Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Response to support for state and Cambridge Charles River planners

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Last Thursday, March 25, 2010, The Cambridge Chronicle printed an op ed from the head of an entity called the “Charles River Conservancy” praising planners for their magnificent achievements on the Charles River. It was earlier published on line.

I submitted the following response. It was published on line today, March 31, 2010 and published in hard copy in the edition of April 1, 2010. Paragraphing was edited.

Letter: Response to support for state and Cambridge Charles River planners

Cambridge Chronicle

I disagree with the Charles River Conservancy’s praise for state and Cambridge Charles River “planning”.

The omissions were more important than what was said.

The CRC is active in ongoing destruction of the environment of the Charles River. It has widely poisoned the eggs of migratory waterfowl. It twice yearly destroys native protective vegetation on the banks of the Charles River.

I have seen members of the Boston Conservation Commission shocked at its destruction.

One key CRC member repeatedly used a chain saw on valuable riverfront trees until the Boston Conservation Commission stopped him.

The writer supports environmental destructiveness on the Charles River.

She gushes at plans to destroy hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

She conducted a “swim in” bragging about the destruction at Magazine Beach. She supported destroying the Magazine Beach wetlands and installing a wall of introduced bushes which block access between the river and Magazine Beach. She supports the ongoing dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach. The poisons keep alive sickly grass introduced after the destruction of healthy, native grass which survived the better part of a century. She is on the side of the ongoing, heartless animal abuse being inflicted on the beautiful, valuable Charles River White Geese.

She supports the construction of a small vehicle highway on the Cambridge side of the Charles which would duplicate an existing one on the Boston side. She has no problem with the massive environmental destruction of such a highway. The signs on the Boston side closing their version of that highway at night because of muggings and rapes do not deter her support.

She had no problems with the BU Bridge repair meetings being held in Boston and Kendall Square to keep the needless environmental damage and animal abuse in Cambridge secret from affected Cantabridgians.

She inflicts light pollution at the base of Charles River bridges at night.

She praises Cambridge and state “planners”. She praises 19th Century planners.

I support the environment. I oppose the planned destruction of all animal life visiting or living on the first ten miles of the Charles. I think these “planners” should be fired because of their flat out contempt for the natural environment which they are so determined to destroy.

I do not think Cambridge and the state should once again be proving the folly of environmental destruction which is destroying our world.