Edited by Bob La Tremouille
1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
3. Kathy Podgers Reports.
1. Introduction.
The Cambridge City Council conducted a meeting at 11 am on April 6, 2005 on the Department of Conservation and Recreation's plans for Storrow Drive.
You will recall that, while the DCR will discuss integration of the project with the publicly favored Longfellow Bridge project, the DCR refuses to discuss coordination with the highly destructive work on Memorial Drive.
Both projects are clearly precursors to the DCR work on Storrow Drive.
2. Marilyn Wellons Reports.
This is an abbreviated report:
Karst Hoogeboom, Deputy Commissioner for Planning and
Engineering was the ranking DCR representative at the
hearing [Ed: in front of the Cambridge City Council, April 6, 2005, 11 am. Next to no notice was given and the meeting was conducted in the day, minimizing public knowledge or participation]. Others included engineering and public
relations consultants. DCR planner Karl Haglund used
the March 27 and 29, 2006, Power Point presentation
again.
Councillor Kelley was chair. Councillor Davis, Deputy
City Mgr. Rossi, Police Commissioner Watkins, Asst.
City Mgr. for Traffic & Paarking Susan Clippinger, and
City Clerk Margaret Drury attended.
The presentation included the table with data
supporting the DCR's statement that Memorial Drive is
at 21% (low, am inbound) to 57% (high, pm outbound)
capacity.
However, in response to Commissioner Watkins's
question about the effect of Mem Drive's traffic
lights on traffic flow, the DCR's traffic engineers
said the traffic signals render the table's data
meaningless. The DCR will have a better idea of Mem
Drive's capacity by September.
Officials praise the DCR for its open process but if
they present data they know are flawed, what does
"open process" mean? Someone please remind me when
the next public meeting is--I hope it's before
September so they can correct the table for public
discussion.
The results of other traffic surveys, including the
origin-destination study (suggested by a member of the
public--not the DCR--at the very first meeting in
February at the State House), will be done this
spring. On that study, Watkins noted the DCR plans
indicate no traffic count at the Pike exit into
Cambridge. DCR responded that not all counting spots
are on the DCR's map shown in the presentation (the
Pike exit was shown).
As we know, the Power Point presentation focuses on 4
options:
A3: Rehabilitate Existing Tunnel to Achieve 40-Year
Service Life;
B4: At-Grade Parkway with Traffic Signals;
C2: Old and New Tunnels, No Arlington Street
Westbound Exit (with vent buildings);
D2: New Tunnels with At-Grade Local Traffic (without
Vent Buildings).
Haglund said the size of vent buildings in option D2
would depend in part on traffic volumes--lower volumes
mean smaller vent buildings. I take that to mean
success in the DCR's previously stated goal of
permanently reducing traffic on Storrow by 30,000 to
50,000 vehicles per day could make option C2 more
attractive, especially to people in Boston.
At the Cambridge City Council hearing, the DCR seemed
to back off the goal of a permanent reduction, saying
they're looking at whether it would be possible. They
did say traffic on Storrow is heavy all day long. If
so, would whatever traffic is diverted to Mem Drive,
whether temporary or permanent, assume this pattern?
Responding to a comment from the public, Haglund
asserted that the Storrow tunnel is in imminent danger
of falling down, hence the urgency of the
environmental review and choice among options.
However, at earlier meetings the DCR has said there
can be no work on the Storrow tunnel til the
Longfellow Bridge is fixed, and mentioned a five-year
timeline. When I asked Haglund about the connection
of the Storrow work with the Longfellow work and work
on Mem Drive, he didn't comment on the bridge but said
the Mem Drive "Historic Restoration" wasn't connected
to the Storrow work.
(The DCR repeatedly refuses to discuss the timing of
these three projects or their relation to each other.
After a transportation meeting in Boston April 12, an
EOT consultant thought it reasonable to assume the DCR
is waiting for the results of the Harvard-funded
study, "Transportation Alternatives in Allston,"
before going public with its own plans to tie in to
that component of the whole puzzle. The Allston
report will be out in 6-8 weeks--the scope was
recently extended, not completely recast, as I
previously have reported.)
Of course these projects are physically and logically
connected, even if, as Haglund said of the Mem Drive
"restoration," they're bureaucratically separate. He
commented that the Mem Drive project reduced the
number of travel lanes as though that would mean
reduced traffic--but Storrow has two lanes in each
direction and carries a very intensive load. More
important than the number of lanes is limited access
(like Storrow now). Mem Drive, with the removal of
over 300 parking spaces between the BU and Longfellow
bridges, has much more limited access than before that
phase of "restoration." (The Director of EOT plans
couldn't figure out why, if the DCR's goal was to
reduce traffic on Mem Drive, they would would limit
access as they did by removing the parking spaces.)
Further plans for the "Historic Restoration" call for
straightening out Mem Drive in addition to adding the
westbound turns (toward the BU Bridge) from the Mass
Ave. Bridge outbound already accomplished. And of
course cutting down hundreds of trees will improve the
sight lines while providing the DCR cover for its
actual increase in Mem Drive's capacity ("the original
plans for Mem Drive didn't include all those trees").
The DCR presents its Storrow tunnel crisis as a
problem but also as an opportunity. I believe all
Storrow tunnel options are said to increase parkland,
some, obviously, more than others. This, as we know,
if a powerful argument. Increasing parkland has
allowed the DCR to eliminate all that public parking
on Mem Drive even as they work to make it Storrow's
equivalent.
Failing at maintenance, allowing its assets to
deteriorate, and then billing the crisis as an
opportunity sounds like the DCR's very familiar method
with its parkland. This keeps its planners in
business, sopping up money from mere snow clearing,
trash pickup and other maintenance of swimming pools
and their former skating rinks.
The DCR elides the problem that new tunnels couldn't
support canopy trees and that such trees would be
destroyed to construct the tunnels. Again, this
recalls the DCR's work on Mem Drive, where hundreds of
mature canopy trees will be cut down, even without a
tunnel. So many opportunities, so little actual green.
Cambridge Deputy City Manager Rossi asked about who
would bear the costs of policing traffic during the
construction and whether the state would pay for a
traffic consultant for Cambridge. Answers were The
State to the first question, Don't Know to the second.
(Boston has also asked for a state-funded traffic
consultant.)
Police Commissioner Watkins was most concerned with
the effect of all this on traffic and on the Mem Drive
roadway surface itself.
Marilyn Wellons
3. Kathy Podgers Reports.
Briefly, we met in Sullivan Chambers, and Craig Kelley seemed to be a main leader. we, the public, were all allowed to speak twice. The slide show seemed to be the same as at the Morse school.
Several new people came and spoke. When I mentioned that Mayor Reeves told me that I cannot use City Hall to announce the address of my blog, several folks came up to me and asked for it.
One thing interesting to me, was the presence of Police Commissioner Watson, who seemed to have been invited there for the purpose of supporting the claim we needed "mitigation" as funds to "repave" Memorial Dr after all the years of diverted Storrow Drive traffic tears it up.
This seems to be a maneuver (by those who claim they represent folks in Cambridge) to hi-jack my comment that the DCR needs to listen to folks in Cambridge and talk about our issues.
One thing is sure, I do not want mitigation to be more money for more highways, parkways or whatever! Enough already!
One thing I mentioned was wanting to hear "bird song." I pointed out trees were not enough, we needed understory.
Kathy
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Sunday, April 09, 2006
DCR Meeting on March 29, 2006, Storrow Drive Reconstruction and Cambridge: The Party Line / Newspeak and Reality
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
B. More General.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
1. Introduction.
On March 29, 2006, the Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted a meeting on its plans for Storrow Drive at the Morse School in Cambridge directly across Memorial Drive from the Starvation Zone at Magazine Beach.
The following was distributed on April 3, 2006, by people who give the impression that they find controversy offensive (and give the impression that they are neutral on massive environmental destruction). It is unedited except to remove identification of the guilty:
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
We are all Cambridgeport residents and who were in attendance at last week's DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) public meeting on Storrow Drive Tunnel Reconstruction options. This is to provide a brief report on the meeting and the DCR's on-going design and development of the project . The design options and more are outlined at the DCR website and further info may be obtained through DCR's public outreach contact person Nancy Farell. See DCR website contact info below. By way of background, Dept. of Conservatin & Recreation was transferred responsibility for the former MDC, and thus is responsible for Mem Drive and Storrow Drive (river areas).
[Ed: I somehow lost the DCR website info. The party line blends in the consultant’s position with their own Newspeak. I edited out the distinction and in editing signature blocks, edited out the website references the Newspeak people were alluding to.]
DCR confirmed that the Storrow tunnel reconstruction could take 2-4 years (depending which reconstruction strategy is implemented), and thus there will be a long period of traffic diversion involving increased traffic on Mem Drive, Mass Pike, area streets and bridges. Thus we want to emphasize this is an important citywide and regional transportation/traffic issue likely to impact our area, and it is important to let DCR and our city and state representatives know we need this to be implemented in a manner that is responsive to area concerns. State Reps. Alice Wolf and Mary Walz were in attendance, as were City Councillors Henrietta Davis and Craig Kelly.
It appears that the studies and planning will continue well into the fall of 2006 and that, if a final plan is approved, construction would not begin [until after the Longfellow Bridge repairs/reconstruction is complete and thus it is difficult for DCR to predict a begin date for the Storrow tunnel project]. At present, DCR assumes the project will be funded by state funding [through the sale of bonds]. Four major categories of addressing the redesign of Storrow Drive were highlighted and these 4 categories had various subdesigns. The different design options are set forth in the DCR website (see website info below). A Cambridgeport resident suggested a cut and cover tunnel design under the Charles river which would restore all of the Esplanade. Others suggested DCR work with MBTA to implement incentives for use of Mass Transit during the tunnel reconstruction. Other mitigation suggestions and concerns were voiced.
We recall the Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) saying they would continue to have open workshops on traffic issues when the analysis of their data collection is complete and that a September public meeting will be scheduled to go over the various traffic studies that will be conducted in the next month or two. We note DCR saying, despite some short-term reconfigurations, they would commit to no net reduction in trees, but perhaps increase trees and other landscaping amenities over time depending on the final design. Their main presenter was a recognized author on the subject of the Charles River, who appeared concerned with many bigger issues, including environmental concerns.
The accessibility of the DCR staff to answer all calls, take feedback, and try to provide an open process was mentioned several times during the presentation. We recognize there are tendencies in any bureaucracy not to be as open as all would like and we need to be vigilant and, as necessary, critical on behalf of our neighborhood. However, we believe we will have more credibility if we pursue such vigilance and offer our comments and criticisms in a balanced manner. The proposed tunnel reconstruction appears to be a complex and major project and the many details and mitigation proposals are beyond the scope of this email. However, we want to alert the list serv readers to the existence of an ongoing, dynamic and important public input process that is underway, and we are hopeful this will be of assistance as a partial introduction to and update on the subject. Remember, citizens and neighborhood groups can make a huge difference in these projects. Years ago, it was citizens groups that caused elected officials and planners to take heed of neighborhood concerns and radically alter and actually discontinue some of the objectionable Inner Belt highway contsruction proposals. So, it is incumbent on us to remind our State Reps, City Councillors and DCR that any Storrow reconstruction proposal be implemented only after careful and comprehensive consideration of Cambridge and other neighborhood needs. Given the fact that the closure of Storrow Drive for tunnel reconstruction could divert 100,000 cars a day, this is a project warranting community oversight and participation.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
Lots of stuff about "cooperation and coordination," with the reality strikingly different as usual for Cambridge.
They need Memorial Drive straightened out and want to destroy all those trees. The DCR/MDC says they will coordinate with the Longfellow Bridge project.
They flat out refuse to discuss the Memorial Drive coordination.
It is also interesting that the as-secret-as-possible meeting on the traffic counts seems to be unmentioned.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
This was distributed in the form of a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe on about March 30:
Reports about openness of the Department of Conservation and Recreation concerning the Storrow Drive project were demonstrated to be extremely inaccurate at a meeting in Cambridge on March 29, 2006.
The moderator flatly refused to discuss the relationship between the Storrow Drive project and environmental destruction on Memorial Drive which is rather clearly aimed at easing the Storrow Drive reconstruction.
Memorial Drive is in the process of having more than 449 to 660 trees destroyed in number interrelated projects. All the parking on the river side between the BU and Longfellow Bridges has been destroyed. Memorial Drive is being straightened out to handle the traffic from Storrow Drive.
Repeated questions about the Memorial Drive parking loss and ongoing tree destruction were answered by bragging about the tree protections on Storrow Drive.
The moderator, Mr. Karl Hoaglund, announced that most members of the public will be barred from attending a future meeting on traffic projections.
Mr. Hoaglund, in addition to being a high DCR official, has very visible association with the Charles River Conservancy. The CRC has supported the environmental destruction in Cambridge including this massive tree destruction and the bizarre ongoing project at Magazine Beach. The latter project along with a project across from the Hyatt has featured starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese which are now in their 19th month. The CRC has poisoned every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River for the past three years.
Looks like "openness" for Boston with the usual backroom dealing and environmental destruction for Cambridge.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
Dear Readers: A factual report on the Storrow Drive Closing presentation yesterday evening is forthcoming from [Identification of the guilty omitted.] Please look for it. Thank you.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
Councilor Kelley sent out the following after a maximally secret presentation DCR to the Cambridge City Council on April 6. This presentation was conducted during the day with absolutely minimal public notice. Marilyn did attend and has promised a report.
I consider the first paragraph irrelevant, but Councilor Kelley considers it relevant and I will grant him the courtesy of including it.
*********
While there may not be a connection directly between these issues, they are related and they are also related to a shooting in Jefferson Park in February, bricks being thrown through windows in North Cambridge a few weeks ago, loud little scooters running endlessly around Rindge Field at night and so on. Point being, our current policing efforts are not, around these issues, making people feel comfortable and it's not just a Cambridgeport, or North Cambridge, or Riverside, problem. So the question is, what systemic things can Cambridge as a City, to include the CPD but also youth services and the Cambridge Housing Authority and the school system and neighborhood groups and individuals and so on down the line do to make people more comfortable with our levels of safety and overall nuisance.
As someone said yesterday about the DCR's distinction between their upcoming Storrow Drive work and their ongoing Memorial Drive work, it is odd to have bureaucratic separation of things that are physically and logically related.
Thoughts?
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
The DCR connects and will coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Longfellow work. They will not connect and allegedly will not coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Memorial Drive work.
The difference is that they claim to be pro-environment and are flat out lying on Memorial Drive. The hundreds of trees being destroyed, the flat out deliberate starvation of beautiful animals, the deliberate destruction of wetlands, the twice annual destruction of native vegetation, the connection to the off ramp from the Mass. Pike - these are are matters of great shame. These are all good reasons to fire a lot of people, both at the DCR and in the City of Cambridge.
So they will not talk and they know the City of Cambridge will support them in not talking.
There is no sanction for refusing to talk. There is great sanction for living in reality.
B. More General.
One side of the problem is the complainer saying "they do not listen to us."
A much more serious part of the problem is people who consider meaningful complaints "impolite." You can say anything you want. Just do not be so "impolite" as to make meaningful complaints.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
In apparent response to a number of issues raised by Kathy Podgers, some ostensibly sensitive souls are talking about splitting the listserve quoted above. They do not want to be disturbed by reality.
Note, however, that such people commonly are very happy to have the sort of Party Line report distributed. They are just disturbed that somebody would mention negative things.
To quote:
**********
I don't think that the bantering that fills all of our mailboxes is a healthy way to share or refine ideas or that it serves us as a community. What I want from our list-serv are notices of meetings and major neighborhood events/reasons to be concerned. 5 or so such notices a month would serve me well. At our monthly meetings we can discuss these neighborhood issues as a community. We need to hear from more than the 4 or 5 folks who regularly present their points of view on the list-serv. They do not a community make.
**********
Note: The Party Line demands squelching “offensive” talks but have no response to those mentioning offensive things. Their response is censorship and reports positive in tone with key omission of matters which will never be discussed by them EVEN AFTER IT IS DONE.
Interestingly, the meetings which the Party Line favors are censored by the chair and at least one key councillor (Henrietta Davis) repeatedly shouts down those who talk reality.
At the same time, the Party Line repeatedly talks about “openness” by the DCR. What they find offensive are statements that prove the “openness” to be a lie.
This is the way things are done.
This is why Cambridge is on exactly the opposite environmentally from their lovely claims.
1. Introduction.
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
B. More General.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
1. Introduction.
On March 29, 2006, the Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted a meeting on its plans for Storrow Drive at the Morse School in Cambridge directly across Memorial Drive from the Starvation Zone at Magazine Beach.
The following was distributed on April 3, 2006, by people who give the impression that they find controversy offensive (and give the impression that they are neutral on massive environmental destruction). It is unedited except to remove identification of the guilty:
2. Report from the Party Line, April 3, 2006.
We are all Cambridgeport residents and who were in attendance at last week's DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) public meeting on Storrow Drive Tunnel Reconstruction options. This is to provide a brief report on the meeting and the DCR's on-going design and development of the project . The design options and more are outlined at the DCR website and further info may be obtained through DCR's public outreach contact person Nancy Farell. See DCR website contact info below. By way of background, Dept. of Conservatin & Recreation was transferred responsibility for the former MDC, and thus is responsible for Mem Drive and Storrow Drive (river areas).
[Ed: I somehow lost the DCR website info. The party line blends in the consultant’s position with their own Newspeak. I edited out the distinction and in editing signature blocks, edited out the website references the Newspeak people were alluding to.]
DCR confirmed that the Storrow tunnel reconstruction could take 2-4 years (depending which reconstruction strategy is implemented), and thus there will be a long period of traffic diversion involving increased traffic on Mem Drive, Mass Pike, area streets and bridges. Thus we want to emphasize this is an important citywide and regional transportation/traffic issue likely to impact our area, and it is important to let DCR and our city and state representatives know we need this to be implemented in a manner that is responsive to area concerns. State Reps. Alice Wolf and Mary Walz were in attendance, as were City Councillors Henrietta Davis and Craig Kelly.
It appears that the studies and planning will continue well into the fall of 2006 and that, if a final plan is approved, construction would not begin [until after the Longfellow Bridge repairs/reconstruction is complete and thus it is difficult for DCR to predict a begin date for the Storrow tunnel project]. At present, DCR assumes the project will be funded by state funding [through the sale of bonds]. Four major categories of addressing the redesign of Storrow Drive were highlighted and these 4 categories had various subdesigns. The different design options are set forth in the DCR website (see website info below). A Cambridgeport resident suggested a cut and cover tunnel design under the Charles river which would restore all of the Esplanade. Others suggested DCR work with MBTA to implement incentives for use of Mass Transit during the tunnel reconstruction. Other mitigation suggestions and concerns were voiced.
We recall the Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) saying they would continue to have open workshops on traffic issues when the analysis of their data collection is complete and that a September public meeting will be scheduled to go over the various traffic studies that will be conducted in the next month or two. We note DCR saying, despite some short-term reconfigurations, they would commit to no net reduction in trees, but perhaps increase trees and other landscaping amenities over time depending on the final design. Their main presenter was a recognized author on the subject of the Charles River, who appeared concerned with many bigger issues, including environmental concerns.
The accessibility of the DCR staff to answer all calls, take feedback, and try to provide an open process was mentioned several times during the presentation. We recognize there are tendencies in any bureaucracy not to be as open as all would like and we need to be vigilant and, as necessary, critical on behalf of our neighborhood. However, we believe we will have more credibility if we pursue such vigilance and offer our comments and criticisms in a balanced manner. The proposed tunnel reconstruction appears to be a complex and major project and the many details and mitigation proposals are beyond the scope of this email. However, we want to alert the list serv readers to the existence of an ongoing, dynamic and important public input process that is underway, and we are hopeful this will be of assistance as a partial introduction to and update on the subject. Remember, citizens and neighborhood groups can make a huge difference in these projects. Years ago, it was citizens groups that caused elected officials and planners to take heed of neighborhood concerns and radically alter and actually discontinue some of the objectionable Inner Belt highway contsruction proposals. So, it is incumbent on us to remind our State Reps, City Councillors and DCR that any Storrow reconstruction proposal be implemented only after careful and comprehensive consideration of Cambridge and other neighborhood needs. Given the fact that the closure of Storrow Drive for tunnel reconstruction could divert 100,000 cars a day, this is a project warranting community oversight and participation.
3. Your editor’s on line response, ca. April 3, 2006.
Lots of stuff about "cooperation and coordination," with the reality strikingly different as usual for Cambridge.
They need Memorial Drive straightened out and want to destroy all those trees. The DCR/MDC says they will coordinate with the Longfellow Bridge project.
They flat out refuse to discuss the Memorial Drive coordination.
It is also interesting that the as-secret-as-possible meeting on the traffic counts seems to be unmentioned.
4. Your Editor’s Letter to the Boston Globe, Ca. March 30, 2006.
This was distributed in the form of a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe on about March 30:
Reports about openness of the Department of Conservation and Recreation concerning the Storrow Drive project were demonstrated to be extremely inaccurate at a meeting in Cambridge on March 29, 2006.
The moderator flatly refused to discuss the relationship between the Storrow Drive project and environmental destruction on Memorial Drive which is rather clearly aimed at easing the Storrow Drive reconstruction.
Memorial Drive is in the process of having more than 449 to 660 trees destroyed in number interrelated projects. All the parking on the river side between the BU and Longfellow Bridges has been destroyed. Memorial Drive is being straightened out to handle the traffic from Storrow Drive.
Repeated questions about the Memorial Drive parking loss and ongoing tree destruction were answered by bragging about the tree protections on Storrow Drive.
The moderator, Mr. Karl Hoaglund, announced that most members of the public will be barred from attending a future meeting on traffic projections.
Mr. Hoaglund, in addition to being a high DCR official, has very visible association with the Charles River Conservancy. The CRC has supported the environmental destruction in Cambridge including this massive tree destruction and the bizarre ongoing project at Magazine Beach. The latter project along with a project across from the Hyatt has featured starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese which are now in their 19th month. The CRC has poisoned every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River for the past three years.
Looks like "openness" for Boston with the usual backroom dealing and environmental destruction for Cambridge.
5. Initial response from the Party Line, ca. March 30.
Dear Readers: A factual report on the Storrow Drive Closing presentation yesterday evening is forthcoming from [Identification of the guilty omitted.] Please look for it. Thank you.
6. Councilor Kelly, April 7, 2006.
Councilor Kelley sent out the following after a maximally secret presentation DCR to the Cambridge City Council on April 6. This presentation was conducted during the day with absolutely minimal public notice. Marilyn did attend and has promised a report.
I consider the first paragraph irrelevant, but Councilor Kelley considers it relevant and I will grant him the courtesy of including it.
*********
While there may not be a connection directly between these issues, they are related and they are also related to a shooting in Jefferson Park in February, bricks being thrown through windows in North Cambridge a few weeks ago, loud little scooters running endlessly around Rindge Field at night and so on. Point being, our current policing efforts are not, around these issues, making people feel comfortable and it's not just a Cambridgeport, or North Cambridge, or Riverside, problem. So the question is, what systemic things can Cambridge as a City, to include the CPD but also youth services and the Cambridge Housing Authority and the school system and neighborhood groups and individuals and so on down the line do to make people more comfortable with our levels of safety and overall nuisance.
As someone said yesterday about the DCR's distinction between their upcoming Storrow Drive work and their ongoing Memorial Drive work, it is odd to have bureaucratic separation of things that are physically and logically related.
Thoughts?
7. Editor’s Responses to Kelly, on line, April 7, 2006.
A. Directly on issue.
The DCR connects and will coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Longfellow work. They will not connect and allegedly will not coordinate the Storrow Drive work with the Memorial Drive work.
The difference is that they claim to be pro-environment and are flat out lying on Memorial Drive. The hundreds of trees being destroyed, the flat out deliberate starvation of beautiful animals, the deliberate destruction of wetlands, the twice annual destruction of native vegetation, the connection to the off ramp from the Mass. Pike - these are are matters of great shame. These are all good reasons to fire a lot of people, both at the DCR and in the City of Cambridge.
So they will not talk and they know the City of Cambridge will support them in not talking.
There is no sanction for refusing to talk. There is great sanction for living in reality.
B. More General.
One side of the problem is the complainer saying "they do not listen to us."
A much more serious part of the problem is people who consider meaningful complaints "impolite." You can say anything you want. Just do not be so "impolite" as to make meaningful complaints.
8. The Party Line, April 7, 2006.
In apparent response to a number of issues raised by Kathy Podgers, some ostensibly sensitive souls are talking about splitting the listserve quoted above. They do not want to be disturbed by reality.
Note, however, that such people commonly are very happy to have the sort of Party Line report distributed. They are just disturbed that somebody would mention negative things.
To quote:
**********
I don't think that the bantering that fills all of our mailboxes is a healthy way to share or refine ideas or that it serves us as a community. What I want from our list-serv are notices of meetings and major neighborhood events/reasons to be concerned. 5 or so such notices a month would serve me well. At our monthly meetings we can discuss these neighborhood issues as a community. We need to hear from more than the 4 or 5 folks who regularly present their points of view on the list-serv. They do not a community make.
**********
Note: The Party Line demands squelching “offensive” talks but have no response to those mentioning offensive things. Their response is censorship and reports positive in tone with key omission of matters which will never be discussed by them EVEN AFTER IT IS DONE.
Interestingly, the meetings which the Party Line favors are censored by the chair and at least one key councillor (Henrietta Davis) repeatedly shouts down those who talk reality.
At the same time, the Party Line repeatedly talks about “openness” by the DCR. What they find offensive are statements that prove the “openness” to be a lie.
This is the way things are done.
This is why Cambridge is on exactly the opposite environmentally from their lovely claims.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Fresh Pond, Cambridge, MA - Your comments
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA, resident - loves the reservation.
2. North Cambridge, MA, resident - loves nature, nesting hawks.
3. Nearby neighbor of mine in Cambridge Highlands - move out please.
I have received some comments that I think might be of interest.
1. Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA, resident - loves the reservation.
This message is for the City Manager and the City Council:
I am a resident right in front of the recent cut down of a lot of the mature trees near Neville Manor.
It is very upsetting for me to see this. Fresh Pond is a big part of our life. We enjoy all the woods and the greenery there.
For all those mature trees to be cut down is such a shame, is such a shame. And I can’t express to you how upset me and my family are about this.
I know there will be saplings that are replacing those, but that does not give us the woods and the green area and all the creatures we see when we walk Fresh Pond and when we get to Fresh Pond.
I heard from a Realtor that it is going to be replaced by a soccer field, but that does not excite me as much as the natural woods that we have loved, and we really really want to prevent any more trees from being cut down. That is my very strong opinion.
I just wanted to voice that so that you are aware that a lot of the residents here are not very happy about this.
If you want to reach me, my number is [omitted]. I would be glad to talk with you if you want, but please please stop the destruction of our trees, the native trees which have been here for decades. It is just not worth the sacrifice to have new plants.
I just do not understand the reasoning, and I am really really going to miss them, the ones you cut.
It is like seeing animals killed. It is very very saddening.
Ok have a nice day.
2. North Cambridge, MA, resident - loves nature, nesting hawks.
I am a resident of North Cambridge.
I received a letter. "Do you think Fresh Pond Woods should be destroyed?" . . .
My personal opinion: no.
I have been watching the Hawks out here build their nests and raise their babies.
It is a sin.
I just hope you do the best you can.
3. Nearby neighbor of mine in Cambridge Highlands - move out please.
Bob,
I got a flyer at my door tonight. It is about the on going improvements at Fresh Pond.
I see and feel you don't think this is improvements. They are and will help this area for people
You Bob are a trouble maker have been and I guess always will be We don't like trouble so please go away.
Dan Brennan
1. Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA, resident - loves the reservation.
2. North Cambridge, MA, resident - loves nature, nesting hawks.
3. Nearby neighbor of mine in Cambridge Highlands - move out please.
I have received some comments that I think might be of interest.
1. Concord Avenue, Cambridge, MA, resident - loves the reservation.
This message is for the City Manager and the City Council:
I am a resident right in front of the recent cut down of a lot of the mature trees near Neville Manor.
It is very upsetting for me to see this. Fresh Pond is a big part of our life. We enjoy all the woods and the greenery there.
For all those mature trees to be cut down is such a shame, is such a shame. And I can’t express to you how upset me and my family are about this.
I know there will be saplings that are replacing those, but that does not give us the woods and the green area and all the creatures we see when we walk Fresh Pond and when we get to Fresh Pond.
I heard from a Realtor that it is going to be replaced by a soccer field, but that does not excite me as much as the natural woods that we have loved, and we really really want to prevent any more trees from being cut down. That is my very strong opinion.
I just wanted to voice that so that you are aware that a lot of the residents here are not very happy about this.
If you want to reach me, my number is [omitted]. I would be glad to talk with you if you want, but please please stop the destruction of our trees, the native trees which have been here for decades. It is just not worth the sacrifice to have new plants.
I just do not understand the reasoning, and I am really really going to miss them, the ones you cut.
It is like seeing animals killed. It is very very saddening.
Ok have a nice day.
2. North Cambridge, MA, resident - loves nature, nesting hawks.
I am a resident of North Cambridge.
I received a letter. "Do you think Fresh Pond Woods should be destroyed?" . . .
My personal opinion: no.
I have been watching the Hawks out here build their nests and raise their babies.
It is a sin.
I just hope you do the best you can.
3. Nearby neighbor of mine in Cambridge Highlands - move out please.
Bob,
I got a flyer at my door tonight. It is about the on going improvements at Fresh Pond.
I see and feel you don't think this is improvements. They are and will help this area for people
You Bob are a trouble maker have been and I guess always will be We don't like trouble so please go away.
Dan Brennan
Fresh Pond, Cambridge, MA, USA: The villains identify themselves
Bob La Trémouille reports:
A new sign has appeared just west of the Neville Manor complex on Concord Ave. This is the location of the first and most visible of the logging on the Fresh Pond reservation.
A large number of mature trees was very visibly logged here at the beginning of this outrage: 20? 40? Once they are down, they are rapidly chopped up to give the impression they never existed.
The sign, appropriately, is in black background.
It announces "landscape improvements," neglecting, of course, to mention that saplings are in no way an improvement over the mature trees which have been destroyed, unless, of course, you are paid to destroy the mature trees or paid to install the saplings. And frankly, the most visible supporters of these projects tend to be people who make money out of destruction and replacement.
The most visible villain on the sign is City Manager Robert Healy.
Immediately below the name of Healy appears, credit given to Cambridge, MA Mayor Kenneth Reeves.
Below Reeves are the names of ALL eight other currently incumbent Cambridge, MA City Councilors including three who claim to be environmentalists.
One caveat: The city manager does a lot of lying by omission. He claims he has a right to only tell people about the saplings (or grass) he is planting; the Cambridge City Manager claims he has no duty to volunteer the nature of destruction involved.
Of course, as with regard to the truly sick situation on the Charles River, extended silence is very clearly consent and approval.
A new sign has appeared just west of the Neville Manor complex on Concord Ave. This is the location of the first and most visible of the logging on the Fresh Pond reservation.
A large number of mature trees was very visibly logged here at the beginning of this outrage: 20? 40? Once they are down, they are rapidly chopped up to give the impression they never existed.
The sign, appropriately, is in black background.
It announces "landscape improvements," neglecting, of course, to mention that saplings are in no way an improvement over the mature trees which have been destroyed, unless, of course, you are paid to destroy the mature trees or paid to install the saplings. And frankly, the most visible supporters of these projects tend to be people who make money out of destruction and replacement.
The most visible villain on the sign is City Manager Robert Healy.
Immediately below the name of Healy appears, credit given to Cambridge, MA Mayor Kenneth Reeves.
Below Reeves are the names of ALL eight other currently incumbent Cambridge, MA City Councilors including three who claim to be environmentalists.
One caveat: The city manager does a lot of lying by omission. He claims he has a right to only tell people about the saplings (or grass) he is planting; the Cambridge City Manager claims he has no duty to volunteer the nature of destruction involved.
Of course, as with regard to the truly sick situation on the Charles River, extended silence is very clearly consent and approval.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Fresh Pond, Cambridge, MA, USA: Related Initiatives; The Villains Brag
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Fresh Pond: Related Initiatives.
A. Introduction.
B. Neighborhood zoning problems.
C. The logging down the street.
D. The Cambridge city manager moves in exactly the wrong direction on zoning, as usual.
2. The Villains Brag.
A. Introduction.
B. Introductory / General.
C. Area being logged.
(1) Past destruction.
(2) Destruction to come.
D. Links.
1. Fresh Pond: Related Initiatives.
A. Introduction.
I sent the following letter to the Cambridge (MA, USA) Chronicle yesterday. The property in question is one short block off the Fresh Pond Reservation and from the eastern edge of the Cambridge, MA city manager’s proposed upzoning. The environmental destruction starts perhaps another block to the west.
I am subdividing it to fit this format:
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
RE: Letter: Tobin-Danehy Zoning Petition in Context
B. Neighborhood zoning problems.
Neighbors of the Cambridge Self Storage facility near the Sozio’s rotary on Concord Avenue have good reason to be concerned about development on the Cambridge Self-Storage site since a brief review of the zoning or the site (Residence C1A) indicates it allows construction 2½ times the allowed density in the neighborhood (Residence B).
There is more going on in their neighborhood than that, however, and the other problems include problems much worse than the problem at Cambridge Self-Storage.
The enemy, as in too many such problems, is the Cambridge City Manager.
C. The logging down the street.
On the Concord Avenue side of Fresh Pond, the Cambridge City Manager wants to plant 1000 saplings. This would run from the rotaries to the Burger King or further.
Trouble is that the existing trees are in the way of the City Manager’s saplings, so the City Manager is taking action. The City Manager is destroying large numbers of trees.
A guess based on the City Manager’s usual planting densities and the existing tree density would be destruction of 2000, 3000 or more trees. The logging has already commenced.
Death or forced eviction of valuable small resident animals is obvious. Destruction of bird nests during mating season is obvious. Looking at the starvation being inflicted on Charles River animals for more than a year and a half, this is business as usual.
Stirring up of resident rats is obvious. Where they will go is anybody’s guess, but the last thing that bothers the City Manager is behavior of animals affected by his projects. Clearly, they will be moved closer to people’s homes than they are now. The existing rat problem in various parts of the city can easily come from irresponsible developers.
D. The Cambridge city manager moves in exactly the wrong direction on zoning, as usual.
The City Manager has filed for the third time an incredibly massive upzoning in this area.
This upzoning affects construction on the north side of Concord Avenue running from Sozio’s Circle at least through both shopping centers. It also, at minimum, also threatens the north side of the railroad tracks at Alewife.
On the Cambridge Self-Storage site, the density allowed by zoning is 2.5 times that of the neighborhood. The City Manager’s pending upzoning could allow buildings 12 times the size of the neighborhood or worse. The City Manager’s proposal could allow buildings more than 50% denser than Harvard Square.
The neighborhood’s downzoning proposed for the Cambridge Self-Storage site, to Residence C-1 (50% denser than the neighborhood zoning) is clearly moderate.
The big threat is from the City Manager. I hope the neighbors are able to fight three fights at once. They are being attacked from three sides.
2. The Villains Brag.
A. Introduction.
Following is an email I got from the Cambridge city manager’s people concerning their logging initiatives.
Talk about “reviews” should be taken with a very major grain of salt. The people doing the reviews are appointed by the Cambridge city manager.
The entity which passes as a “Conservation Commission” in Cambridge, MA is so bad that they had maps of the outrage on Magazine Beach posted on their walls.
I will not insult you by translating “tree management.”
As with my letter to the editor, I have added subdivisions.
**********
B. Introductory / General.
Greetings from Fresh Pond Reservation!
Welcome to the Fresh Pond reservation Weekly email update.
At Little Fresh Pond, the first row of coir fascines is being staked into place along the perimeter of Little Fresh Pond. An erosion control fabric is being placed underneath the fascines, and will be spread out after the second row of fascines is put into place.
The new design for the southern wetland of Little Fresh Pond will be presented to the Cambridge Conservation Commission on Monday, March 27th.
The new design for the beach in the southeast corner of the Pond will also be presented to the Conservation Commission on March 27th.
Next week's forecast:
The coir fascines will continue to be placed along the shoreline of Little Fresh Pond.
Upon approval from the Conservation Commission, work on both the southwestern wetland and the southeastern beach area will move forward.
C. Area being logged.
(1) Past destruction.
Much work has taken place in the Northeast Sector. The slope behind Neville Place extending to Black's Nook has had extensive work done to it. Many of the invasive species have been cleared out, allowing Perimeter Path users visual access to the beautiful beeches on the slope.
Over the past two weeks, the organic matter on the slope was taken out, and erosion control log bars were placed into the soil. The soil was covered with a seeded mulch, and the mulch covered with a woody fiber matrix that will protect the new soil and the seeds it holds. A brush barrier is being erected along the perimeter of the slope area using the trimmings from native tree species on the Reservation.
[Ed: If you want to understand, what vegetation the City of Cambridge calls “native species,” check out the bizarre designer bushes which have been planted on the Charles River where wetlands and native vegetation has been destroyed. The most certain thing about the designer bushes is that they are “native” somewhere. They just are not native on the Charles River. “Invasive species” should be translated as “native species” if you are concerned about reality.]
Eventually the brush barrier, currently acting as protection for the slope area, will be removed, and the brush will be spread throughout the slope as plant protection and temporary erosion control.
Fencing of several of the trees along Concord Avenue has taken place, with more tree protection fencing to be placed throughout the site in the coming weeks.
(2) Destruction to come.
Next week's forecast:
Tree management will continue on site, with the trimming and felling of trees, as well as placement of tree protection fencing.
Starting with the regrading of the area behind Neville Place and moving up towards Concord Avenue, soils will be taken out and brought to Lusitania Field for storage and eventual cleaning and processing. Much of the soil--after being sorted and cleaned--will be used again on site.
Northeast Sector Project Walk-Abouts will begin April 3rd. Chip Norton, Watershed Manager, will be hosting the weekly information walks on Monday evenings through the summer. Anyone interested in learning more about the project should meet Chip Norton at 6 pm at the Walter J. Sullivan Water Treatment Facility at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway.
D. Links.
For more information:
See the attached Northeast Sector Project Guide created by a landscape architect who assisted with the project design.
Please stop be either of the projects websites for more information:
and be sure to check out the Little Fresh Pond Shoreline Restoration and Drainage Improvement Project Photo Album and the Northeast Sector Project Photo Album while you are there. This will be updated with new pictures on a weekly basis.
Feel free to email with questions or concerns, or stop by the Ranger Station located at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway to talk with a watershed staff member.
Look for our next update on Friday, March 31st! Please forward this on to anyone who is interested in the work going on at Fresh Pond Reservation. Please let me know if you would like to be taken off the distribution list.
Hannah D Wilbur
Office of Watershed Management
Cambridge Water Department
1. Fresh Pond: Related Initiatives.
A. Introduction.
B. Neighborhood zoning problems.
C. The logging down the street.
D. The Cambridge city manager moves in exactly the wrong direction on zoning, as usual.
2. The Villains Brag.
A. Introduction.
B. Introductory / General.
C. Area being logged.
(1) Past destruction.
(2) Destruction to come.
D. Links.
1. Fresh Pond: Related Initiatives.
A. Introduction.
I sent the following letter to the Cambridge (MA, USA) Chronicle yesterday. The property in question is one short block off the Fresh Pond Reservation and from the eastern edge of the Cambridge, MA city manager’s proposed upzoning. The environmental destruction starts perhaps another block to the west.
I am subdividing it to fit this format:
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
RE: Letter: Tobin-Danehy Zoning Petition in Context
B. Neighborhood zoning problems.
Neighbors of the Cambridge Self Storage facility near the Sozio’s rotary on Concord Avenue have good reason to be concerned about development on the Cambridge Self-Storage site since a brief review of the zoning or the site (Residence C1A) indicates it allows construction 2½ times the allowed density in the neighborhood (Residence B).
There is more going on in their neighborhood than that, however, and the other problems include problems much worse than the problem at Cambridge Self-Storage.
The enemy, as in too many such problems, is the Cambridge City Manager.
C. The logging down the street.
On the Concord Avenue side of Fresh Pond, the Cambridge City Manager wants to plant 1000 saplings. This would run from the rotaries to the Burger King or further.
Trouble is that the existing trees are in the way of the City Manager’s saplings, so the City Manager is taking action. The City Manager is destroying large numbers of trees.
A guess based on the City Manager’s usual planting densities and the existing tree density would be destruction of 2000, 3000 or more trees. The logging has already commenced.
Death or forced eviction of valuable small resident animals is obvious. Destruction of bird nests during mating season is obvious. Looking at the starvation being inflicted on Charles River animals for more than a year and a half, this is business as usual.
Stirring up of resident rats is obvious. Where they will go is anybody’s guess, but the last thing that bothers the City Manager is behavior of animals affected by his projects. Clearly, they will be moved closer to people’s homes than they are now. The existing rat problem in various parts of the city can easily come from irresponsible developers.
D. The Cambridge city manager moves in exactly the wrong direction on zoning, as usual.
The City Manager has filed for the third time an incredibly massive upzoning in this area.
This upzoning affects construction on the north side of Concord Avenue running from Sozio’s Circle at least through both shopping centers. It also, at minimum, also threatens the north side of the railroad tracks at Alewife.
On the Cambridge Self-Storage site, the density allowed by zoning is 2.5 times that of the neighborhood. The City Manager’s pending upzoning could allow buildings 12 times the size of the neighborhood or worse. The City Manager’s proposal could allow buildings more than 50% denser than Harvard Square.
The neighborhood’s downzoning proposed for the Cambridge Self-Storage site, to Residence C-1 (50% denser than the neighborhood zoning) is clearly moderate.
The big threat is from the City Manager. I hope the neighbors are able to fight three fights at once. They are being attacked from three sides.
2. The Villains Brag.
A. Introduction.
Following is an email I got from the Cambridge city manager’s people concerning their logging initiatives.
Talk about “reviews” should be taken with a very major grain of salt. The people doing the reviews are appointed by the Cambridge city manager.
The entity which passes as a “Conservation Commission” in Cambridge, MA is so bad that they had maps of the outrage on Magazine Beach posted on their walls.
I will not insult you by translating “tree management.”
As with my letter to the editor, I have added subdivisions.
**********
B. Introductory / General.
Greetings from Fresh Pond Reservation!
Welcome to the Fresh Pond reservation Weekly email update.
At Little Fresh Pond, the first row of coir fascines is being staked into place along the perimeter of Little Fresh Pond. An erosion control fabric is being placed underneath the fascines, and will be spread out after the second row of fascines is put into place.
The new design for the southern wetland of Little Fresh Pond will be presented to the Cambridge Conservation Commission on Monday, March 27th.
The new design for the beach in the southeast corner of the Pond will also be presented to the Conservation Commission on March 27th.
Next week's forecast:
The coir fascines will continue to be placed along the shoreline of Little Fresh Pond.
Upon approval from the Conservation Commission, work on both the southwestern wetland and the southeastern beach area will move forward.
C. Area being logged.
(1) Past destruction.
Much work has taken place in the Northeast Sector. The slope behind Neville Place extending to Black's Nook has had extensive work done to it. Many of the invasive species have been cleared out, allowing Perimeter Path users visual access to the beautiful beeches on the slope.
Over the past two weeks, the organic matter on the slope was taken out, and erosion control log bars were placed into the soil. The soil was covered with a seeded mulch, and the mulch covered with a woody fiber matrix that will protect the new soil and the seeds it holds. A brush barrier is being erected along the perimeter of the slope area using the trimmings from native tree species on the Reservation.
[Ed: If you want to understand, what vegetation the City of Cambridge calls “native species,” check out the bizarre designer bushes which have been planted on the Charles River where wetlands and native vegetation has been destroyed. The most certain thing about the designer bushes is that they are “native” somewhere. They just are not native on the Charles River. “Invasive species” should be translated as “native species” if you are concerned about reality.]
Eventually the brush barrier, currently acting as protection for the slope area, will be removed, and the brush will be spread throughout the slope as plant protection and temporary erosion control.
Fencing of several of the trees along Concord Avenue has taken place, with more tree protection fencing to be placed throughout the site in the coming weeks.
(2) Destruction to come.
Next week's forecast:
Tree management will continue on site, with the trimming and felling of trees, as well as placement of tree protection fencing.
Starting with the regrading of the area behind Neville Place and moving up towards Concord Avenue, soils will be taken out and brought to Lusitania Field for storage and eventual cleaning and processing. Much of the soil--after being sorted and cleaned--will be used again on site.
Northeast Sector Project Walk-Abouts will begin April 3rd. Chip Norton, Watershed Manager, will be hosting the weekly information walks on Monday evenings through the summer. Anyone interested in learning more about the project should meet Chip Norton at 6 pm at the Walter J. Sullivan Water Treatment Facility at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway.
D. Links.
For more information:
See the attached Northeast Sector Project Guide created by a landscape architect who assisted with the project design.
Please stop be either of the projects websites for more information:
and be sure to check out the Little Fresh Pond Shoreline Restoration and Drainage Improvement Project Photo Album
Feel free to email with questions or concerns, or stop by the Ranger Station located at 250 Fresh Pond Parkway to talk with a watershed staff member.
Look for our next update on Friday, March 31st! Please forward this on to anyone who is interested in the work going on at Fresh Pond Reservation. Please let me know if you would like to be taken off the distribution list.
Hannah D Wilbur
Office of Watershed Management
Cambridge Water Department
Friday, March 17, 2006
The official word on Harvard’s Memorial Drive Projects.
Bob Reports:
The official word on Harvard’s Memorial Drive Projects.
We reported a few week’s ago on this blog about complaints at Harvard’s Cowperthwaite project, in the middle of a residential neighborhood between east Harvard Square and the Charles River, about a block from the river. I had passed complaints I was aware of to the meeting the planning board had on planning for expansion of the Cambridge, MA, USA educational institutions.
On March 9, 2006, a committee of the Cambridge, MA, City Council had a meeting on this project. The meeting included comments on the related Mohoney site project at and near the corner of Western Avenue and Memorial Drive. It was scheduled during the daytime preventing participation by a lot of people.
A report on this meeting is included as part of the agenda for the Monday, March 20, 2006, meeting of the Cambridge, MA, City Council.
Reading the report on this meeting, it appears that some complaints which I understood were reports concerning the Cowperthwaite site concerned problems about the Mahoney site. Clearly, there are major dust problems and clearly, the university is not living up to the expected level of candor concerning hazardous substances in the soil.
The reports are at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/CommitteeReport.cfm?instance_id=263. I would be pleased to get any comments you might have at charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you.
The official word on Harvard’s Memorial Drive Projects.
We reported a few week’s ago on this blog about complaints at Harvard’s Cowperthwaite project, in the middle of a residential neighborhood between east Harvard Square and the Charles River, about a block from the river. I had passed complaints I was aware of to the meeting the planning board had on planning for expansion of the Cambridge, MA, USA educational institutions.
On March 9, 2006, a committee of the Cambridge, MA, City Council had a meeting on this project. The meeting included comments on the related Mohoney site project at and near the corner of Western Avenue and Memorial Drive. It was scheduled during the daytime preventing participation by a lot of people.
A report on this meeting is included as part of the agenda for the Monday, March 20, 2006, meeting of the Cambridge, MA, City Council.
Reading the report on this meeting, it appears that some complaints which I understood were reports concerning the Cowperthwaite site concerned problems about the Mahoney site. Clearly, there are major dust problems and clearly, the university is not living up to the expected level of candor concerning hazardous substances in the soil.
The reports are at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/CommitteeReport.cfm?instance_id=263. I would be pleased to get any comments you might have at charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Thousands of Trees to be Destroyed at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA, USA?
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Environmental destruction has started at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA and looks like it will get a lot worse.
2. The environment at Fresh Pond.
3. The area around the area under attack.
a. Water Works.
b. City Manager upzoning proposal.
(1) The shopping center between Danehy Park and Alewife Brook Parkway (not identified on the map);
(2) Another shopping area west of Alewife Brook Parkway and streets to its west; and
(3) A paved area currently used for parking north of the railroad tracks on the other side of the tracks from area (2).
c. Application, flood zone.
4. Area under attack and threatened.
5. Public presentation of the City of Cambridge, MA, March 9, 2006.
6. The damage progresses.
7. Destruction at Fresh Pond in context.
8. Major destruction in process at Fresh Pond.
1. Environmental destruction has started at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA and looks like it will get a lot worse.
It is very difficult for a person who loves our world to associate with the City of Cambridge. Just when you think they could not stoop any lower, they prove you wrong.
Massive environmental destruction has started and a lot worse appears imminent in yet another part of Cambridge, MA on the grounds of the Cambridge owned Fresh Pond reservation. 2000 to 3000 or more healthy trees could be destroyed along with key animal and bird habitat.
2. The environment at Fresh Pond.
Fresh Pond is located in the westernmost of Cambridge, essentially across the street from Belmont. It is about half a mile from the Charles River. Fresh Pond has for quite awhile been used as part of Cambridge’s water supply system along with several other reservoirs. The state system acts as a backup.
The grounds of Fresh Pond are a natural oasis among an increasingly dense part of the Cambridge/Belmont urban environment. The surrounding neighborhoods are non-dense by Cambridge standards, but by the standards of most of the Unites States, they are quite dense.
There is a lot of animal habitat and many heavily wooded areas.
A good map from Yahoo of Fresh Pond and its environs may be found at: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=300+Fresh+Pond+Pkwy&csz=Cambridge%2C+MA+02138&state=MA&uzip=02138&ds=n&name=&desc=&lat=42.384138&lon=-71.142145&mlt=42.384138&mln=-71.142145&zoomin=yes&BFKey=&mag=2&resize=l&trf=0&compass=w
3. The area around the area under attack.
a. Water Works.
On the eastern extremity of the Fresh Pond Reservation at the star on the Yahoo map is Cambridge’s recently rebuilt water works. The area north of the Water Works to Concord Avenue has been nicely revegetated in recent years.
b. City Manager upzoning proposal.
Directly north of Concord Avenue are shopping centers which the Cambridge City Manager has been attempting to upzone.
A zoning proposal he has submitted would allow development at a density 50% denser than Harvard Square or more. Hopefully that proposal has been defeated with at least a little help from me.
But the fight is not over. What upzoning will be proposed next is yet to be seen.
The area most endangered by the most recent upzoning proposal was the area west of Danehy Park. Prime targets are
(1) The shopping center between Danehy Park and Alewife Brook Parkway (not identified on the map);
(2) Another shopping area west of Alewife Brook Parkway and streets to its west; and
(3) A paved area currently used for parking north of the railroad tracks on the other side of the tracks from area (2).
This paved parking area is of major importance because this entire region is a sensitive flood zone.
That parking lot it should be used for badly needed flood storage with a storage tank constructed under it. The city manager wants to destroy the Alewife reservation instead. Alewife is a few hundred feet further north of the area show on the map (click north to see it).
c. Application, flood zone.
That portion of the Fresh Pond Reservation on the south side of Concord Avenue across from the core upzoning area is being attacked.
This entire area is a flood zone.
4. Area under attack and threatened.
A map showing the City of Cambridge’s public version of the proposal is at http://www.CambridgeMA.gov/CWD/northeastsector.frm. There is a good map there with greater detail on this development area. The non-wooded area shown in brown on the Yahoo map contains buildings which are part of the city’s Neville Manor elderly housing.
A distressing number of large trees west of Neville Manor were casually destroyed last Thursday and Friday.
There are a number of trees at the entrance to the Neville Manor complex with yellow ribbons on them.
5. Public presentation of the City of Cambridge, MA, March 9, 2006.
Unaware that destruction had started, last Thursday, March 9, I attended a meeting in the Water Works building at which the City of Cambridge, through its number two man, Mr. Rossi, was “briefing” the public on plans for the northeast sector, the area under attack.
The Cambridge link I have given you purports to describe the plans.
I got to the meeting at the very end. I asked Rossi about the yellow ribbons. He said they marked trees designated for pruning, not for destruction. Other people followed up with questions clearly demonstrating concern about possible (or existing) harm to trees by the City of Cambridge.
Rossi answered the specific questions with very narrowly worded responses.
Then he added quite significantly to the public announcement of plans. He started bragging about intending to plant 1000 trees. He and his assistants started knocking existing trees.
In response to a question, Rossi stated that he did not have to make any public announcement of pending tree destruction.
6. The damage progresses.
The next morning, I for the first time saw the incredible destruction of large trees on Concord Avenue. If they had failed to destroy all the “protected” trees, I cannot vouch for it. The amount of major, mature trees destroyed was outrageous.
Further examination of the northeast sector area shows construction barriers around what looks like almost all groups of trees in the area AND BEYOND.
Some, not many trees have the yellow ribbons which indicate do NOT destroy.
Further construction barriers have been added since then and further destruction of trees has been accomplished in the Fresh Pond Reservation in the construction area.
Clearly, this area cannot accept 1000 saplings without MAJOR destruction of existing healthy trees. Tree plantings in areas already planted indicate that the density of sapling planting would be quite a bit less than the existing tree density.
7. Destruction at Fresh Pond in context.
The Cambridge City Manager destroyed Vellucci Park at Inman Square a couple of years ago.
When he did it, he justified the destruction on grounds that the trees in Vellucci Parkwere “too thick.” Vellucci Park was planted in the early 80’s with trees that had become quite beautiful, with a thick canopy.
Those trees were destroyed to create a barren plaza with a fraction of the trees not destroyed. The trees in Vellucci Park were quite a bit less dense than the existing trees in this part of Fresh Pond.
8. Major destruction in process at Fresh Pond.
This proposal and ongoing effort could very possibly be a scorched earth development of almost all trees in the affected area. The City Manager is very clearly low enough to do it.
Destruction of animal habitat is quite certain. I have seen possums scurrying across Concord Avenue to get to their homes on Fresh Pond. Raccoons, squirrels, chipmunks, and rabbits are among many species highly likely in the area. Birds, of course, nest in the area.
And it is a flood zone.
But Cambridge has an environmentally destructive City Manager.
Fresh Pond and its animal and avian population, not to mention the trees are in deep trouble.
1. Environmental destruction has started at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA and looks like it will get a lot worse.
2. The environment at Fresh Pond.
3. The area around the area under attack.
a. Water Works.
b. City Manager upzoning proposal.
(1) The shopping center between Danehy Park and Alewife Brook Parkway (not identified on the map);
(2) Another shopping area west of Alewife Brook Parkway and streets to its west; and
(3) A paved area currently used for parking north of the railroad tracks on the other side of the tracks from area (2).
c. Application, flood zone.
4. Area under attack and threatened.
5. Public presentation of the City of Cambridge, MA, March 9, 2006.
6. The damage progresses.
7. Destruction at Fresh Pond in context.
8. Major destruction in process at Fresh Pond.
1. Environmental destruction has started at Fresh Pond in Cambridge, MA and looks like it will get a lot worse.
It is very difficult for a person who loves our world to associate with the City of Cambridge. Just when you think they could not stoop any lower, they prove you wrong.
Massive environmental destruction has started and a lot worse appears imminent in yet another part of Cambridge, MA on the grounds of the Cambridge owned Fresh Pond reservation. 2000 to 3000 or more healthy trees could be destroyed along with key animal and bird habitat.
2. The environment at Fresh Pond.
Fresh Pond is located in the westernmost of Cambridge, essentially across the street from Belmont. It is about half a mile from the Charles River. Fresh Pond has for quite awhile been used as part of Cambridge’s water supply system along with several other reservoirs. The state system acts as a backup.
The grounds of Fresh Pond are a natural oasis among an increasingly dense part of the Cambridge/Belmont urban environment. The surrounding neighborhoods are non-dense by Cambridge standards, but by the standards of most of the Unites States, they are quite dense.
There is a lot of animal habitat and many heavily wooded areas.
A good map from Yahoo of Fresh Pond and its environs may be found at: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=300+Fresh+Pond+Pkwy&csz=Cambridge%2C+MA+02138&state=MA&uzip=02138&ds=n&name=&desc=&lat=42.384138&lon=-71.142145&mlt=42.384138&mln=-71.142145&zoomin=yes&BFKey=&mag=2&resize=l&trf=0&compass=w
3. The area around the area under attack.
a. Water Works.
On the eastern extremity of the Fresh Pond Reservation at the star on the Yahoo map is Cambridge’s recently rebuilt water works. The area north of the Water Works to Concord Avenue has been nicely revegetated in recent years.
b. City Manager upzoning proposal.
Directly north of Concord Avenue are shopping centers which the Cambridge City Manager has been attempting to upzone.
A zoning proposal he has submitted would allow development at a density 50% denser than Harvard Square or more. Hopefully that proposal has been defeated with at least a little help from me.
But the fight is not over. What upzoning will be proposed next is yet to be seen.
The area most endangered by the most recent upzoning proposal was the area west of Danehy Park. Prime targets are
(1) The shopping center between Danehy Park and Alewife Brook Parkway (not identified on the map);
(2) Another shopping area west of Alewife Brook Parkway and streets to its west; and
(3) A paved area currently used for parking north of the railroad tracks on the other side of the tracks from area (2).
This paved parking area is of major importance because this entire region is a sensitive flood zone.
That parking lot it should be used for badly needed flood storage with a storage tank constructed under it. The city manager wants to destroy the Alewife reservation instead. Alewife is a few hundred feet further north of the area show on the map (click north to see it).
c. Application, flood zone.
That portion of the Fresh Pond Reservation on the south side of Concord Avenue across from the core upzoning area is being attacked.
This entire area is a flood zone.
4. Area under attack and threatened.
A map showing the City of Cambridge’s public version of the proposal is at http://www.CambridgeMA.gov/CWD/northeastsector.frm. There is a good map there with greater detail on this development area. The non-wooded area shown in brown on the Yahoo map contains buildings which are part of the city’s Neville Manor elderly housing.
A distressing number of large trees west of Neville Manor were casually destroyed last Thursday and Friday.
There are a number of trees at the entrance to the Neville Manor complex with yellow ribbons on them.
5. Public presentation of the City of Cambridge, MA, March 9, 2006.
Unaware that destruction had started, last Thursday, March 9, I attended a meeting in the Water Works building at which the City of Cambridge, through its number two man, Mr. Rossi, was “briefing” the public on plans for the northeast sector, the area under attack.
The Cambridge link I have given you purports to describe the plans.
I got to the meeting at the very end. I asked Rossi about the yellow ribbons. He said they marked trees designated for pruning, not for destruction. Other people followed up with questions clearly demonstrating concern about possible (or existing) harm to trees by the City of Cambridge.
Rossi answered the specific questions with very narrowly worded responses.
Then he added quite significantly to the public announcement of plans. He started bragging about intending to plant 1000 trees. He and his assistants started knocking existing trees.
In response to a question, Rossi stated that he did not have to make any public announcement of pending tree destruction.
6. The damage progresses.
The next morning, I for the first time saw the incredible destruction of large trees on Concord Avenue. If they had failed to destroy all the “protected” trees, I cannot vouch for it. The amount of major, mature trees destroyed was outrageous.
Further examination of the northeast sector area shows construction barriers around what looks like almost all groups of trees in the area AND BEYOND.
Some, not many trees have the yellow ribbons which indicate do NOT destroy.
Further construction barriers have been added since then and further destruction of trees has been accomplished in the Fresh Pond Reservation in the construction area.
Clearly, this area cannot accept 1000 saplings without MAJOR destruction of existing healthy trees. Tree plantings in areas already planted indicate that the density of sapling planting would be quite a bit less than the existing tree density.
7. Destruction at Fresh Pond in context.
The Cambridge City Manager destroyed Vellucci Park at Inman Square a couple of years ago.
When he did it, he justified the destruction on grounds that the trees in Vellucci Parkwere “too thick.” Vellucci Park was planted in the early 80’s with trees that had become quite beautiful, with a thick canopy.
Those trees were destroyed to create a barren plaza with a fraction of the trees not destroyed. The trees in Vellucci Park were quite a bit less dense than the existing trees in this part of Fresh Pond.
8. Major destruction in process at Fresh Pond.
This proposal and ongoing effort could very possibly be a scorched earth development of almost all trees in the affected area. The City Manager is very clearly low enough to do it.
Destruction of animal habitat is quite certain. I have seen possums scurrying across Concord Avenue to get to their homes on Fresh Pond. Raccoons, squirrels, chipmunks, and rabbits are among many species highly likely in the area. Birds, of course, nest in the area.
And it is a flood zone.
But Cambridge has an environmentally destructive City Manager.
Fresh Pond and its animal and avian population, not to mention the trees are in deep trouble.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Cambridge, MA, USA
Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods
This analysis was originally published as part of the responses to our report on the rehiring by the Cambridge (MA) City Council of the Cambridge City Manager. We objected to Laura Blacklow's favorable reference to the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods. Our response was so long that it was out of scale in that report. I have thus split our response off separately.
1. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Bob, March 5, 2006.
2. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Marilyn, March 6, 2006.
3. Further about the cast of characters, Bob, March 6, 2006.
1. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Bob, March 5, 2006.
I would like to thank Laura for her comments. One very major nit, however, and that nit is the reason for the editors' control of comments that get put on this blog.
Cambridge, MA is a minefield for well meaning people who support responsible development.
One of the biggest pitfalls is organizations which are controlled by the development clique and which look like exactly the opposite. Some of these organizations are honest. Some are not. The key factor, however, is participation and impact by Cambridge's extremely active and extremely influential developer / contractor clique.
The so-called Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods has two key members. They and many others in the group have a long record of fighting for zoning petitions which sound terrific and which altogether too often have fine print which belies the terrific public claims. These people rather consistently function as apologists or worse for Cambridge's really destructive Development Department and City Manager.
One of the two key members is a director of the environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy, subsidized by the developer lobby and worse than the Cambridge City Manager.
This group is publicly fighting for relocation of traffic on the south side of the Charles River (Boston, Newton, etc.) to the North Side (Cambridge, Watertown), and it gets a lot worse.
It is difficult to distinguish the second of the two key members from the first. He publicly spoke to the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals in 1998 supporting massive environmental destruction on the banks of the Charles River. In recent years, he led a zoning change in the Cambridgeport neighborhood, on the north side of Memorial Drive, which would greatly increase retail uses between Trader Joes and Western Avenue.
But they sound great. Just don't look at the real records or the fine print.
2. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Marilyn, March 6, 2006.
On the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods: In 1998 ACN leader Stash Horowitz and [City Councilor Henrietta] Davis spoke at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing about the BU boathouse. They pushed,unsuccessfully, to get the BZA to order BU to incorporate the goose meadow into its campus as "melioration" for the boathouse.
As we know, even in 1998 the DCR's plans for the goose meadow tied in to plans for the Urban Ring river crossing (MDC draft document for the Charles River Master Plan).
Horowitz is friends with Sage, owner of the Howard Johnson's [ed: now Radisson Hotel]. Horowitz makes no secret of this, of course.
Just as the Polaroid site question was arising, ACN leaders Horowitz, Moot, and Yarden invited me to a meeting at which they asked me directly how my neighborhood pulled off the 1996 Green Street zoning petition [ed: a number of key lots half a block off Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares]. Foolishly, I told them. The next thing I heard was not that the Polaroid neighbors were filing a downzoning, but that Horowitz was telling his neighbors and, later, the Riverside neighbors facing Harvard's expansion, that zoning petitions didn't work and negotiation would get them what they want.
Consequently you and I, who had been successful in several downzonings, were kept out of those issues.
When Horowitz [the second listed above, ed.] isn't fighting for harmful zoning, as you report, he's telling neighborhoods that they can't win zoning fights and should negotiate with Harvard or Polaroid or whoever. He then advises on the "negotiations" wrapped in the ACN's coak of virtue.
[ed: The first named above is John Moot.]
3. Further about the cast of characters, Bob, March 6, 2006.
The first named above is John Moot. The second is Horowitz.
The Polaroid 5 year "battle" by Horowitz concerned a very visible parcel across from the western end of Magazine Beach. It resulting in a "compromise" in which the buyers of the Polaroid parcel essentially got everything they wanted, and construction in the area NEAREST Horowitz was delayed. Subsequently Horowitz got retail legalized on that lot, where retail previously was illegal.
I have mentioned this testimony of Horowitz and City Councilor Davis to the BZA above. This is the game that is played. A developer wants to do something irresponsible. So his friends argue that the project should be made even more irresponsible as a condition of the granting of authority.
The Boston University Boathouse is immediately east of a dense woods which is part of the goose habitat. The dense woods is just east of the railroad track which is very important to them during nesting season. The railroad track is just east of the core goose nesting area.
Boston University wanted to massively increase the size of their boathouse and also wanted to essentially incorporate the nesting area into their campus.
The Cambridge City Manager's plans, still being forwarded, would link the goose nesting area to Magazine Beach by a roadway in the Charles River paid for with government money, going under the BU Bridge and to the river side of a pollution control plant.
Magazine Beach is already used by Boston University for its graduation ceremonies.
Horowitz and Davis argued for the destruction of the nesting area to extend that roadway and further connect the Boston University holdings.
Boston University owns pretty much all of Boston and much of Brookline on the southern end of the BU Bridge.
The Board of Zoning Appeals said no.
Boston University, with very clear illegalities, destroyed the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese in October 1999. Boston University denied doing it until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission six months later. Then they started bragging about it. They blamed the denials on their president's secretary.
For years, Boston University's friends argued that they had to destroy the nesting area because the BZA had ordered it. The reality that the BZA said "no" was irrelevant.
This analysis was originally published as part of the responses to our report on the rehiring by the Cambridge (MA) City Council of the Cambridge City Manager. We objected to Laura Blacklow's favorable reference to the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods. Our response was so long that it was out of scale in that report. I have thus split our response off separately.
1. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Bob, March 5, 2006.
2. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Marilyn, March 6, 2006.
3. Further about the cast of characters, Bob, March 6, 2006.
1. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Bob, March 5, 2006.
I would like to thank Laura for her comments. One very major nit, however, and that nit is the reason for the editors' control of comments that get put on this blog.
Cambridge, MA is a minefield for well meaning people who support responsible development.
One of the biggest pitfalls is organizations which are controlled by the development clique and which look like exactly the opposite. Some of these organizations are honest. Some are not. The key factor, however, is participation and impact by Cambridge's extremely active and extremely influential developer / contractor clique.
The so-called Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods has two key members. They and many others in the group have a long record of fighting for zoning petitions which sound terrific and which altogether too often have fine print which belies the terrific public claims. These people rather consistently function as apologists or worse for Cambridge's really destructive Development Department and City Manager.
One of the two key members is a director of the environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy, subsidized by the developer lobby and worse than the Cambridge City Manager.
This group is publicly fighting for relocation of traffic on the south side of the Charles River (Boston, Newton, etc.) to the North Side (Cambridge, Watertown), and it gets a lot worse.
It is difficult to distinguish the second of the two key members from the first. He publicly spoke to the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals in 1998 supporting massive environmental destruction on the banks of the Charles River. In recent years, he led a zoning change in the Cambridgeport neighborhood, on the north side of Memorial Drive, which would greatly increase retail uses between Trader Joes and Western Avenue.
But they sound great. Just don't look at the real records or the fine print.
2. Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Marilyn, March 6, 2006.
On the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods: In 1998 ACN leader Stash Horowitz and [City Councilor Henrietta] Davis spoke at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing about the BU boathouse. They pushed,unsuccessfully, to get the BZA to order BU to incorporate the goose meadow into its campus as "melioration" for the boathouse.
As we know, even in 1998 the DCR's plans for the goose meadow tied in to plans for the Urban Ring river crossing (MDC draft document for the Charles River Master Plan).
Horowitz is friends with Sage, owner of the Howard Johnson's [ed: now Radisson Hotel]. Horowitz makes no secret of this, of course.
Just as the Polaroid site question was arising, ACN leaders Horowitz, Moot, and Yarden invited me to a meeting at which they asked me directly how my neighborhood pulled off the 1996 Green Street zoning petition [ed: a number of key lots half a block off Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares]. Foolishly, I told them. The next thing I heard was not that the Polaroid neighbors were filing a downzoning, but that Horowitz was telling his neighbors and, later, the Riverside neighbors facing Harvard's expansion, that zoning petitions didn't work and negotiation would get them what they want.
Consequently you and I, who had been successful in several downzonings, were kept out of those issues.
When Horowitz [the second listed above, ed.] isn't fighting for harmful zoning, as you report, he's telling neighborhoods that they can't win zoning fights and should negotiate with Harvard or Polaroid or whoever. He then advises on the "negotiations" wrapped in the ACN's coak of virtue.
[ed: The first named above is John Moot.]
3. Further about the cast of characters, Bob, March 6, 2006.
The first named above is John Moot. The second is Horowitz.
The Polaroid 5 year "battle" by Horowitz concerned a very visible parcel across from the western end of Magazine Beach. It resulting in a "compromise" in which the buyers of the Polaroid parcel essentially got everything they wanted, and construction in the area NEAREST Horowitz was delayed. Subsequently Horowitz got retail legalized on that lot, where retail previously was illegal.
I have mentioned this testimony of Horowitz and City Councilor Davis to the BZA above. This is the game that is played. A developer wants to do something irresponsible. So his friends argue that the project should be made even more irresponsible as a condition of the granting of authority.
The Boston University Boathouse is immediately east of a dense woods which is part of the goose habitat. The dense woods is just east of the railroad track which is very important to them during nesting season. The railroad track is just east of the core goose nesting area.
Boston University wanted to massively increase the size of their boathouse and also wanted to essentially incorporate the nesting area into their campus.
The Cambridge City Manager's plans, still being forwarded, would link the goose nesting area to Magazine Beach by a roadway in the Charles River paid for with government money, going under the BU Bridge and to the river side of a pollution control plant.
Magazine Beach is already used by Boston University for its graduation ceremonies.
Horowitz and Davis argued for the destruction of the nesting area to extend that roadway and further connect the Boston University holdings.
Boston University owns pretty much all of Boston and much of Brookline on the southern end of the BU Bridge.
The Board of Zoning Appeals said no.
Boston University, with very clear illegalities, destroyed the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese in October 1999. Boston University denied doing it until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission six months later. Then they started bragging about it. They blamed the denials on their president's secretary.
For years, Boston University's friends argued that they had to destroy the nesting area because the BZA had ordered it. The reality that the BZA said "no" was irrelevant.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council to Hold Hearings on Urban Ring transportation plans
February 28, 2006
(Originally part of the City Manager Posting)
Cambridge to Conduct Public Hearings on the Urban Ring.
A. The proposal.
(1) General.
(2) Charles River Crossing.
(3) Highways and Buses.
B. Cambridge City Council Meeting.
(1) Monday Night.
(2) Past Experience and “Reality” in Cambridge, MA.
C. “Reality” Cambridge style.
Cambridge to Conduct Public Hearings on the Urban Ring.
A. The proposal.
(1) General.
The Urban Ring is a project of Boston’s regional transportation authority which stemmed from the need to take traffic off the downtown subway and to relocate the traffic to make the entire system work better. The basic concept is a new subway line which would run from Charlestown to Ruggles Station in Roxbury / the South End by way of Lechmere, Kendall, Mass. Ave near MIT, the Newton / Brighton Green Line branches and the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area.
(2) Charles River Crossing.
There are two possible crossings of the Charles River.
The good one, environmentally and from a transportation point of view would cross the Charles near the Mass. Ave. bridge and connect with the Green Line branches, Commuter Rail and Fenway Park by a new station between Kenmore and Fenway Park under the Mass. Pike. I suggested it to the MBTA about six years before they started to seriously look at it.
The other one has history going for it plus the political demands of Boston University, the Cambridge City Manager and a bunch of Cambridge developers.
It has an extra train stop at Putnam Avenue and the Grand Junction railroad tracks in Cambridge which is really threatening to the Cambridgeport neighborhood. It could be strikingly destructive to the Charles River environment. It would also stop quite close to the heart of the BU Campus at a location next to St. Mary’s Street on the far side of the Mass. Pike. It would directly connect from this station to commuter rail. By an awkward tunnel and walking across Commonwealth Avenue, it would connect from that station to the Commonwealth Avenue Green Line. It would also have another station very close to this one, under Park Drive between Beacon Street and the Riverside line, connecting to the Riverside Green Line at the existing Fenway station and to the Beacon Street line at another new station under Audubon Circle.
(3) Highways and Buses.
The MBTA has turned this good rapid transit concept (with the correct river crossing) into a bus / highway project called Phase 2, while the rapid transit is not phase 3. Phase 2 would create new highways in Cambridgeport and tar over part of the track area between Memorial Drive and Mass. Avenue.
B. Cambridge City Council Meeting.
(1) Monday Night.
Monday night, February 26, 2006, the Cambridge City Council decided to conduct public hearings on the MBTA’s Urban Ring transit proposals.
As is the wont of the Cambridge City Council, two members spent an excessive amount of time discussing this matter and saying nothing. Councilors Decker and Davis, both with bad records on the Charles River, had an extended disagreement on which committee should hear the matter and whether the hearings should be joint or separate. Both, without providing details, insisted they were on the side of the angels in the matter.
The Councilor who is chair of one of the committees participated in the discussion a little. Councilor Davis who chairs neither committee talked a lot.
(2) Past Experience and “Reality” in Cambridge, MA.
Key in my hearing of Davis’s comments was Davis’ apparent insistence that city staff present the plans to the public hearings.
Cambridge, on environmental matters, can live in a reality strikingly different from the reality that everybody else lives in.
The last time the Cambridge City Council conducted a hearing on the Charles River, it concerned the off ramp which would connect the Mass. Pike to Cambridge’s Cambridgeport neighborhood and to Memorial Drive.
Councilor Davis was insistent that no such possibility existed.
So they conducted a hearing at the Morse School, within view of Magazine Beach. The MBTA showed up and the MBTA behaved in a manner which was quite inappropriate from the point of view of the Cambridge pols. The MBTA had the nerve to tell the truth.
The MBTA informed the neighbors assembled that the MBTA had done engineering studies to determine if it were feasible to connect the Mass. Pike to Cambridge by way of the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge. The MBTA described this proposal as a rebuilding of the east side of the two track bridge so that the track on the eastern side would be replaced with a three lane road. The MBTA’s studies also showed the viability of moving the one track currently on the east side to the unused west side of the railroad bridge.
The MBTA clearly stated that the project was viable from an engineering point of view. The MBTA only withdrew from the project because it made no sense from a public transportation financing point of view. The latter was obvious from the beginning. They were proposing a major bridge rebuilding project to run an express bus from Newton to Cambridge. Such a bus would be unlikely to run more than three times an hour in rush hours, and that would be pushing it.
After this major defeat for truth City of Cambridge style, the minutes of the meeting were striking.
The minutes did not even recognize the existence of the rail bridge under the BU Bridge. The minutes talked only of the BU Bridge itself, over which a connection to the Mass. Pike would be silly.
C. “Reality” Cambridge style.
Councilor Davis has long been an advocate of the really bad BU Crossing.
Councilor Davis is talking of City of Cambridge staff reporting to the public on the Urban Ring proposals rather than the agency doing the work, the MBTA, doing the reporting.
City staff managing the information would ensure a “reality” more consistent with the official Cambridge view of reality.
Councilor Davis has good reason to fear the agency doing the work doing the talking.
The MBTA is much more likely to give an accurate version of reality to her voters.
(Originally part of the City Manager Posting)
Cambridge to Conduct Public Hearings on the Urban Ring.
A. The proposal.
(1) General.
(2) Charles River Crossing.
(3) Highways and Buses.
B. Cambridge City Council Meeting.
(1) Monday Night.
(2) Past Experience and “Reality” in Cambridge, MA.
C. “Reality” Cambridge style.
Cambridge to Conduct Public Hearings on the Urban Ring.
A. The proposal.
(1) General.
The Urban Ring is a project of Boston’s regional transportation authority which stemmed from the need to take traffic off the downtown subway and to relocate the traffic to make the entire system work better. The basic concept is a new subway line which would run from Charlestown to Ruggles Station in Roxbury / the South End by way of Lechmere, Kendall, Mass. Ave near MIT, the Newton / Brighton Green Line branches and the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area.
(2) Charles River Crossing.
There are two possible crossings of the Charles River.
The good one, environmentally and from a transportation point of view would cross the Charles near the Mass. Ave. bridge and connect with the Green Line branches, Commuter Rail and Fenway Park by a new station between Kenmore and Fenway Park under the Mass. Pike. I suggested it to the MBTA about six years before they started to seriously look at it.
The other one has history going for it plus the political demands of Boston University, the Cambridge City Manager and a bunch of Cambridge developers.
It has an extra train stop at Putnam Avenue and the Grand Junction railroad tracks in Cambridge which is really threatening to the Cambridgeport neighborhood. It could be strikingly destructive to the Charles River environment. It would also stop quite close to the heart of the BU Campus at a location next to St. Mary’s Street on the far side of the Mass. Pike. It would directly connect from this station to commuter rail. By an awkward tunnel and walking across Commonwealth Avenue, it would connect from that station to the Commonwealth Avenue Green Line. It would also have another station very close to this one, under Park Drive between Beacon Street and the Riverside line, connecting to the Riverside Green Line at the existing Fenway station and to the Beacon Street line at another new station under Audubon Circle.
(3) Highways and Buses.
The MBTA has turned this good rapid transit concept (with the correct river crossing) into a bus / highway project called Phase 2, while the rapid transit is not phase 3. Phase 2 would create new highways in Cambridgeport and tar over part of the track area between Memorial Drive and Mass. Avenue.
B. Cambridge City Council Meeting.
(1) Monday Night.
Monday night, February 26, 2006, the Cambridge City Council decided to conduct public hearings on the MBTA’s Urban Ring transit proposals.
As is the wont of the Cambridge City Council, two members spent an excessive amount of time discussing this matter and saying nothing. Councilors Decker and Davis, both with bad records on the Charles River, had an extended disagreement on which committee should hear the matter and whether the hearings should be joint or separate. Both, without providing details, insisted they were on the side of the angels in the matter.
The Councilor who is chair of one of the committees participated in the discussion a little. Councilor Davis who chairs neither committee talked a lot.
(2) Past Experience and “Reality” in Cambridge, MA.
Key in my hearing of Davis’s comments was Davis’ apparent insistence that city staff present the plans to the public hearings.
Cambridge, on environmental matters, can live in a reality strikingly different from the reality that everybody else lives in.
The last time the Cambridge City Council conducted a hearing on the Charles River, it concerned the off ramp which would connect the Mass. Pike to Cambridge’s Cambridgeport neighborhood and to Memorial Drive.
Councilor Davis was insistent that no such possibility existed.
So they conducted a hearing at the Morse School, within view of Magazine Beach. The MBTA showed up and the MBTA behaved in a manner which was quite inappropriate from the point of view of the Cambridge pols. The MBTA had the nerve to tell the truth.
The MBTA informed the neighbors assembled that the MBTA had done engineering studies to determine if it were feasible to connect the Mass. Pike to Cambridge by way of the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge. The MBTA described this proposal as a rebuilding of the east side of the two track bridge so that the track on the eastern side would be replaced with a three lane road. The MBTA’s studies also showed the viability of moving the one track currently on the east side to the unused west side of the railroad bridge.
The MBTA clearly stated that the project was viable from an engineering point of view. The MBTA only withdrew from the project because it made no sense from a public transportation financing point of view. The latter was obvious from the beginning. They were proposing a major bridge rebuilding project to run an express bus from Newton to Cambridge. Such a bus would be unlikely to run more than three times an hour in rush hours, and that would be pushing it.
After this major defeat for truth City of Cambridge style, the minutes of the meeting were striking.
The minutes did not even recognize the existence of the rail bridge under the BU Bridge. The minutes talked only of the BU Bridge itself, over which a connection to the Mass. Pike would be silly.
C. “Reality” Cambridge style.
Councilor Davis has long been an advocate of the really bad BU Crossing.
Councilor Davis is talking of City of Cambridge staff reporting to the public on the Urban Ring proposals rather than the agency doing the work, the MBTA, doing the reporting.
City staff managing the information would ensure a “reality” more consistent with the official Cambridge view of reality.
Councilor Davis has good reason to fear the agency doing the work doing the talking.
The MBTA is much more likely to give an accurate version of reality to her voters.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Environmental destroyer fighting to move traffic to the north side of the Charles River, in MA, USA
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
Environmental destroyer fighting to move traffic to the north side of the Charles River.
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
2. Marilyn – Traffic Analysis.
3. Bob addition:
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
Things are getting a little bit clearer.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy put the following notice in their monthly report for February 2006.
*************
Nonantum Road Tragedy and Hope for the Future
The death of two people on Nonantum Road in Newton has finally accelerated the commissioning of the traffic calming study that was included in last year’s budget. Narrowing the road and widening the pathway is the goal of this effort. To read a letter regarding this issue from the Conservancy to the Newton TAB in May 2005 click here.
*************
Nonantum Road is the extension of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road on the Boston side. It is equivalent to Birmingham Parkway or Charles River Road on the Cambridge side.
These poor people. They need their traffic moved to Cambridge.
The Charles River Conservancy has consistently fought for all the environmental destruction going on on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, not just for the destruction of hundreds of trees and straightening out of Memorial Drive, but all of the destructive things going on between the northern sidewalk of Memorial Drive and the Charles River. For the last three years, they have happily poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles Rive.
This latest initiative makes it very clear that (separate from the egg poisoning depravities), Cambridge is being destroyed by these people and their bureacrats and pols (including the Cambridge City Council) for the benefit of Boston.
2. Marilyn – Traffic Analysis.
Where does inbound traffic from the west cross over to the north side of the Charles to avoid Storrow Drive?
The DCR's just-announced plan to reduce the lanes on Nonantum Road would help divert traffic from Storrow to the Pike but also to Cambridge. Nonantum Road connects to the free inbound Pike exit at Newton Corner. Traffic from the west could stay on the Pike and pay the additional toll, or leave at Newton Corner, cross the river at Watertown Center (avoiding Nonantum Road) or deal with the single inbound lane on Nonantum, then cross at North Beacon Street, which would avoid backups on Soldiers Field and Storrow Drive.
In this connection I think Bob La Tremouille mentioned the Birmingham Parkway, which connects Nonantum Road to Western Ave. in Allston. [ed. For those who require exactness, the link is Nonantum – Watertown Center – Charles River Road – North Beacon Street – Arsenal Street [Western Avenue renamed in Watertown. Greenough Boulevard is the next link, from Arsenal Street Western Avenue to Memorial Drive.]
Traffic from the west could thus use Western Ave, briefly use Storrow to cross the Charles at River Street, then take Mem Drive eastbound (could be why the DCR instituted the right-only lane at that intersection--it otherwise makes no sense to me). Alternatively, traffic could turn left from Western and cross to Memorial Drive at North Harvard/JFK Street over the Anderson Bridge.
3. Bob addition:
As inserted above, there is yet another name for the Charles River roads on the north side which are for all meaningful purposes the extension of Memorial Drive / Birmingham Parkway in Watertown, MA. This named road runs from the end of Birmingham Parkway after a short jog on North Beacon Street. It is yet another boulevard which is "underutilized" ("shudder" according to the developers).
The name of this additional segment of the Charles River roads is “Charles River Road.”
Traffic from the Mass. Pike would be diverted to Watertown Square because of the "traffic calming measures on Nonantum Road and .2 minutes north of Nonantum Road is Charles River Road which becomes Birmingham Parkway which becomes Memorial Drive. (Ignoring a few jogs.)
So you see there is another purpose for giving the Charles River roads multiple names. Not only is it an excellent way to get tourists confused and into accidents, it is also a great way to confuse the voters.
Bob Reports:
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
Things are getting a little bit clearer.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy put the following notice in their monthly report for February 2006.
*************
Nonantum Road Tragedy and Hope for the Future
The death of two people on Nonantum Road in Newton has finally accelerated the commissioning of the traffic calming study that was included in last year’s budget. Narrowing the road and widening the pathway is the goal of this effort. To read a letter regarding this issue from the Conservancy to the Newton TAB in May 2005 click here.
*************
Nonantum Road is the extension of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road on the Boston side. It is equivalent to Birmingham Parkway on the Cambridge side.
These poor people. They need their traffic moved to Cambridge.
The Charles River Conservancy has consistently fought for all the environmental destruction going on on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, not just for the destruction of hundreds of trees and straightening out of Memorial Drive, but all of the destructive things going on between the northern sidewalk of Memorial Drive and the Charles River. For the last three years, they have happily poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles Rive.
This latest initiative makes it very clear that (separate from the egg poisoning depravities), Cambridge is being destroyed by these people and their bureacrats and pols (including the Cambridge City Council) for the benefit of Boston.
2. Marilyn's added information.
Where does inbound traffic from the west cross over to the north side of the Charles to avoid Storrow Drive?
The DCR's just-announced plan to reduce the lanes on Nonantum Road would help divert traffic from Storrow to the Pike but also to Cambridge. Nonantum Road connects to the free inbound Pike exit at Newton Corner. Traffic from the west could stay on the Pike and pay the additional toll, or leave at Newton Corner, cross the river at Watertown Center (avoiding Nonantum Road) or deal with the single inbound lane on Nonantum, then cross at North Beacon Street, which would avoid backups on Soldiers Field and Storrow Drive.
In this connection I think Bob La Tremouille mentioned the Birmingham Parkway, which connects Nonantum Road to Western Ave. in Allston. Traffic from the west could thus use Western Ave, briefly use Storrow to cross the Charles at River Street, then take Mem Drive eastbound (could be why the DCR instituted the right-only lane at that intersection--it otherwise makes no sense to me). Alternatively, traffic could turn left from Western and cross to Mem Drive at North Harvard/JFK Street over the Anderson Bridge.
3. Bob addition:
For the sake of completeness there is yet another name for the Charles River roads on the north side which is for all meaningful purposes the extension of Memorial Drive / Birmingham Parkway in Watertown, MA. This named road runs from the end of Birmingham Parkway after a short jog on North Beacon Street. It is yet another boulevard which is "underutilized" ("shudder" according to the developers).
Traffic from the Mass. Pike would be diverted to Watertown Square because of the "traffic calming measures on Nonantum Road and .2 miles north of Nonantum Road is Charles River Road which becomes Birmingham Parkway which becomes Memorial Drive.
So you see there is another purpose for giving the Charles River roads multiple names. Not only is it an excellent way to get tourists confused and into accidents, it is also a great way to confuse the voters.
Environmental destroyer fighting to move traffic to the north side of the Charles River.
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
2. Marilyn – Traffic Analysis.
3. Bob addition:
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
Things are getting a little bit clearer.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy put the following notice in their monthly report for February 2006.
*************
Nonantum Road Tragedy and Hope for the Future
The death of two people on Nonantum Road in Newton has finally accelerated the commissioning of the traffic calming study that was included in last year’s budget. Narrowing the road and widening the pathway is the goal of this effort. To read a letter regarding this issue from the Conservancy to the Newton TAB in May 2005 click here.
*************
Nonantum Road is the extension of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road on the Boston side. It is equivalent to Birmingham Parkway or Charles River Road on the Cambridge side.
These poor people. They need their traffic moved to Cambridge.
The Charles River Conservancy has consistently fought for all the environmental destruction going on on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, not just for the destruction of hundreds of trees and straightening out of Memorial Drive, but all of the destructive things going on between the northern sidewalk of Memorial Drive and the Charles River. For the last three years, they have happily poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles Rive.
This latest initiative makes it very clear that (separate from the egg poisoning depravities), Cambridge is being destroyed by these people and their bureacrats and pols (including the Cambridge City Council) for the benefit of Boston.
2. Marilyn – Traffic Analysis.
Where does inbound traffic from the west cross over to the north side of the Charles to avoid Storrow Drive?
The DCR's just-announced plan to reduce the lanes on Nonantum Road would help divert traffic from Storrow to the Pike but also to Cambridge. Nonantum Road connects to the free inbound Pike exit at Newton Corner. Traffic from the west could stay on the Pike and pay the additional toll, or leave at Newton Corner, cross the river at Watertown Center (avoiding Nonantum Road) or deal with the single inbound lane on Nonantum, then cross at North Beacon Street, which would avoid backups on Soldiers Field and Storrow Drive.
In this connection I think Bob La Tremouille mentioned the Birmingham Parkway, which connects Nonantum Road to Western Ave. in Allston. [ed. For those who require exactness, the link is Nonantum – Watertown Center – Charles River Road – North Beacon Street – Arsenal Street [Western Avenue renamed in Watertown. Greenough Boulevard is the next link, from Arsenal Street Western Avenue to Memorial Drive.]
Traffic from the west could thus use Western Ave, briefly use Storrow to cross the Charles at River Street, then take Mem Drive eastbound (could be why the DCR instituted the right-only lane at that intersection--it otherwise makes no sense to me). Alternatively, traffic could turn left from Western and cross to Memorial Drive at North Harvard/JFK Street over the Anderson Bridge.
3. Bob addition:
As inserted above, there is yet another name for the Charles River roads on the north side which are for all meaningful purposes the extension of Memorial Drive / Birmingham Parkway in Watertown, MA. This named road runs from the end of Birmingham Parkway after a short jog on North Beacon Street. It is yet another boulevard which is "underutilized" ("shudder" according to the developers).
The name of this additional segment of the Charles River roads is “Charles River Road.”
Traffic from the Mass. Pike would be diverted to Watertown Square because of the "traffic calming measures on Nonantum Road and .2 minutes north of Nonantum Road is Charles River Road which becomes Birmingham Parkway which becomes Memorial Drive. (Ignoring a few jogs.)
So you see there is another purpose for giving the Charles River roads multiple names. Not only is it an excellent way to get tourists confused and into accidents, it is also a great way to confuse the voters.
Bob Reports:
1. Destroyer on the Offensive.
Things are getting a little bit clearer.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy put the following notice in their monthly report for February 2006.
*************
Nonantum Road Tragedy and Hope for the Future
The death of two people on Nonantum Road in Newton has finally accelerated the commissioning of the traffic calming study that was included in last year’s budget. Narrowing the road and widening the pathway is the goal of this effort. To read a letter regarding this issue from the Conservancy to the Newton TAB in May 2005 click here.
*************
Nonantum Road is the extension of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road on the Boston side. It is equivalent to Birmingham Parkway on the Cambridge side.
These poor people. They need their traffic moved to Cambridge.
The Charles River Conservancy has consistently fought for all the environmental destruction going on on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, not just for the destruction of hundreds of trees and straightening out of Memorial Drive, but all of the destructive things going on between the northern sidewalk of Memorial Drive and the Charles River. For the last three years, they have happily poisoned every goose egg they could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles Rive.
This latest initiative makes it very clear that (separate from the egg poisoning depravities), Cambridge is being destroyed by these people and their bureacrats and pols (including the Cambridge City Council) for the benefit of Boston.
2. Marilyn's added information.
Where does inbound traffic from the west cross over to the north side of the Charles to avoid Storrow Drive?
The DCR's just-announced plan to reduce the lanes on Nonantum Road would help divert traffic from Storrow to the Pike but also to Cambridge. Nonantum Road connects to the free inbound Pike exit at Newton Corner. Traffic from the west could stay on the Pike and pay the additional toll, or leave at Newton Corner, cross the river at Watertown Center (avoiding Nonantum Road) or deal with the single inbound lane on Nonantum, then cross at North Beacon Street, which would avoid backups on Soldiers Field and Storrow Drive.
In this connection I think Bob La Tremouille mentioned the Birmingham Parkway, which connects Nonantum Road to Western Ave. in Allston. Traffic from the west could thus use Western Ave, briefly use Storrow to cross the Charles at River Street, then take Mem Drive eastbound (could be why the DCR instituted the right-only lane at that intersection--it otherwise makes no sense to me). Alternatively, traffic could turn left from Western and cross to Mem Drive at North Harvard/JFK Street over the Anderson Bridge.
3. Bob addition:
For the sake of completeness there is yet another name for the Charles River roads on the north side which is for all meaningful purposes the extension of Memorial Drive / Birmingham Parkway in Watertown, MA. This named road runs from the end of Birmingham Parkway after a short jog on North Beacon Street. It is yet another boulevard which is "underutilized" ("shudder" according to the developers).
Traffic from the Mass. Pike would be diverted to Watertown Square because of the "traffic calming measures on Nonantum Road and .2 miles north of Nonantum Road is Charles River Road which becomes Birmingham Parkway which becomes Memorial Drive.
So you see there is another purpose for giving the Charles River roads multiple names. Not only is it an excellent way to get tourists confused and into accidents, it is also a great way to confuse the voters.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Cambridge, MA, USA City Council hires animal abuser; aside on a destructive entity.
Originated February 28, 2006 as part of one entry with the report on the Urban Ring hearing vote, modified March 4, 2006 to add Laura Blacklow's comments, further modified March 5 and March 6 to follow up on an organization mentioned by Laura. I may split out the discussion concerning the Association of Cambrige Neighborhoods because this entry is so large now and the ACN analysis is really quite different from the City Manager analysis.
As of this presentation, the ACN analyses have been broken out into a separate report because of the size of the analysis.
Cambridge City Manager rehired.
1. Bob's Analysis, February 28, 2006.
A. General.
B. Environmental Destruction.
(1) General.
(2) Alewife.
(3) Charles River, General.
(4) Charles River, Magazine Beach.
C. Starvation Attacks on the Charles River White Geese.
D. Cambridge City Manager Unfit.
2. Laura Blacklow's Analysis, March 4, 2006.
Cambridge City Manager rehired.
1. Bob's Analysis, February 28, 2006.
A. General.
Last night, February 27, 2006, the Cambridge, MA City Council rehired Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy for an additional three years. The vote was 8-0-1 with newly elected Councilor Craig Kelley voting present.
B. Environmental Destruction.
(1) General.
Healy has a strikingly bad environmental record. When he does work on parks, the first thing he does is destroy trees and the good trees destroyed outnumber the bad trees.
The most wild parts of the city, Alewife and the Charles River are the most under attack.
(2) Alewife.
The manager is planning major destruction at Alewife, burying a massive tank for flood control in this rather untouched area when the flood control project could be placed under a parking lot a few hundred feet away.
(3) Charles River, General.
On the Charles River, all animal habit and all wetlands are being destroyed. Between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach more than 449 to 660 trees are being destroyed as part of a road straightening and upgrading which would fit in with relocation of traffic from Storrow Drive on the opposite side of the Charles River and with taking traffic from the Mass. Turnpike (I-90) on a new exit crossing the Charles under the BU Bridge.
(4) Charles River, Magazine Beach.
At Magazine Beach, five trees were destroyed creating a silly puddle feet away from the Charles River with a new bridge across the puddle which in turn has a design dangerous for bicyclists.
At Magazine Beach the animal area shared by humans and animals for more than 50 years has been destroyed. It wetlands have been filled in. Its native vegetation is being replaced with silly introduced bushes which have no business on the Charles River. Magazine Beach is being walled off from the Charles River.
C. Starvation Attacks on the Charles River White Geese.
Truly heartless has been the City Manager’s treatment of the Charles River White Geese.
These beautiful animals are 25 year residents of the Charles River in Cambridge in the area half a mile east and west of the BU Bridge.
The City Manager for the last 18 months has blocked access of the Charles River White Geese to their entire feeding grounds of the last 25 years.
The western part of the feeding grounds, across from the Hyatt Hotel was the site of a sewerage project which ended in September 2004. The Manager left this entire part of the feeding area walled off from the Charles by an unbroken plastic wall, denying the Charles River White Geese their food there of 25 years.
The eastern part of the feeding grounds is the location of the bizarre project at Magazine Beach. Access has been walled off staring in September 2004 by a number of techniques. At one point, there were three walls blocking the White Geese from their food. Multiple walls of one form or another have continued for the past 18 months with only very tiny deviations.
D. Cambridge City Manager Unfit.
The heartlessness of the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager is such that he is unfit to associate with most humans, let alone govern the City of Cambridge, but he was rehired.
2. Laura Blacklow's Analysis, March 4, 2006.
For those of you who have problems with the pro-development stance of Robert Healy, he was voted to stay on as city manager with a 3-year contract, a salary paid by you and me that is higher (according to the Cambridge Chronicle) than the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, the mayor of Boston and the vice president of the United States, and a tax-payer funded car.
You might remember that Healy is the guy who would not appoint a civilian review panel for the police and would not appoint the people necessary for a city human rights commission. He is also the one who appoints the members of the zoning board. A member of NABS (Neighbors and Abutters of the Blessed Sacrament condo
development project, ) has a petition to change the city's rules so that developments cannot have balconies looming over neighbors. In addition, those balconies appear not to be counted in the square footage of the condos if they are above the 4th floor.
Healy also appointed the members of the planning board. Some NABS members, including myself, are suing the Board for disregarding their own rules when a developer like Paul O. & the Blessed Sacrament financial backers, with a lawyer like James Rafferty,who used to be on the city council, goes in front of them.
Last, the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods might add to my observation that, by not allowing any rebuttal to the developer when the Planning Board is about to decide on either approving or turning down a development, the Board also is really
undemocratic. I understand that Boston's planning board does NOT have similar rules.
By voting "present" [ed: original says “not present”], Craig Kelley was the only councillor not to outright approve Healy's contract.
CAVEAT: The hosts of this blog, Bob and Marilyn strongly disagree with Laura's favorable reference to the Association of Cambrige Neighborhoods.
Our response was so long, however, that it was quite out of scale in this report. I have split it out into a separate report.
As of this presentation, the ACN analyses have been broken out into a separate report because of the size of the analysis.
Cambridge City Manager rehired.
1. Bob's Analysis, February 28, 2006.
A. General.
B. Environmental Destruction.
(1) General.
(2) Alewife.
(3) Charles River, General.
(4) Charles River, Magazine Beach.
C. Starvation Attacks on the Charles River White Geese.
D. Cambridge City Manager Unfit.
2. Laura Blacklow's Analysis, March 4, 2006.
Cambridge City Manager rehired.
1. Bob's Analysis, February 28, 2006.
A. General.
Last night, February 27, 2006, the Cambridge, MA City Council rehired Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy for an additional three years. The vote was 8-0-1 with newly elected Councilor Craig Kelley voting present.
B. Environmental Destruction.
(1) General.
Healy has a strikingly bad environmental record. When he does work on parks, the first thing he does is destroy trees and the good trees destroyed outnumber the bad trees.
The most wild parts of the city, Alewife and the Charles River are the most under attack.
(2) Alewife.
The manager is planning major destruction at Alewife, burying a massive tank for flood control in this rather untouched area when the flood control project could be placed under a parking lot a few hundred feet away.
(3) Charles River, General.
On the Charles River, all animal habit and all wetlands are being destroyed. Between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach more than 449 to 660 trees are being destroyed as part of a road straightening and upgrading which would fit in with relocation of traffic from Storrow Drive on the opposite side of the Charles River and with taking traffic from the Mass. Turnpike (I-90) on a new exit crossing the Charles under the BU Bridge.
(4) Charles River, Magazine Beach.
At Magazine Beach, five trees were destroyed creating a silly puddle feet away from the Charles River with a new bridge across the puddle which in turn has a design dangerous for bicyclists.
At Magazine Beach the animal area shared by humans and animals for more than 50 years has been destroyed. It wetlands have been filled in. Its native vegetation is being replaced with silly introduced bushes which have no business on the Charles River. Magazine Beach is being walled off from the Charles River.
C. Starvation Attacks on the Charles River White Geese.
Truly heartless has been the City Manager’s treatment of the Charles River White Geese.
These beautiful animals are 25 year residents of the Charles River in Cambridge in the area half a mile east and west of the BU Bridge.
The City Manager for the last 18 months has blocked access of the Charles River White Geese to their entire feeding grounds of the last 25 years.
The western part of the feeding grounds, across from the Hyatt Hotel was the site of a sewerage project which ended in September 2004. The Manager left this entire part of the feeding area walled off from the Charles by an unbroken plastic wall, denying the Charles River White Geese their food there of 25 years.
The eastern part of the feeding grounds is the location of the bizarre project at Magazine Beach. Access has been walled off staring in September 2004 by a number of techniques. At one point, there were three walls blocking the White Geese from their food. Multiple walls of one form or another have continued for the past 18 months with only very tiny deviations.
D. Cambridge City Manager Unfit.
The heartlessness of the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager is such that he is unfit to associate with most humans, let alone govern the City of Cambridge, but he was rehired.
2. Laura Blacklow's Analysis, March 4, 2006.
For those of you who have problems with the pro-development stance of Robert Healy, he was voted to stay on as city manager with a 3-year contract, a salary paid by you and me that is higher (according to the Cambridge Chronicle) than the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, the mayor of Boston and the vice president of the United States, and a tax-payer funded car.
You might remember that Healy is the guy who would not appoint a civilian review panel for the police and would not appoint the people necessary for a city human rights commission. He is also the one who appoints the members of the zoning board. A member of NABS (Neighbors and Abutters of the Blessed Sacrament condo
development project, ) has a petition to change the city's rules so that developments cannot have balconies looming over neighbors. In addition, those balconies appear not to be counted in the square footage of the condos if they are above the 4th floor.
Healy also appointed the members of the planning board. Some NABS members, including myself, are suing the Board for disregarding their own rules when a developer like Paul O. & the Blessed Sacrament financial backers, with a lawyer like James Rafferty,who used to be on the city council, goes in front of them.
Last, the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods might add to my observation that, by not allowing any rebuttal to the developer when the Planning Board is about to decide on either approving or turning down a development, the Board also is really
undemocratic. I understand that Boston's planning board does NOT have similar rules.
By voting "present" [ed: original says “not present”], Craig Kelley was the only councillor not to outright approve Healy's contract.
CAVEAT: The hosts of this blog, Bob and Marilyn strongly disagree with Laura's favorable reference to the Association of Cambrige Neighborhoods.
Our response was so long, however, that it was quite out of scale in this report. I have split it out into a separate report.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Should the Cambridge, MA, USA City Manager be Rehired?
Should the Cambridge City Manager be Rehired?
Bob Reports.
1. Cambridge City Council deciding on whether to rehire the Cambridge City Manager.
2. General Statement on the City Manager’s Record.
3. Destruction of Natural Resources.
4. Starvation of the Charles River White Geese.
5. Private humans step in to feed the Charles River White Geese.
6. Cambridge City Manager unfit.
1. Cambridge City Council deciding on whether to rehire the Cambridge City Manager.
Yesterday evening, February 22, 2006, the Cambridge City Council conducted a public hearing, off-TV camera, on whether the Cambridge City Manager should be rehired. As I understand it, a decision to rehire must be taken six months before expiration of his contract. The deadline is the end of this month.
To me, the decision is a no-brainer. The following is an elaboration of my comments:
2. General Statement on the City Manager’s Record.
No matter how highly qualified a person is, sufficiently serious unacceptable behavior should disqualify that person for the position.
There is no question that Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy does a great financial job.
Trouble is, however, that his environmental record on matters solely within the jurisdiction of the City of Cambridge is striking bad.
Environmental performance on matters which ANYBODY can do is typically excellent. Performance on matters which ANYBODY can do is used as a shell game to hide the routine destruction of the Cambridge Environment.
3. Destruction of Natural Resources.
You put the Cambridge City Manager to work on parks and the first thing that gets done is trees get destroyed. There are all sorts of lovely excuses. What is altogether too consistent is the destructiveness.
Squirrel Brand, Brattle Square, City Hall Front Lawn, Inman Square, the plaza at Porter Station, the Marie Avenue tot lot, Dana Park – I could go on and on and on.
The real outrages are Alewife and the Charles River. Alewife is about as pristine an environmental location as can be imagined in a major city such as Cambridge and the Charles River is, in its own way, as good as Alewife.
The manager is proposing to destroy the Alewife reservation to put in massive storage tanks for flood protection that could and should be created under a parking lot next to a railway line several hundred feet south of the Alewife reservation.
The outrages which have already been done on the Charles, as bad as they are, are only beginning.
Hundreds of trees are slated to be destroyed between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach as part of the straightening out of Memorial Drive.
Memorial Drive is being straightened out and parking removed to facilitate relocation of the Allston-Cambridge Mass. Pike (I-90) off ramp to Memorial Drive.
Memorial Drive is being straightened out and parking removed to facilite reconstruction of Storrow Drive across the river.
4. Starvation of the Charles River White Geese.
The City Manager is heartlessly starving the Charles River White Geese. Since September 2004, he has barred them from all their food for their 25 years residency on the Charles River.
East of the BU Bridge across from the Hyatt Hotel is a lovely riverbank with luscious grass on which the Charles River White Geese happily munched until 2004. The City Manager finished a sewer project in that area in September 2004. When he left, he left a wall at the shore line barring the Charles River White Geese from feeding on that luscious grass.
West of the BU Bridge, the City Manager and the MDC/DCR have destroyed wetlands which were shared between nature and humans for more than 50 years. They destroyed all the native vegetation.
They dumped in fill and introduced vegetation which has no business on the Charles River. They have put up real walls like those across from the Hyatt and they have put up real walls that you have to think over a bit. The introduced vegetation creates its own wall.
This work rather clearly violates the MDC/DCR’s own supposed Charles River Master Plan which calls for a meadow to the water. The introduced vegetation creates a wall barring in people who use Magazine Beach from the Charles River. The wall violates yet another supposed part of the Charles River Master Plan which calls for water-related uses, not for water-barring uses.
The combination of efforts blocks the Charles River White Geese from all food in their 25-year habitat.
5. Private humans step in to feed the Charles River White Geese.
For 18 months, human beings have been forced to save the Charles River White Geese from this outrage, importing food to keep them alive.
These are beautiful, valuable, generally loved beings. They are major assets to the City of Cambridge and the Charles River.
The last thing which should be happening is their deliberate starvation by local governments.
6. Cambridge City Manager unfit.
This heartless, destructive behavior, this starvation attack on beautiful, valuable, living beings, clearly makes the Cambridge City Manager unfit to associate with decent people.
Somebody who is unfit to associate with decent people has no business working in a major position with the City of Cambridge let alone as the city’s leader.
There is no way the Cambridge City Manager should be rehired.
Bob Reports.
1. Cambridge City Council deciding on whether to rehire the Cambridge City Manager.
2. General Statement on the City Manager’s Record.
3. Destruction of Natural Resources.
4. Starvation of the Charles River White Geese.
5. Private humans step in to feed the Charles River White Geese.
6. Cambridge City Manager unfit.
1. Cambridge City Council deciding on whether to rehire the Cambridge City Manager.
Yesterday evening, February 22, 2006, the Cambridge City Council conducted a public hearing, off-TV camera, on whether the Cambridge City Manager should be rehired. As I understand it, a decision to rehire must be taken six months before expiration of his contract. The deadline is the end of this month.
To me, the decision is a no-brainer. The following is an elaboration of my comments:
2. General Statement on the City Manager’s Record.
No matter how highly qualified a person is, sufficiently serious unacceptable behavior should disqualify that person for the position.
There is no question that Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy does a great financial job.
Trouble is, however, that his environmental record on matters solely within the jurisdiction of the City of Cambridge is striking bad.
Environmental performance on matters which ANYBODY can do is typically excellent. Performance on matters which ANYBODY can do is used as a shell game to hide the routine destruction of the Cambridge Environment.
3. Destruction of Natural Resources.
You put the Cambridge City Manager to work on parks and the first thing that gets done is trees get destroyed. There are all sorts of lovely excuses. What is altogether too consistent is the destructiveness.
Squirrel Brand, Brattle Square, City Hall Front Lawn, Inman Square, the plaza at Porter Station, the Marie Avenue tot lot, Dana Park – I could go on and on and on.
The real outrages are Alewife and the Charles River. Alewife is about as pristine an environmental location as can be imagined in a major city such as Cambridge and the Charles River is, in its own way, as good as Alewife.
The manager is proposing to destroy the Alewife reservation to put in massive storage tanks for flood protection that could and should be created under a parking lot next to a railway line several hundred feet south of the Alewife reservation.
The outrages which have already been done on the Charles, as bad as they are, are only beginning.
Hundreds of trees are slated to be destroyed between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach as part of the straightening out of Memorial Drive.
Memorial Drive is being straightened out and parking removed to facilitate relocation of the Allston-Cambridge Mass. Pike (I-90) off ramp to Memorial Drive.
Memorial Drive is being straightened out and parking removed to facilite reconstruction of Storrow Drive across the river.
4. Starvation of the Charles River White Geese.
The City Manager is heartlessly starving the Charles River White Geese. Since September 2004, he has barred them from all their food for their 25 years residency on the Charles River.
East of the BU Bridge across from the Hyatt Hotel is a lovely riverbank with luscious grass on which the Charles River White Geese happily munched until 2004. The City Manager finished a sewer project in that area in September 2004. When he left, he left a wall at the shore line barring the Charles River White Geese from feeding on that luscious grass.
West of the BU Bridge, the City Manager and the MDC/DCR have destroyed wetlands which were shared between nature and humans for more than 50 years. They destroyed all the native vegetation.
They dumped in fill and introduced vegetation which has no business on the Charles River. They have put up real walls like those across from the Hyatt and they have put up real walls that you have to think over a bit. The introduced vegetation creates its own wall.
This work rather clearly violates the MDC/DCR’s own supposed Charles River Master Plan which calls for a meadow to the water. The introduced vegetation creates a wall barring in people who use Magazine Beach from the Charles River. The wall violates yet another supposed part of the Charles River Master Plan which calls for water-related uses, not for water-barring uses.
The combination of efforts blocks the Charles River White Geese from all food in their 25-year habitat.
5. Private humans step in to feed the Charles River White Geese.
For 18 months, human beings have been forced to save the Charles River White Geese from this outrage, importing food to keep them alive.
These are beautiful, valuable, generally loved beings. They are major assets to the City of Cambridge and the Charles River.
The last thing which should be happening is their deliberate starvation by local governments.
6. Cambridge City Manager unfit.
This heartless, destructive behavior, this starvation attack on beautiful, valuable, living beings, clearly makes the Cambridge City Manager unfit to associate with decent people.
Somebody who is unfit to associate with decent people has no business working in a major position with the City of Cambridge let alone as the city’s leader.
There is no way the Cambridge City Manager should be rehired.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Lothario (?) Speaks, More details on him and his family
Lothario (?) Speaks, More details on him and his family.
Report from Bob.
1. Visit to the Charles River White Geese.
2. Greetings from the Toulouse – Emden family.
3. Evaluation of “Lothario.”
4. The Toulouse – Emden family at home.
5. Loneliness.
6. Years of trying to have babies.
A. 2001.
B. 2002 - 2004.
C. 2005.
7. The cycle of loneliness.
8. The babies come.
1. Visit to the Charles River White Geese.
Yesterday, February 20, 2006, I was able to visit the Goose Meadow/Destroyed Nesting Area, the only part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese from which they have not been barred since September 2004, and it was destroyed by Boston University for normal use in October 1999.
The gaggle of the Charles River White Geese greeted me with their usual happy hello.
2. Greetings from the Toulouse – Emden family.
To my right, in the middle of native vegetation which has grown up since the 1999 destruction, were four happily crying geese. I looked closely at the four. Clearly three of the four were Paula the Toulouse goose and her two 2005 babies. The babies are now significantly larger than their mother. With them was a handsome white Emden gander, clearly Paula’s mate, and clearly, by far, the largest of the foursome.
3. Evaluation of “Lothario.”
If Paula’s mate were Lothario, this would have to be he. My previous report on Lothario commented that he was a little guy.
I have been chastised for that language by, I believe, Marilyn. She informed me that Lothario was a large Emden, not a “little guy.”
Depends on your point of reference. If you are comparing to the gaggle and its members, this gander is definitely not a little guy.
If you are comparing his size to that of humans, even a big goose is a little guy.
This goose clearly could be my buddy and the buddy of Daejanna.
He certainly was including his voice in the chorus of welcome.
4. The Toulouse – Emden family at home.
I kept an eye on the group and, now that I knew what I was looking for, the four clearly kept together during the entire period I was at the nesting area.
You just have to realize that part of the foursome is a large white gander. You look for Paula who definitely stands out, and her pink beak distinguishes her from her sister who has an orange beak. Then you look around Paula and see two large white geese with black markings, the no-longer-small babies.
Then, as they move around, you look for a full size white Emden who stays with the other three. That is perhaps Lothario.
Just before I left, the family went for a refreshing swim.
As the family went into the water, the gander kept a constant line of patter to his family, just like Lothario always did to me.
Around me I could hear other ganders talking to their families in pretty much the same patter. All were going into the lovely running water.
5. Loneliness.
We have a situation of possible loneliness.
Paula and Paulina, the sister Toulouse geese, arrived at the Destroyed Nesting Area in fall 2000.
They were very clearly a pair. They stayed together pretty much at all times. It is quite likely that they were littermates and that they had never been separated from the time they hatched. They certainly kept up their closeness until nesting season.
Then Paula started nesting. She clearly had mated, apparently with Lothario.
6. Years of trying to have babies.
A. 2001.
Spring of 2001 was the year nesting geese were brutally killed, many probably by a person who has since been convicted of rape and murder at the destroyed nesting area the following fall.
Other nesting geese “disappeared” in association with destruction of nests.
I thought the nests were destroyed by some nut. My mind changed when a nest was destroyed with the complete removal of a large board under which the nest had been hidden.
That board not only was too big for one person, it was totally removed from site anywhere. The mother goose also “disappeared.”
That action was professional: the Metropolitan District Commission (now called the Department of Conservation and Recreation) or its equivalents.
B. 2002 - 2004.
These same sick people, during the last three years, have poisoned every goose egg they can get away with in the first 10 miles of the Charles River. These same sick people along with the reprehensible City of Cambridge have been heartlessly starving the Charles River White Geese since September 2004.
Until the board disappeared, I swallowed the “they would never stoop so low” mantra, particularly since the MDC/DCR were not such proven liars at that time either.
We assume the best from our bureaucrats. We cannot conceive that people we employ are as vile as this state agency and this city.
Paula’s nest was destroyed in 2001 and probably in 2002. The following two years, 2003 and 2004, her eggs were poisoned.
C. 2005.
In 2005 our reprehensible bureaucrats failed to get their approvals until late. Senator Kennedy’s office stepped in to assist in the poisoning process.
Perhaps because of the delay in approvals, perhaps because of the ongoing starvation campaign, the eggs were not poisoned in 2005.
Paula had her babies.
7. The cycle of loneliness.
From 2001 to 2004, Paula, Paulina and Lothario went through a cycle of the years.
Outside nesting season, Paula and Paulina continued to be inseparable. They continued to be the buddies shown in a number of excellent photos posted on the web.
During nesting season, Paula did her duty and Lothario was probably protecting her and her nest like a good mate.
While Paula did her nesting, Paulina did what she could.
Paulina nested on other geese’ eggs. Paulina acted as a surrogate mother letting other real mothers take a break. Poor Paulina did not have a mate, so she did the best she could, and she defended those eggs with the same loving protectiveness as their mothers would.
Outside nesting season, Lothario saw his mate go back to her lifelong friend and Lothario was lonely.
Just as Lothario happily chattered to his family yesterday, he visited visitors to the nesting area and chattered to them. I noticed his attention and appreciated it. Daejanna noticed the same appreciation, although she understood him better than I did.
The difference between Lothario and Paulina, however, was that Paulina had no family in the gaggle except for Paula.
9. The babies come.
Now the mated geese have had their first brood and Lothario stays with his brood.
The loser, unfortunately is Paulina. Paulina has lost her life long companion, Paula, probably for good.
For geese, this is a very serious matter because family is everything. But the two Toulouse geese had no family in the gaggle except for each other, and Paulina has lost Paula.
Paulina has acted as if she were poorly in recent months. I think lonliness is getting to her.
Report from Bob.
1. Visit to the Charles River White Geese.
2. Greetings from the Toulouse – Emden family.
3. Evaluation of “Lothario.”
4. The Toulouse – Emden family at home.
5. Loneliness.
6. Years of trying to have babies.
A. 2001.
B. 2002 - 2004.
C. 2005.
7. The cycle of loneliness.
8. The babies come.
1. Visit to the Charles River White Geese.
Yesterday, February 20, 2006, I was able to visit the Goose Meadow/Destroyed Nesting Area, the only part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese from which they have not been barred since September 2004, and it was destroyed by Boston University for normal use in October 1999.
The gaggle of the Charles River White Geese greeted me with their usual happy hello.
2. Greetings from the Toulouse – Emden family.
To my right, in the middle of native vegetation which has grown up since the 1999 destruction, were four happily crying geese. I looked closely at the four. Clearly three of the four were Paula the Toulouse goose and her two 2005 babies. The babies are now significantly larger than their mother. With them was a handsome white Emden gander, clearly Paula’s mate, and clearly, by far, the largest of the foursome.
3. Evaluation of “Lothario.”
If Paula’s mate were Lothario, this would have to be he. My previous report on Lothario commented that he was a little guy.
I have been chastised for that language by, I believe, Marilyn. She informed me that Lothario was a large Emden, not a “little guy.”
Depends on your point of reference. If you are comparing to the gaggle and its members, this gander is definitely not a little guy.
If you are comparing his size to that of humans, even a big goose is a little guy.
This goose clearly could be my buddy and the buddy of Daejanna.
He certainly was including his voice in the chorus of welcome.
4. The Toulouse – Emden family at home.
I kept an eye on the group and, now that I knew what I was looking for, the four clearly kept together during the entire period I was at the nesting area.
You just have to realize that part of the foursome is a large white gander. You look for Paula who definitely stands out, and her pink beak distinguishes her from her sister who has an orange beak. Then you look around Paula and see two large white geese with black markings, the no-longer-small babies.
Then, as they move around, you look for a full size white Emden who stays with the other three. That is perhaps Lothario.
Just before I left, the family went for a refreshing swim.
As the family went into the water, the gander kept a constant line of patter to his family, just like Lothario always did to me.
Around me I could hear other ganders talking to their families in pretty much the same patter. All were going into the lovely running water.
5. Loneliness.
We have a situation of possible loneliness.
Paula and Paulina, the sister Toulouse geese, arrived at the Destroyed Nesting Area in fall 2000.
They were very clearly a pair. They stayed together pretty much at all times. It is quite likely that they were littermates and that they had never been separated from the time they hatched. They certainly kept up their closeness until nesting season.
Then Paula started nesting. She clearly had mated, apparently with Lothario.
6. Years of trying to have babies.
A. 2001.
Spring of 2001 was the year nesting geese were brutally killed, many probably by a person who has since been convicted of rape and murder at the destroyed nesting area the following fall.
Other nesting geese “disappeared” in association with destruction of nests.
I thought the nests were destroyed by some nut. My mind changed when a nest was destroyed with the complete removal of a large board under which the nest had been hidden.
That board not only was too big for one person, it was totally removed from site anywhere. The mother goose also “disappeared.”
That action was professional: the Metropolitan District Commission (now called the Department of Conservation and Recreation) or its equivalents.
B. 2002 - 2004.
These same sick people, during the last three years, have poisoned every goose egg they can get away with in the first 10 miles of the Charles River. These same sick people along with the reprehensible City of Cambridge have been heartlessly starving the Charles River White Geese since September 2004.
Until the board disappeared, I swallowed the “they would never stoop so low” mantra, particularly since the MDC/DCR were not such proven liars at that time either.
We assume the best from our bureaucrats. We cannot conceive that people we employ are as vile as this state agency and this city.
Paula’s nest was destroyed in 2001 and probably in 2002. The following two years, 2003 and 2004, her eggs were poisoned.
C. 2005.
In 2005 our reprehensible bureaucrats failed to get their approvals until late. Senator Kennedy’s office stepped in to assist in the poisoning process.
Perhaps because of the delay in approvals, perhaps because of the ongoing starvation campaign, the eggs were not poisoned in 2005.
Paula had her babies.
7. The cycle of loneliness.
From 2001 to 2004, Paula, Paulina and Lothario went through a cycle of the years.
Outside nesting season, Paula and Paulina continued to be inseparable. They continued to be the buddies shown in a number of excellent photos posted on the web.
During nesting season, Paula did her duty and Lothario was probably protecting her and her nest like a good mate.
While Paula did her nesting, Paulina did what she could.
Paulina nested on other geese’ eggs. Paulina acted as a surrogate mother letting other real mothers take a break. Poor Paulina did not have a mate, so she did the best she could, and she defended those eggs with the same loving protectiveness as their mothers would.
Outside nesting season, Lothario saw his mate go back to her lifelong friend and Lothario was lonely.
Just as Lothario happily chattered to his family yesterday, he visited visitors to the nesting area and chattered to them. I noticed his attention and appreciated it. Daejanna noticed the same appreciation, although she understood him better than I did.
The difference between Lothario and Paulina, however, was that Paulina had no family in the gaggle except for Paula.
9. The babies come.
Now the mated geese have had their first brood and Lothario stays with his brood.
The loser, unfortunately is Paulina. Paulina has lost her life long companion, Paula, probably for good.
For geese, this is a very serious matter because family is everything. But the two Toulouse geese had no family in the gaggle except for each other, and Paulina has lost Paula.
Paulina has acted as if she were poorly in recent months. I think lonliness is getting to her.
Monday, February 20, 2006
The Charles River in MA, USA being privatized, trees destroyed
Bob reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Bob: The Charles River is being privatized, 2/3/06.
3. Response - We are getting trees and we still have a waterway, 2/5/06.
4. Marilyn from Reality, 2/5/06.
A. Trees
(1) Hundreds of Memorial Drive Trees to be Destroyed in Phases.
(2) Cambridge Conservation Commission shocked AND ALLOWED IT.
(3) All cherry trees to be destroyed.
B. Privatization.
(1) "Master Plan."
(2) Magazine Beach.
(3) Annual destruction of native vegetation for Charles River Regata.
(4) Destruction at Herter West in Brighton.
(5) Summary.
5. Bob, The ENF and Tree Destruction, 2/20/06.
6. Bob, RE Stopping People from Using the Charles River, 2/20/06.
1. Introduction.
Passing on an exchange elsewhere, starting on Feb. 3, 2006. In the original communication, I was responding to an email which questioned whether anything wrong was going on on Memorial Drive. I have sectioned Marilyn's comments. Subsections B(3) and B(4) were originally one paragraph.
My initial comments were probably directed at the various lovely proposals to put parkland between Harvard's holdings and the Charles River in place of highways. I believe there was a comment in the communication I was responding to that there were meaningful protections against highway projects. If I can find that one, I will add it.
It should be noted that the MDC/DCR is now refusing to provide its timetable.
2. Bob: The Charles River is being privatized, 2/3/06.
That dream land in reality makes the Charles River Harvard's personal property.
Trouble is that the MDC/DCR has already destroyed hundreds of parking spaces in the MIT part of Memorial Drive in the name of "improvements" which make it that much more of a superhighway / alternative to Storrow Drive (tunnel closing, private Mass. Pike exit so Harvard can expand on the Mass. Pike in Allston.
This is not a dream. Trees have already been destroyed with many more to come. They no longer call it a "highway project." They call it "park improvements."
And that portion of Memorial Drive is now denied to people who need their cars and do not happen to be part of the MIT community or people physically capable of biking.
This is not a pipedream. Phase I is in place on the public dole.
3. Response - We are getting trees and we still have a waterway, 2/5/06.
While I do not dispute Bob's statement that Phase I of the highway project appears to be underway, I feel I should report that I have been traveling down Mem Drive every morning for the last month and have seen with my own eyes many new trees. Also, last summer, while some construction was underway, the existing trees were protected rather well to protect them from injury.
In addition, I would suggest that the Charles River or any major waterway used for commerce and recreation cannot be owned by a private entity. I do not know the legal status of waterways, but possibly clarification is available from some state agency.
In studying the possible plans for the Urban Ring and/or new rail or bus transportation through Cambridgeport, it is important that we stick to what appear to be the facts so that we can better direct our energies to the seriously important planning for tunnels, rail/bus routes, etc.
4. Marilyn from Reality, 2/5/06.
A. Trees
(1) Hundreds of Memorial Drive Trees to be Destroyed in Phases.
The tree cutting on Mem Drive is to be in phases. So we can't read the protections around trees as proof the trees won't be cut down later. The Mem Drive Environmental Notification Form shows all trees to be eliminated. I have a copy if anyone would like a look at it. And if anyone would like to join me to inventory tree-felling to date, that would be useful.
(2) Cambridge Conservation Commission shocked AND ALLOWED IT.
At the Cambridge Conservation Commission hearing on this project I attended, members were shocked at the number of trees to be eliminated, noted the replacements promised would not begin to attain the stature of the existing trees in our lifetimes, and voted to approve the plan anyway.
(3) All cherry trees to be destroyed.
I believe all cherry trees on that section of Mem Drive are to be eliminated because they weren't part of the original plan for what the DCR is calling the Cambridge Esplanade. In addition of course the cherries are a "non-native species."
B. Privatization.
(1) "Master Plan."
Regarding privatization of the Charles, the DCR's Master Plan calls for greater numbers of (private) boat houses, presumably in place of the public swimming pools and skating rinks it suggests should be removed as not "water-dependent activities."
(2) Magazine Beach.
At Magazine Beach the DCR's agreement with Cambridge privileges Cambridge uses there. Magazine Beach would remain open to the public, but it would be a restricted public. A similar arrangement with Harvard for its Allston riverfront campus doesn't seem impossible.
(3) Annual destruction of native vegetation for Charles River Regata.
The DCR has an agreement with a private organization to devolve so-called maintenace, e.g., clear-cutting the riverbank for the Head of the Charles Regatta.
(4) Destruction at Herter West in Brighton.
In one project at an urban wild on the Boston side of the river, private funding of this private organization allowed the DCR to avoid the required Boston Conservation Commission review. The work included the felling of major trees on a public way and was blatantly illegal. The DCR argued it had no connection to the private entity's illegal work, whereas in fact it had permitted the project.
(5) Summary.
I read all comments--and there are many nowadays--about "creative public-private partnerships" in our public parklands as code for such privatization.
How changes in the parklands reflect plans for roads and buildings is of course the question. The first hint of a resurrected Inner Belt was the change of the DCR's policy toward the White Geese, whose habitat is just at the Cambridge end of the Inner Belt's river crossing. I think that when the DCR argues it must further devolve responsiblities for the Charles River lower basin to private entities and Harvard volunteers to help, we can expect major changes in the Allston and Cambridge riverfronts to the benefit of those private entities.
Marilyn Wellons
5. Bob, The ENF and Tree Destruction, 2/20/06.
The ENF is ominous not just for what it says but for what it does not say.
It says that something like 85 out of 100 trees across from the Hyatt are to be destroyed. The apologists explain this on the grounds that they are in the way of their park.
Additionally, however, in the area between the BU Boat House and the BU Bridge, the ENF shows one tree in a locations which holds hundreds.
6. Bob, RE Stopping People from Using the Charles River, 2/20/06.
MIT is not "stopping" people who want to use Memorial Drive from using Memorial Drive.
All they are doing is taking away their parking so people who need to drive can't come.
They can use the Charles River. They just can't get there.
And the practical results? Private property of MIT.
And how dare anybody blaim the people who did these things and are making things much worse for doing the things they do.
And how dare anybody call these unfair people unfair.
1. Introduction.
2. Bob: The Charles River is being privatized, 2/3/06.
3. Response - We are getting trees and we still have a waterway, 2/5/06.
4. Marilyn from Reality, 2/5/06.
A. Trees
(1) Hundreds of Memorial Drive Trees to be Destroyed in Phases.
(2) Cambridge Conservation Commission shocked AND ALLOWED IT.
(3) All cherry trees to be destroyed.
B. Privatization.
(1) "Master Plan."
(2) Magazine Beach.
(3) Annual destruction of native vegetation for Charles River Regata.
(4) Destruction at Herter West in Brighton.
(5) Summary.
5. Bob, The ENF and Tree Destruction, 2/20/06.
6. Bob, RE Stopping People from Using the Charles River, 2/20/06.
1. Introduction.
Passing on an exchange elsewhere, starting on Feb. 3, 2006. In the original communication, I was responding to an email which questioned whether anything wrong was going on on Memorial Drive. I have sectioned Marilyn's comments. Subsections B(3) and B(4) were originally one paragraph.
My initial comments were probably directed at the various lovely proposals to put parkland between Harvard's holdings and the Charles River in place of highways. I believe there was a comment in the communication I was responding to that there were meaningful protections against highway projects. If I can find that one, I will add it.
It should be noted that the MDC/DCR is now refusing to provide its timetable.
2. Bob: The Charles River is being privatized, 2/3/06.
That dream land in reality makes the Charles River Harvard's personal property.
Trouble is that the MDC/DCR has already destroyed hundreds of parking spaces in the MIT part of Memorial Drive in the name of "improvements" which make it that much more of a superhighway / alternative to Storrow Drive (tunnel closing, private Mass. Pike exit so Harvard can expand on the Mass. Pike in Allston.
This is not a dream. Trees have already been destroyed with many more to come. They no longer call it a "highway project." They call it "park improvements."
And that portion of Memorial Drive is now denied to people who need their cars and do not happen to be part of the MIT community or people physically capable of biking.
This is not a pipedream. Phase I is in place on the public dole.
3. Response - We are getting trees and we still have a waterway, 2/5/06.
While I do not dispute Bob's statement that Phase I of the highway project appears to be underway, I feel I should report that I have been traveling down Mem Drive every morning for the last month and have seen with my own eyes many new trees. Also, last summer, while some construction was underway, the existing trees were protected rather well to protect them from injury.
In addition, I would suggest that the Charles River or any major waterway used for commerce and recreation cannot be owned by a private entity. I do not know the legal status of waterways, but possibly clarification is available from some state agency.
In studying the possible plans for the Urban Ring and/or new rail or bus transportation through Cambridgeport, it is important that we stick to what appear to be the facts so that we can better direct our energies to the seriously important planning for tunnels, rail/bus routes, etc.
4. Marilyn from Reality, 2/5/06.
A. Trees
(1) Hundreds of Memorial Drive Trees to be Destroyed in Phases.
The tree cutting on Mem Drive is to be in phases. So we can't read the protections around trees as proof the trees won't be cut down later. The Mem Drive Environmental Notification Form shows all trees to be eliminated. I have a copy if anyone would like a look at it. And if anyone would like to join me to inventory tree-felling to date, that would be useful.
(2) Cambridge Conservation Commission shocked AND ALLOWED IT.
At the Cambridge Conservation Commission hearing on this project I attended, members were shocked at the number of trees to be eliminated, noted the replacements promised would not begin to attain the stature of the existing trees in our lifetimes, and voted to approve the plan anyway.
(3) All cherry trees to be destroyed.
I believe all cherry trees on that section of Mem Drive are to be eliminated because they weren't part of the original plan for what the DCR is calling the Cambridge Esplanade. In addition of course the cherries are a "non-native species."
B. Privatization.
(1) "Master Plan."
Regarding privatization of the Charles, the DCR's Master Plan calls for greater numbers of (private) boat houses, presumably in place of the public swimming pools and skating rinks it suggests should be removed as not "water-dependent activities."
(2) Magazine Beach.
At Magazine Beach the DCR's agreement with Cambridge privileges Cambridge uses there. Magazine Beach would remain open to the public, but it would be a restricted public. A similar arrangement with Harvard for its Allston riverfront campus doesn't seem impossible.
(3) Annual destruction of native vegetation for Charles River Regata.
The DCR has an agreement with a private organization to devolve so-called maintenace, e.g., clear-cutting the riverbank for the Head of the Charles Regatta.
(4) Destruction at Herter West in Brighton.
In one project at an urban wild on the Boston side of the river, private funding of this private organization allowed the DCR to avoid the required Boston Conservation Commission review. The work included the felling of major trees on a public way and was blatantly illegal. The DCR argued it had no connection to the private entity's illegal work, whereas in fact it had permitted the project.
(5) Summary.
I read all comments--and there are many nowadays--about "creative public-private partnerships" in our public parklands as code for such privatization.
How changes in the parklands reflect plans for roads and buildings is of course the question. The first hint of a resurrected Inner Belt was the change of the DCR's policy toward the White Geese, whose habitat is just at the Cambridge end of the Inner Belt's river crossing. I think that when the DCR argues it must further devolve responsiblities for the Charles River lower basin to private entities and Harvard volunteers to help, we can expect major changes in the Allston and Cambridge riverfronts to the benefit of those private entities.
Marilyn Wellons
5. Bob, The ENF and Tree Destruction, 2/20/06.
The ENF is ominous not just for what it says but for what it does not say.
It says that something like 85 out of 100 trees across from the Hyatt are to be destroyed. The apologists explain this on the grounds that they are in the way of their park.
Additionally, however, in the area between the BU Boat House and the BU Bridge, the ENF shows one tree in a locations which holds hundreds.
6. Bob, RE Stopping People from Using the Charles River, 2/20/06.
MIT is not "stopping" people who want to use Memorial Drive from using Memorial Drive.
All they are doing is taking away their parking so people who need to drive can't come.
They can use the Charles River. They just can't get there.
And the practical results? Private property of MIT.
And how dare anybody blaim the people who did these things and are making things much worse for doing the things they do.
And how dare anybody call these unfair people unfair.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
DCR Proposal to Move Storrow Traffic to Memorial
Bob Reports:
1. Marilyn's Analysis for Publication.
2. My Short Analysis.
1. Marilyn's Analysis for Publication.
The following was written by Marilyn on February 14, 2006, between the Department of Conservation and Recreation meetings on February 13 and 15 in which the DCR, as usual, contradicted themselves. The DCR flatly refused to provide their timetable for further destruction on Memorial Drive but was very happy to give timetables on Longfellow Bridge and Storrow Drive work.
This analysis was in the form of a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle, too late for February 16 (weekly) publication:
The other shoe is falling
In 2003, Harvard bought the 51 acres in Allston
containing the Mass Pike exit to Cambridge a few
months after the MBTA's feasibility study showed the
pike exit to Cambridge could be moved to the Grand
Junction rail bridge that goes under the BU Bridge.
Such a move would free up the valuable riverfront land
for Harvard's own purposes.
Harvard and the Pike Authority forgot to include a
permanent easement for the Pike and freight yards in
Allston, so the sale was halted til they were
included.
Harvard's big plans for Allston give us reason to
monitor all transportation and other development plans
on the Boston side very closely. As one State
official said, "we assume Harvard didn't buy the Pike
land in order to be the landlord of the Pike and the
freight yards."
The DCR's meeting on the Storrow Drive tunnel repair,
held February 13 at the State House, indicated the
other shoe is dropping.
Storrow Drive handles 92,000 cars a day, Memorial
Drive only 30,000. The DCR says the Pike is very
close to capacity, Mem Drive is way below. So when
the tunnel is closed for years, traffic will be
diverted to Mem Drive. The DCR would like some of the
temporary diversions to be permanent.
As we know, the DCR has been preparing Memorial Drive
to handle that traffic: limiting access,
straightening it out, instituting new westbound turns,
cutting down all those trees. And the MBTA has showed
it was feasible to use the Grand Junction rail bridge
to move the Pike exit to Cambridge from its current
location. And Cambridge has provided the Cambridgeport
Roads project to connect to the Grand Junction rail
line.
In brief, diverting many of those 92,000 daily auto
trips from Storrow Drive to Mem Drive is likely to be
permanent, with the addition of a new Pike exit to
Cambridge as provided in the old Inner Belt.
There is a lot going on on the Charles River instead
of the sort of public rapid transit all of us want--to
say the least.
Marilyn Wellons.
2. My Short Analysis.
I sent the following out to two lists between the two meetings:
. . . Unfortunately, money which should be spent on public
transportation is being wasted on cars.
I just got back from the state house meeting on the rebuilding of
Storrow Drive's tunnel. They intend to close that tunnel for years. They
figure the Mass. Pike is close to capacity now and that Memorial Drive
is way below capacity.
We are seeing another part of the conversion of that rail bridge to an
off ramp from the Mass. Pike.
Memorial Drive is being straightened out, with destruction of 449 to
660 trees and a major part of that railroad right of way, to relocate the
traffic from Storrow Drive during that work.
. . . . I think the numbers are something like 90,000 on Storrow in the
[tunnel] to 30,000 on Memorial Drive.
There is a lot going on on the Charles River instead of the sort of
public rapid transit all of us want. The rapid transit is being relocated
as part of this package to support Harvard's Mass. Pike campus.
1. Marilyn's Analysis for Publication.
2. My Short Analysis.
1. Marilyn's Analysis for Publication.
The following was written by Marilyn on February 14, 2006, between the Department of Conservation and Recreation meetings on February 13 and 15 in which the DCR, as usual, contradicted themselves. The DCR flatly refused to provide their timetable for further destruction on Memorial Drive but was very happy to give timetables on Longfellow Bridge and Storrow Drive work.
This analysis was in the form of a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle, too late for February 16 (weekly) publication:
The other shoe is falling
In 2003, Harvard bought the 51 acres in Allston
containing the Mass Pike exit to Cambridge a few
months after the MBTA's feasibility study showed the
pike exit to Cambridge could be moved to the Grand
Junction rail bridge that goes under the BU Bridge.
Such a move would free up the valuable riverfront land
for Harvard's own purposes.
Harvard and the Pike Authority forgot to include a
permanent easement for the Pike and freight yards in
Allston, so the sale was halted til they were
included.
Harvard's big plans for Allston give us reason to
monitor all transportation and other development plans
on the Boston side very closely. As one State
official said, "we assume Harvard didn't buy the Pike
land in order to be the landlord of the Pike and the
freight yards."
The DCR's meeting on the Storrow Drive tunnel repair,
held February 13 at the State House, indicated the
other shoe is dropping.
Storrow Drive handles 92,000 cars a day, Memorial
Drive only 30,000. The DCR says the Pike is very
close to capacity, Mem Drive is way below. So when
the tunnel is closed for years, traffic will be
diverted to Mem Drive. The DCR would like some of the
temporary diversions to be permanent.
As we know, the DCR has been preparing Memorial Drive
to handle that traffic: limiting access,
straightening it out, instituting new westbound turns,
cutting down all those trees. And the MBTA has showed
it was feasible to use the Grand Junction rail bridge
to move the Pike exit to Cambridge from its current
location. And Cambridge has provided the Cambridgeport
Roads project to connect to the Grand Junction rail
line.
In brief, diverting many of those 92,000 daily auto
trips from Storrow Drive to Mem Drive is likely to be
permanent, with the addition of a new Pike exit to
Cambridge as provided in the old Inner Belt.
There is a lot going on on the Charles River instead
of the sort of public rapid transit all of us want--to
say the least.
Marilyn Wellons.
2. My Short Analysis.
I sent the following out to two lists between the two meetings:
. . . Unfortunately, money which should be spent on public
transportation is being wasted on cars.
I just got back from the state house meeting on the rebuilding of
Storrow Drive's tunnel. They intend to close that tunnel for years. They
figure the Mass. Pike is close to capacity now and that Memorial Drive
is way below capacity.
We are seeing another part of the conversion of that rail bridge to an
off ramp from the Mass. Pike.
Memorial Drive is being straightened out, with destruction of 449 to
660 trees and a major part of that railroad right of way, to relocate the
traffic from Storrow Drive during that work.
. . . . I think the numbers are something like 90,000 on Storrow in the
[tunnel] to 30,000 on Memorial Drive.
There is a lot going on on the Charles River instead of the sort of
public rapid transit all of us want. The rapid transit is being relocated
as part of this package to support Harvard's Mass. Pike campus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)