerve to go through a lot of bother to prove the statement false.

The City Councilor WOULD NOT withdraw this false statement.

I now have in my possession a collection of slides from this same City Councilor stating exactly the same false thing this councilor said last year: that use of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge is part of the formal proposal. Apparently, this city councilor passed out this FALSE information during the meeting.

I find the repeated nature of this FALSE statement highly distressing.
It is inexcuseable to have to repeatedly respond to the same falsehoods.


5. The City Councilor did separate himself from the stuff being put out this time.


6. Bad Guy Responds to point 2:

Why don't you name the City Councilor?


7. Response to Bad Guy.

Point 1 was my response to Bad Guy.