1. A responsible Cantabridgian stands up to a logging city councilor.
2. More General Discussion.
3. Stopping tree destruction in new development.
4. Samples of trees the tree “protectors” want to destroy.
1. A responsible Cantabridgian stands up to a logging city councilor.
In the last two Cambridge City Council meetings (March 15 and 29) there has been mentioned PROCESS proposals by a City Councilor who claims to be defending trees.
A thoughtful member of the public wound up with the following comment listed in the report of the meeting, http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=1922&Inline=True, at Page 132.
* * * * *
I oppose this and have already told Quinton I do.
Till the city and state stop destroying old growth trees along Mem Drive as part of their “improvement” programs, till the city makes a commitment not to cut down trees, and till it stops tree cutting in new development, I see absolutely NO REASON to burden homeowners with additional annoying bureaucracy.
* * * * *
She proceeded in great detail.
The City of Cambridge has long had false warriors getting elected to the Cambridge City Council loudly proclaiming their environmental sainthood.
2. More General Discussion.
Every statement in this report is readily available on line in the publicly available City of Cambridge records.
NINE members of the Cambridge City Council support the destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach. Particular condemnation has to be placed on those who were elected FALSELY claiming to be defending the environment and to be defending trees.
The Cambridge City Council’s fight for destruction started on March 24, 2017 when a unanimous City Council supported a motion to destroy on Magazine Beach. This particular vote came before the incumbency of three current members, but the three UNANIMOUS votes taken in 2018 rather clearly reaffirm the vote of March 24, 2017.
The lead sponsor of that motion remains one of the two City Councilors with the filthiest hands. That is current Mayor McGovern.
In 2018, there have been three UNANIMOUS and strikingly vague votes on Magazine Beach. The votes included funding part of the outrage. They are picking and choosing. So what!!
It is an outrage.
One of the three 2018 actions was cosponsored by Councilors Devereux and (Quinton) Zondervann. That gave people with a destructive record on the Charles River the power to make the proposed destruction at Magazine Beach even worse.
The principal members speaking in favor, and the guiltiest of nine very guilty people were Devereux and McGovern.
I responded to the April 24, 2017 outrage with a 51 page letter submitted on June 6, 2017, and resubmitted earlier this year. It is posted on the Charles River White Geese Blog at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html. That communication presents photos of pretty much every tree at Magazine Beach and matches those trees to the plans for destruction that NINE OUT OF NINE city councilors want destroyed.
I devastated the dead or dying nonsense in that motion with that letter.
The only explanation for the destruction which seems to be currently outstanding is the one expounded by Devereux and McGovern when they were giving that blank check to those destructive people.
That “explanation” is that the woman leading the fight for destruction, AND UNIFORMLY OMITTING MENTION of the 56 mostly excellent trees she wants destruction is the reason why NINE CITY COUNCILORS are destroying all these excellent trees.
This destructive woman is their “kind of activist.”
NO OTHER REASON IS CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING.
So Councilors (Quinton) Zondervan and Devereux, are telling people not to look at what they are destroying, look at the lovely process they are fighting for. They seem to be loudly claiming environmental sainthood.
Devereux is aggressively on the destructive side, as is McGovern,
NINE city councilors are guilty. TWO of the guilty nine, it would appear, are holding office under false light, and thus are violating the promises they made to their voters. THEY ARE SITTING IN SEATS WHICH MIGHT HAVE GONE TO RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE.
There is one city councilor who has behaved nicely on the City Council floor, one out of nine. I appreciate her nice actions, but, separately from the nice words and actions, she has voted for destruction.
It is a con game. The quote which leads this report was submitted by a woman in response to a get out the pro tree activists email apparently sent out for Councilor Zondervann..
It is way past time to get honesty in Cambridge City government.
Watch those 56 trees. When they are destroyed, nine city councilors will be guilty, but two of them are sitting in seats which the voters expected to be giving to responsible people.
3. Stopping tree destruction in new development.
And, oh yeah, on the comment at the beginning on stopping tree destruction in new development. My Residence C2B zoning, written for Massachusetts Avenue Central and Harvard Squares but applicable elsewhere as well, includes the only meaningful protection of trees in new development. This is zoning which I wrote.
The City Council and its agents have already SECRETLY increased allowed development in part of this area of Massachusetts Avenue, and are making sweat noises about other “improvements.”. Any bets on whether the tree protective zoning remains?
4. Samples of trees the tree “protectors” want to destroy.
Nine City Councilors want to destroy this magnificent willow at the southwest corner of the playing fields, towering over the Charles River.
Nine City Councilors want to destroy all seven excellent trees in this magnificent grove west of the Magazine Beach Swimming pool.
Nine City Councilors want to destroy approximately 30 trees in this excellent park in the middle of the Magazine Beach recreation area.
Nine City Councilors want to destroy this excellent grove. There were some dead parts which have already been destroyed, BUT the plans have been obfuscated, including possible total destruction. When things get obfuscated, it is silly to assume responsible behavior.
