Follow up on false tree sightings

Saturday morning, I posted my report on the Friday visibility.

I was so happy. I thought I had seen trees planted.

Saturday afternoon, I walked the ground in the nesting area and realized I had made the mistake that decent people so commonly do, a mistake that allows a really rotten situation to continue in Cambridge and on the Charles River.

I assumed I was dealing with basic decency.

I am transmitting four photos from the photos I took on March 29. One is an overview, two are of the BU Bridge side, and one is of the ramp side.

The first photo is the overview, shot from a location which has not been destroyed by the very destructive agency responsible for the continuing and accelerating outrage.














In the second photo, the sticks in the middle of the photo are what I, on Friday, thought were tree plantings. In the third photo, they are to the far right.


























The poor geese are doing what they can to survive in the face of this outrage.

In each photo, there is a clear difference between crushed vegetation and strands of, apparently, vines stretching toward the middle of this man made wasteland. Those vines are nature healing itself. If nature were simply allowed to heal itself in the middle, the meadow would be reborn.

In the background is the construction. The construction zone to the left is now totally unnecessary. The excuse for construction was work on the BU Bridge. The work is done. The massive intrusion should be removed.















The fourth photo is of the vegetation toward the ramp with the first area visible to the left. Somewhere in the middle of this vegetation are the two small trees which I saw with leaves, struggling, nature reborn.

The first photo places this in perspective. The BU Bridge dominates the photo. Below the BU Bridge is the area in photos 2 and 3. To the right is the area in photo 4.

I still have a number of photos I have not published from the March 29 shoot. I will publish them in coming days.

Day 400 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Trees Planted?

1. Day 400, the Visibility.
2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.
3. Follow up, correction

1. Day 400, the Visibility.

On Friday, April 29, 2011, I conducted the 400th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

It was early rush hour with people already going to the Red Sox game. Cars and pedestrians were heavier than I have previously seen during this series of visibilities.

People going toward Cambridge were waving from their cars and beeping.

A lot of fliers were distributed. Quite a few people stopped for good conversations.

2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.

The 50 foot swath for access to bridge repairs that were completed months ago is still there, as is the parking area for cars that are parked elsewhere.

The hay bales which were piled in the interior corner of the L have been mostly moved. A number of them were moved in an organized manner against the sidewalk toward the BU Bridge near the on ramp. They exactly fit the height of the bridge above ground at that point. A lot of hay bales were thrown on the hill under the ramp in the construction zone.

Trees have been planted. To the human eye it looks good. I do not know what it looks like to the animals. That is a matter of concern. There have been perhaps ten trees planted in close groupings.

At the time of destruction of the natural area nearest the BU Bridge / on ramp intersection, two grouping of ground vegetation were not destroyed. Perhaps five deciduous trees have been planted in the grouping closer to the BU Bridge and perhaps 5 evergreens in the other area. The deciduous are close together and are tied in a supporting group. The evergreens are more spread out.

This greenery was a vestige of the wild area before the bureaucrats, Cambridge and their fake environmental group started destroying. The look of this wild remnant has been a dead appearance this spring raising the fear that the destroyers have further destroyed. But there has been no other real vegetation and vegetation is needed for nesting.

I have been aware of at least one nest in the wild area toward the bridge. That nest was nearest the bridge, and I think I saw the mother goose from above. Trouble is that I really do not know the location of all the nests.

View of the tree plantings from above gives the impression of care in planting. It looks like the vegetation has not been damaged. The nest I can see is away from the plantings. Reality is, however, that non damage is impossible.

To a human, the plantings look good. Human sensibilities, however, have been at the core of the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles. And the destroyers live off lying to please human sensibilities since they have contempt for resident animals.

I do not know. I do know that, in contrast to the City of Cambridge, to the DCR bureaucrats, and to the fake environmental group, I have respect for the Department of Transportation people.

The Department of Transportation people are the ones doing the work now, but they have been committed in their performance by contracts signed by the reprehensible DCR.

I would very strongly appreciate analyses by other responsible people.

3. Follow up, correction.

One of the ways the bad guys get away with so many really bad things is that there are so many of us who want to believe well of people.

I checked on the area in the afternoon. The trees I observed from above could not possibly be recent plantings.

Sorry, I, like so many other victims wish well of the bad guys.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX, Charles River Architecture, Natural and Man Made

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Response.
3. Prior reports.



1. Archie’s Report.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX

By Archie Mazmanian

Consider the architecture along and over the Charles River downstream of the Weld Boathouse. The Charles River bridges [yes, Virginia, bridges are architecture!] along this stretch are varied in style, size, construction and materials; they can be best examined leisurely on walking or bicycling trips along the river and over them, whereas safety requirements in driving a motor vehicle limit the opportunity to do so (although passengers may do so safely).

Along the Charles River, the buildings present varied architectural styles. While these may be appreciated driving along Storrow and Memorial Drives, they serve as teasers to leisurely examining them on walking or bike trips. There are the traditional Georgian buildings of Harvard?s Cambridge campus, that contrast with the post WW II Harvard Business School campus and the very recent Harvard dorms on the Allston side of the river. There are the more recent modern commercial and residential structures on both sides of the river. And consider the rehabbed Ford Motor Company building at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have had mixed thoughts about some of the recent additions along the river. What are the obligations of developers along the river to respect the Charles River and its enjoyment by the public? Should Boston have a voice on development on the Cambridge side? Should Cambridge have a voice on development on the Boston side? Should the MA public beyond Boston and Cambridge have a voice on such development since he Charles River belongs to all of us?

Another way to enjoy the architecture along and over the Charles is directly on the river. In the summertime, I have observed tour (including duck) boats from downtown Boston that make their way to the BU Bridge and back. Unfortunately, they cannot proceed further upstream to the Weld Boathouse and beyond to Watertown Square because of the low rail bridge under the BU Bridge.

Sailboats and sculls are another means of enjoying the architecture along and over the Charles, including at the sailing pavilion in the Esplanade area as well as the sailing operations of several area universities. The annual Head of the Charles Regatta provides magnificent views for the rowers who can maneuver the low rail bridge below the BU Bridge.

In my contributions to this Blog on the Urban Ring Project, I have been critical of the proposed utilization of the rail bridge by expanding it to accommodate two travel lanes for Bus Rapid Transit’s 60-foot articulated buses for the Project?s Phase 2 Charles River crossing. Such would further segment water travel upstream and downstream of the BU Bridge.

But what if the Charles River became a mode of commuter boat public transit between Boston and Watertown Square without the obstacle of this low rail bridge under the BU Bridge? This would be much shorter, and safer, than commuter boat trips between Hingham and Boston, with more interesting vistas, including architectural along and over the Charles.

Yes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. But so is ugliness. Until recent years, we have had the benefit of beholding the beauty of the Charles River White Geese (and their family values) outside of their private habitat of several decades at the northerly end of the BU Bridge, their habitat being their architecture closer to nature than that of man over and along the Charles. Their private habitat was not intended for us to behold. Now we have the ugliness brought about by MA and Cambridge government officials intent upon destroying this habitat and thus destroying the Charles River White Geese. Bob?s post on Day 399 should shame these officials and we should be outraged by their ugliness.

2. Response.

Thank you Archie.

The sickness in Cambridge and their friends is their contempt for nature.

The sickness is multiplied by fake group’s with fraudulent and misleading names who fool people into supporting them and these fake groups are a very major part of the problem.

In is particularly outrageous to have a fraudulently named group

a. destroying the environment including, apparently, pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, and

b. Through use of their fake name, enticing people who want to support the environment into “liking” them when really want to friend the Charles River White Geese.

This rottenness is a major reason how very destructive people get elected to office in Cambridge, MA, USA.

The fake meeting on Magazine Beach which allowed the destroyers to talk and talk and talk but EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED negative comment is highly common in Cambridge. To call this some sort of public meeting is the sort of lie which is normal in Cambridge, MA.

It is possible that Governor Patrick saw through the lies of the destroyers and did not approve their seeking Obama money to destroy hundreds of healthy trees on Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. I think Marilyn may have provided him with the plans submitted by the bureaucrats to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which directly contradicted flat out lies about the quality of the trees being destroyed.

Unfortunately, the destroyers may be getting the money through a state legislature austerity budget, and the very destructive Cambridge Pols.

3. Prior reports.

Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.

Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.

Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.

Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.

Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.

Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.

Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.

Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.

Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.

Day 399 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Environmental destroyer defrauding people into “like”s?

1. Day 399 — Environmental Conditions.
2. Day 399 — good people.
3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.
4. Summary.


1. Day 399 — Environmental Conditions.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, in the early rush hour, I conducted the 399th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

These poor things are wandering around in a wasteland of dirt where ground vegetation used to thrive. Almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east has been destroyed since the state started using the falsely named Charles River Conservancy for vegetation destruction.

There was a pile of hay bales in the portion of the former wild area which has been used for staging which should be placed in neighboring locations which are not environmentally sensitive.

The 50 foot bare strip next to the BU Bridge remains exactly that, bare, even after the reason for the destruction has disappeared. That destruction was accomplished to do repairs to that side of the BU Bridge.

2. Day 399 — good people.

The reception was excellent. Lots of people waiving as they go by. 2/3 to 3/4 of pedestrians happily accepted flier.

One woman initially refused a flier. Then she saw my sign.

“Oh, it’s for the geese. Please give me one.”

The thing that got me going, however, was a gentleman who did not take a flier. He slapped me on the shoulder and told me he had already “liked” us on facebook.

Our leaflets encourage people to “friend” the Charles River White Geese on facebook.

“Like”, however, gave me a strong double take. We friend. We do not look for likes.

Was he defrauded?

3. Fake organization on the Charles, fake organizations in Cambridge.

A week or so ago, a supposed neighborhood association held what they call a public meeting on Magazine Beach / the Charles River.

This group was created in coordination with the city manager’s staff and have been very effective promoting his causes and the causes of the Cambridge Pols. Fake organizations of this sort are commonly controlled by the Cambridge Pols and used for the benefit of the city manager and city council while lying to people that good people are doing good things.

The fake meeting on Magazine Beach was notable for blatant censorship which is not at all unusual in these fake groups.

The group EXPLICITLY prohibited negative comment in response to lovely promises by the state.

The Charles River Conservancy is even worse. Charles River Destroyers would be a fair name. This destructive group is part of and supports massive environmental destruction. But it goes by a fake name that gives the clear statement that it is fighting to conserve the Charles River, not destroy it.

But it has a facebook page using its false and misleading name, a name strikingly close to Charles River White Geese.

Is this fake group defrauding its way into support?

It is bad enough for it to be praising and accomplishing outright destruction combined with the false and misleading name. People who want the Charles to be treasured and protected are fooled into supporting this destructive group without it doing more.

It is completely irresponsible for this destructive entity, through its fake name alone, to be attracting people who would be friending the Charles River White Geese except for the very similar and very false name.

If you have friends who want to support the Charles River White Geese and found themselves “liking” The Charles River Conservancy, a group with a long record of fighting for the destruction of the Charles River White Geese, tell your friends they have been defrauded.

If your friends want to support environmental protection, they should be “friending” the Charles River White Geese, not “liking” the fraudulently named Charles River Conservancy.

4. Summary.

If you are pro environment and pro Charles River, you want to friend the Charles River White Geese.

The LAST thing you want to do is LIKE the Charles River Conservancy.

This is the destroyers’ front organization, deliberately misnamed to fool good people into thinking they are pro environment.

The reality is we are dealing with very destructive people who can only get the support of good people by LYING about where they are coming from.

Do not sucker for the lies.

Massive tree destruction

I am posting part of seven photos taken of this grove on March 29, 2011. All are posted on the Charles River White Geese page on facebook.

This is an excellent 105 tree grove slated for devastation as part of Cambridge and Mass.’ ongoing destruction of the Charles River Environment and heartless animal abuse.

It is located to the east of the Goose Ghetto between the Memorial Drive split and the Charles River.

This destruction is only part of the 449 to 660 trees slated for destruction between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge as part of related projects.






































These trees were included in the search for Obama moneys last year which may or may not be still contuing. They would be destroyed to put in a new highway which would be both constructed in the Charles and in abutting wetlands. The highway construction would exacerbate the ongoing heartless animal abuse.

The new highway would duplicate a highway on the Boston side which is closed at night because of the muggings and rapes. The Boston closure is one of many things the pols do not want to know.

The pols call themselves “environmentalists. They only ask that you talk about everything except the environment they are destroying.

Goose Down Clubbers

1. Introduction.
2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.
3. Analysis.


1. Introduction.

On the Charles River White Geese facebook page we have a go round with a woman who has a problem with anti-goose behavior by her Home Owners Association, and we have been sharing ways to resolve the problem.

This site is not really appropriate for that situation, but Archie Mazmanian’s comment certainly is.

My comment from the Charles River White Geese facebook page follows, transmitting for him.

2. Archie Mazmanian on attacks on animals.

Archie Mazmanian responds to Lauren’s comment with the following, sent by him awhile back and also applicable to her situation.

GOOSE-DOWN CLUBBERS

BREAKING NEWS!

MA and Cambridge government officials expressed their horror that the Charles River White Geese were being clubbed by hunters for their goose-down feathers, currently in great demand for pillows, apparel and other comforting uses. “Horrible!” “Deplorable!” “Despicable!” vented these officials. “These barbarous hunters must be stopped!” “This cruelty must stop!”

No, the preceding did not happen. Yet the conduct of MA and Cambridge officials is accomplishing the demise of the Charles River White Geese by means less transparent than clubbing. The goal of these officials is not goose-down but putting the geese down by more subtle means than clubbing because they just don’t want the Charles River White Geese there below the northerly side of the BU Bridge. The Goose Ghetto will apparently be continued to be squeezed until this goal is achieved. While the Charles River White Geese survive, they do not thrive.

So perhaps we should picture these MA and Cambridge government officials yielding clubs. What’s the difference?

3. Analysis.

If you go through the fine print and secret definitions, Cambridge and MA quite simply have contempt for animals.

They are killing off all resident animals on the Charles River basin.

But they do do a lot of creative lying to give decent humans the exact opposite impression.

Charles River Memories, Part VIII

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Analysis.
3. Prior reports.

1. Archie’s Report.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VIII

By Archie Mazmanian

While the bridges of the Charles River have not been cinematically extolled with a love story of the likes of “The Bridges of Madison County” starring Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep, they received cinematic notoriety in connection with the Great Brinks Robbery of 1950 in the North End of Boston, just a hop, skip and a jump from the portion of the river eastward of the Charles River dam (when there was only one dam). This daring robbery was followed in 1955 by the movie “Six Bridges to Cross,” a fictional version of the robbery, starring Tony Curtis. The title reflected the possible escape routes that might be taken by the many robbers that the law enforcement authorities had to consider, to wit the many bridges over the Charles.

I don’t recall “Six Bridges to Cross” as encouraging interest in the Charles River. The movie might have been considered comedic by moviegoers outside of the Boston area. The impact of the Brink’s Robbery was not a plus for Boston and environs, especially when followed by more flicks of the robbery. The 1950s were not a happy time in the Boston area, including urban renewal projects, in particular the demolition of the West End for high rise development providing magnificent views of the Charles.

The Internet includes a “List of crossings of the Charles River” with dates, locations, and other interesting information, such that details need not be provided here, identifying crossings from “its mouth at Boston Harbor upstream to its source at Echo Lake.” But mention has to be made of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge built in 2003, that magnificent edifice at the northerly end of the “BIG DIG.” An earlier version of the Charles River crossing was pejoratively referred to as “Scheme Z” that would have been disastrous. (I have referred to the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge in my posts at this Blog on Phrase 2 of the Urban Ring Project in considering the proposed Charles River crossing for the latter Project over or under the BU Bridge as its “cockamamie” Scheme Zs.)

Many of the other bridges over the Charles accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, who can stop and admire the vistas upstream and downstream. But this does not detract from the beauty of the Zakim-Bunker Hill Bridge that itself can be admired from a distance. Alas, the portion of the Charles River it crosses is overwhelmed.

Over the years we have taken the bridges that cross the Charles River for granted. Now, in times of economic downturn, we have learned that theses bridges, like we mere mortals, age and require infrastructure maintenance. This has been going on for years with the BU Bridge until it was necessary to attend to maintenance and restructuring, much belatedly. We have been inconvenienced for well over a year by this work and it may take yet another year for it to be completed. [Note: Let us not forget the devastating impact upon the Charles River White Geese being “West-Ended” at their habitat at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.] Meantime, we know that similar issues will require similar work for the Mass. Avenue Bridge and the Salt and Pepper Bridge. So it may take close to a decade for these major Charles River bridges to be rehabbed.

We have been and will continue to be inconvenienced for some time to come in crossing the Charles River, considered so routine in the past. But the Charles River is not to blame. Perhaps the lesson is to show more respect for the Charles River and its bridges and what they offer not only to the communities the Charles passes through but to all of us along its meandering route in uniting our communities.

There are many beautiful stone bridges upstream of the BU Bridge that will also need maintenance. All of this bridge work will be expensive and painful. Recall this chorus from a Patti Page hit (in a different context) of the 1950s:

Cross over the bridge,
Cross over the bridge,
Change your reckless way of livin’
Cross over the bridge ….

Ignoring these bridges over the years was indeed reckless.

2. Analysis.

Ignoring the bridges certainly was bad.

Using the bridges as an excuse for environmental destruction which can be avoided is “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge talking about the City of Cambridge).

As usual, the contrast between decent human beings and victims of the Cambridge Pol organization is dramatic.

“You gotta be positive. No matter how much we destroy you and what you love, you gotta be positive. No matter how much we do exactly the opposite of what we and you promised, you gotta be positive.”

A really rotten city government with a really rotten, massive machine keeping it and its destructiveness in power through Big Sister demagoguery.

This is the ultimate lie.

3. Prior reports.

Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html

Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html

Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.

Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html

Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.

Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.

Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.

Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html

Monteiro oral argument scheduled in Appeals Court

RE: Monteiro oral argument scheduled in Appeals Court.

The Appeals Court docket has announced that oral arguments in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge are scheduled for May 4, 2011, 9:30 am, in the John Adams Courthouse, room 3 sent.

This is the case where a Superior Court civil rights judge called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for destroying the life of a black female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The Cambridge City Council is spending millions on this case and did not even bother get an independent opinion to appeal to Appeals Court. The excellent judge’s opinion raises very real grounds for firing the Cambridge City Manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.

The key opinion by the Superior Court judge may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

As of about a year ago, the judgment ran about $1 million in damages, $3.5 million in penal damages, and had exceeded a total of $6 million with the various addons which are accruing.

Day 398 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Comments on the Fake Public Meeting

1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
2. Cher.
3. Your editor.
4. Summary.



1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Late in the afternoon of April 18, 2011, I conducted day 398 of the visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

This was closer to the normal rush hour, but there was no construction activity and none of the usual commuter traffic because of the Patriot’s Day holiday and because of the Boston Marathon. The Boston Marathon ran perhaps half a mile to the south and, even that late in the day, affected traffic.

There was significantly more foot traffic and, really, without the construction, the people driving looked much more normal as well. The foot traffic was clearly impacted by the Boston Marathon. There were far more people walking from Boston (the Marathon location) to Cambridge than the other way around.

People, as usual, were very supportive. One woman who stopped to chat was amazed by the number of fliers which were accepted by other people going by. Various cars, carefully, asked for fliers as well.

I had several people chat.

The discussion that stands out was from a couple who had seen the fliers for the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach. They quoted the gushingly positive words of the flier by heart.

My response was: yeh, those are the enemies, friends of the city manager and city council pulling a con game to try to fool people about what side they are on.

The minute I said “No negative comments allowed,” there was really no need to say any more.

2. Cher.

Cher responds:

Oh I agree with you 100% about these people, but I still think if we spread the word somehow people that is more folks will get involved. We need as many as possible.

3. Your editor.

The Cambridge Pols are propping up a really bad city council and city manager. They use whatever technique is available to them, and by the techniques they use, they demonstrate that they have no ethics. The most important lie is the non stop holier than thou proclamation that they are on the side of the angels.

A key part of the lie is the sort of techniques used in this meeting intended to prop up environmental destruction.

They piously say they are neutral.

They piously say they are allowing all forms of speech.

They piously say the free speech had better be positive. If it is not positive, it is not allowed.

As a civil rights judge said in Monteiro v. Cambridge (on appeal without the city council asking for an independent legal opinion): “Reprehensible.” This is a case the Cambridge Pols also do not want to hear about.

4. Summary.

The reality is that this sort of lying is normal in Cambridge, MA, USA.

Without the pretty much nonstop outrages committed by the Cambridge Pols, a really bad City Council and City Manager would have been thrown out long ago.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VII, The Charles River Bridges

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Summary.

1. Archie’s Report.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VII

By Archie Mazmanian


PATRIOTS DAY QUIZ:


Q. Which bridge over the Charles River did Paul Revere cross on his historic Midnight Ride from Boston to Lexington/Concord?

A. There were no bridges over the Charles River to cross. Rather, Paul Revere took the ferry between Boston and Charlestown.


For some great maps illustrating the different routes taken by Paul Revere and William Dawes on their rides, Google “Paul Revere’s Route to Lexington” and their relations to the Charles River back then.


While there may have been bridges over some of the narrow parts of the Charles River well upstream, the first bridge between Boston and points north was built in 1786, between Boston and Charlestown, known as the Charles River Bridge, replacing the ferry operation used by Paul Revere in 1775 for his Midnight Ride. The ferry operation had been granted to Harvard College in 1650 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the tolls of which augmented Harvard’s coffers.


In 1785, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in granting a charter to the Charles River Bridge company in effect shut down Harvard’s ferry operation. To compensate for this, the Charles River Bridge company was authorized to charge tolls for a period of 40 years subject to paying an annuity to Harvard to replace its lost ferry toll charges.


In 1792, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted a charter for the West Boston Bridge (now the Longfellow Bridge, aka the Salt and Pepper Bridge). To offset the resulting toll losses to the Charles River Bridge downstream, the Commonwealth extended the latter’s charter to 70 years.


In 1828, the Commonwealth chartered the Warren Bridge to be constructed very close by the Charles River Bridge. The resulting competition benefited MA citizens with lower tolls, significantly reducing the revenues of the Charles Street Bridge. So the Charles River Bridge sued the Warren Bridge in a MA court. Charles River Bridge, represented by eminent counsel Daniel Webster and Lemuel Shaw, claimed that the charter granted to the Warren Bridge violated the U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10) on the basis that the earlier charter grant to Charles River Bridge provided, by implication, exclusive rights attributable to the yet earlier grant to Harvard for its ferry service.


In 1829, the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge, that had argued no exclusive rights had existed for crossing the Charles River and technological - and thus economic – progress should prevail over the private interests of Charles River Bridge (as well as Harvard).


The Charles River Bridge appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal was first argued in 1831. It is reported that Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story (who did not recuse despite his connections with Harvard and its law school) and Justice Smith Thompson seemed to accept the Contract Clause argument of Charles River Bridge. But the case continued on for years because of some disagreements among the Justices. Meantime, in 1836, Roger Taney had replaced Marshall as Chief Justice. In 1837, the Supreme Court ruled (5-2) in favor of Warren Bridge, the opinion of the Court being written by Chief Justice Taney, with Justices Story and John McLean dissenting.


Just imagine if Charles River Bridge had won. How might that have impacted upon the Charles River’s development as we know it today with its many bridges? Might the economic growth of Boston, Cambridge and environs have been stifled? And how much larger might Harvard’s endowment and real estate holdings along the Charles River have become with its annuity?


The decisions of the MA Supreme Judicial Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are quite lengthy and include a lot of history of interest for fans of the Charles River. To avoid extensive reading that may seem somewhat arcane, those interested may Google “Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge” for short but informative narratives.


[Part VIII of this series will continue to discuss the bridges of the Charles River. For those interested in the Esplanade discussed briefly in Part VI, check via the Internet “Charles River Esplanade Study Report” by the Boston Landmarks Commission dated 5/4/2009; it runs 76 pages with quite extensive information, including environmental, about the Charles River. The role of Harvard vis-à-vis the Charles River has been referenced in earlier Parts of this Series and will be further addressed (along with other abutting institutions) in future Parts as the series progresses, somewhat in the mode of “The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”]

2. Summary.

These historical structures are under attack by the Charles River Destroyers (they keep calling themselves a Conservancy) and their friends including, as usual really bad people in Cambridge.

A recent bad vote by the Cambridge City Council was unanimous.

Prior reports may be found at:

Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html

Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.

Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html

Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.

Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html

Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html

Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html

Day 397 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, the Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism

1. Visibility.
2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.
3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.
　
1. Visibility.

On Friday, April 15, 2011, I conducted the 397th day of visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

The moving of the construction work to the other side freed up the area next to the now Goose Ghetto for me to prop up a sign and leaflet. I was there over the noon hour which is a moderately quiet time.

At the beginning of the visibility, two police were managing traffic so that only one lane was allowed to move at a time in front of me. This was to permit a concrete truck to pour concrete into the far side of the bridge.

When they were done, we had two lanes of traffic and normal lights.

Some drivers, stopped for the red, rolled down their windows to ask for fliers. Pedestrians very nicely accepted fliers, along with bicyclists. I had an extended discussion with one construction worker.

The geese were in their devastated, devegetated ghetto.

2. Cambridge Pols and Totalitarianism.

The outrage at the fake public meeting on Magazine Beach plans was not at all unusual.

The Cambridge Pol Machine, apparently consisting of friends of the Cambridge City Manager and City Council, routinely abuses their offices in these various groups, and they certainly look like they control pretty much all the most visible organizations.

The first and most important mission forced by the Pols onto the groups is to perpetuate the lie that Cambridge, MA, USA has a responsible city government, a government worthy of the respect of an electorate which wants to be enlightened.

The next con game / "public meeting" will be a meeting to save street trees Tuesday night. The con there is that nothing will be allowed to be MEANINGFULLY discussed except street trees.

The people pulling the strings are aggressively destroying Memorial Drive, Alewife, and Fresh Pond. Environmental destruction is common in city projects. So the Cambridge Pols allow fake organizations (either created that way or rendered that way by outorganizing responsible people) to "protect" what the Cambridge Pols do not feel like destroying. This is one way they lie to the voters that the City of Cambridge protects the environment.

3. What little I was able to get in under the watch of Big Brother on Wednesday night.

I left early. The totalitarian dictates from the chair are normal in such fake meetings. The Pols thus put out the lie that there has been some sort of meeting.

I was not allowed to object to their heartless animal abuse. So the lie put out will be that nobody objected to heartless animal abuse. They will just neglect to mention that they prohibited such discussion. They will also conveniently ignore what I did get in.

The state commented that it would consider "native" grasses. I commented that we had native grasses at Magazine Beach ten years ago, but YOU destroyed it.

The state promised to consider putting in trees. I replied: you are destroying hundreds.

The most environmentally destructive City Councilor, Henrietta Davis, was present and calling shots.

The big lie there was that "improvements" (translate: environmental destruction) would "continue" (translate: how dare you expect us to stop poisoning the banks of the Charles. How dare you expect us to remove the wall of vegetation barring access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. How dare you expect us to stop dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles. How dare you want the poison drainage ditches replaced with the playing fields that used to be there. How dare you expect us to stop heartless animal abuse.)

I started my Big Brother censored presentation with the standard pitch of the Charles River Destroyers organization (they claim to be a Charles River Conservancy). I spoke in favor of swimming in the Charles, and to allow swimming, the bizarre wall of introduced bushes would have to go, along with all those poisons on the banks of the Charles.

Destroyer Davis justified the bizarre wall of introduced bushes on the grounds that, in addition to everybody else and the Charles River White Geese, the annual rowing event is kept off Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of introduced bushes. She, of course, only mentioned the Head of the Charles Regatta.

The Director of the Charles River Destroyers whose letter was published ahead of mine in last week’s Chronicle parroted Destroyer Davis. By doing so, he rejected the non stop claims of the Charles River Destroyers that they are fighting for swimming in the Charles. They got caught in that lie, so they change reasons, the nonstop search for "Truth" (whatever the sucker will swallow) by very destructive people.

Another fraud on the voters conducted in the Magazine Beach meeting.

The meeting at the Morse School in Cambridge, MA, conducted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, supposedly concerned Magazine Beach, but it could have been conducted by a North African dictatorship.

Absolute freedom of speech was allowed AS LONG AS ALL COMMENTS ARE POSITIVE.

This was called “neutrality.”

Yet another fraud on the voters committed by the friends of the City Manager and the City Council.

With such an outrageous groundrule, the destroyers from the DCR, the Cambridge Pols, and their friends will sound like Colonel Gaddafi after winning yet another 99% vote.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VI

1. Archie reports.
2. Editor Response.


1. Archie reports.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART VI
By Archie Mazmanian

Heading downstream beyond the Mass. Avenue Bridge the Charles continues to widen as we approach the lagoon and continue on to the Esplanade and the Hatch Memorial Shell. What a magnificent venue for music or just enjoying life on a fine summer?s day. The sailing pavilion provides a wonderful outlet for youngsters to enjoy the waters of the Charles. There is something for everyone to enjoy.

The Fourth of July Boston Pops extravaganza ran too late for our young children, however, so they would watch it on TV in their PJs. We could hear the fireworks at our Cottage Farm home. One Fourth of July we decided on the spur of the moment shortly before the fireworks display to take the children to the nearby BU Bridge to watch from upstream. Many others had the same idea as the bridge was thronged.

This was an opportunity to explain some high school physics to the children about the differences between the speeds of light and sound as the fireworks burst brilliantly followed moments later by the booming sounds (sometimes stifled by winds). But the sight was beautiful reflecting on the river below. A few years later, the children were old enough to make the trip for the entire celebration of this Fourth of July event enjoyed by many thousands in person and millions via TV.

We always played a lot of jazz tapes at home. But listening and watching live jazz is much more exciting. The Charles provided such musical events during daylight hours from time to time, introducing our children to live jazz in outdoor settings. This was our Newport, just a short walk from home. And of course there were the usual food concessions to fill our bellies.

The sailing pavilion staff would train children to operate sailboats safely. I know our children enjoyed solo sailing on the Charles in what seemed an orderly fashion, memories to be carried for the rest of their lives.

The Museum of Science was yet another Charles River venue for our children with its educational programs of nature and science.

As the children got older, they developed many interests and attended to them on their own. So trips along the Charles waned. But every once in a while, I would go solo to enjoy the solitude of the Charles surrounded by others presumably doing the same, serving as a non-prescriptive tranquilizer.

There is much more to the Charles than I had imagined. Over the years, planners looked ahead to improving the river, much of which was accomplished before my trips along the Charles. And there has been continued planning, some of which has been postponed for budgetary reasons. An Internet search recently led me to “New Charles River Basin” by the Metropolitan District Commission published in March 1995 and revised July 1999 and June 2002. Caution: be patient downloading and printing. But WOW! Yes, the Charles River Basin extends beyond the dams to Boston Harbor that should be explored. I don't know how much of this has been accomplished or what the future holds. Hopefully this jewel will continue to be polished.

[Geographically, the Charles River divides communities but they are reunited by bridges, the topic of Part VII forthcoming.]

2. Editor Response.

What passes for planning must be recognized within the context that (1) the bureaucrats do a lot of lying, (2) the nonstop propaganda leaves the public in the position of believing that “they would never stoop so low.”

The Master Plan for the Charles River called for Magazine Beach to be a meadow to the water, and the apologists run around screaming for swimming.

The bizarre wall of bushes which has been introduced walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River totally contradicts the supposed intentions for Magazine Beach.

Plans are to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. My count was 449 to 660 through various projects. I will follow with photos of an excellent 105 tree grove intended to be decimated at the Memorial Drive split.

Dumping of poisons on the river banks at Magazine Beach and near Mass. General are actions totally contemptible within the supposed goals of the bureaucrats and their friends in Cambridge and the cheerleaders. But it is done. Destroying playing fields to put in a drainage system to drain off poisons which not be dumped in the first place is a symptom of a very sick bureaucracy at the state and a “reprehensible” (to quote a civil rights judge) government in Cambridge.

Heartless animal abuse of the beautiful Charles River White Geese falls into the “They would never stoop so low” category, but they do.

The goal very clearly is to kill off all animals living on the Charles River Basin. The euphemism “parks” translates into “no animals need apply to live here.”

The very basic problem is the normal assumption of minimal competence and environmental decency. Such an assumption is flat out false when dealing with the state and with Cambridge. The problem is exacerbated by the massive, lying, organization active in Cambridge, combined with the tendency of the destructive organization to join all over the place and spread their falsehoods to decent people.

Dramatic Combination of Letters in Cambridge Chronicle

1. Introductory.
2. Details.
A. Chronicle Front Page.
B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.
C. My response and the bad guys’ response, Chronicle handling.
3. Summary.


1. Introductory.

The April 7, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle printed three letters on the editorial page, page 10. The second and third concerned the Charles River.

In the second letter, a person who identified himself as a director of the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy disowned any connection between the Friends of Magazine Beach and The Charles River Conservancy.

In the third letter, I disowned any connection between the Charles River “Conservancy” and environmentalism. “Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.”

2. Details.

A. Chronicle Front Page.

On March 17, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle front paged an interview with the head of the Charles River “Conservancy.”

B. Marilyn’s Response, some background.

On March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle ran Marilyn Wellons’ response. They dominated the editorial page with the response. We have published her letter at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/marilyn-wellons-responds-to-article-of.html.

Marilyn went into great detail concerning the environmentally reprehensible record of this organization, which, for accuracy, should be called The Charles River Destroyers. Buried in the multiple statements of truth was a statement of its origin which very clearly is the truth.

In 2000, when the reprehensible local and regional governments started their attacks on the environment in the BU Bridge area, we took on the local fake environmental organization, which called itself “Friends of Magazine Beach.” That organization existed for only two apparent reasons:

(1). To fight for the destruction of the environment in the Magazine Beach area of the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, and

(2). To conduct an annual cleanup of Magazine Beach the weekend before Boston University used it for graduation ceremonies. They never told their volunteers that the volunteers were cleaning up for Boston University’s graduation ceremony.

One of the first activities of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit “Friends of Magazine Beach.”

Friends of the White Geese demonstrated and leafleted in front of the access to Magazine Beach on the morning of the cleanup publicizing the environmental destruction this group was fighting for and the real purpose of the cleanup.

The group has never conducted another activity.

A few months later the Charles River Destroyers announced its existence. It had overlapping membership to “Friends of Magazine Beach” and called themselves The Charles River “Conservancy.” The”new group” loudly proclaimed its intent to destroy the environment of Magazine Beach and much more.

We recognize the obvious.

C. My response, Chronicle handling.

I did not see a response from the bad guys in the March 31 edition. So I followed up with my letter, which I have published at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-destroyers-details.html.

The second letter on the editorial page was from a person who identified himself as a director of “The Friends of Magazine Beach” and of The Charles River “Conservancy.” The third letter on the three letter editorial page was mine.

The Chronicle headlined the letter from the Director of the “Friends of Magazine Beach” and of the Charles River “Conservancy” with the title “Clarifying the Conservancy.” They headlined my letter with “Not a Conservancy.”

The bad guys’ letter ran the same length as Marilyn’s and mine. In those 400 words, the writer did nothing of substance except to deny the obvious, that “Friends of Magazine Beach” morphed into The Charles River “Conservancy.”

Look at Marilyn’s letter. THE ONLY THING THIS GUY RESPONDED TO WAS TO DISOWN THE OBVIOUS ASSOCIATION between “Friends of Magazine Beach” and the Charles River “Conservancy.”

And the Chronicle followed up this bizarre letter with my 400 word letter going into very broad and specific facts about the destruction inflicted, supported and proposed by Charles River "Conservancy." My letter condemned the latest fake group for calling itself a “Conservancy.”

This bad guys’ letter is published on line at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x675821694/Letter-Clarifying-the-Conservancy#axzz1J1EZ1R5N.

The response from the bad guys was posted Thursday. My letter was published on line yesterday, Friday.

3. Summary.

The reality is that these fake organizations are very much normal in Cambridge, MA. The bad guys who dominate these organizations are very loud in Cambridge politics. They warp politics in Cambridge to such an extent that reality of the world and the reality put out by these fake organizations which they force on Cambridge politics are strikingly different. But they force their bizarre version of reality onto Cambridge politics. And they are non stop holier than thou.

The Chronicle did not have to say a word. They simply printed the bizarre disassociation of “Friends of Magazine Beach” with The Charles River “Conservancy” which denied absolutely nothing else in Marilyn’s letter except for this obvious truth. The Chronicle then followed this bizarre letter with my further letter providing very substantive condemnation of the organization.

The Cambridge bad guys NEVER respond to us. NEVER.

They do that for a reason. They have no meaningful way to support themselves on the grounds they claim to stand for. They open their mouths. We respond. They destroy their false claims of environmental sainthood.

The situation in Cambridge, MA is very much offensive.

Thank you very much to the Cambridge Chronicle.

Charles River Destroyers — Details

1. Background.
2. Proposed letter.
3. Marilyn’s response.
　
1. Background.

A couple of week’s ago, I published a response by Marilyn Wellons to a front page question and answer session between the Cambridge Chronicle and the so-called Charles River Conservancy. Last week, March 24, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle dominated its editorial page with Marilyn’s response.

I gave the bad guys a week to respond to Marilyn. I have not seen the hard copy yet. As of Thursday morning, nothing had appeared on line.

I understand this letter will be published next Thursday.

2. Proposed letter.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

Some elaboration could be useful about the so called Charles River "Conservancy."

Trees whose pending destruction this group has praised number in the hundreds and are in excellent condition. Diseased trees were destroyed years ago. These trees (and hundreds more threatened in related projects) are CURRENTLY between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach on Memorial Drive.

The CRC’s highway project would decimate an excellent 105 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split in addition to wetlands and animal habitat.

The CRC conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach to cheerlead the bizarre and needless project at Magazine Beach.

A wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles has been created. It nearly totally blocks access between the Charles and Magazine Beach. Everywhere else bordering vegetation needed by migrating waterfowl is destroyed twice a year. This stuff just grows. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has bragged that this introduced wall starves the now native Charles River White Geese.

How is there to be swimming through this thicket?

The 7 acres of grass destroyed at Magazine Beach survived the better part of a century without use of poisons. The sickly stuff which has been introduced in its place requires poisons to survive. So a massive system has been substituted for playing fields to drain off the poisons needed to keep the sickly stuff from dying.

Now we have smaller playing fields to minimize the destructiveness of poisons which should not ever be dumped on the banks of the Charles.

Since 2003, almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed. Nothing has grown since. More poisons? And the CRC is the DCR’s environmental destroyer.

I have witnessed members of the Boston Conservation Commission expressing distress at the destruction of protective vegetation bordering the Charles by the CRC.

The CRC, starting in 2003, ran around poisoning the eggs of as many migratory waterfowl as it could get away with.

A very visible member of the CRC was discussed by the Boston Conservation Commission with the DCR. The commission objected to his wanton chain saw use on trees near the Charles. The DCR disowned him. To my knowledge, the CRC has not disowned him or his activities.

I condemn the CRC’s use of the word "Conservancy". The presence of "Conservancy" in its name is false and misleading. Charles River Destroyers would be an honest name.

3. Marilyn’s response.

Marilyn was very favorable.

She provided a few more details about the CRC leader with the chainsaw.

He and his name have been published in the Boston Globe.

The reality is that, being active in Cambridge politics, I am forced to associate with a lot of people I simply do not consider fit to associate with. I really would rather not honor them by providing their names any more than I can help.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES: INTERMISSION

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES: INTERMISSION

By Archie Mazmanian


In preparing for Part VI of this series, I reviewed Part V, especially the closing paragraph “sermon” and realized that this would be an appropriate time for an intermission for a PBS style fundraiser, not for money but for soliciting letters of support for the Charles River White Geese ((CRWG). One of the goals of this series is to attract youngsters to this Blog from Charles River communities and beyond to recognize the need for preserving – and improving – the Charles River AND to remedy the plight of the CRWG. Such letters should be addressed to:


Gov. Deval Patrick

State House, Room 360
Boston, MA 02133


Instead of providing suggested text for such letters, it would be preferable for each writer to use his/her own words expressing concern with the plight and treatment of the CRWG by MA and Cambridge government officials.


Gov. Patrick is the father of two lovely young daughters. Presumably he and Mrs. Patrick have read to their daughters the story “Make Way for Ducklings” that has long had Boston area connections memorialized by a bronze statue in the Boston Public Garden. While the plight of the CRWG began before Gov. Patrick was first elected in 2006, it has continued under his administration. Gov. Patrick was re-elected for a second term in 2010. While technically there are no term limits, as a practical – and political – matter, Gov. Patrick is a lame duck, as his future political career is national. But without the need to rely upon re-election any further, Gov. Patrick is in a position to push for significant reforms in MA for the next four (4) years. Maybe, just maybe, as such a lame duck he can pay attention to the plight of the CRWG. “Make Way for Ducklings” made us recognize the needs of a small mallard family facing a crisis of modernity. Can’t we make way for the many families making up the gaggle of the CRWG to survive the ordeals that both MA and Cambridge government agencies have put them through over the past several years?


Let’s remind Gov. Patrick. Send him a letter. Copy your State Senator and Representative. Gov. Patrick as a lame duck must avoid the legacy of cooking the goose of this gaggle. While I encourage children to write, so should adults. The Charles River is a jewel and the CRWG have served the Charles River, its adjoining communities and all of us well over the past 30 years. Their survival is important. They need help.


[Note: I understand that the expenses of this Blog are paid with personal funds of its founders and maintainers. I do not mean to suggest that a small contribution would not be in order to help defraysome of their expenses for the valuable public service performed with this Blog. Part VI of this series will be forthcoming shortly.]

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART V

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART V
By Archie Mazmanian

One day on a Charles River walk with my children, when we came to the Harvard Bridge (which I had known as – and still call - the Mass. Avenue Bridge) we decided to cross it. I had been over that bridge many times before on public transit and by automobile, but this was my first time on foot.

Fairly quickly when we got to the western sidewalk, we noted what seemed to be strange markings on the sidewalk, arousing our curiosity. As we tried to understand these markings, a gentleman passing by told us that they were the result of a prank of MIT students some years earlier who used a classmate as a measure for the span of the bridge. This student, Oliver Smoot, would lie down at the beginning on one side of the bridge and his classmates would mark his length on the sidewalk. Smoot and his classmates continued this process to the other side of the bridge. My children were excited as they heard this story and took turns lying down to see how they measured up to a Smoot. In the course of this, I recalled the incident had been reported in local newspapers. Over the years, MIT students were “guilty” of many public – and private – pranks that were quite imaginative. The Smoot as a measure for these to-be-scientists/engineers contrasted with the metric system integral to science/engineering, but perhaps was related to old English measures like the “foot.” [Note: Those interested in the Smoot incident will find details via Internet searches, including a reenactment in recent years. Such searches should be extended to other MIT student-pranks that involved scientific/engineering skills.]

But on this first trip on foot across the Mass. Avenue Bridge, our focus on the Smoot markings kept us from examining and enjoying the views of the Charles upstream and down; on later trips we were thrilled with such expansive views from this bridge as well as other bridges that cross the Charles. The answer to the old riddle “Why did the chicken cross the road?” does not adequately address why we cross bridges; yes, we want to get to the other side, but take the time to examine the wonderful vistas of the Charles and the Boston and Cambridge sides at the same time.

After getting to the Cambridge side, we headed westerly towards the BU Bridge. While the banks were not as readily convenient as on the Boston side, the views of Boston were from a difference perspective than we had been accustomed. I also noted a building on Memorial Drive that looked familiar. It was the Sancta Maria Hospital building where in the summer of 1945 just prior to my 15th birthday I had been a patient for a hernia repair. Back then my thoughts were not of the Charles River. But I most likely got there by taxi from our apartment in Roxbury over the Mass. Avenue Bridge.

When we got to the area of the Hyatt Hotel, we noticed the white geese along the river’s shore (which was then unimpeded by vegetation subsequently planted to thwart the white geese’s access). A lot of people including children were seated along the bank watching the geese and their goslings. So we joined them. This was my first contact with the Charles River White Geese. There were quite a few geese, which was in contrast to the small number of ducks (usually in pairs followed by ducklings) we had observed on the Boston side of the river. When a young child out of curiosity would venture too close to the geese, the geese would honk and if the child continued to approach, the geese would advance to protect their goslings, just as we parents protect our children. What a joy this was for my children, to be so close to the geese in a natural environment. Back then I didn’t think to question what the geese were doing there. It just seemed so natural. This was in the days before Canada Geese had invaded the area for other than fly-overs. It wasn’t until years later, via the Charles River White Geese Blog, that I learned of their history in the area of the BU Bridge and the plight they were facing as a result of actions of State and Cambridge governmental agencies. [Note: Perhaps our Editor can provide a link to that history for visitors unfamiliar with it.]

My children enjoyed the geese on our Charles River trips for several years thereafter until their activities and interests changed as they got older. Now, the very existence of the Charles River White Geese is under challenge. Over recent years, some of my contributions to this Blog have focused upon their plight. I commend our Editor and his associates for their efforts in bringing this to our attention. Hopefully this Blog is reaching quite a few persons who have an interest in the Charles River ready to take up the cause of the Charles River White Geese. We have to shame the responsible (actually irresponsible) public officials for their actions and inactions. In protecting the Charles River, our jewel, it is important to protect its weakest, right now the Charles River White Geese who are fighting for survival. Our children and grandchildren should be able to enjoy these geese in such a natural habitat. What message are these irresponsible public officials sending to our children and grandchildren with their tactics?

[Note: This does not conclude this series despite the “sermon” in the last paragraph. Part VI will explore trips to the Esplanade as my children got older.]


Prior reports:

Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.

Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html

Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html

Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html

Worcester Planning Board assists Harvard’s destruction on the Charles River.

1. Introduction.
A. General Ruminations.
B. The importance of the Beacon Yards.
2. Worcester Planning Board Meeting, March 23, 2011.


1. Introduction.

A. General Ruminations.

Last Wednesday, I leafleted a con game meeting being conducted by the City of Cambridge at the Cambridge Main Public Library. Meetings of this sort fool well meaning people as to which side of environmentalism Cambridge, MA is on. These con games are very much non stop.

Cambridge maximizes the publicizing of LOCALLY next to meaningless “initiatives” while keeping their very destructive REAL LOCAL record as secret as possible. This in turn fools the very significant number of Cambridge voters who would be very deeply offended by the real situation in Cambridge, and the fact that nine out of nine city councilors are on the wrong side.

B. The importance of the Beacon Yards.

At the same time I was leafleting people, Marilyn Wellons was at a planning board meeting in Worcester, MA. This meeting concerned Worcester’s gaining a freight yard expansion as their part of the removal of Beacon Yards to Worcester. Beacon Yards is, for all practical purposes, visible from Magazine Beach.

Harvard bought Beacon Yards and the Mass. Pike off ramps to Allston a few months after state transportation people completed a study which showed that the Grand Junction bridge could be used as an off ramp from the Mass. Pike, and thus that the Mass. Pike off ramps could be moved from their current location.

A significant part of the environmental destruction on the Charles River can be explained as stemming from Harvard’s plans for Allston. The Beacon Yards and the Mass. Pike exit ramps would appear to be Harvard’s anticipated future home for Harvard Medical School. Harvard purchased a very major part of Allston in secret.

Moving Harvard Medical School, in turn, would allow expansion of various Longwood / Harvard Medical Area hospitals which are very much pushing at their boundaries in their expansion. Harvard Medical School is an obvious location for expansion of the Hospitals. It abuts Boston Children's Hospital in one direction. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is across the street, and it abuts Brigham and Women's Hospital on two sides or more.

The Harvard School of Public Health, located between Harvard Medical School and Huntington Avenue is openly planned for movement to Allston in the near future.

Harvard Dental School also abuts Harvard Medical School and, really, has less reason to be in the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area than do the other two schools.

Marilyn’s report on the Planning Board Meeting follows.

CSX is the railroad owning the rail operations.

2. Worcester Planning Board Meeting, March 23, 2011.

CSX appeared before the Worcester Planning Board to ask for a Special Permit for a 10K gallon fuel storage tank at their expanded freight yard there.

In their presentation to the Board, CSX invoked the MEPA Environmental Notification Form and the MEPA Secretary's subsequent Certificate to reassure that all was well with the project, including emissions.

You may remember the ENF for this expansion relies on reduced diesel emissions from Beacon's closing to argue that increasing emissions from Worcester will be a net benefit to the region. The Secretary accepted that argument. At the same time he rejected the need for a wider view of effects on regional air quality, e.g., from greatly increased truck traffic within I-495. The Secretary's response invoked court rulings that physically separate projects cannot be considered together when analyzing environmental impacts. That is, analyzing interaction between the two facilities is not allowed--yet CSX did so and the Secretary accepted it.

Curious.

If CSX didn't need the reduced emissions at Beacon to set against the increase at Worcester it surely wouldn't have used them. That the Secretary accepted this analysis despite the court rulings he invokes to the contrary, leads me to believe air quality at Worcester will be significantly degraded. And the inconsistency raises nasty questions about the integrity of the process, I believe.

At Wednesday's Planning Board meeting, residents worried about emissions and increased noise at the eastern end where the expansion's taking place. I asked the Planning Board if they couldn't offset noise reduction at Beacon against noise increase at Worcester, the thinking the Certificate accepted for air quality. When the Chair asked what purpose that would serve, I said it would reassure people.

The Secretary's Certificate requires CSX to report on air quality three months after opening the expanded freight yard, with CSX to decide on reports thereafter. The expanded yard will not be at full capacity within three months (CSX's own filings refer to an ultimate buildout at an unspecified date). Public reassurance does seem to be the name of the game here.

CSX will also report noise complaints and what it does about them to DEP as CSX chooses.

An articulate and knowledgeable Worcester resident asked the Planning Board to require, among other things, CSX's direct and regular reports on air quality and noise complaints to Worcester. He asked how long CSX would take to phase in expensive new cranes that reduce noise and pollution; and observed that calculations of air quality are for increased freight only, not for the proposed increase in commuter rail.

So we have two major flaws in official analysis of air quality following the proposed expansion. One is the use of data from Beacon to justify the work at Worcester. The second is omitting a full picture of what's proposed for Worcester itself.

I left before the end of the meeting so missed the Board's decision. It would be surprising if they required any significant mitigation, like independent monitoring of noise and emissions as that Worcester resident proposed.

Letter on Destructive Group Bannered

The most destructive private entity on the Charles River (after public destroyers, Massachusetts and Cambridge) is the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.

A week ago, we posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/marilyn-wellons-responds-to-article-of.html the response of Marilyn Wellons to a Cambridge Chronicle front page Q&A which included significant self praise by the falsely names Charles River Conservancy.

The Chronicle dominated its editorial page with Marilyn’s letter, page 8, March 24, 2011 edition.

Thank you.

Addendum:

They have posted it on line at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1161127983/Letter-River-group-s-goal-not-noble#axzz1HcmdmzJx.

Marilyn Wellons responds to article of Praise for Environmental Destroyer

1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn Wellons letter.
3. Link.

1. Introduction.

The most destructive private entity on the Charles River is a developer funded group which uses the strikingly false name “Charles River Conservancy.” The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Cambridge are more destructive.

Last Thursday, March 17, the Cambridge Chronicle frontpaged a question and answer session which, by its answers, continues the lie that this destructive organization is an entity worthy of respect.

Marilyn Wellons has submitted the following response to the article.

2. Marilyn Wellons letter.

To the Editor:

In your March 17, 2011 interview, we read the Charles River Conservancy’s goals are to involve more people “in taking care of the parklands” and “making the river swimmable.”

The CRC morphed from a discredited Friends of Magazine Beach after participants in the annual cleanup learned they’d been cleaning the fields for BU’s graduation, not the public. Some FOMB board members reformed as the CRC, ostensibly to provide volunteer services to the DCR.

The DCR argues underfunding prevents it from successful stewardship, as though limited resources were not a constant in all government activities. Neglect of its assets and their costly subsequent “restorations” to what never was have kept a core bureaucracy, its consultants and contractors fed despite the agency’s loss of responsibility for police, water resources, and now some roads and bridges.

The CRC raises money for large concrete projects (skate park), light pollution (bridges), and for planting “non-native,” “invasive” species (daffodils). It mobilizes people who care about the river—and who doesn’t?—for what’s called maintenance, all to help keep this game going.

A court order and watershed municipalities, not the CRC, are working to make the river swimmable. The DCR polluted the river with algae fed by runoff from 6 acres of new sod on playing fields near MGH in Boston. The CRC said nothing. When the DCR and Cambridge installed 7 acres of the same stuff and an algae-filled “lagoon” at Magazine Beach, the CRC applauded and said that would help swimming there.

Like its maintenance campaign against “invasives,” e.g., false indigo (sustainable North American plants cultivated since 1724 to hold riverbanks), the CRC campaign for swimming distracts people from the DCR’s incompetence (or worse). How many eroded acres have we lost for sightlines for the Head of the Charles?

We know Massachusetts needs $20B to maintain the entire state’s existing transportation infrastructure. Pushing for new underpasses at the bridges, the CRC plays to the bicycle lobby and relies on the Department of Transportation to be the grown-up and say No.

We read the CRC wants beauty on the river. When the public objects to the DCR’s clearing shade trees, cherries, crabapples—anything beautiful and loved—if the CRC isn’t silent, it applauds.

Beauty, historical or scientific accuracy, public economy, even logical consistency don’t seem to figure in this. How long can the CRC persuade some of us DCR stewardship is a luxury we can afford?

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons

3. Link.

I may have missed it, but I have not been able to find this article on line.

If anybody can provide the link, I would be pleased to post it in this location.

Photos of the freed up Goose Ghetto

On February 13, I took a number of photos of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

The state has completed the work on the BU Bridge which required destruction of a 50 foot area for access to the lower portions of the bridge.
































No remediation was provided although it would be simple to allow the Charles River White Geese to return to their home for most of the last 30 years. All that is necessary is

1. To chop down the bizarre wall of introduced bushes which now block access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach. This bizarre wall is the only vegetation bordering the Charles River basin which is not chopped down twice a year. The key manager has bragged that this wall starves the Charles River White Geese. He has spent ten years claiming no intent to harm them, but more recently has announced that his definition of harm does not include starving them.

And

2. Rather than dumping poisons on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly stuff which been introduced there, to seed Magazine Beach with the healthy native grass which survived there for the better part of a century until the truly bizarre work which has been inflicted on the area was accomplished. Replacing poisons with the environmentally responsible grasses the state and Cambridge destroyed would allow the playing fields to be enlarged to the area they occupied before the project. A massive drainage system has replace much of the playing fields to drain off poisons which should not be dumped on the banks of the Charles River.

As of February 13, a major part of the Goose Ghetto has been freed up. All we need is city and state governments worthy of our respect to return this area to nature.


























I am enclosing five of the 15 photos which I took. All 15 are posted on the Charles River White Geese page on facebook.

The first two photos, published near the top of this report, show the wasteland from below and above. The two photos just above show these beautiful animals cavorting in the Charles near the the bottom of the walled off area. The final shot shows Whites and Canadas on land from which the DCR has destroyed all ground vegetation, admiring the river.

Organized Charles River destroyers claim broad support for new highway destroying riverbanks, vegetation and animal habitat.

The developer funded and badly misnamed Charles River Conservancy claimed in its March newsletter that it has support of the following pols for their new highway:

“Supporting elected officials include U.S. Representative Michael Capuano; State Senators Sal DiDomenico, Anthony Petruccelli, and Stephen Tolman; State Representatives Ruth Balser, Jonathan Hecht, Kevin Honan, Kay Kahn, Michael Moran, Marty Walz, and Alice Wolf; and City of Boston Councillor Mark Ciommo; and all seven Cambridge City Councilors - Mayor David P. Maher, Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis, Leland Cheung, Marjorie Decker, Craig Kelley, Kenneth Reeves, Sam Seidel, Denise Simmons, and Timothy Toomey, Jr. “

The destroyers organization does report that responsible parts of the state government have opposed their attempts to insert this new highway under the Anderson (Harvard Square) Bridge over the Charles.

The level of anti-environment control in Cambridge is no surprise. It is a shame to see the most recent City Councilor joining his openly destructive fellows.

Monteiro and the Charles River White Geese

It is difficult to overstate the venality of the anti-liberal situation in the government of the City of Cambridge, MA.

The reality is that public opinion in the city is forged by a massive combination of organizations which commonly spouts “facts” which are strikingly different from reality, and a city council whose real record is strikingly at odds with its own and its organizations’ self praise.

Cambridge has a very concerned electorate.

Cambridge has a city government whose real policies are strikingly in conflict with the wishes of the electorate. The council stays in office by lying.

The council brags about saving the world in matters which have next to nothing to do with their responsibilities as a city government. They heavily publicize these next to meaningless actions.

The council’s real policies, those meaningfully concerned with the government of the city, are commonly rammed through as secretly as possible and kept as secret as the massive organizations can achieve.

The situation in the civil rights action entitled Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is a breath of fresh air.

A judge and jury looked at the City of Cambridge from outside and called it “reprehensible.”

The city council is spending millions of dollars appealing that decision but has chosen not to get an independent and knowledgeable attorney to tell them whether judge and jury are right. As usual, the city council does not want to know what it is doing, or, more importantly, does not want the electorate to know what it is doing.

I have briefly summarized Monteiro at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/should-cambridge-city-manager-be.html. This letter to the editor was published in the March 10, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle.

The pattern of lies is not dissimilar in the environmental sphere. This is why this very bad city council is doing the terrible things it is doing on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond, at Alewife, and in so many other projects in the City of Cambridge.

But a house of lies is a house of cards.

One judge, one jury can knock it all down.

For the judge’s key opinion, in detail, please see http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

And a city council which calls itself pro-environment and pro civil rights might possibly be replaced with a city council that is pro environment and pro civil rights, but there is a very massive machine which must be kept out of any new government.

Should the Cambridge City Manager be employed by Cambridge, rather than raising his pay?

The following letter appeared on line in the Cambridge Chronicle on March 10, 2011. It is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x2011254672/Letter-Healy-overpaid#axzz1G8n67k92. It appeared on page 11 of the hard copy.


**********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The comments about how much the City Manager should be paid are strange.

The city council regularly ignores the City Manager’s real record on civil rights and the environment while bragging about matters which have next to nothing to do with their responsibilities to the City of Cambridge.

Key to how much the City Manager should be paid is whether he should even be employed.

In Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, now on appeal, a judge and jury have very clearly spoken.

Malvina Monteiro was the head of the city’s Police Review Board. She and others filed civil rights complaints. She lost the discrimination complaint, but she won on her claim that the City destroyed her life in retaliation for her filing the complaint.

The jury awarded about a million dollars in real damages plus $3.5 million in penal damages. The numbers have passed $6 million and are growing.

The judge wrote an excellent opinion supporting the jury. She quoted the City Manager’s testimony at length and found him “reprehensible.”

The City Council should want to know whether or not judge and jury are correct.

The City Council can still can hire an independent, knowledgeable lawyer to review the case. The expert could tell the City Council if it should fire the City Manager or continue the appeal.

Instead, the City Council does not want to know if it is true, as the judge and jury found, that the City Manager is “reprehensible.” The City Council just spends millions on the appeal and considers raising his pay.

The City Council could settle the Monteiro case. The City Council could get an order from the judge authorizing the City Manager to be fired for his behavior. The judge’s order would certainly find his Golden Parachute void on public policy grounds.

The judge might also authorize a small extension of existing law and authorize the firing of the City Manager without pension. Such a small extension of law would probably be determined legal or illegal on appeal, but they are on appeal anyway.

We hear a lot of noise about how much to pay the City Manager. More important is whether he should be fired without golden parachute and, possibly, without pension.

Marilyn and Cher on Trees

1. Marilyn.
2. Cher.


1. Marilyn.

The following responds to a few postings:

Hi Cher, et al.,

Unfortunately destroying those trees is part of a DCR "restoration" of Memorial Drive to a previous plan that had been superseded by intervening history. In its ongoing drive for projects, the DCR planted additional shade trees, crabapples, and cherries during the intervening 100 or so years.

Now, to keep the old pork barrel rolling, it is cutting them down and planting some new ones. Talk about waste and mismanagement: the plan I saw included cutting down healthy zelkovas the public paid the DCR to plant maybe 20-25 years ago. I'll try to take a look, to compare what's happened so far with the plans for the "restoration."

I'm curious to know where DCR got the money for this work. The agency wanted to use 2009 Obama stimulus money for it, and lied to the public and the Patrick administration about why all those trees needed to go. Public objections seem to reached Gov. Patrick, and the Obama money went to some other DCR project in western MA.

Not to be deterred, the DCR seems to have bided its time and used other funds to help out its planning department and little contractor friends.

This is all ostensibly for the purity of design and historical accuracy, mind you.

On that point, one reason the DCR is so vague about trees in the original plans for the Anderson Bridge is that they may have included Norway maples. Those are the trees I mentioned before as favored by the Charles River parkland's original designers and now on the Verboten list. Consistency is not the DCR's strong point, but we may have to grant it to them here. We will have no cherry trees or Norway maples on the Charles, if the DCR has its way.

2. Cher.

Those trees by the way were not diseased, and provided much needed shade for the hot top imo. The beauty they provided is just so blatantly obvious to all. This is for lack of a better term, again almost sacrilegious, a crime against nature and humanity. I bet if we polled people you would not find one of the area or even passers-by in cars, that would wanted to have that done. I see more deeply into the wise words of you and Marilyn all the time. c