Report 355 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese; Outrageous situation at the Bumpy Memorial Pond
1. Visibility Report.
2. Status of Bumpy Memorial Pool.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility Report.
On Friday, July 20, 2007, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers conducted a visibility at the Goose Meadow's BU Bridge entrance. I joined them for part of the visibility.
Clearly, people are very supportive and quite concerned.
2. Status of Bumpy Memorial Pool.
One of the nuttier things (of many nutty things) done on the Charles River was the creation of a small pond perhaps 10 feet from the Charles River at the Magazine Beach parking lot.
Several healthy trees were destroyed in the process.
The local animals loved the pool, so, a year ago, we named it after Bumpy, the killed leader of the gaggle.
This year, the Charles River White Geese have been driven away from Magazine Beach in general and from the Bumpy Pond in particular. They visit, if at all, early in the day. 95% of the shore is now blocked to them.
Their only access is through a tiny break near the Bumpy Pond. They leave immediately when dogs start coming. Some of the environmentally destructive lobby rather clearly let their dogs run free as a means of attacking free animals.
As a result, this year, few birds use the Bumpy Pond except for ducks.
Thursday and Friday a mother duck was visiting there with babies. It was quite distressing because the Bumpy Pond is so filthy.
The filth was fully predictable and was a main reason why we opposed it.
The DCR DOES NOT MAINTAIN its properties. The DCR expects the public to do normal maintenance.
The Bumpy Pond is nothing but a hole in the ground which became an excuse to put in a bridge over it.
There is no means of circulation of water. There is no means of adding water and no means of removal of water. When it rains, we get water. If we get too much water, it overflows. The silly clay pathway which replaced a bituminous walkway is eroding because of overflows.
When no rain comes for awhile, the obvious happens. Water evaporates. The water level decreases, and there is no defense against algae.
As of yesterday, there was a depth of the Bumpy Pond measurable in inches. And it was filthy with algae and trash.
But the DCR and its apologists are proud of the DCR not maintaining its property.
And the DCR and its apologists are very happy to limit the DCR's contribution to the environment to make work projects for their most vocal apologists. Silly projects like the Bumpy Pond get built with serious environmental harm and no maintenance. The apologists do not make money out of maintenance. They make money out of make work projects.
So we have a filthy hole ten feet from the Charles River, and the pols and bureaucrats and their friends are fighting for even worse environmental destruction at Magazine Beach.
Outrageous? Yes!!!
Business as usual with the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge and their friends at the state level, pols, bureacrats and contractors one and all.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Visibilities at the BU Bridge, numbers 353 and 354
Marilyn reports:
There were lots of drivers and pedestrians, even some cyclists, taking the flyers Monday and Tuesday, July 16 and 17, at the BU Bridge. There was a good number of thumbs-up as people drove by.
Some people who stopped to talk were mystified why anyone would want the project there. Others commented that it was the usual cynical stuff.
I try to tell people, briefly, that we've paid almost $4 billion to clean up the Charles River (this is the figure I got from the Charles River Watershed Association) and now Cambridge taxpayers are paying $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
Chemical runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod at the Ebersol Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park caused the algae bloom last August and September. Now Cambridge will be installing 7 acres of the same at Magazine Beach. We'll have astronomical algae blooms even farther upriver every year if Cambridge gets its way.
And our water rates that include the costs of the Charles River cleanup have just gone up.
There were lots of drivers and pedestrians, even some cyclists, taking the flyers Monday and Tuesday, July 16 and 17, at the BU Bridge. There was a good number of thumbs-up as people drove by.
Some people who stopped to talk were mystified why anyone would want the project there. Others commented that it was the usual cynical stuff.
I try to tell people, briefly, that we've paid almost $4 billion to clean up the Charles River (this is the figure I got from the Charles River Watershed Association) and now Cambridge taxpayers are paying $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach.
Chemical runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod at the Ebersol Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park caused the algae bloom last August and September. Now Cambridge will be installing 7 acres of the same at Magazine Beach. We'll have astronomical algae blooms even farther upriver every year if Cambridge gets its way.
And our water rates that include the costs of the Charles River cleanup have just gone up.
Pit Bulls and the Aggressive Destroyers of our World
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
2. Application.
1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
I practice law in an office in a modern building between Harvard and Central Squares in Cambridge, MA, USA (across from the "People's Republik" bar).
I am frequently in the office late working on various projects. Last night, July 17, 2007, there was a group of three people and a dog on our front steps for half an hour to an hour at least.
I first encountered them on the way out. I had things I was doing in the neighborhood, so I went by several times after that.
The dog was a black shorthair, intermediate in size between a small dog and a medium sized dog, in excellent physical condition, not the slightest fat and appropriately muscular for his size.
I said hello to the people and the dog, being very careful the first time to properly introduce myself to the dog.
Each time I went by, I happily pet the dog and briefly spoke to the folks. He was clearly a pleasant, friendly being, out in the world and very pleased to meet the inhabitants of his world.
I asked during the first discussion whether he was a baby Labrador Retriever.
The response was that he was a adult black pit bull, but that he commonly passes for a black Lab, and the master clearly indicated that that was to his advantage.
At that point, I had been in the process of going my way, but I reversed myself to look at the dog's face, clearly not a Lab, clearly a Pit Bull.
2. Application.
The general group that the enemies of this beautiful, friendly animal belong to is the same sick people who are fighting to destroy all wildlife on the Charles River.
These destructive people use whatever lie or false analogy (lie, lie, lie) they can get away with to destroy anything and everything that has a semblance of nature in our world.
The destructive people cannot get away with killing all dogs, as they are aggressively trying to kill the Charles River White Geese, so they regulate them to death, and they try to restrict dogs to bizarre "sanctuaries" as in the sick situation on the Charles River.
Not all attackers of pit bulls are aggressively destroying our world. The tiny minority of world destroyers manipulate people all over the place.
I was in the legislative hearing a few months ago on the latest attempt by this sick organization to attack nature at whatever weak links these sick people can find. This was an attempt to apply bizarre restrictions on pit bulls.
The testimony at that hearing mentioned the tendency of the press to identify a pit bull as the aggressor in all bad situations involving pit bulls, but to downplay attacks by other dogs.
One example of a difficult attack mentioned in that hearing was an attack by a large size Golden Retriever. My brother has a large Golden. The most minimal thing that can be said about her is that she is an excellent example of extreme but intelligent pleasantness.
Nevertheless, I had one incident in which I scratched the ear of my brother's Golden and she responded defensively and quite rapidly and aggressively. Apparently she had some sort of infection and was defending herself.
I am a dog patter. My brother's Golden walks around the world intelligently looking to be friends with every human and every dog she encounters. I am the same way with dogs.
I had a situation in Central Square, Cambridge, in which I encountered a Golden with a face similar to that of my brother's dog. I pet her and, as with my brother's dog, did something inadvertently to hurt her. She defended herself. The owner's reaction went from pleasure to surprised mortification. I tried to placate her explaining that I must have hurt the animal in some way.
In the case of the attack I mentioned above by a Golden Retriever, I can imagine some fool tormenting that poor dog and the dog defending itself.
Similarly the folks fighting against the legislative attacks on pit bulls report similar fact patterns involved in pit bull attacks, problems with humans, not dogs.
We live in a world which is generally very, very good. There is a truly reprehensible minority aggressively destroying our world while piously claiming sainthood.
This reprehensible minority includes Cambridge pols and bureaucrats and their friendly pols and bureaucrats at the state level.
In order to prevent the destruction of our world, we must stand up to these reprehensible people, particularly those, such as nine Cambridge City Councilors, who abuse their power and lie about which side they are on.
We should regulate the destroyers of our world. We should not regulate their victims.
1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
2. Application.
1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
I practice law in an office in a modern building between Harvard and Central Squares in Cambridge, MA, USA (across from the "People's Republik" bar).
I am frequently in the office late working on various projects. Last night, July 17, 2007, there was a group of three people and a dog on our front steps for half an hour to an hour at least.
I first encountered them on the way out. I had things I was doing in the neighborhood, so I went by several times after that.
The dog was a black shorthair, intermediate in size between a small dog and a medium sized dog, in excellent physical condition, not the slightest fat and appropriately muscular for his size.
I said hello to the people and the dog, being very careful the first time to properly introduce myself to the dog.
Each time I went by, I happily pet the dog and briefly spoke to the folks. He was clearly a pleasant, friendly being, out in the world and very pleased to meet the inhabitants of his world.
I asked during the first discussion whether he was a baby Labrador Retriever.
The response was that he was a adult black pit bull, but that he commonly passes for a black Lab, and the master clearly indicated that that was to his advantage.
At that point, I had been in the process of going my way, but I reversed myself to look at the dog's face, clearly not a Lab, clearly a Pit Bull.
2. Application.
The general group that the enemies of this beautiful, friendly animal belong to is the same sick people who are fighting to destroy all wildlife on the Charles River.
These destructive people use whatever lie or false analogy (lie, lie, lie) they can get away with to destroy anything and everything that has a semblance of nature in our world.
The destructive people cannot get away with killing all dogs, as they are aggressively trying to kill the Charles River White Geese, so they regulate them to death, and they try to restrict dogs to bizarre "sanctuaries" as in the sick situation on the Charles River.
Not all attackers of pit bulls are aggressively destroying our world. The tiny minority of world destroyers manipulate people all over the place.
I was in the legislative hearing a few months ago on the latest attempt by this sick organization to attack nature at whatever weak links these sick people can find. This was an attempt to apply bizarre restrictions on pit bulls.
The testimony at that hearing mentioned the tendency of the press to identify a pit bull as the aggressor in all bad situations involving pit bulls, but to downplay attacks by other dogs.
One example of a difficult attack mentioned in that hearing was an attack by a large size Golden Retriever. My brother has a large Golden. The most minimal thing that can be said about her is that she is an excellent example of extreme but intelligent pleasantness.
Nevertheless, I had one incident in which I scratched the ear of my brother's Golden and she responded defensively and quite rapidly and aggressively. Apparently she had some sort of infection and was defending herself.
I am a dog patter. My brother's Golden walks around the world intelligently looking to be friends with every human and every dog she encounters. I am the same way with dogs.
I had a situation in Central Square, Cambridge, in which I encountered a Golden with a face similar to that of my brother's dog. I pet her and, as with my brother's dog, did something inadvertently to hurt her. She defended herself. The owner's reaction went from pleasure to surprised mortification. I tried to placate her explaining that I must have hurt the animal in some way.
In the case of the attack I mentioned above by a Golden Retriever, I can imagine some fool tormenting that poor dog and the dog defending itself.
Similarly the folks fighting against the legislative attacks on pit bulls report similar fact patterns involved in pit bull attacks, problems with humans, not dogs.
We live in a world which is generally very, very good. There is a truly reprehensible minority aggressively destroying our world while piously claiming sainthood.
This reprehensible minority includes Cambridge pols and bureaucrats and their friendly pols and bureaucrats at the state level.
In order to prevent the destruction of our world, we must stand up to these reprehensible people, particularly those, such as nine Cambridge City Councilors, who abuse their power and lie about which side they are on.
We should regulate the destroyers of our world. We should not regulate their victims.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Report 352, Video of the Goose Meadow, April 2000; Perspective
Report 352 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese - Roy Bercaw posts his report of the geese in April 2000 - Thoughts on the changes which have come since.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility Report.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
4. Marilyn Responds.
5. Further Thought.
1. Visibility Report.
Yesterday, Saturday, July 14, 2007, I did another visibility on the edge of the Goose Meadow, saying hello to people on the BU Bridge. I went fairly late. There was a Red Sox game. They commonly get a lot of traffic over the BU Bridge, but traffic in that direction was a lot quieter than I expected. I anticipate that I was later than the game rush.
People were, as usual, quite friendly. One gentleman followed up on discussions with Marilyn.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post a video on the internet that he took of the Charles River White Geese in April 2000. Marilyn Wellons performed as commentator. Roy brought a camera to the Destroyed Nesting Area shortly after the geese returned to the BU/DCR imposed desolation. His video ended with an excellent shot of some very strong flying by one member of the goose gaggle.
I have created a link to one of the postings in the right margin. The video may be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/ypd6sh and at at video.google.com.
The developer lobby tends to descend upon people who have the nerve to talk reality when it comes to the environmental attacks by state and Cambridge bureaucrats and pols. They sound so good, but they toss out one lie after another lie after another lie.
One of their bizarre explanations for the pols and bureaucrats destroying wildlife on the Charles River was a lie that the Charles River White Geese do not fly.
The end of this video shows one Charles River White Goose flying, and flying very high.
Well, when one lie does not work, they switch to another lie. Their definition of THE TRUTH is that lie which works. Their world is a non-stop search for this very bizarre "truth." The Cambridge City Council's definition of "environmentalism" is an excellent example.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
The lie this week is that they want to create a "sanctuary" in the goose meadow, where there is no food. That "sanctuary" promise has no more credibility than the four years of promise of "no intent to harm" the Charles River White Geese. Then they disclosed that their definition of "harm" does not include starvation.
We are dealing with people who are proud of having no ethics.
Decent people cannot imagine how low the people they are trying to deal with are.
Promises have no value. Decency is treated as a weakness. And they will lie and lie and lie until they find a lie that works and call that lie the TRUTH.
4. Marilyn Responds.
You're right.
To call the White Geese's ghetto a sanctuary is an
abomination.
5. Further Thought.
The true sickness of the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats and the developer-types who are so prominent in the tiny minority egging them on is demonstrated by the fact that Marilyn is right.
But much more than that.
These reprehensible people took a thing of beauty and turned it into a ghetto.
For the first more than 20 years that the Charles River White Geese were proud, beautiful residents of the Charles River, this place was their holiest place. The Charles River White Geese lived in a mile long habitat.
Three quarters of the time, they lived at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
The other quarter of the time, they migrated to their place of life, their place of mating and of raising their babies.
These sick people have wantonly destroyed three quarters of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese for their use and turned the holiest part of their habitat into a ghetto.
And they are doing it as part of a package in which they are destroying all animal habitat, all wetlands and all wild areas in the City of Cambridge along with repeated, needless destruction of trees and trees and trees.
The pols and bureaucrats of the City of Cambridge and the state along with their tiny gathering of sycophants are nothing less than reprehensible.
And they have the nerve to call themselves "environmentalists" using a secretly redefined term in which environmental destruction becomes "environmentalism."
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility Report.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
4. Marilyn Responds.
5. Further Thought.
1. Visibility Report.
Yesterday, Saturday, July 14, 2007, I did another visibility on the edge of the Goose Meadow, saying hello to people on the BU Bridge. I went fairly late. There was a Red Sox game. They commonly get a lot of traffic over the BU Bridge, but traffic in that direction was a lot quieter than I expected. I anticipate that I was later than the game rush.
People were, as usual, quite friendly. One gentleman followed up on discussions with Marilyn.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post a video on the internet that he took of the Charles River White Geese in April 2000. Marilyn Wellons performed as commentator. Roy brought a camera to the Destroyed Nesting Area shortly after the geese returned to the BU/DCR imposed desolation. His video ended with an excellent shot of some very strong flying by one member of the goose gaggle.
I have created a link to one of the postings in the right margin. The video may be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/ypd6sh and at at video.google.com.
The developer lobby tends to descend upon people who have the nerve to talk reality when it comes to the environmental attacks by state and Cambridge bureaucrats and pols. They sound so good, but they toss out one lie after another lie after another lie.
One of their bizarre explanations for the pols and bureaucrats destroying wildlife on the Charles River was a lie that the Charles River White Geese do not fly.
The end of this video shows one Charles River White Goose flying, and flying very high.
Well, when one lie does not work, they switch to another lie. Their definition of THE TRUTH is that lie which works. Their world is a non-stop search for this very bizarre "truth." The Cambridge City Council's definition of "environmentalism" is an excellent example.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
The lie this week is that they want to create a "sanctuary" in the goose meadow, where there is no food. That "sanctuary" promise has no more credibility than the four years of promise of "no intent to harm" the Charles River White Geese. Then they disclosed that their definition of "harm" does not include starvation.
We are dealing with people who are proud of having no ethics.
Decent people cannot imagine how low the people they are trying to deal with are.
Promises have no value. Decency is treated as a weakness. And they will lie and lie and lie until they find a lie that works and call that lie the TRUTH.
4. Marilyn Responds.
You're right.
To call the White Geese's ghetto a sanctuary is an
abomination.
5. Further Thought.
The true sickness of the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats and the developer-types who are so prominent in the tiny minority egging them on is demonstrated by the fact that Marilyn is right.
But much more than that.
These reprehensible people took a thing of beauty and turned it into a ghetto.
For the first more than 20 years that the Charles River White Geese were proud, beautiful residents of the Charles River, this place was their holiest place. The Charles River White Geese lived in a mile long habitat.
Three quarters of the time, they lived at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
The other quarter of the time, they migrated to their place of life, their place of mating and of raising their babies.
These sick people have wantonly destroyed three quarters of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese for their use and turned the holiest part of their habitat into a ghetto.
And they are doing it as part of a package in which they are destroying all animal habitat, all wetlands and all wild areas in the City of Cambridge along with repeated, needless destruction of trees and trees and trees.
The pols and bureaucrats of the City of Cambridge and the state along with their tiny gathering of sycophants are nothing less than reprehensible.
And they have the nerve to call themselves "environmentalists" using a secretly redefined term in which environmental destruction becomes "environmentalism."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Fliers Available in PDF
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
The most recent visibility included one pleasant surprise.
One lady informed me that she had received our flier at her door. Trouble is we have not gone door to door with that flier.
Clearly, somebody got a flier from us, copied it and has distributed it.
People are soo good on these issues and soo supportive, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend all the materials which are on the street.
I have all three fliers we are currently distributing in PDF format. I would be pleased to provide these PDF files to interested friends.
Available are:
***********
1. Cambridge / state Pols and Bureaucrats are at it again on the Charles River.
This is the main flier, telling people about the imminent destruction of the grass and earth at Magazine Beach for replacement by grass, dirt and poisons.
2. DCR poll: Most people think no improvements are needed on the Charles River.
This fact sheet provides an 18 point bulleted list of environmental destruction on the Charles River in the past 10 years by the city and state pols and bureacrats.
It is normally printed back to back with number 3, but that is not necessary.
3. Cambridge / state pols and bureaucrats are implementing a 19th Century "Environmentalism".
Definitely the prettiest flier of the three. Features graphics of a tree, goose, chipmunk, possum, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel and heron. All are threatened by the vile Cambridge and state pols and bureacrats.
This flier, with 15 bulleted counts, provides a brief summary of major items of environmental destruction in Cambridge.
It is normally printed back to back with number 2, but that is not necessary.
*******
It would be best to communicate with me on these items at my personal email address, boblat@yahoo.com.
Thanks in advance.
The most recent visibility included one pleasant surprise.
One lady informed me that she had received our flier at her door. Trouble is we have not gone door to door with that flier.
Clearly, somebody got a flier from us, copied it and has distributed it.
People are soo good on these issues and soo supportive, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend all the materials which are on the street.
I have all three fliers we are currently distributing in PDF format. I would be pleased to provide these PDF files to interested friends.
Available are:
***********
1. Cambridge / state Pols and Bureaucrats are at it again on the Charles River.
This is the main flier, telling people about the imminent destruction of the grass and earth at Magazine Beach for replacement by grass, dirt and poisons.
2. DCR poll: Most people think no improvements are needed on the Charles River.
This fact sheet provides an 18 point bulleted list of environmental destruction on the Charles River in the past 10 years by the city and state pols and bureacrats.
It is normally printed back to back with number 3, but that is not necessary.
3. Cambridge / state pols and bureaucrats are implementing a 19th Century "Environmentalism".
Definitely the prettiest flier of the three. Features graphics of a tree, goose, chipmunk, possum, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel and heron. All are threatened by the vile Cambridge and state pols and bureacrats.
This flier, with 15 bulleted counts, provides a brief summary of major items of environmental destruction in Cambridge.
It is normally printed back to back with number 2, but that is not necessary.
*******
It would be best to communicate with me on these items at my personal email address, boblat@yahoo.com.
Thanks in advance.
Report 351, Clarification
Report 351 from the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
On Monday, July 9, I conducted a visibility outside the Goose Meadow. People, as usual, were very responsive and friendly.
In my last posting, I spoke of a less vile time. Most people are not vile. Most people are not the nine members of the Cambridge City Council. Most people are not the lying bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and Resources.
Most people are good people. The trouble is too many rotten people have power and too many rotten people indulge in really vile tactics to do really vile things.
The bad guys are responding to the leaflets. They are shocked at the detail in the fact sheets. From their sick sense of entitlement, we are being unfair to them. We are providing too much information. Their lies won't work if we inform people of the very sick reality the bad guys are.
We will continue to tell the truth. We will continue to try to protect people from the repeated lies of the bad guys.
But they have had such sick successes on the Charles River.
Once again, the secret definition of "environment" used by these reprehensible people may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html.
The phone number of Governor Patrick is 617-725-1100.
Our fliers tell people to call the Cambridge City Council as well. The reality is that Governor Patrick right now is very very much more important than these nine destructive people.
The weakness of nine Cambridge City Councilors is their repeated lies. Governor Patrick has the money.
Governor Patrick has the power to do the latest terrible things on the Charles River. A lot of developer types want further destruction.
Tell him NO.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
On Monday, July 9, I conducted a visibility outside the Goose Meadow. People, as usual, were very responsive and friendly.
In my last posting, I spoke of a less vile time. Most people are not vile. Most people are not the nine members of the Cambridge City Council. Most people are not the lying bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and Resources.
Most people are good people. The trouble is too many rotten people have power and too many rotten people indulge in really vile tactics to do really vile things.
The bad guys are responding to the leaflets. They are shocked at the detail in the fact sheets. From their sick sense of entitlement, we are being unfair to them. We are providing too much information. Their lies won't work if we inform people of the very sick reality the bad guys are.
We will continue to tell the truth. We will continue to try to protect people from the repeated lies of the bad guys.
But they have had such sick successes on the Charles River.
Once again, the secret definition of "environment" used by these reprehensible people may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html.
The phone number of Governor Patrick is 617-725-1100.
Our fliers tell people to call the Cambridge City Council as well. The reality is that Governor Patrick right now is very very much more important than these nine destructive people.
The weakness of nine Cambridge City Councilors is their repeated lies. Governor Patrick has the money.
Governor Patrick has the power to do the latest terrible things on the Charles River. A lot of developer types want further destruction.
Tell him NO.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Memories from a less openly vile time
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I was just checking the links on this blog to ensure they are still valid, when I clicked on the Cambridge Candle link to the first public comment on this outrage, entitled "Who would want to destroy the homes of a bunch of harmless, beautiful geese?"
The Link is: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html.
It was published in February 1999 when my big problem was convincing people anybody could stoop so low.
A brief quote may suffice:
****************
When I try to tell most people that these beautiful geese are in danger, they only answer with incredulity. People cannot conceive that there are people irresponsible enough to attack these beautiful creatures.
A totally different story appears if you talk to a tiny number of people who claim to be “friends” of Magazine Beach. Many of these people fought, unsuccessfully, to put large trailer trucks on Memorial Drive a few years ago. Many if not most of them, seem to make their livings from development or from planning for development.
Many of these people have a dream. It is a dream which most people would consider unattractive, but you see, developer types live in a different world from most people and developer types know how to get things done that most people would consider offensive. Developer types call this “creativity.”
****************
Now we have nine proudly reprehensible City Councilors falsely calling themselves "environmentalists" as they indulge in truly sick behavior on the Charles River.
The issue is no longer whether they could possibly stoop so low. The issue now is how low they can go.
I was just checking the links on this blog to ensure they are still valid, when I clicked on the Cambridge Candle link to the first public comment on this outrage, entitled "Who would want to destroy the homes of a bunch of harmless, beautiful geese?"
The Link is: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html.
It was published in February 1999 when my big problem was convincing people anybody could stoop so low.
A brief quote may suffice:
****************
When I try to tell most people that these beautiful geese are in danger, they only answer with incredulity. People cannot conceive that there are people irresponsible enough to attack these beautiful creatures.
A totally different story appears if you talk to a tiny number of people who claim to be “friends” of Magazine Beach. Many of these people fought, unsuccessfully, to put large trailer trucks on Memorial Drive a few years ago. Many if not most of them, seem to make their livings from development or from planning for development.
Many of these people have a dream. It is a dream which most people would consider unattractive, but you see, developer types live in a different world from most people and developer types know how to get things done that most people would consider offensive. Developer types call this “creativity.”
****************
Now we have nine proudly reprehensible City Councilors falsely calling themselves "environmentalists" as they indulge in truly sick behavior on the Charles River.
The issue is no longer whether they could possibly stoop so low. The issue now is how low they can go.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Report 350, Mental Health Input
Report 350 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, Mental Health Input
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Yesterday, Friday, July 6, 2007, Marilyn and I did a visibility at the Goose Meadow. The entrance created in October 1999 is very close to the Cambridge end of the BU Bridge. It sees a great deal of rush hour traffic.
I had my long time sign with me and on display: an excellent photo of the gaggle by Anne Lynch with the message, "Save the Geese." As we always have had, there was a lot of very favorable input.
I had an extended discussion with a mental health professional from Marlboro Street in Boston.
We were specifically talking about the rape and murder of the young woman in October 2001 with regard to the level of blood on the hands of the then nine Cambridge City Councilors.
Her analysis was that the person who killed multiple mother geese on their nests with great brutality was always a danger to human beings. The difference and the culpability of nine city councilors lies in his getting up the nerve to do the same sort of thing to humans.
The goose killings were cowardly acts. He used a blanket or the equivalent to prevent self defense by throwing it over the nesting geese before he proceeded to beat them to death. The rape and murder of the woman in October was accomplished by a gang which overwhelmed her on the nearby rail bridge after one person raped her in the goose meadow.
Nine Cambridge City Councilors repeatedly heard pleas to stand up to these actions. The silence of the guilty was their reaction even after the clearly political killing of the leader of the gaggle. Channel 4 led their evening news with video footage of his body being dragged out of the Charles River. The Cambridge Chronicle dominated their front page with reports of our memorial service.
Nine city councilor with a wink and a nod sent exactly the message the killer wanted to hear. Nine city councilors told the killer by their silence that they saw nothing wrong with his behavior.
Nine city councilors reemphasized their venality by spending more that an hour discussing the rape and murder WHILE NOT WANTING TO KNOW WHERE IT HAPPENED. Councilor Davis briefly mentioned the location of the rape and murder. She looked around with a guilty look, swallowed her words and did not say it again.
Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors are showing the reason why they were silent and encouraged that rape and murder.
Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors have indulged in three years of heartless, undeserved, abuse to the Charles River White Geese by their deliberate starvation attacks on them at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency.
Now the next step is coming. Nine truly reprehensible people intend to dig up their food itself, the grass at Magazine Beach, and the dirt upon which that grass sits. They intend to replace it with dirt, grass and poisons, poisons which are not now necessary.
Like their protege in 2001, they have built up the nerve. Like their protege in 2001, they have looked to see if there was any sanction coming.
Their pious lies of environmental sainthood, their holier than thou lies, with the support of their syncophants, have worked.
Like their protege in 2001, they have gotten up the guts to take the next step.
They are now going, very quickly, to expose the children of Cambridge to poisons when the children of Cambridge play on those athletic fields. They are very quickly going to increase the level of poisons in the Charles River by the run-off from these fields of poison into the Charles River.
They could very quickly kill off the Charles River as the DCR rather clearly did at Ebersol Fields LAST YEAR.
And they will continue their holier-than-thou lies of environmental holiness.
Once again, please see the analysis on their behalf by the head of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. It is republished below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html. He goes into the theoretical nonsense of their lies about environmental sainthood. He clearly claims to speak for them.
And a governor who certainly looks no better (and just as holy in his proclamations) will be the weapon.
I appreciate the excellent insight of this mental health professional. Her analysis is not new. It is the same analysis we repeated over and over again before and after the rape and murder.
I have a great deal of concern for disturbed people who live in anguish.
I have flat out contempt for these nine disturbed people who spout holier-than-thou lies while doing these terrible things.
Oh, yes, the sign will be updated. The front with its photo and message will stay the same. The back will read: "Save Magazine Beach!"
But these nine reprehensible people, like their protege in 2001, will get worse and worse and worse as long as their lies work.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Yesterday, Friday, July 6, 2007, Marilyn and I did a visibility at the Goose Meadow. The entrance created in October 1999 is very close to the Cambridge end of the BU Bridge. It sees a great deal of rush hour traffic.
I had my long time sign with me and on display: an excellent photo of the gaggle by Anne Lynch with the message, "Save the Geese." As we always have had, there was a lot of very favorable input.
I had an extended discussion with a mental health professional from Marlboro Street in Boston.
We were specifically talking about the rape and murder of the young woman in October 2001 with regard to the level of blood on the hands of the then nine Cambridge City Councilors.
Her analysis was that the person who killed multiple mother geese on their nests with great brutality was always a danger to human beings. The difference and the culpability of nine city councilors lies in his getting up the nerve to do the same sort of thing to humans.
The goose killings were cowardly acts. He used a blanket or the equivalent to prevent self defense by throwing it over the nesting geese before he proceeded to beat them to death. The rape and murder of the woman in October was accomplished by a gang which overwhelmed her on the nearby rail bridge after one person raped her in the goose meadow.
Nine Cambridge City Councilors repeatedly heard pleas to stand up to these actions. The silence of the guilty was their reaction even after the clearly political killing of the leader of the gaggle. Channel 4 led their evening news with video footage of his body being dragged out of the Charles River. The Cambridge Chronicle dominated their front page with reports of our memorial service.
Nine city councilor with a wink and a nod sent exactly the message the killer wanted to hear. Nine city councilors told the killer by their silence that they saw nothing wrong with his behavior.
Nine city councilors reemphasized their venality by spending more that an hour discussing the rape and murder WHILE NOT WANTING TO KNOW WHERE IT HAPPENED. Councilor Davis briefly mentioned the location of the rape and murder. She looked around with a guilty look, swallowed her words and did not say it again.
Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors are showing the reason why they were silent and encouraged that rape and murder.
Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors have indulged in three years of heartless, undeserved, abuse to the Charles River White Geese by their deliberate starvation attacks on them at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency.
Now the next step is coming. Nine truly reprehensible people intend to dig up their food itself, the grass at Magazine Beach, and the dirt upon which that grass sits. They intend to replace it with dirt, grass and poisons, poisons which are not now necessary.
Like their protege in 2001, they have built up the nerve. Like their protege in 2001, they have looked to see if there was any sanction coming.
Their pious lies of environmental sainthood, their holier than thou lies, with the support of their syncophants, have worked.
Like their protege in 2001, they have gotten up the guts to take the next step.
They are now going, very quickly, to expose the children of Cambridge to poisons when the children of Cambridge play on those athletic fields. They are very quickly going to increase the level of poisons in the Charles River by the run-off from these fields of poison into the Charles River.
They could very quickly kill off the Charles River as the DCR rather clearly did at Ebersol Fields LAST YEAR.
And they will continue their holier-than-thou lies of environmental holiness.
Once again, please see the analysis on their behalf by the head of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. It is republished below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html. He goes into the theoretical nonsense of their lies about environmental sainthood. He clearly claims to speak for them.
And a governor who certainly looks no better (and just as holy in his proclamations) will be the weapon.
I appreciate the excellent insight of this mental health professional. Her analysis is not new. It is the same analysis we repeated over and over again before and after the rape and murder.
I have a great deal of concern for disturbed people who live in anguish.
I have flat out contempt for these nine disturbed people who spout holier-than-thou lies while doing these terrible things.
Oh, yes, the sign will be updated. The front with its photo and message will stay the same. The back will read: "Save Magazine Beach!"
But these nine reprehensible people, like their protege in 2001, will get worse and worse and worse as long as their lies work.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Marilyn Does Visibility against Charles River Conservancy, Herter Park, 7/5/07
Bob La Trémouille reports:
On the Charles River, we are doing with people doing truly reprehensible things, and they do a lot of lying. The lies come in all sorts of varieties. We see a lot of skill at this sort of thing.
It is highly unusual for the destructive people we are dealing with to come out and admit they are lying, as they did below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html.
So we have to stand up to their lies in any way we can.
One technique of lies is to pass out rewards for "environmental achievements" to people helping in the destruction of the environment.
One such occurrence came yesterday, Thursday, July 5, 2007, at Herter Park across from WBZ on Soldiers Field Road.
The environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy passed out rewards to people helping them destroy the environment. Naturally, the CRC said exactly the opposite.
Marilyn showed up with the truth. Our fliers.
Marilyn had the nerve to distribute the truth.
She tells me that one of the CRC staffers got quite unpleasant to her. Environmental destroyers lying about themselves can get touchy when faced with the truth.
Hopefully, Marilyn will have time to expand on this posting.
In any case, Marily deserves commendation for doing one little contribution to the cause of truth and the cause of the environment on the Charles River.
On the Charles River, we are doing with people doing truly reprehensible things, and they do a lot of lying. The lies come in all sorts of varieties. We see a lot of skill at this sort of thing.
It is highly unusual for the destructive people we are dealing with to come out and admit they are lying, as they did below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html.
So we have to stand up to their lies in any way we can.
One technique of lies is to pass out rewards for "environmental achievements" to people helping in the destruction of the environment.
One such occurrence came yesterday, Thursday, July 5, 2007, at Herter Park across from WBZ on Soldiers Field Road.
The environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy passed out rewards to people helping them destroy the environment. Naturally, the CRC said exactly the opposite.
Marilyn showed up with the truth. Our fliers.
Marilyn had the nerve to distribute the truth.
She tells me that one of the CRC staffers got quite unpleasant to her. Environmental destroyers lying about themselves can get touchy when faced with the truth.
Hopefully, Marilyn will have time to expand on this posting.
In any case, Marily deserves commendation for doing one little contribution to the cause of truth and the cause of the environment on the Charles River.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Reports 348 and 349, Nice Reaction
Reports 348, July 2, 2007, and 349, July 3, 2007, from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese - Nice Reaction.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Marilyn conducted visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese on Monday and Tuesday, July 2, 2007 and July 3, 2007. I joined her on July 3.
Both visibilities were in the evening rush hour. I was very pleased with what I saw.
Traffic, both auto, pedestrian and bicycle was heavy, including traffic to an evening Red Sox game.
Marilyn had a new sign from past years. She stood on the sidewalk near the entrance to the Goose Meadow. I worked without a sign from the traffic island in the middle of the intersection. Marilyn also had an information board with photos. She had frequent extended discussions with passers by.
As in the past, we in no way interfered with traffic.
A number of people went out of their way to ask for materials. Clearly an excellent sign.
The reality is that people were quite shocked at the behavior of the state and of the nine Cambridge incumbent city councilors. People were clearly very responsive to our communications.
I have since dusted off and cleaned up the sign I first used in March 2000. It has had many refurbishments. It, however, still features, untouched, the excellent photo provided by Ann Lynch way back when.
It is now readily available for use and will be updated.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Marilyn conducted visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese on Monday and Tuesday, July 2, 2007 and July 3, 2007. I joined her on July 3.
Both visibilities were in the evening rush hour. I was very pleased with what I saw.
Traffic, both auto, pedestrian and bicycle was heavy, including traffic to an evening Red Sox game.
Marilyn had a new sign from past years. She stood on the sidewalk near the entrance to the Goose Meadow. I worked without a sign from the traffic island in the middle of the intersection. Marilyn also had an information board with photos. She had frequent extended discussions with passers by.
As in the past, we in no way interfered with traffic.
A number of people went out of their way to ask for materials. Clearly an excellent sign.
The reality is that people were quite shocked at the behavior of the state and of the nine Cambridge incumbent city councilors. People were clearly very responsive to our communications.
I have since dusted off and cleaned up the sign I first used in March 2000. It has had many refurbishments. It, however, still features, untouched, the excellent photo provided by Ann Lynch way back when.
It is now readily available for use and will be updated.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Thoughts on Resumption of Visibilities
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The last two reports have been reports from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
Reports 346 and 347 follow a long and distinguished line, and I thank Marilyn for taking the initiative.
These reports started in March 2000. Until then, the Charles River White Geese were migratory within a mile long habitat on the Charles River. They would live in most of the habitat for nine months of the year and in the spring would return to their Nesting Area to mate and raise their babies.
In October 1999, Boston University destroyed their Nesting Area acting on behalf of the state bureacrats.
Nine truly reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors along with pols and bureaucrats at the state and local level destroyed their migration in September 2004, when they, with extreme sickness, destroyed the habitat of the Charles River White Geese except for the regrown nesting area.
Now nine truly reprehensible (not all the same) Cambridge City Councilors are going one step further and destroying the very land upon which the Charles River White Geese fed at Magazine Beach.
They are destroying the land because they think it is an improvement for kids to be playing in poisons.
I will not be running from Cambridge City Council this year.
Additionally, I will not be so stupid as to give any credence to fraudulent environmental campaigns such as that run by Craig Kelly two years ago.
As far as I am concerned, the only responsible action for Cambridge environmentalists to take in Cambridge is boycott.
I will look at supposed environmentalists as they announce themselves and I will not be so stupid as to give them the benefit of the doubt as I gave Craig Kelley two years ago.
As we reported on May 29, 2007, with a complete quote from one of Kelley's fellow fake environmentalists, the Cambridge pols have a built in lie every time they use the word "Environmentalist." They have their own sick, destructive definition.
The use of the word "Environmentalist" by Cambridge pols is flat out fraud.
As newcomers show up and make claims such as those made by Kelley two years ago, I will assume those claims of being "environmentalists" are just as fraudulent as they are when coming from the known fraudulent environmentalists.
The last two reports have been reports from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
Reports 346 and 347 follow a long and distinguished line, and I thank Marilyn for taking the initiative.
These reports started in March 2000. Until then, the Charles River White Geese were migratory within a mile long habitat on the Charles River. They would live in most of the habitat for nine months of the year and in the spring would return to their Nesting Area to mate and raise their babies.
In October 1999, Boston University destroyed their Nesting Area acting on behalf of the state bureacrats.
Nine truly reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors along with pols and bureaucrats at the state and local level destroyed their migration in September 2004, when they, with extreme sickness, destroyed the habitat of the Charles River White Geese except for the regrown nesting area.
Now nine truly reprehensible (not all the same) Cambridge City Councilors are going one step further and destroying the very land upon which the Charles River White Geese fed at Magazine Beach.
They are destroying the land because they think it is an improvement for kids to be playing in poisons.
I will not be running from Cambridge City Council this year.
Additionally, I will not be so stupid as to give any credence to fraudulent environmental campaigns such as that run by Craig Kelly two years ago.
As far as I am concerned, the only responsible action for Cambridge environmentalists to take in Cambridge is boycott.
I will look at supposed environmentalists as they announce themselves and I will not be so stupid as to give them the benefit of the doubt as I gave Craig Kelley two years ago.
As we reported on May 29, 2007, with a complete quote from one of Kelley's fellow fake environmentalists, the Cambridge pols have a built in lie every time they use the word "Environmentalist." They have their own sick, destructive definition.
The use of the word "Environmentalist" by Cambridge pols is flat out fraud.
As newcomers show up and make claims such as those made by Kelley two years ago, I will assume those claims of being "environmentalists" are just as fraudulent as they are when coming from the known fraudulent environmentalists.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Report 347, June 29, 2007 visibility
Report 347 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. June 29, 2007 visibility.
Marilyn reports:
This time I had a sign that said, "Save Magazine
Beach," and it started out with two beautiful photos
of Phil Barber's--a winter shot and one in the summer,
at sunset, with a pink sky, White Geese in both.
They both fell off since I had only glued them, one
blew away. I'll replace them for next time.
Marilyn reports:
This time I had a sign that said, "Save Magazine
Beach," and it started out with two beautiful photos
of Phil Barber's--a winter shot and one in the summer,
at sunset, with a pink sky, White Geese in both.
They both fell off since I had only glued them, one
blew away. I'll replace them for next time.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Report 346 from the Destroyed Nesting Area: Visibilities Resume at the Destroyed Nesting Area
Principal raconteur: Bob La Trémouille.
Update, July 5, 2007. The number 600 referred to below is actually the number of reports, approximately. The number 345 is very certainly an accurate count of visibilities at the Goose Meadow.
****************
In the six years starting the beginning March 2000 and ending February 24, 2006, Friends of the White Geese conducted more than 600 visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
After each visibility, I would put out an email newsletter. The newsletters were numbered consecutively. Newsletter distribution at one point reached about 1300, but Yahoo made such newsletters more and more difficult. Distribution time went from about an hour each after writing to four days each after writing. We finally were worn out.
My count of 600 visibilities is based on 345 reports in the regular series reported as they occurred and ending December 1, 2003, and 260 reports in the Evil series which responded to evil on the Charles River. This is the series which ended February 24, 2006.
Plus there were visibilities reported in different series. So we had quite a bit more than 600 in six years.
I initially published this report as Evil Report 261. On thinking things over, we never abandoned the Reports from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. We abandoned the visibilities.
Since we are resuming the visibilities, we are resuming the reports. Thus this is Report 346.
With the good materials I told you about in the last report, Marilyn resumed the visibilities on Tuesday, June 26, from 5 pm to 6:45 pm. Marilyn reports:
**********
Flyers said Friends of the White Geese and were
visible.
I had photo boards showing Magazine Beach that I'd
used at Dana Park and the River Festival.
***********
Response to the visibilities has always been good. We would stand either at the entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area or on the traffic island. We would leaflet people walking or driving by. A lot of materials went to drivers. I was doing a visibility on the day Bumpy was killed.
Thank you Marilyn.
Update, July 5, 2007. The number 600 referred to below is actually the number of reports, approximately. The number 345 is very certainly an accurate count of visibilities at the Goose Meadow.
****************
In the six years starting the beginning March 2000 and ending February 24, 2006, Friends of the White Geese conducted more than 600 visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
After each visibility, I would put out an email newsletter. The newsletters were numbered consecutively. Newsletter distribution at one point reached about 1300, but Yahoo made such newsletters more and more difficult. Distribution time went from about an hour each after writing to four days each after writing. We finally were worn out.
My count of 600 visibilities is based on 345 reports in the regular series reported as they occurred and ending December 1, 2003, and 260 reports in the Evil series which responded to evil on the Charles River. This is the series which ended February 24, 2006.
Plus there were visibilities reported in different series. So we had quite a bit more than 600 in six years.
I initially published this report as Evil Report 261. On thinking things over, we never abandoned the Reports from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. We abandoned the visibilities.
Since we are resuming the visibilities, we are resuming the reports. Thus this is Report 346.
With the good materials I told you about in the last report, Marilyn resumed the visibilities on Tuesday, June 26, from 5 pm to 6:45 pm. Marilyn reports:
**********
Flyers said Friends of the White Geese and were
visible.
I had photo boards showing Magazine Beach that I'd
used at Dana Park and the River Festival.
***********
Response to the visibilities has always been good. We would stand either at the entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area or on the traffic island. We would leaflet people walking or driving by. A lot of materials went to drivers. I was doing a visibility on the day Bumpy was killed.
Thank you Marilyn.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Visibilities, New Fliers
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Friends of the White Geese have published two new documents:
1. A flier announcing the forthcoming destruction at Magazine Beach UNLESS either the governor or nine city councillors change sides on environmental issues to the side they claim to be on.
You have to realize that the Cambridge pols have their own SECRET definition of environmentalism or to understand their reprehensible record to realize the difference. They keep on using that secret definition of environmentalism. It is silly to describe this secret definition as other than flat out lying since their secret definition is at dramatic conflict with the definition used by responsible human beings.
The secret definition was announced by one of their insiders and published in these pages under the title, "Exchange on Cambridge views of environmentalism."
2. A fact sheet in two sides. One side has a lot of graphics and briefly describes environmental low lights in Cambridge. The other side gives a blow by blow (but brief) summary of 10 years of attacks on the Charles River by the City of Cambridge and its bureacrat and pol friends.
Marilyn distributed the flier and the front of the fact sheet at a neighborhood potluck last Sunday, June 10. Saturday, June 16, the back side of the fact sheet was ready, so she distributed the flier and the double sided fact sheet at the Riverfest celebration on Memorial Drive between Western Avenue and John F. Kennedy Street.
Marilyn tells me that the response was excellent. That is the normal situation when dealing with normal human beings. Regrettably, the situation with regard to Cambridge pols and bureacrats is based on this fake definition of "environmentalism" which translates as white-washing environmental destruction.
If you would like either of these documents, please give us a ring at boblat@yahoo.com or onblueriver@yahoo.com. Thanks.
If you would like to volunteer to help, please contact onblueriver@yahoo.com or call 617-792-7738. Thanks again.
Friends of the White Geese have published two new documents:
1. A flier announcing the forthcoming destruction at Magazine Beach UNLESS either the governor or nine city councillors change sides on environmental issues to the side they claim to be on.
You have to realize that the Cambridge pols have their own SECRET definition of environmentalism or to understand their reprehensible record to realize the difference. They keep on using that secret definition of environmentalism. It is silly to describe this secret definition as other than flat out lying since their secret definition is at dramatic conflict with the definition used by responsible human beings.
The secret definition was announced by one of their insiders and published in these pages under the title, "Exchange on Cambridge views of environmentalism."
2. A fact sheet in two sides. One side has a lot of graphics and briefly describes environmental low lights in Cambridge. The other side gives a blow by blow (but brief) summary of 10 years of attacks on the Charles River by the City of Cambridge and its bureacrat and pol friends.
Marilyn distributed the flier and the front of the fact sheet at a neighborhood potluck last Sunday, June 10. Saturday, June 16, the back side of the fact sheet was ready, so she distributed the flier and the double sided fact sheet at the Riverfest celebration on Memorial Drive between Western Avenue and John F. Kennedy Street.
Marilyn tells me that the response was excellent. That is the normal situation when dealing with normal human beings. Regrettably, the situation with regard to Cambridge pols and bureacrats is based on this fake definition of "environmentalism" which translates as white-washing environmental destruction.
If you would like either of these documents, please give us a ring at boblat@yahoo.com or onblueriver@yahoo.com. Thanks.
If you would like to volunteer to help, please contact onblueriver@yahoo.com or call 617-792-7738. Thanks again.
Wildlife Report from Porter - Davis Squares
Karen lives a few blocks in either direction from Porter and Davis Squares. She reports (passed on by Bob La Trémouille):
I have possum and racoons that come in my yard, skunk too. Bluejays and Cardinals sometimes too. I think also a few other species of bird, Marilyn mentioned Grackels, something like that when I described some before. Hope you are well.
Sometimes when the racoons are rolling around playing on my back porch they sound like cats screaming.
At times last fall the possum, I dont know if there is more than one still sits in my lilac bush waiting for the food to be put out, and hangs by its tail on one of the trees. My mother thought she was hallucinating at 530am. Just before sunrise.
I have possum and racoons that come in my yard, skunk too. Bluejays and Cardinals sometimes too. I think also a few other species of bird, Marilyn mentioned Grackels, something like that when I described some before. Hope you are well.
Sometimes when the racoons are rolling around playing on my back porch they sound like cats screaming.
At times last fall the possum, I dont know if there is more than one still sits in my lilac bush waiting for the food to be put out, and hangs by its tail on one of the trees. My mother thought she was hallucinating at 530am. Just before sunrise.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
White Geese, wildlife to the West on the Charles, Brush Fire
1. Teddy K with good photos.
Hi,
I am resident of Watertown MA and just found you great site. I would just like to let you know, that I put a link to your site in the blog roll of my site. I usually discuss sports and politics on my site, but I also post a lot of pictures of Birds and other wild life along the Charles River when I see the while riding my bike to work.
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/05/22/pictures-of-a-crane-near-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/05/02/pictures-white-geesedog-chase-on-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/01/28/pictures-swans-on-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/03/25/pictures-stone-markers-painted-bird-foot-prints-and-swans-along-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2006/05/31/the-charles-rivers-newest-invader-with-pictures.aspx
Keep up the good work
Teddy
2. Marilyn Responds.
Hi Teddy,
Thanks so much for the kudos and the link. Your photos are beautiful.
The swans were down around the boat kiosk near the Eliot Bridge about two months ago. This is the third or fourth year they've showed up, then disappeared. Do they go back upriver, do you know, or are they off to parts unknown? The photos of them with the ice are really very fine.
The cormorants and all the other waterfowl show us how much the Charles has improved. A couple of years ago by the Weeks footbridge I watched one take five minutes or more to wrestle and swallow what seemed like a very, very long rope but must have been an enormous eel. I thought the bird would choke but it got the thing down--amazing.
Someone commented that nature goofed with cormorants because they don't have oil on their feathers like ducks and geese, and have to dry out their feathers after diving. Then I read that the reason they don't have oil is that the buoyancy they'd get would keep them from swimming as long and far as they do when hunting.
As for the goose droppings, why not think of them as nature's own lawn fertilizer? Geese are vegetarians, so it's grass in, grass out. Their shit doesn't attract flies, is water soluble, and goes right back to the grass itself. A state biologist told me he doesn't recommend it, but you could eat several handfuls of the stuff and it wouldn't hurt you.
As an athlete you may have noticed the new regulation ball fields at Lederman Park in Boston near MGH. The unprecedented algae bloom there last August and September followed the DCR's installation of 6 acres of commercial sod last spring.
You may know that grass for such fields needs very intensive care: lots of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, and, in this case, fungicide. The DCR made a big point that the fertilizer used would be "organic," but nitrogen is nitrogen, and runoff from it and the other chemicals caused the algae bloom. In August the algae count shot to astronomical levels the day after the DCR applied "Tartan," a fungicide whose label says not to use it near bodies of water, and the algae count went up again after the reapplication of "Tartan" September 1.
All of this is by way of suggesting you reconsider your opinion of goose shit!
Thanks again,
Marilyn Wellons
3. Marilyn: Brush Fire.
PS: Do you know what's happening on the Watertown side of the river just downriver from the Arsenal St. bridge? I've seen what looks like a bit patch of clearing and burning in the reeds there.
4. Teddy with details.
There was a brush fire there a few weeks back. Here is the link to video of the news report about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jC1vAyxcg
Hi,
I am resident of Watertown MA and just found you great site. I would just like to let you know, that I put a link to your site in the blog roll of my site. I usually discuss sports and politics on my site, but I also post a lot of pictures of Birds and other wild life along the Charles River when I see the while riding my bike to work.
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/05/22/pictures-of-a-crane-near-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/05/02/pictures-white-geesedog-chase-on-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/01/28/pictures-swans-on-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/03/25/pictures-stone-markers-painted-bird-foot-prints-and-swans-along-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2006/05/31/the-charles-rivers-newest-invader-with-pictures.aspx
Keep up the good work
Teddy
2. Marilyn Responds.
Hi Teddy,
Thanks so much for the kudos and the link. Your photos are beautiful.
The swans were down around the boat kiosk near the Eliot Bridge about two months ago. This is the third or fourth year they've showed up, then disappeared. Do they go back upriver, do you know, or are they off to parts unknown? The photos of them with the ice are really very fine.
The cormorants and all the other waterfowl show us how much the Charles has improved. A couple of years ago by the Weeks footbridge I watched one take five minutes or more to wrestle and swallow what seemed like a very, very long rope but must have been an enormous eel. I thought the bird would choke but it got the thing down--amazing.
Someone commented that nature goofed with cormorants because they don't have oil on their feathers like ducks and geese, and have to dry out their feathers after diving. Then I read that the reason they don't have oil is that the buoyancy they'd get would keep them from swimming as long and far as they do when hunting.
As for the goose droppings, why not think of them as nature's own lawn fertilizer? Geese are vegetarians, so it's grass in, grass out. Their shit doesn't attract flies, is water soluble, and goes right back to the grass itself. A state biologist told me he doesn't recommend it, but you could eat several handfuls of the stuff and it wouldn't hurt you.
As an athlete you may have noticed the new regulation ball fields at Lederman Park in Boston near MGH. The unprecedented algae bloom there last August and September followed the DCR's installation of 6 acres of commercial sod last spring.
You may know that grass for such fields needs very intensive care: lots of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, and, in this case, fungicide. The DCR made a big point that the fertilizer used would be "organic," but nitrogen is nitrogen, and runoff from it and the other chemicals caused the algae bloom. In August the algae count shot to astronomical levels the day after the DCR applied "Tartan," a fungicide whose label says not to use it near bodies of water, and the algae count went up again after the reapplication of "Tartan" September 1.
All of this is by way of suggesting you reconsider your opinion of goose shit!
Thanks again,
Marilyn Wellons
3. Marilyn: Brush Fire.
PS: Do you know what's happening on the Watertown side of the river just downriver from the Arsenal St. bridge? I've seen what looks like a bit patch of clearing and burning in the reeds there.
4. Teddy with details.
There was a brush fire there a few weeks back. Here is the link to video of the news report about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jC1vAyxcg
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Exchange on Cambridge's View of Environmentalism
Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have commented on the exchange between me and Cambridge political insider Sam Seidel in May 2007 issue of The Alewife. I have not been able to find the exchange on line and a request to the publisher has not been successful.
The following is my retyping of the exchange. It starts on page 6 and is continued on page 15, although the paper says the continuation is on page 21.
1. Your Editor:
I read with interest the article of Sam Seidel in April’s issue, especially the environmental comments at the end. Seidel’s praise of city-partnered initiatives which could give a damn less about the city’s ongoing destruction of the Green in the City of Cambridge goes a long way to explain why youths are not voting.
I would suggest that people who understand Cambridge and who are not in the middle of Cambridge’s really destructive situation have good reason to abstain from voting. When Mr. Seidel was on the Cambridge Conservation Commission key votes were taken in support of environmental destruction on the Charles River.
Most visible now is the blockading of Magazine Beach from the Charles by silly designer bushes which have no business on the Charles. We had a swim in before this blockage to swimming was installed. That swim in claimed that the work at Magazine Beach was pro-swimming.
The next phase will dig up all the dirt in the playing fields and replace it with dirt and poisons. The last time the DCR installed their beloved poisons, at Ebersol Fields near MGH, the next day the Charles River was dead.
Reality says everything about why many intelligent people would lack trust in “environmentalists” who could give a damn less about Cambridge and their buddies ongoing destruction of the Green.
Destruction of thousands of trees (starting with Fresh Pond) combines with destruction of as much wetlands as is possible, destruction of as much wildlife as possible, and a lot of other outrageous things.
You combine this with pious nonsense that fighting for fancy light bulbs has some sort of meaning in this environmentally reprehensible city.
I would think that young voters should be commended for the bad turnout.
2. Seidel’s Response.
Let me start by saying that I admire Robert La Trémouille. His relentless pursuit of goals that he holds dear is, well, relentless. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who’s as willing as him not to change his tune in spite of the prevailing wind of opposing opinion. This is not said in jest. He is the antithesis of group-think.
Unfortunately, Bob La Trémouille happens to be dead wrong in his understanding of the complex interactions between human and natural resources, especially those that happen in dense urban environments. Urban
[Page break, marked “please turn to page 21". Continued on page 15.]
ecology is a field of environmental science just now coming into its own. Biologist, planners, water resources specialists and many others are developing a deeper understanding of the natural systems enmeshed in the traditional built form we associate with cities.
The challenge in today’s age is to question long-entrenched assumptions about what it means to live in an urban environment, and what rights and responsibilities we have toward natural processes that occur here. One of the basic principles underlying our desicisons must be “sustainability”. Simply put, a sustainable decision is one that actively balances today’s consumption desires with tomorrow’s needs. In other words, we can’t mortgage future generations to satisfy our current wishes.
I take it as part of my understanding of this principle that urban natural areas can improve through human intervention. By definition, these areas have already felt the impact of human choices at some point in their history. Further intervention, with an eye toward restoration or improvement, finds part of its justification in this fact.
Water quality is only one such example, but it serves to make the point well. Hydrologists and landscape architects, among many others, have come to a much fuller understanding of how natural systems such as wetlands can improve water quality through processes such as filtering and sediment removal and at the same time create habits that encourage (and support) biodiversity in relatively unforgiving settings (such as cities). Many creative strategies replacing traditional engineering methods of water management with “bioengineering” approaches — where nature by itself does the important work— address both ecological and societal concerns simultaneously.
Contrary to Mr. La Trémouille’s assertion, you people should be inspired by the work of their elders, for two reasons: these efforts are intended to rebalance the equation between humans and their environment making our livability on this planet a longer-term proposition, and; they are a down-payment on the world that young people will inherit. If today’s society must respect the future’s rightful claim on earth’s resources, future generations much acknowledge good choices and hard work accomplished today to protect the assets of that claim.
3. So that is why the Cambridge pols are adopting environmental practices of the 19th Century!!!!!
I have commented on the exchange between me and Cambridge political insider Sam Seidel in May 2007 issue of The Alewife. I have not been able to find the exchange on line and a request to the publisher has not been successful.
The following is my retyping of the exchange. It starts on page 6 and is continued on page 15, although the paper says the continuation is on page 21.
1. Your Editor:
I read with interest the article of Sam Seidel in April’s issue, especially the environmental comments at the end. Seidel’s praise of city-partnered initiatives which could give a damn less about the city’s ongoing destruction of the Green in the City of Cambridge goes a long way to explain why youths are not voting.
I would suggest that people who understand Cambridge and who are not in the middle of Cambridge’s really destructive situation have good reason to abstain from voting. When Mr. Seidel was on the Cambridge Conservation Commission key votes were taken in support of environmental destruction on the Charles River.
Most visible now is the blockading of Magazine Beach from the Charles by silly designer bushes which have no business on the Charles. We had a swim in before this blockage to swimming was installed. That swim in claimed that the work at Magazine Beach was pro-swimming.
The next phase will dig up all the dirt in the playing fields and replace it with dirt and poisons. The last time the DCR installed their beloved poisons, at Ebersol Fields near MGH, the next day the Charles River was dead.
Reality says everything about why many intelligent people would lack trust in “environmentalists” who could give a damn less about Cambridge and their buddies ongoing destruction of the Green.
Destruction of thousands of trees (starting with Fresh Pond) combines with destruction of as much wetlands as is possible, destruction of as much wildlife as possible, and a lot of other outrageous things.
You combine this with pious nonsense that fighting for fancy light bulbs has some sort of meaning in this environmentally reprehensible city.
I would think that young voters should be commended for the bad turnout.
2. Seidel’s Response.
Let me start by saying that I admire Robert La Trémouille. His relentless pursuit of goals that he holds dear is, well, relentless. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who’s as willing as him not to change his tune in spite of the prevailing wind of opposing opinion. This is not said in jest. He is the antithesis of group-think.
Unfortunately, Bob La Trémouille happens to be dead wrong in his understanding of the complex interactions between human and natural resources, especially those that happen in dense urban environments. Urban
[Page break, marked “please turn to page 21". Continued on page 15.]
ecology is a field of environmental science just now coming into its own. Biologist, planners, water resources specialists and many others are developing a deeper understanding of the natural systems enmeshed in the traditional built form we associate with cities.
The challenge in today’s age is to question long-entrenched assumptions about what it means to live in an urban environment, and what rights and responsibilities we have toward natural processes that occur here. One of the basic principles underlying our desicisons must be “sustainability”. Simply put, a sustainable decision is one that actively balances today’s consumption desires with tomorrow’s needs. In other words, we can’t mortgage future generations to satisfy our current wishes.
I take it as part of my understanding of this principle that urban natural areas can improve through human intervention. By definition, these areas have already felt the impact of human choices at some point in their history. Further intervention, with an eye toward restoration or improvement, finds part of its justification in this fact.
Water quality is only one such example, but it serves to make the point well. Hydrologists and landscape architects, among many others, have come to a much fuller understanding of how natural systems such as wetlands can improve water quality through processes such as filtering and sediment removal and at the same time create habits that encourage (and support) biodiversity in relatively unforgiving settings (such as cities). Many creative strategies replacing traditional engineering methods of water management with “bioengineering” approaches — where nature by itself does the important work— address both ecological and societal concerns simultaneously.
Contrary to Mr. La Trémouille’s assertion, you people should be inspired by the work of their elders, for two reasons: these efforts are intended to rebalance the equation between humans and their environment making our livability on this planet a longer-term proposition, and; they are a down-payment on the world that young people will inherit. If today’s society must respect the future’s rightful claim on earth’s resources, future generations much acknowledge good choices and hard work accomplished today to protect the assets of that claim.
3. So that is why the Cambridge pols are adopting environmental practices of the 19th Century!!!!!
Thursday, May 24, 2007
New "Environmentalist" Looks for Campaign Manager
On May 13, 2007, in this blog, I reported that Cambridge insider Sam Seidel had publicly mocked me because I believe in the old definition of Environmentalism rather than the secret definition which he shares with other Cambridge insiders.
Seidel is a member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. He and his group have been supporting really outrageous environmental destruction on the Charles River.
Read this blog. Read the destructiveness I oppose. It is highly likely that this group with its still secret definition of environmentalism support the destruction in the name of their "environmentalism," whose secret definition they have yet to disclose.
I found the following on Craigslist:
***********
Campaign Manager sought ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: job-335198976@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-05-21, 10:18AM EDT
Looking for an opportunity to do something challenging and fun this summer and fall? Interested in politics? Want to gain some very good experience while developing leadership skills in a demanding environment?
Help a strong challenger win a seat on the Cambridge City Council this year.
Sam Seidel is making his second bid for a seat on the Council. A strong progressive, Sam came 90 votes short in 2005. Sam is an urban planner who understands that responsive government, environmental stewardship and children's services are important priorities in this dynamic and vibrant city.
Sam is looking for a campaign manager to manage all aspects of this local campaign. Tasks include: strategic campaign planning, developing communications materials, web and database management, voter contact, working closely with the candidate on a variety of other tasks.
Important skills for the position are: ability to handle multiple tasks in time-pressured environment, ability to communicate effectively both verbally and in written form, comfortable working knowledge of computers including Word and Excel and web-based programs, prior campaign experience preferred but not required.
This will be a paid position in Cambridge, MA and all are encourage to apply.
To find out more, please contact the campaign at info@SamSeidel.org or 617-547-1067.
Location: Cambridge
Compensation: $1,500 per month
This is a contract job.
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
Seidel is a member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. He and his group have been supporting really outrageous environmental destruction on the Charles River.
Read this blog. Read the destructiveness I oppose. It is highly likely that this group with its still secret definition of environmentalism support the destruction in the name of their "environmentalism," whose secret definition they have yet to disclose.
I found the following on Craigslist:
***********
Campaign Manager sought ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: job-335198976@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-05-21, 10:18AM EDT
Looking for an opportunity to do something challenging and fun this summer and fall? Interested in politics? Want to gain some very good experience while developing leadership skills in a demanding environment?
Help a strong challenger win a seat on the Cambridge City Council this year.
Sam Seidel is making his second bid for a seat on the Council. A strong progressive, Sam came 90 votes short in 2005. Sam is an urban planner who understands that responsive government, environmental stewardship and children's services are important priorities in this dynamic and vibrant city.
Sam is looking for a campaign manager to manage all aspects of this local campaign. Tasks include: strategic campaign planning, developing communications materials, web and database management, voter contact, working closely with the candidate on a variety of other tasks.
Important skills for the position are: ability to handle multiple tasks in time-pressured environment, ability to communicate effectively both verbally and in written form, comfortable working knowledge of computers including Word and Excel and web-based programs, prior campaign experience preferred but not required.
This will be a paid position in Cambridge, MA and all are encourage to apply.
To find out more, please contact the campaign at info@SamSeidel.org or 617-547-1067.
Location: Cambridge
Compensation: $1,500 per month
This is a contract job.
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Attacks on Pit Bulls Part of a Pattern
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Karen Parker.
2. Your Editor. Not just this one problem.
a. General.
b. Tree Destroyer who wants to destroy Canadas.
(1) His achievement. Destruction of excellent trees.
(2) "Replacements" loudly promised. Casually destroyed.
(3) Wife on board of reprehensible Charles River conservancy.
(4) "Fight" for Swimming in the Charles River.
(5) Destroy the Canadas.
(6) Possibly a few isolated events.
c. Summary.
1. Karen Parker.
Now the pitbulls are invading our state right? You heard about that on the news I guess, some people want to be able to question to ban pitbulls, my brother's girlfriend has a pitbull that is the sweetest dog in the world. Our old dog Bobbie was part pitbull.
My mother and I joked we will have to hide my brother's girlfriends dog Skippy in the attic, just like they did to the Jews, that is awful, these people are sick. How obnoxious can people get.
Pitbulls attack because bad people train them to be aggressive, its not the dog. Obviously the people that are behind this are not too bright.
Pitbulls are wonderful pitbulls that attack are victims of violence and they are not bad, they are victims of abuse by human beings. We should put the people in jail that abuse these animals, not ban the pitbulls.
2. Your Editor. Not just this one problem.
a. General.
It not just the people who abuse pit bulls who are part of the problem.
The problem is the destructive people running around trying to destroy whatever they can that is living and is non-human.
I was at the public hearing on pit bulls (and other animal regulations) at the state house. The opponents of the bills clearly communicated the problem.
b. Tree Destroyer who wants to destroy Canadas.
What interested me was a person who sat down next to me on the subway either then or on a following day.
(1) His achievement. Destruction of excellent trees.
He achieved destruction of a park containing truly massive trees in Cambridge (after I got an preliminary injunction under nearly impossible circumstances). The trees which he did not destroy are an example of just how irresponsible this person and his buddies are.
(2) "Replacements" loudly promised. Casually destroyed.
When the Cambridge pols destroyed these ancient, irreplaceable trees, the destroyers promised a large number of saplings half a block away.
Now the Cambridge pols have destroyed the saplings they provided as "replacements."
(3) Wife on board of reprehensible Charles River conservancy.
This individual bragged that his wife is on the board of the reprehensible Charles River Conservancy.
(4) "Fight" for Swimming in the Charles River.
The leader of the CRC was part of a group that conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach in 2005.
In September 2004, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge started starving the Charles River White Geese by walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River for this project. At pretty much exactly the same time, the City of Cambridge walled off the rest of their 25 year food across from the Hyatt Regency as Cambridge LEFT a sewerage project.
The DCR and Cambridge, at Magazine Beach, installed a wall of designer bushes blocking access to an from the Charles River, aggressively fighting to prevent swimming.
The "activist" was absolutely shocked that we should expect the Charles River Conservancy to HONESTLY state that a project is doing EXACTLY the opposite of what their photo opportunity says the project is doing.
(5) Destroy the Canadas.
When I mentioned the Charles River Conservancy's five year poisoning of every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River, he gave the knee-jerk and inane responses.
First he came back with "we are not poisoning. We are oiling."
Then he spouted "Too many Canadas." The fact that these are water fowl being destroyed because they are living on a water way was totally irrelevant.
Then objected to the fact that animals defecate. English translation: kill each and every animal living anywhere near human beings.
(6) Possibly a few isolated events.
Now, it is entirely possible that these examples are a few, very isolated events. It is much more likely that these examples are not.
I honestly cannot say. But I would be silly to call him the opposite of his actions.
c. Summary.
This is part of a culture of destruction.
The people attacking pit bulls are part of the culture.
The City of Cambridge is part of the culture. So many state bureaucrats are part of the culture.
Most people are neutral. A very, very tiny number of people are aggressive destroyers.
When aggressive destroyers find neutral people, the destructive people who know what they want have a distressing tendency to bully their way into dominance, especially if you have two who get together and reinforce each other, falsely praising each other's "achievements."
Destroy, destroy, destroy.
What is the excuse this time?
1. Karen Parker.
2. Your Editor. Not just this one problem.
a. General.
b. Tree Destroyer who wants to destroy Canadas.
(1) His achievement. Destruction of excellent trees.
(2) "Replacements" loudly promised. Casually destroyed.
(3) Wife on board of reprehensible Charles River conservancy.
(4) "Fight" for Swimming in the Charles River.
(5) Destroy the Canadas.
(6) Possibly a few isolated events.
c. Summary.
1. Karen Parker.
Now the pitbulls are invading our state right? You heard about that on the news I guess, some people want to be able to question to ban pitbulls, my brother's girlfriend has a pitbull that is the sweetest dog in the world. Our old dog Bobbie was part pitbull.
My mother and I joked we will have to hide my brother's girlfriends dog Skippy in the attic, just like they did to the Jews, that is awful, these people are sick. How obnoxious can people get.
Pitbulls attack because bad people train them to be aggressive, its not the dog. Obviously the people that are behind this are not too bright.
Pitbulls are wonderful pitbulls that attack are victims of violence and they are not bad, they are victims of abuse by human beings. We should put the people in jail that abuse these animals, not ban the pitbulls.
2. Your Editor. Not just this one problem.
a. General.
It not just the people who abuse pit bulls who are part of the problem.
The problem is the destructive people running around trying to destroy whatever they can that is living and is non-human.
I was at the public hearing on pit bulls (and other animal regulations) at the state house. The opponents of the bills clearly communicated the problem.
b. Tree Destroyer who wants to destroy Canadas.
What interested me was a person who sat down next to me on the subway either then or on a following day.
(1) His achievement. Destruction of excellent trees.
He achieved destruction of a park containing truly massive trees in Cambridge (after I got an preliminary injunction under nearly impossible circumstances). The trees which he did not destroy are an example of just how irresponsible this person and his buddies are.
(2) "Replacements" loudly promised. Casually destroyed.
When the Cambridge pols destroyed these ancient, irreplaceable trees, the destroyers promised a large number of saplings half a block away.
Now the Cambridge pols have destroyed the saplings they provided as "replacements."
(3) Wife on board of reprehensible Charles River conservancy.
This individual bragged that his wife is on the board of the reprehensible Charles River Conservancy.
(4) "Fight" for Swimming in the Charles River.
The leader of the CRC was part of a group that conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach in 2005.
In September 2004, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge started starving the Charles River White Geese by walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River for this project. At pretty much exactly the same time, the City of Cambridge walled off the rest of their 25 year food across from the Hyatt Regency as Cambridge LEFT a sewerage project.
The DCR and Cambridge, at Magazine Beach, installed a wall of designer bushes blocking access to an from the Charles River, aggressively fighting to prevent swimming.
The "activist" was absolutely shocked that we should expect the Charles River Conservancy to HONESTLY state that a project is doing EXACTLY the opposite of what their photo opportunity says the project is doing.
(5) Destroy the Canadas.
When I mentioned the Charles River Conservancy's five year poisoning of every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River, he gave the knee-jerk and inane responses.
First he came back with "we are not poisoning. We are oiling."
Then he spouted "Too many Canadas." The fact that these are water fowl being destroyed because they are living on a water way was totally irrelevant.
Then objected to the fact that animals defecate. English translation: kill each and every animal living anywhere near human beings.
(6) Possibly a few isolated events.
Now, it is entirely possible that these examples are a few, very isolated events. It is much more likely that these examples are not.
I honestly cannot say. But I would be silly to call him the opposite of his actions.
c. Summary.
This is part of a culture of destruction.
The people attacking pit bulls are part of the culture.
The City of Cambridge is part of the culture. So many state bureaucrats are part of the culture.
Most people are neutral. A very, very tiny number of people are aggressive destroyers.
When aggressive destroyers find neutral people, the destructive people who know what they want have a distressing tendency to bully their way into dominance, especially if you have two who get together and reinforce each other, falsely praising each other's "achievements."
Destroy, destroy, destroy.
What is the excuse this time?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Cambridge Declares Norwegian Maples Invasive
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Cambridge, MA calls Norwegian Maples Invasive.
2. Your editors opinion.
3. Bhiksha Raj.
4. Your Editor.
5. Bhiksha Raj.
1. Cambridge, MA calls Norwegian Maples Invasive.
Karen Parker tells us:
The city calls Norweigian Maple trees invasive now. We have a Norweigian Maple planted in front of our house, there were two but one was destroyed by a drunk driver, we have waited three years for the city to replace the tree. They have not yet.
I saw Craig Kelley and told him about it, he has been helpful. I dont see the Norweigian Maple in front of our house invading any other plants so I dont how they consider it invasive. My mom told me I should let you know.
2. Your editors opinion.
The city has planted purple loosestrife on Magazine Beach as part of their replacement of the wetlands there. They call purple loosestrife invasive at Fresh Pond.
The city destroyed a grove of about 8 to 12 four story high trees at Squirrel Brand and replaced them with grass. "Invasive" sniff.
The city and its friends destroyed most of the trees in the parks at Inman Square and at Porter Station. The city replaced the bird sanctuary in front of city hall (bird song 365 days a year) with grass.
State plans (with close Cambridge coordination) are to destroy every Cherry Tree from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach as part of the destruction of 449 to 660 trees there.
The city wiped out meaningful yard protections on Memorial Drive loudly proclaiming they were increasing protections.
I wish I could call this latest outrage a surprise.
3. Bhiksha Raj.
Its outrageous that supposedly sane people can even *think up* such ridiculous
plans. At a time when they should be cherishing all the greenery we have
they want to wipe it out.
Im not sure if they actually think about this matter, but urban concrete is hot.
Replacing a half acre of trees with a half acre of lawn can warm up the
surrounding areas considerably. Replace it with concrete and the neighbors
suddenly have to turn on the AC in summer when they didnt have to earlier.
It is not merely a matter of environment, or natural beauty or aesthetics
that can only affect future generations we dont worry about. The effect
of such depradations is immediate and it is on our physical comfort and
lifestyle!
Just how shortsighted can people get!
4. Your Editor.
Thank you, but this is business as usual in the City of Cambridge.
I neglected to mention the thousands of trees being destroyed at Fresh Pond.
5. Bhiksha Raj.
The destruction of trees at fresh pond is *very* distressing to me.
Its quite frustrating that people can be so stupid.
1. Cambridge, MA calls Norwegian Maples Invasive.
2. Your editors opinion.
3. Bhiksha Raj.
4. Your Editor.
5. Bhiksha Raj.
1. Cambridge, MA calls Norwegian Maples Invasive.
Karen Parker tells us:
The city calls Norweigian Maple trees invasive now. We have a Norweigian Maple planted in front of our house, there were two but one was destroyed by a drunk driver, we have waited three years for the city to replace the tree. They have not yet.
I saw Craig Kelley and told him about it, he has been helpful. I dont see the Norweigian Maple in front of our house invading any other plants so I dont how they consider it invasive. My mom told me I should let you know.
2. Your editors opinion.
The city has planted purple loosestrife on Magazine Beach as part of their replacement of the wetlands there. They call purple loosestrife invasive at Fresh Pond.
The city destroyed a grove of about 8 to 12 four story high trees at Squirrel Brand and replaced them with grass. "Invasive" sniff.
The city and its friends destroyed most of the trees in the parks at Inman Square and at Porter Station. The city replaced the bird sanctuary in front of city hall (bird song 365 days a year) with grass.
State plans (with close Cambridge coordination) are to destroy every Cherry Tree from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach as part of the destruction of 449 to 660 trees there.
The city wiped out meaningful yard protections on Memorial Drive loudly proclaiming they were increasing protections.
I wish I could call this latest outrage a surprise.
3. Bhiksha Raj.
Its outrageous that supposedly sane people can even *think up* such ridiculous
plans. At a time when they should be cherishing all the greenery we have
they want to wipe it out.
Im not sure if they actually think about this matter, but urban concrete is hot.
Replacing a half acre of trees with a half acre of lawn can warm up the
surrounding areas considerably. Replace it with concrete and the neighbors
suddenly have to turn on the AC in summer when they didnt have to earlier.
It is not merely a matter of environment, or natural beauty or aesthetics
that can only affect future generations we dont worry about. The effect
of such depradations is immediate and it is on our physical comfort and
lifestyle!
Just how shortsighted can people get!
4. Your Editor.
Thank you, but this is business as usual in the City of Cambridge.
I neglected to mention the thousands of trees being destroyed at Fresh Pond.
5. Bhiksha Raj.
The destruction of trees at fresh pond is *very* distressing to me.
Its quite frustrating that people can be so stupid.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
“Neighborhood Association” Honors Bureaucrat Who Shafted Neighborhood.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Announcement of Intended Presentation.
3. Reality, my response.
4. Marilyn's Response.
1. Introduction.
The announcement in section 2 was sent to the Cambridgeport listserve. The author has been censoring communications on the listserve as stated below, with apparent emphasis on protecting the Upzoning Which Destroyed Zoning Protections on Memorial Drive.
The core group of this group has made very pious comments about how unreasonable is the expansion of the hotel next to Trader Joe’s and across from Magazine Beach.
What they do not want people to hear is that the unreasonable expansion was made legal by an upzoning whose advocates claimed they were fighting for to protect Memorial Drive. The advocates told people that their very destructive upzoning did EXACTLY the opposite of what is done by fine print they did not tell people about.
This outrage is part of a series of related upzonings which related individuals have fought for over the past ten years. It is a standard package. These upzonings are always written by city employees. These upzonings more often than not include secret fine print which does the opposite of key claimed benefits (or interrelate with fine print sneaked into the zoning ordinance before with the same result).
The key city employee in this continuing outrage has been invited to talk to the group, without mentioning his record or his part in the false statements made to destroy zoning protections on Memorial Drive.
Comments which accurately describe the fake downzonings have been suppressed from the listserve.
Some comments favorable to certain people (yours truly) have been suppressed on the list serve, no matter now true. The censor finds my reality based comments unacceptable and thus finds comments favorable to me unacceptable.
The announcement in section 3 was sent to the Cambridgeport Free List, a list I created to counter the censorship.
2. Announcement of Intended Presentation.
Titled: "Get Smart!" Come to the Monthly CNA Meeting!
[omitted] wrote:
To: cportneighbors@yahoogroups.com
From: [omitted]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:33:55 -0000
Subject: [cportneighbors] Get Smart! Come to the Monthly CNA Meeting!
If you are wondering whether modern glass buildings will be the new face of Memorial Drive from River Street to Magazine Street, you need to come to the monthly Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting.
If you want to know what the most accident-prone intersections are in Cambridgeport, you should also come to this meeting. The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association will hold that monthly meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson Court apartment community room on Fairmont Street from 7 to 9 pm.
Les Barber, from Community Development, will present an overview of Cambridgeport zoning, and address CNA concerns about overdevelopment, specifically within the Memorial Drive Overlay District.
Susanne Rasmussen, also of Community Development, will address traffic and transportation issues in light of the recently conducted "hot spots" survey on the CNA list serv.
And we'll hear the latest news on the CNA's Dana Park Party for June 9th.
Bring a friend! See you then.
3. Reality, my response.
We have had flat out censorship by the listserve, [censor’s name omitted to protect the guilty] apparently, for the purpose of keeping the outrageous upzoning that the Development Department wrote.
Now, rather than kill this outrage, we are told that we should pay obeisance to the author who, as usual, FAILED TO INFORM of the fine print which destroyed his lovely and FALSE promises.
Why believe the author of this outrage?
Why does the chief censor give credibility to the author of this outrage after belligerently censoring objections to the outrage while allowing attacks on the principal person standing up to the outrage? [Ed. Badly worded. Big brother clearly censored favorable comments about me.]
And why is swallowing further nonsense from a proven misleader supposed to be "smart?"
FALSE promises belied by undisclosed fine print is not somebody it is "smart" to listen to, especially since the behavior is part of a long-standing package.
4. Marilyn's Response.
[Ed. This was printed on the Cambridgeport Listserve. The fact that it has been printed indicates to me that the bad guys who control the organization figure that their censorship has successfully squelched the indignation of their victims.
[So now they can resume giving the impression that they are the good guys.]
Dear Neighbors
Soon after the Planning Board vote on the Radisson, I sent this to the Cport list. Possibly through some error of mine, it wasn't posted. Time and topics move on, and we're all busy, so I didn't follow up. However, as the issue is on the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting, I resubmit this, slightly revised:
Given the law about special permits, it was almost certain the Planning Board would vote as it did on the Radisson. Given the Board's history, it's not surprising it seemed contemptuous of the public, as several neighbors commented.
The City Council has sprinkled special permits throughout the zoning ordinance. To gain immediate advantage in any one zoning issue, affected neighbors have chosen to believe the special permits are either 1.) good in themselves because they talk about design issues or the like; and 2.) the price they have to pay to get the immediate benefit at issue.
The most recent example of this was the provision for Planning Board special permits in projects less than 50,000 SF in Bus-A2 zones, I believe, as a condition for adequate setbacks of development parcels along North Mass Ave. where they abut residential zones. I think the vote was in March this year.
The special permit provision will come back to bite, as the ones in the Memorial Drive Overlay District did at the Radisson and will do again. But by the time that special permit does in North Cambridge, people will have forgotten warnings about special permits and their own agreement to them for the reasons given above--as we've seen on Memorial Drive.
Neighborhoods expend a great deal of misplaced time and energy at the Planning Board. Accountability for special permits and the tangible benefits they deliver to developers rests with the City Council. The Council has been happy to pass off hard choices between developers and neighborhoods in regular zoning (where they are forced to a public vote) to the discretion of the Manager's appointees on the Board. It is the Councillors who collude in this expansion of Manager's and Planning Board's powers at the expense of the Council's own accountability.
All the wheel-spinning at Planning Board hearings exhausts residents' political energies and diminishes the life of the city. These are significant costs as well.
Nevertheless, people seem to like things as they are and re-elect, time and again, the Councillors who insulate themselves from public accountability. When the special permits are granted and the building in question is done, who will remember the Overlay District, Area of Planning Concern, or whatever category its special permits fall into? Or who spoke in their favor, or who voted for them?
Marilyn Wellons
1. Introduction.
2. Announcement of Intended Presentation.
3. Reality, my response.
4. Marilyn's Response.
1. Introduction.
The announcement in section 2 was sent to the Cambridgeport listserve. The author has been censoring communications on the listserve as stated below, with apparent emphasis on protecting the Upzoning Which Destroyed Zoning Protections on Memorial Drive.
The core group of this group has made very pious comments about how unreasonable is the expansion of the hotel next to Trader Joe’s and across from Magazine Beach.
What they do not want people to hear is that the unreasonable expansion was made legal by an upzoning whose advocates claimed they were fighting for to protect Memorial Drive. The advocates told people that their very destructive upzoning did EXACTLY the opposite of what is done by fine print they did not tell people about.
This outrage is part of a series of related upzonings which related individuals have fought for over the past ten years. It is a standard package. These upzonings are always written by city employees. These upzonings more often than not include secret fine print which does the opposite of key claimed benefits (or interrelate with fine print sneaked into the zoning ordinance before with the same result).
The key city employee in this continuing outrage has been invited to talk to the group, without mentioning his record or his part in the false statements made to destroy zoning protections on Memorial Drive.
Comments which accurately describe the fake downzonings have been suppressed from the listserve.
Some comments favorable to certain people (yours truly) have been suppressed on the list serve, no matter now true. The censor finds my reality based comments unacceptable and thus finds comments favorable to me unacceptable.
The announcement in section 3 was sent to the Cambridgeport Free List, a list I created to counter the censorship.
2. Announcement of Intended Presentation.
Titled: "Get Smart!" Come to the Monthly CNA Meeting!
[omitted] wrote:
To: cportneighbors@yahoogroups.com
From: [omitted]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:33:55 -0000
Subject: [cportneighbors] Get Smart! Come to the Monthly CNA Meeting!
If you are wondering whether modern glass buildings will be the new face of Memorial Drive from River Street to Magazine Street, you need to come to the monthly Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting.
If you want to know what the most accident-prone intersections are in Cambridgeport, you should also come to this meeting. The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association will hold that monthly meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson Court apartment community room on Fairmont Street from 7 to 9 pm.
Les Barber, from Community Development, will present an overview of Cambridgeport zoning, and address CNA concerns about overdevelopment, specifically within the Memorial Drive Overlay District.
Susanne Rasmussen, also of Community Development, will address traffic and transportation issues in light of the recently conducted "hot spots" survey on the CNA list serv.
And we'll hear the latest news on the CNA's Dana Park Party for June 9th.
Bring a friend! See you then.
3. Reality, my response.
We have had flat out censorship by the listserve, [censor’s name omitted to protect the guilty] apparently, for the purpose of keeping the outrageous upzoning that the Development Department wrote.
Now, rather than kill this outrage, we are told that we should pay obeisance to the author who, as usual, FAILED TO INFORM of the fine print which destroyed his lovely and FALSE promises.
Why believe the author of this outrage?
Why does the chief censor give credibility to the author of this outrage after belligerently censoring objections to the outrage while allowing attacks on the principal person standing up to the outrage? [Ed. Badly worded. Big brother clearly censored favorable comments about me.]
And why is swallowing further nonsense from a proven misleader supposed to be "smart?"
FALSE promises belied by undisclosed fine print is not somebody it is "smart" to listen to, especially since the behavior is part of a long-standing package.
4. Marilyn's Response.
[Ed. This was printed on the Cambridgeport Listserve. The fact that it has been printed indicates to me that the bad guys who control the organization figure that their censorship has successfully squelched the indignation of their victims.
[So now they can resume giving the impression that they are the good guys.]
Dear Neighbors
Soon after the Planning Board vote on the Radisson, I sent this to the Cport list. Possibly through some error of mine, it wasn't posted. Time and topics move on, and we're all busy, so I didn't follow up. However, as the issue is on the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting, I resubmit this, slightly revised:
Given the law about special permits, it was almost certain the Planning Board would vote as it did on the Radisson. Given the Board's history, it's not surprising it seemed contemptuous of the public, as several neighbors commented.
The City Council has sprinkled special permits throughout the zoning ordinance. To gain immediate advantage in any one zoning issue, affected neighbors have chosen to believe the special permits are either 1.) good in themselves because they talk about design issues or the like; and 2.) the price they have to pay to get the immediate benefit at issue.
The most recent example of this was the provision for Planning Board special permits in projects less than 50,000 SF in Bus-A2 zones, I believe, as a condition for adequate setbacks of development parcels along North Mass Ave. where they abut residential zones. I think the vote was in March this year.
The special permit provision will come back to bite, as the ones in the Memorial Drive Overlay District did at the Radisson and will do again. But by the time that special permit does in North Cambridge, people will have forgotten warnings about special permits and their own agreement to them for the reasons given above--as we've seen on Memorial Drive.
Neighborhoods expend a great deal of misplaced time and energy at the Planning Board. Accountability for special permits and the tangible benefits they deliver to developers rests with the City Council. The Council has been happy to pass off hard choices between developers and neighborhoods in regular zoning (where they are forced to a public vote) to the discretion of the Manager's appointees on the Board. It is the Councillors who collude in this expansion of Manager's and Planning Board's powers at the expense of the Council's own accountability.
All the wheel-spinning at Planning Board hearings exhausts residents' political energies and diminishes the life of the city. These are significant costs as well.
Nevertheless, people seem to like things as they are and re-elect, time and again, the Councillors who insulate themselves from public accountability. When the special permits are granted and the building in question is done, who will remember the Overlay District, Area of Planning Concern, or whatever category its special permits fall into? Or who spoke in their favor, or who voted for them?
Marilyn Wellons
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Insider: Cambridge pols have secret definition of environmentalism.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
The latest edition of North Cambridge's The Alewife newspaper features a comment by a Cambridge political insider that Cambridge's political activists have their own secret definition of "environmentalism."
Inasmuch as I keep on saying that "environmentalism" is protecting the environment, I am showing my lack of contact with the real world in Cambridge.
Sam Seidel is a former (current as well?) member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. Seidel ran for city council last election. Seidel writes a regular column for The Alewife. I was concerned about what I saw him writing last issue so I responded.
Seidel was given an opportunity to respond to my letter. The editor showed a lot about what was going on by the way Seidel's letter was printed in the hard copy edition. My letter was printed in full. Seidel's response was printed in part and continued to a back page. Trouble is that, when you go to the continuation page, there was no continuation.
I hunted through the paper and found the continuation. I then realized why the editor had made the continuation so hard to find.
Seidel voted for the environmental destruction which has occurred and which is pending at Magazine Beach. Seidel apparently has no problem with the ongoing destruction of thousands of trees at Fresh Pond in Cambridge. Seidel apparently has no problem with the destruction of hundreds of trees pending for Memorial Drive. Seidel clearly has no problem with the destruction of wetlands and animal habitat at Magazine Beach. Seidel clearly has no problem with the introduction of poisons at Magazine Beach and has no problems with the deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese.
Seidel very clearly stated that my problems with these things indicates just how out of touch I am.
Cambridge's core group, it appears, has its own secret definition of "environmentalism." My failure to comport with the secret definition of "environmentalism" shows just how out of touch I am with the in crowd in Cambridge politics.
How dare I expect environmentalists to be pro-environment!!!!
I have tried to give you folks a link to the wisdom of Mr. Seidel, but the best I can find from The Alewife's on line edition is: http://thealewife.typepad.com/weblog/sam_seidel/index.html.
If you can do better than that, please let me know and I will pass it on.
The latest edition of North Cambridge's The Alewife newspaper features a comment by a Cambridge political insider that Cambridge's political activists have their own secret definition of "environmentalism."
Inasmuch as I keep on saying that "environmentalism" is protecting the environment, I am showing my lack of contact with the real world in Cambridge.
Sam Seidel is a former (current as well?) member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. Seidel ran for city council last election. Seidel writes a regular column for The Alewife. I was concerned about what I saw him writing last issue so I responded.
Seidel was given an opportunity to respond to my letter. The editor showed a lot about what was going on by the way Seidel's letter was printed in the hard copy edition. My letter was printed in full. Seidel's response was printed in part and continued to a back page. Trouble is that, when you go to the continuation page, there was no continuation.
I hunted through the paper and found the continuation. I then realized why the editor had made the continuation so hard to find.
Seidel voted for the environmental destruction which has occurred and which is pending at Magazine Beach. Seidel apparently has no problem with the ongoing destruction of thousands of trees at Fresh Pond in Cambridge. Seidel apparently has no problem with the destruction of hundreds of trees pending for Memorial Drive. Seidel clearly has no problem with the destruction of wetlands and animal habitat at Magazine Beach. Seidel clearly has no problem with the introduction of poisons at Magazine Beach and has no problems with the deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese.
Seidel very clearly stated that my problems with these things indicates just how out of touch I am.
Cambridge's core group, it appears, has its own secret definition of "environmentalism." My failure to comport with the secret definition of "environmentalism" shows just how out of touch I am with the in crowd in Cambridge politics.
How dare I expect environmentalists to be pro-environment!!!!
I have tried to give you folks a link to the wisdom of Mr. Seidel, but the best I can find from The Alewife's on line edition is: http://thealewife.typepad.com/weblog/sam_seidel/index.html.
If you can do better than that, please let me know and I will pass it on.
Harvard Admits Subway Plans as Part of Urban Ring
Bob La Trémouille reports:
Harvard has admitted to working for a privately beneficial, very expensive heavy rail subway which it wishes to be added to the state's Urban Ring subway plans. The subway would be a branch of the heavy rail Red Line project.
The apparent route is as follows: It would run from the existing Harvard Station east of Harvard Stadium and south of Harvard Business School. It would generally go under a new boulevard Harvard proposes for that location, apparently extending under the rail yards in Allston, then under the commuter rail which runs south of the Massachusetts Turnpike. It would turn at Park Drive and go underground to the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area, the location of Harvard Medical School.
There is a track location in place running from the Harvard Station bus tunnel to a location just west of Harvard's JFK School. The end of the tunnel is under a path way connecting JFK park to Elliot Street and the Harvard Square Hotel. This connected a temporary station to the red line during construction of the Alewife extension. Connection of that track to the existing red line is probably not possible without major changes to the existing Harvard Station lobby.
Thursday morning, May 12, Harvard's planning people met with staff and members of the board of Massachusetts' Metropolitan Area Planning Council in a public meeting in Harvard's Holyoke Center administration building in Harvard Square. The topic was Harvard's expansion plans for Allston. The meeting room was a room, the "Allston Room," dedicated to the Allston expansion. It is located on the first floor corridor of the building.
Harvard's official plans for their Allston campus can be seen at: http://allston.harvard.edu. This on-line presentation repeats a lot of things communicated at the meeting.
I was struck by one item which was not officially presented but which explains options, very expensive options, in the state consultants' developing Urban Ring proposals.
This is taken from their website. It is a good diagram of part of the Allston plans. Significantly omitted are their plans for the Allston rail yards which are located on the map marked "to LMA."
The route described at the beginning is my extrapolation of fine print in the consultants' options and of a map presented in the presentation.
I questioned Harvard's representative on the side. He was extremely candid about wishing a red line subway running from Harvard Square to Harvard Allston to Harvard Longwood.
Harvard has admitted to working for a privately beneficial, very expensive heavy rail subway which it wishes to be added to the state's Urban Ring subway plans. The subway would be a branch of the heavy rail Red Line project.
The apparent route is as follows: It would run from the existing Harvard Station east of Harvard Stadium and south of Harvard Business School. It would generally go under a new boulevard Harvard proposes for that location, apparently extending under the rail yards in Allston, then under the commuter rail which runs south of the Massachusetts Turnpike. It would turn at Park Drive and go underground to the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area, the location of Harvard Medical School.
There is a track location in place running from the Harvard Station bus tunnel to a location just west of Harvard's JFK School. The end of the tunnel is under a path way connecting JFK park to Elliot Street and the Harvard Square Hotel. This connected a temporary station to the red line during construction of the Alewife extension. Connection of that track to the existing red line is probably not possible without major changes to the existing Harvard Station lobby.
Thursday morning, May 12, Harvard's planning people met with staff and members of the board of Massachusetts' Metropolitan Area Planning Council in a public meeting in Harvard's Holyoke Center administration building in Harvard Square. The topic was Harvard's expansion plans for Allston. The meeting room was a room, the "Allston Room," dedicated to the Allston expansion. It is located on the first floor corridor of the building.
Harvard's official plans for their Allston campus can be seen at: http://allston.harvard.edu. This on-line presentation repeats a lot of things communicated at the meeting.
I was struck by one item which was not officially presented but which explains options, very expensive options, in the state consultants' developing Urban Ring proposals.
This is taken from their website. It is a good diagram of part of the Allston plans. Significantly omitted are their plans for the Allston rail yards which are located on the map marked "to LMA."
The route described at the beginning is my extrapolation of fine print in the consultants' options and of a map presented in the presentation.
I questioned Harvard's representative on the side. He was extremely candid about wishing a red line subway running from Harvard Square to Harvard Allston to Harvard Longwood.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Fenway / Kenmore and the Urban Ring Plans
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
Last Friday, May 4, MOVEMass had a meeting at Fenway Park in which people involved in planning for the Fenway Park neighborhood presented their ideas for that neighborhood.
One of the many things impacting the environment of the Charles River is the Urban Ring subway / bus planning.
As usual, there is one excellent option, both environmentally and from a transportation point of view, and there is the option the City of Cambridge is fighting for.
On April 25, I summarized the various subway options in a report entitled “Urban Ring Options - Detailed Maps.” The report includes my evaluation of proposals for Harvard Allston and my alternate proposal. I have tweaked that report since then based on input from readers.
On April 27, I provided my evaluation of the subway options in a report entitled “Analyses of Urban Ring - Phase III.”
Of major importance to the Fenway Park neighborhood is the future of Yawkey Station on the commuter rail line to Worcester and Framingham. Yawkey Station is located perhaps 200 feet from Fenway Park and is named after the Red Sox longtime owner.
I summarized for the group the truly excellent Kenmore stop on the Urban Ring subway’s Charles River crossing called the Kenmore crossing. The technology used for trains would be heavy rail in the manner of the MBTA’s Orange Line.
This alternative would have a subway stop under Brookline Avenue over the Massachusetts Turnpike. This station would be about half a block from Fenway Park. It would be attached on the Fenway Park end to Yawkey Station and on the other end to the existing Kenmore Station on the Green Line (streetcar technology). Kenmore is the point at which three Green Line branches combine to go into town.
The location of the station and its connections would provide ready, easy transfer for hundreds of rush hours commuter rail passengers to all three Green Line branches, truly excellent transportation planning.
As I detailed this alternative, I could hear the audience repeating my details with pleasure.
I then informed the audience of the river crossing option which the state's representatives are pushing now, the BU Bridge option for crossing the Charles River using Green Line technology, streetcars. Through details of the Urban Ring phase II, buses, the state could make the Kenmore crossing impossible. The state plans for the BU Bridge option would move Yawkey station several blocks further west to St. Mary’s Street, thus severely hurting the plans ongoing for the Fenway Park neighborhood.
From a transportation point of view, the relocated station would have far inferior connections to the rapid transit system. Passengers would walk through a tunnel over the Mass. Pike to the sidewalk on Commonwealth Avenue and then have to walk through traffic and the elements to the Green Line's B Branch in the middle of Commonwealth Avenue, further overloading already overloaded streetcar service on that one line several times an hour during the morning rush hour.
The state's transportation representative to the meeting quickly assured people that plans for Phase II are up in the area and will not be firmed up for a year.
But we had a developer at the meeting who presented extremely well thought out plans for construction on top of Yawkey Station next to Fenway Park.
The people in the room were not at all happy with the possible change to the detriment of the Fenway Park area.
On the other hand, Boston University, the City of Cambridge and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology see major developer advantages to the BU Bridge crossing. Harvard, as I will include in a subsequent report, has very major benefits being sneaked through in the fine print.
Last Friday, May 4, MOVEMass had a meeting at Fenway Park in which people involved in planning for the Fenway Park neighborhood presented their ideas for that neighborhood.
One of the many things impacting the environment of the Charles River is the Urban Ring subway / bus planning.
As usual, there is one excellent option, both environmentally and from a transportation point of view, and there is the option the City of Cambridge is fighting for.
On April 25, I summarized the various subway options in a report entitled “Urban Ring Options - Detailed Maps.” The report includes my evaluation of proposals for Harvard Allston and my alternate proposal. I have tweaked that report since then based on input from readers.
On April 27, I provided my evaluation of the subway options in a report entitled “Analyses of Urban Ring - Phase III.”
Of major importance to the Fenway Park neighborhood is the future of Yawkey Station on the commuter rail line to Worcester and Framingham. Yawkey Station is located perhaps 200 feet from Fenway Park and is named after the Red Sox longtime owner.
I summarized for the group the truly excellent Kenmore stop on the Urban Ring subway’s Charles River crossing called the Kenmore crossing. The technology used for trains would be heavy rail in the manner of the MBTA’s Orange Line.
This alternative would have a subway stop under Brookline Avenue over the Massachusetts Turnpike. This station would be about half a block from Fenway Park. It would be attached on the Fenway Park end to Yawkey Station and on the other end to the existing Kenmore Station on the Green Line (streetcar technology). Kenmore is the point at which three Green Line branches combine to go into town.
The location of the station and its connections would provide ready, easy transfer for hundreds of rush hours commuter rail passengers to all three Green Line branches, truly excellent transportation planning.
As I detailed this alternative, I could hear the audience repeating my details with pleasure.
I then informed the audience of the river crossing option which the state's representatives are pushing now, the BU Bridge option for crossing the Charles River using Green Line technology, streetcars. Through details of the Urban Ring phase II, buses, the state could make the Kenmore crossing impossible. The state plans for the BU Bridge option would move Yawkey station several blocks further west to St. Mary’s Street, thus severely hurting the plans ongoing for the Fenway Park neighborhood.
From a transportation point of view, the relocated station would have far inferior connections to the rapid transit system. Passengers would walk through a tunnel over the Mass. Pike to the sidewalk on Commonwealth Avenue and then have to walk through traffic and the elements to the Green Line's B Branch in the middle of Commonwealth Avenue, further overloading already overloaded streetcar service on that one line several times an hour during the morning rush hour.
The state's transportation representative to the meeting quickly assured people that plans for Phase II are up in the area and will not be firmed up for a year.
But we had a developer at the meeting who presented extremely well thought out plans for construction on top of Yawkey Station next to Fenway Park.
The people in the room were not at all happy with the possible change to the detriment of the Fenway Park area.
On the other hand, Boston University, the City of Cambridge and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology see major developer advantages to the BU Bridge crossing. Harvard, as I will include in a subsequent report, has very major benefits being sneaked through in the fine print.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
State Senate Candidates' forum, May 8, 2007
The State Senate candidates’ forum at the LBJ apartments in Cambridge was last night.
Barrios's endorsee, Revere City Councilor Dan Rizzo was, he said, not clear on all the details of the Urban Ring.
East Boston State Representative Anthony Petrucelli seemed aware of the various Phases and repeatedly endorsed rail. There was one question on the Urban Ring (not mine) and a second reference from someone who said she would have asked about it if the first person hadn't.
I asked about plans for regulation Little League fields at Magazine Beach and the algae bloom last summer just offshore the new “Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox” Little League fields at Lederman Park.
Runoff there from the 6 acres of commercial sod, with its necessary regimen of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides (as applied last August and September) led to the unprecedented algae bloom last August and September. I pointed out that the state Department of Conservation and Resources' plans to put in 7 acres of the same stuff at Magazine Beach. We can anticipate the same results. Petrucelli seemed very concerned about beaches, is on the Beaches committee so I'll try to follow up with him on that.
Afterwards I spoke with Rep. Marty Walz about my e-mail to her about the algae bloom and plans for Magazine Beach. She asked if she could forward my e-mail to the DCR for information and I said yes, even a denial of any relation would be useful.
I intended to speak to Marc McGovern, the former Cambridge school committee member who’s pushing for the Little League fields at Magazine Beach, to ask him his opinion of the standard and extraordinary applications of chemicals to the stressed commercial turf on those fields, but missed him. My e-mail to Representative Walz on this subject was addressed to him as well.
Heather Hoffmann in her question time referred to my comments about the algae bloom and said the power plant in East Cambridge has been pumping out hot water into the Charles and that could help answer the question about cause.
Representative Walz and I, speaking after the question session and before I spoke with Heather, agreed that we didn't know any changes with the power plant, but assuming there had been a change, it was possible the changes at Ebersol fields and the power plant could together cause the algae bloom.
Heather told me after that that the power plant has increased operation from 4 to 20 hours a day since its sale by NSTAR to the current owners and is "cooking the Charles." She says the EPA is going after the owners.
She said the current owners, in trying to get out of building the pedestrian walk along the canal in front of the plant (mitigation), has offered Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy a half-million dollar “contribution,” to be paid to the Manager and used at his complete discretion for whatever he wants, with the sole exception that it not be spent in East Cambridge. The payment would be to release them current owners from the obligation of the pedestrian walk, mitigation for an undone mitigation, I guess. (I remember being at a meeting of the Cambridge Conservation Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeal at which the owners said they didn’t want to provide the “mitigation” promised, i.e., the walkway.)
The owners cited security then and now. Heather says there is none at the plant. A group of 12 East Cambridge residents, probably members of the East Cambridge Planning Team, met at the plant and were alone there for 15 minutes while they searched for the person who was supposed to meet them there on the matter of the walkway.
Security consists of a closed gate and lock, when the plant’s owners remember to do that. Otherwise the thing is wide open.
Kathy Podgers asked a question about harborage and habitat for urban wildlife, and only Rizzo had any clue what she was talking about. Petrucelli told her after the meeting his family had had skunks under the porch, that they had had them removed, and now they have problems with squirrels.
Kathy pointed out the skunks would keep the squirrels away, but she says he still didn't understand. He seems part of the leadership, she said, and look where we are on protecting the environment.
Nevertheless I'll follow up with him on Magazine Beach and the DCR.
In the forum and afterwards Petrucelli pointed with pride to his help getting more money for the DCR. I told him I didn’t think giving the DCR more money would help anything. They use it not for maintenance of what they have but to keep Plans and its design-development constituents happy, at public expense.
He seemed aware of the DCR’s history of neglecting its assets, so as to be able to replace them at greater cost than what ordinary maintenance would cost. I pointed this is how the DCR services its design-development constituents, and also mobilizes public support for the survival of its own Planning group.
On reflection now I see DCR Plans works to identify itself in the public mind as the “good” DCR and is happy to let Maintenance, which Plans consistently underfunds so it can have its major development projects, be the “bad” DCR
Marilyn Wellons
Barrios's endorsee, Revere City Councilor Dan Rizzo was, he said, not clear on all the details of the Urban Ring.
East Boston State Representative Anthony Petrucelli seemed aware of the various Phases and repeatedly endorsed rail. There was one question on the Urban Ring (not mine) and a second reference from someone who said she would have asked about it if the first person hadn't.
I asked about plans for regulation Little League fields at Magazine Beach and the algae bloom last summer just offshore the new “Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox” Little League fields at Lederman Park.
Runoff there from the 6 acres of commercial sod, with its necessary regimen of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides (as applied last August and September) led to the unprecedented algae bloom last August and September. I pointed out that the state Department of Conservation and Resources' plans to put in 7 acres of the same stuff at Magazine Beach. We can anticipate the same results. Petrucelli seemed very concerned about beaches, is on the Beaches committee so I'll try to follow up with him on that.
Afterwards I spoke with Rep. Marty Walz about my e-mail to her about the algae bloom and plans for Magazine Beach. She asked if she could forward my e-mail to the DCR for information and I said yes, even a denial of any relation would be useful.
I intended to speak to Marc McGovern, the former Cambridge school committee member who’s pushing for the Little League fields at Magazine Beach, to ask him his opinion of the standard and extraordinary applications of chemicals to the stressed commercial turf on those fields, but missed him. My e-mail to Representative Walz on this subject was addressed to him as well.
Heather Hoffmann in her question time referred to my comments about the algae bloom and said the power plant in East Cambridge has been pumping out hot water into the Charles and that could help answer the question about cause.
Representative Walz and I, speaking after the question session and before I spoke with Heather, agreed that we didn't know any changes with the power plant, but assuming there had been a change, it was possible the changes at Ebersol fields and the power plant could together cause the algae bloom.
Heather told me after that that the power plant has increased operation from 4 to 20 hours a day since its sale by NSTAR to the current owners and is "cooking the Charles." She says the EPA is going after the owners.
She said the current owners, in trying to get out of building the pedestrian walk along the canal in front of the plant (mitigation), has offered Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy a half-million dollar “contribution,” to be paid to the Manager and used at his complete discretion for whatever he wants, with the sole exception that it not be spent in East Cambridge. The payment would be to release them current owners from the obligation of the pedestrian walk, mitigation for an undone mitigation, I guess. (I remember being at a meeting of the Cambridge Conservation Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeal at which the owners said they didn’t want to provide the “mitigation” promised, i.e., the walkway.)
The owners cited security then and now. Heather says there is none at the plant. A group of 12 East Cambridge residents, probably members of the East Cambridge Planning Team, met at the plant and were alone there for 15 minutes while they searched for the person who was supposed to meet them there on the matter of the walkway.
Security consists of a closed gate and lock, when the plant’s owners remember to do that. Otherwise the thing is wide open.
Kathy Podgers asked a question about harborage and habitat for urban wildlife, and only Rizzo had any clue what she was talking about. Petrucelli told her after the meeting his family had had skunks under the porch, that they had had them removed, and now they have problems with squirrels.
Kathy pointed out the skunks would keep the squirrels away, but she says he still didn't understand. He seems part of the leadership, she said, and look where we are on protecting the environment.
Nevertheless I'll follow up with him on Magazine Beach and the DCR.
In the forum and afterwards Petrucelli pointed with pride to his help getting more money for the DCR. I told him I didn’t think giving the DCR more money would help anything. They use it not for maintenance of what they have but to keep Plans and its design-development constituents happy, at public expense.
He seemed aware of the DCR’s history of neglecting its assets, so as to be able to replace them at greater cost than what ordinary maintenance would cost. I pointed this is how the DCR services its design-development constituents, and also mobilizes public support for the survival of its own Planning group.
On reflection now I see DCR Plans works to identify itself in the public mind as the “good” DCR and is happy to let Maintenance, which Plans consistently underfunds so it can have its major development projects, be the “bad” DCR
Marilyn Wellons
Destroyer Advocates Volunteers Planting Flowers on Magazine Beach
Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. Bad Guy Gushes.
2. Reality.
3. Response of the Cambridgeport Listserve.
1. Bad Guy Gushes.
To: cport
From: Bad Guy [Anonymous name omitted to protect the guilty.]
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 20:48:53 -0400
Subject: [cportneighbors] Park Serve Day, Magazine Beach, Sat., May 12, 9 a.m.
This Saturday, May 12, is Park Serve Day in Massachusetts. I thought many of you would be interested in a project taking place nearby and might like to participate:
Magazine Beach - 719 Memorial Drive, Cambridge
http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_listing# magazine
Park Description: Magazine Beach is a well-used active and passive recreation area along the Charles River in Cambridge. The parkland includes a small boat dock, a picnic area, two baseball fields, a swimming pool and a wading pool. This area is connected to the Cambridge neighborhoods by a footbridge over busy Memorial Dr.
Directions: Memorial Dr. is Rte. 3. Magazine Beach is located between Riverside Rd. and Magazine St.
MBTA bus #47.
Event Specifications:
Project: Plant flowers
Time: 9am-noon
Meeting location: Pool
Appropriate ages: 10 years and above
Partner: Cambridge Little League
Register Now
http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_registrati on
There are also numerous other parks that are participating. The full list is here:
http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_listing
Please don't harangue me about how planting flowers is code word for some insidious DCR goose destruction plan or how Magazine Beach is state-sanctioned historical inaccuracy.
__._,_.___
2. Reality.
[Ed: Limited edits made below to the response I sent to the censoring ListServe. I blind copied to the Free Cambridgeport List and to all Cambridge City Councilors.]
Sounds sort of like the "swim in" conducted a year after 9 city councilors started starving the Charles River White Geese. The "swim in" claimed that the heartless behavior of nine city councilors was justified by making swimming possible off Magazine Beach.
So the nine city councilors installed a wall of designer bushes which they called "native" and which had so little business on the Charles River that they kept dying. Finally the outrageously non-native "native" bushes took hold and created a wall BLOCKING SWIMMING.
Now a Little League "leader" is fighting for destruction of the balance of the animal habitat and even more outrageous and heartless starvation.
Why?
They want Little Leaguers to have the right to roll in poisons in a location which has been historically free of poisons. They want to starve animals that much more in an area which has been shared by animals until a really destructive city council and a bunch of blatant liars from the DCR behaved exactly the opposite of their propanda.
But the nine destructive city councilors are joining forces with proven liars at the DCR. The DCR says it wants "historical" uses on Memorial Drive, and in the opinion of the DCR, POISONS are historical in a location which has never seen poisons.
So don't look at the poisons to come. Don't look at the heartless behavior of nine hypocrites. Don't look at the fake downzoning of Memorial Drive which was, in reality, exactly the opposite of downzoning.
Don't look at the outrageous censoring of the Cambridgeport list to keep, as much as possible, people from knowing just how outrageously destructive nine city councilors and their friends are. Don't look at the suppression of negative comments about the friends of the censors, no matter how true the negative comments are. Don't look at the suppression of positive comments by the Cambridgeport list about those who live in reality, no matter how true the positive comments are.
Look at the lovely flowers. Look at the beautiful hypocrisies from very destructive people.
Look at the lovely words which so often are exactly the opposite of reality.
Look at a "Green" organization whose founders could give a damn less about aggressive destruction of the Green, but who love their fancy light bulbs.
Pass me a handkerchief.
3. Response of the Cambridgeport Listserve.
Last I heard, reality was censored.
1. Bad Guy Gushes.
2. Reality.
3. Response of the Cambridgeport Listserve.
1. Bad Guy Gushes.
To: cport
From: Bad Guy [Anonymous name omitted to protect the guilty.]
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 20:48:53 -0400
Subject: [cportneighbors] Park Serve Day, Magazine Beach, Sat., May 12, 9 a.m.
This Saturday, May 12, is Park Serve Day in Massachusetts. I thought many of you would be interested in a project taking place nearby and might like to participate:
Magazine Beach - 719 Memorial Drive, Cambridge
http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_listing# magazine
Park Description: Magazine Beach is a well-used active and passive recreation area along the Charles River in Cambridge. The parkland includes a small boat dock, a picnic area, two baseball fields, a swimming pool and a wading pool. This area is connected to the Cambridge neighborhoods by a footbridge over busy Memorial Dr.
Directions: Memorial Dr. is Rte. 3. Magazine Beach is located between Riverside Rd. and Magazine St.
MBTA bus #47.
Event Specifications:
Project: Plant flowers
Time: 9am-noon
Meeting location: Pool
Appropriate ages: 10 years and above
Partner: Cambridge Little League
Register Now
http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_registrati on
There are also numerous other parks that are participating. The full list is here:
http://www.mass. gov/?pageID= gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_park_ serve_listing
Please don't harangue me about how planting flowers is code word for some insidious DCR goose destruction plan or how Magazine Beach is state-sanctioned historical inaccuracy.
__._,_.___
2. Reality.
[Ed: Limited edits made below to the response I sent to the censoring ListServe. I blind copied to the Free Cambridgeport List and to all Cambridge City Councilors.]
Sounds sort of like the "swim in" conducted a year after 9 city councilors started starving the Charles River White Geese. The "swim in" claimed that the heartless behavior of nine city councilors was justified by making swimming possible off Magazine Beach.
So the nine city councilors installed a wall of designer bushes which they called "native" and which had so little business on the Charles River that they kept dying. Finally the outrageously non-native "native" bushes took hold and created a wall BLOCKING SWIMMING.
Now a Little League "leader" is fighting for destruction of the balance of the animal habitat and even more outrageous and heartless starvation.
Why?
They want Little Leaguers to have the right to roll in poisons in a location which has been historically free of poisons. They want to starve animals that much more in an area which has been shared by animals until a really destructive city council and a bunch of blatant liars from the DCR behaved exactly the opposite of their propanda.
But the nine destructive city councilors are joining forces with proven liars at the DCR. The DCR says it wants "historical" uses on Memorial Drive, and in the opinion of the DCR, POISONS are historical in a location which has never seen poisons.
So don't look at the poisons to come. Don't look at the heartless behavior of nine hypocrites. Don't look at the fake downzoning of Memorial Drive which was, in reality, exactly the opposite of downzoning.
Don't look at the outrageous censoring of the Cambridgeport list to keep, as much as possible, people from knowing just how outrageously destructive nine city councilors and their friends are. Don't look at the suppression of negative comments about the friends of the censors, no matter how true the negative comments are. Don't look at the suppression of positive comments by the Cambridgeport list about those who live in reality, no matter how true the positive comments are.
Look at the lovely flowers. Look at the beautiful hypocrisies from very destructive people.
Look at the lovely words which so often are exactly the opposite of reality.
Look at a "Green" organization whose founders could give a damn less about aggressive destruction of the Green, but who love their fancy light bulbs.
Pass me a handkerchief.
3. Response of the Cambridgeport Listserve.
Last I heard, reality was censored.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Analyses of Urban Ring - Phase III
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Introduction.
2. General Analysis of the Urban Ring.
A. Introduction.
B. The transportation goals are all on the side of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
(1) Get people off the downtown subway.
(2) Provide clean connections with other transit lines and meaningful support for the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.
(3) Support Fenway Park.
C. The environmental and financial goals are all in favor of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
3. Cambridge Chronicle letters.
A. Marilyn - Urban Ring Finances.
B. Your Editor.
(1) Introduction to the Chronicle editor - Issue in context.
(2) Environmental Harm to Cambridge - the neighborhood and the Charles River.
(3) Harvard Allston.
(4) Summary.
1. Introduction.
I have been actively defending the Charles River in Boston for nearly ten years now.
It has been distressingly amazing to learn the many, many attacks ongoing. It has also been surprising to see how many items are matters I have worked on even longer.
One of those attacks is the option for the Urban Ring transportation proposal supported by, of course, the City of Cambridge and its buddies in the state bureaucracy.
Yesterday, I gave you the MBTA maps for the Charles River crossings of the Urban Ring subway. Those maps date back to 2001.
I deliberately presented the maps in as neutral a manner as possible.
2. General Analysis of the Urban Ring.
A. Introduction.
Currently the state is proposing a massive highway build for a phase 2 of the Urban Ring, to precede phase 3 full scale subway.
Interestingly, some of the options certainly look like their expense pushes the cost of subway construction, and particular proposals would very much ensure that the inferior of the two Charles River crossings, the BU Bridge crossing, would be the one to go.
I support the Kenmore Crossing. My general reasons for supporting it were stated with the maps. From a transportation point of view, the Kenmore crossing is by far the better alternative.
B. The transportation goals are all on the side of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
(1) Get people off the downtown subway.
The main purpose of the subway system is to get people off the downtown subway.
Full scale Orange Line construction (Kenmore crossing) can do that.
Green line construction (BU Bridge crossing) cannot possibly get people off the downtown subway in any meaningful scale.
There is no comparison.
(2) Provide clean connections with other transit lines and meaningful support for the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.
With regard to connections, there are major differences in the connections to the three green line branches and to the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.
The proposal is intended to integrate the Worcester/Framingham commuter rail into the subway system.
This train could very easily drop hundreds of passengers onto the Green Line during rush hour.
The Green Line / BU Bridge crossing would drop those hundreds of passengers all on the already overloaded Commonwealth Avenue / Boston College / B branch. The transfer would include walking across Commonwealth Avenue even in the worst of weather.
The Orange Line / Kenmore crossing would provide covered transfers to all three Green Line branches.
There is no comparison.
(3) Support Fenway Park.
The Green Line / BU Bridge crossing would move Fenway Park's commuter rail station away from Fenway Park by a couple of blocks. The Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing would provide excellent, close connection.
There is no comparison.
C. The environmental and financial goals are all in favor of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
These are discussed below.
There is no comparison.
3. Cambridge Chronicle letters.
On April 19, 2007, the Cambridge Chronicle published a letter signed by among other people, Marilyn Wellons. She did not write it. It had major problems.
The following letters were published in the April 26, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle. Marilyn’s was published in full. Mine omitted the Harvard Allston analysis.
Subdivisioning is added.
A. Marilyn - Urban Ring Finances.
Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
To the Editor:
Thank you for the letter about the Urban Ring signed by me, among others. However, although it accurately states many objections to the buses (Phase 2) and properly endorses going directly to the rail part of the project (Phase 3), it seems to have a typographical error about rail that somehow slipped by.
Simply put, a light rail system is NOT a “smart choice.” According to the Urban Ring Major Investment Study, light rail’s capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, costs of mitigating vibration and electromagnetic interference with instruments at MIT and Longwood Medical Area, all are higher than for heavy rail. (The MBTA Green Line is light rail. The Orange and Red Lines are heavy rail.)
Comparing the cost effectiveness of bus, light rail, and heavy rail, the Study found that “the cost per passenger mile [of] the bus mode is the highest, followed closely by light rail and the heavy rail has the lowest cost.” Compared to Phase 2 buses and Phase 3 heavy rail, “Light Rail is the most expensive in both costs per vehicle revenue mile and per vehicle revenue hour by a large margin.” (MIS , 7-4.)
Given effective transportation’s critical importance to our region’s jobs and cost of living, we cannot afford to squander funds on Urban Ring buses or light rail. Short-sighted decisions, lack of strategic thinking, and lack of investment in transportation have contributed to the loss of population and businesses here, placing us at a tremendous disadvantage relative to other regions. Officials and the attentive public are well aware of these very real problems.
In this context, light rail, like the buses, would continue the errors of the past.
I hope this clarifies the situation regarding the Urban Ring, a very complicated subject.
B. Your Editor.
(1) Introduction to the Chronicle editor - Issue in context.
Editor: I realize this is a bit long for a letter. That is why I suggest, as an option, an op ed. Another possibility is to cut out the Harvard Allston analysis.
I am uncomfortable with the timing of this initiative, especially since an op-ed was printed at the same time from Stosh Horowitz concerning the North Point project. My discomfort comes from the fact that the project concerning the Hotel near Trader Joe's is perhaps the major current issue in this part of the city.
The problem with that hotel is a fake downzoning which legalized (with fake reviews) the Hotel's initiatives. Horowitz led that fake downzoning, and there has been distressingly aggressive censorship of issues relating to the hotel in the Cambridgeport listserve. See my blog for a sample of the censorship.
Kelley voted for that fake and very destructive fake downzoning. Is the Urban Ring noise a red herring? Nevertheless, correction is needed for incorrect statements.
(2) Environmental Harm to Cambridge - the neighborhood and the Charles River.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
In your 4/19/07 edition, you printed an extended discussion of the state’s Urban Ring plans. While the letter seems well intended, there were enough errors in it that people could be confused.
First of all, the letter supported amendment of a motion by Councilor Kelley. I understand Councilor Kelley does not seem to support amendment of his motion and amendment does not seem feasible.
Kelley’s motion seems to support a new state highway on top of the Grand Junction railway tracks in East Cambridge / Cambridgeport. This new highway could be another Inner Belt.
Secondly, the letter supported certain elements of “Phase III” of the Urban Ring plans but does not seem to understand Phase III.
Phase III is a proposal for a new subway line connecting Charlestown to Lechmere to MIT to the Harvard Medical Area to Ruggles.
The key differences are in the way the subway would cross the Charles River and in the type of vehicle used.
I proposed one option which is now a formal state option for crossing the Charles River. This is the Kenmore crossing.
I proposed the Kenmore crossing because the other crossing, the BU Bridge crossing, is so destructive to Cambridgeport.
The BU Bridge crossing would put a subway stop at the end of Putnam Avenue with obvious destructive impact on Cambridgeport. The BU Bridge crossing would also be highly destructive to a sensitive part of the Charles River in Cambridge.
That two pronged destructive impact on Cambridgeport is the reason I proposed the Kenmore crossing instead of the BU Bridge crossing in 1986. The state picked up the Kenmore crossing as a formal alternative in 1991.
The two different types of vehicle are: full scale subway in the manner of the Orange Line, and street cars in the manner of the Green Line. The Kenmore crossing is Orange Line technology. The BU Bridge crossing, with its very destructive Putnam Avenue and Charles River impacts, is Green Line technology.
The letter you printed included language favorable to the Green Line technology while opposing the destructiveness of Councilor Kelley’s highway. The difference in damage to Cambridgeport between the Green Line Phase III crossing and Kelley’s highway is only a matter of degree.
If you oppose Kelley’s highway, you should oppose the Green Line BU Bridge Phase III and you should support the Orange Line Kenmore Phase III.
(3) Harvard Allston.
Similarly, Councilor Kelley in 2005 gave people the impression that the Green Line BU Bridge crossing would support Harvard’s Allston project from the east. I went so far as to bring in the project managers to disprove this statement, but Councilor Kelley has never withdrawn this statement.
Currently, the state’s consultants have proposed four different ways to support Harvard Allston.
Every one of the current state options support Harvard Allston from the east with connections from Boston, Brookline and the Harvard Medical Area and on the west with connection to Harvard Square.
There would be a much better way to do the eastern connection with a new Green Line branch from the Boston end of the BU Bridge, but there is no meaningful eastern proposal (except for Councilor Kelley’s 2005 statement) from Cambridge.
(4) Summary.
I hope this analysis if of assistance. I have lived the Urban Ring since the mid-80's. It can be very distressing to see people fighting for items they might not support if they had full information.
Thank you.
1. Introduction.
2. General Analysis of the Urban Ring.
A. Introduction.
B. The transportation goals are all on the side of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
(1) Get people off the downtown subway.
(2) Provide clean connections with other transit lines and meaningful support for the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.
(3) Support Fenway Park.
C. The environmental and financial goals are all in favor of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
3. Cambridge Chronicle letters.
A. Marilyn - Urban Ring Finances.
B. Your Editor.
(1) Introduction to the Chronicle editor - Issue in context.
(2) Environmental Harm to Cambridge - the neighborhood and the Charles River.
(3) Harvard Allston.
(4) Summary.
1. Introduction.
I have been actively defending the Charles River in Boston for nearly ten years now.
It has been distressingly amazing to learn the many, many attacks ongoing. It has also been surprising to see how many items are matters I have worked on even longer.
One of those attacks is the option for the Urban Ring transportation proposal supported by, of course, the City of Cambridge and its buddies in the state bureaucracy.
Yesterday, I gave you the MBTA maps for the Charles River crossings of the Urban Ring subway. Those maps date back to 2001.
I deliberately presented the maps in as neutral a manner as possible.
2. General Analysis of the Urban Ring.
A. Introduction.
Currently the state is proposing a massive highway build for a phase 2 of the Urban Ring, to precede phase 3 full scale subway.
Interestingly, some of the options certainly look like their expense pushes the cost of subway construction, and particular proposals would very much ensure that the inferior of the two Charles River crossings, the BU Bridge crossing, would be the one to go.
I support the Kenmore Crossing. My general reasons for supporting it were stated with the maps. From a transportation point of view, the Kenmore crossing is by far the better alternative.
B. The transportation goals are all on the side of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
(1) Get people off the downtown subway.
The main purpose of the subway system is to get people off the downtown subway.
Full scale Orange Line construction (Kenmore crossing) can do that.
Green line construction (BU Bridge crossing) cannot possibly get people off the downtown subway in any meaningful scale.
There is no comparison.
(2) Provide clean connections with other transit lines and meaningful support for the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.
With regard to connections, there are major differences in the connections to the three green line branches and to the Worcester / Framingham commuter rail.
The proposal is intended to integrate the Worcester/Framingham commuter rail into the subway system.
This train could very easily drop hundreds of passengers onto the Green Line during rush hour.
The Green Line / BU Bridge crossing would drop those hundreds of passengers all on the already overloaded Commonwealth Avenue / Boston College / B branch. The transfer would include walking across Commonwealth Avenue even in the worst of weather.
The Orange Line / Kenmore crossing would provide covered transfers to all three Green Line branches.
There is no comparison.
(3) Support Fenway Park.
The Green Line / BU Bridge crossing would move Fenway Park's commuter rail station away from Fenway Park by a couple of blocks. The Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing would provide excellent, close connection.
There is no comparison.
C. The environmental and financial goals are all in favor of the Orange Line / Kenmore Crossing.
These are discussed below.
There is no comparison.
3. Cambridge Chronicle letters.
On April 19, 2007, the Cambridge Chronicle published a letter signed by among other people, Marilyn Wellons. She did not write it. It had major problems.
The following letters were published in the April 26, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle. Marilyn’s was published in full. Mine omitted the Harvard Allston analysis.
Subdivisioning is added.
A. Marilyn - Urban Ring Finances.
Editor, Cambridge Chronicle
To the Editor:
Thank you for the letter about the Urban Ring signed by me, among others. However, although it accurately states many objections to the buses (Phase 2) and properly endorses going directly to the rail part of the project (Phase 3), it seems to have a typographical error about rail that somehow slipped by.
Simply put, a light rail system is NOT a “smart choice.” According to the Urban Ring Major Investment Study, light rail’s capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, costs of mitigating vibration and electromagnetic interference with instruments at MIT and Longwood Medical Area, all are higher than for heavy rail. (The MBTA Green Line is light rail. The Orange and Red Lines are heavy rail.)
Comparing the cost effectiveness of bus, light rail, and heavy rail, the Study found that “the cost per passenger mile [of] the bus mode is the highest, followed closely by light rail and the heavy rail has the lowest cost.” Compared to Phase 2 buses and Phase 3 heavy rail, “Light Rail is the most expensive in both costs per vehicle revenue mile and per vehicle revenue hour by a large margin.” (MIS , 7-4.)
Given effective transportation’s critical importance to our region’s jobs and cost of living, we cannot afford to squander funds on Urban Ring buses or light rail. Short-sighted decisions, lack of strategic thinking, and lack of investment in transportation have contributed to the loss of population and businesses here, placing us at a tremendous disadvantage relative to other regions. Officials and the attentive public are well aware of these very real problems.
In this context, light rail, like the buses, would continue the errors of the past.
I hope this clarifies the situation regarding the Urban Ring, a very complicated subject.
B. Your Editor.
(1) Introduction to the Chronicle editor - Issue in context.
Editor: I realize this is a bit long for a letter. That is why I suggest, as an option, an op ed. Another possibility is to cut out the Harvard Allston analysis.
I am uncomfortable with the timing of this initiative, especially since an op-ed was printed at the same time from Stosh Horowitz concerning the North Point project. My discomfort comes from the fact that the project concerning the Hotel near Trader Joe's is perhaps the major current issue in this part of the city.
The problem with that hotel is a fake downzoning which legalized (with fake reviews) the Hotel's initiatives. Horowitz led that fake downzoning, and there has been distressingly aggressive censorship of issues relating to the hotel in the Cambridgeport listserve. See my blog for a sample of the censorship.
Kelley voted for that fake and very destructive fake downzoning. Is the Urban Ring noise a red herring? Nevertheless, correction is needed for incorrect statements.
(2) Environmental Harm to Cambridge - the neighborhood and the Charles River.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
In your 4/19/07 edition, you printed an extended discussion of the state’s Urban Ring plans. While the letter seems well intended, there were enough errors in it that people could be confused.
First of all, the letter supported amendment of a motion by Councilor Kelley. I understand Councilor Kelley does not seem to support amendment of his motion and amendment does not seem feasible.
Kelley’s motion seems to support a new state highway on top of the Grand Junction railway tracks in East Cambridge / Cambridgeport. This new highway could be another Inner Belt.
Secondly, the letter supported certain elements of “Phase III” of the Urban Ring plans but does not seem to understand Phase III.
Phase III is a proposal for a new subway line connecting Charlestown to Lechmere to MIT to the Harvard Medical Area to Ruggles.
The key differences are in the way the subway would cross the Charles River and in the type of vehicle used.
I proposed one option which is now a formal state option for crossing the Charles River. This is the Kenmore crossing.
I proposed the Kenmore crossing because the other crossing, the BU Bridge crossing, is so destructive to Cambridgeport.
The BU Bridge crossing would put a subway stop at the end of Putnam Avenue with obvious destructive impact on Cambridgeport. The BU Bridge crossing would also be highly destructive to a sensitive part of the Charles River in Cambridge.
That two pronged destructive impact on Cambridgeport is the reason I proposed the Kenmore crossing instead of the BU Bridge crossing in 1986. The state picked up the Kenmore crossing as a formal alternative in 1991.
The two different types of vehicle are: full scale subway in the manner of the Orange Line, and street cars in the manner of the Green Line. The Kenmore crossing is Orange Line technology. The BU Bridge crossing, with its very destructive Putnam Avenue and Charles River impacts, is Green Line technology.
The letter you printed included language favorable to the Green Line technology while opposing the destructiveness of Councilor Kelley’s highway. The difference in damage to Cambridgeport between the Green Line Phase III crossing and Kelley’s highway is only a matter of degree.
If you oppose Kelley’s highway, you should oppose the Green Line BU Bridge Phase III and you should support the Orange Line Kenmore Phase III.
(3) Harvard Allston.
Similarly, Councilor Kelley in 2005 gave people the impression that the Green Line BU Bridge crossing would support Harvard’s Allston project from the east. I went so far as to bring in the project managers to disprove this statement, but Councilor Kelley has never withdrawn this statement.
Currently, the state’s consultants have proposed four different ways to support Harvard Allston.
Every one of the current state options support Harvard Allston from the east with connections from Boston, Brookline and the Harvard Medical Area and on the west with connection to Harvard Square.
There would be a much better way to do the eastern connection with a new Green Line branch from the Boston end of the BU Bridge, but there is no meaningful eastern proposal (except for Councilor Kelley’s 2005 statement) from Cambridge.
(4) Summary.
I hope this analysis if of assistance. I have lived the Urban Ring since the mid-80's. It can be very distressing to see people fighting for items they might not support if they had full information.
Thank you.
Representative Walz supports environmental destruction at Magazine Beach
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Introduction.
2. Bob La Trémouille Response.
3. Marilyn Wellons Response, Letter to Representative Walz.
1. Introduction.
Several weeks ago, a former Cambridge School Committee member published a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle supporting destruction of Magazine Beach without saying he was supporting destruction of Magazine Beach. He said he was "improving" an unidentified Little League field. A week later, the Cambridge Chronicle published an anonymous supporting comment also not identifying the place being destroyed.
About three weeks after the anonymous communication, the original signer, Marc McGovern cosigned with State Representative Marty Walz a letter bragging about the destruction and identifying Magazine Beach.
The following are my and Marilyn Wellons' response to the more recent communication.
2. Bob La Trémouille Response.
It is always interesting to see the bad guys at work in Cambridge.
In November 1999, nine members of the Cambridge City Council voted for environmental irresponsibility at Magazine Beach, being fully aware of the harm to wildlife.
Since then nine members of the Cambridge City Council, with individual incumbents varying from time to time, have done their best not to know what they were doing.
When heartless killers targeted the Charles River White Geese, nine Cambridge City Councilors were "neutral" with what amounted to the usual complicant wink and a nod.
When the leader of the gaggle was brutally killed and the Cambridge Chronicle headlined our memorial ceremony, the Cambridge City Council was neutral with what amounted to the usual complicant wink and a nod.
When a young woman was murdered in what seemed to be clearly a graduation from killing geese, the Cambridge City Council spent an extended period discussing the killing. They just did not want to know where she was killed. Another wink and a nod.
The killer was sentenced to life and clearly looked like the goose killer.
The DCR took a poll. A majority thought that the Charles River was fine without "improvements."
Over a period of seven years, nobody could see any value in the most reprehensible part of the "improvements," the destruction of Magazine Beach.
Walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with designer bushes in place of wetlands was heralded with a swim-in that claimed that walling off the Charles River was a way to assist swimming in the Charles.
The starvation attacks involved in that bizarre walling off with vegetation which had no business on the Charles River was described by the DCR as doing "no harm" to the Charles River White Geese who were being starved by the project.
The DCR defined starvation as "no harm."
Finally, about a month ago, a former school committee member, Marc McGovern, supported in the Cambridge Chronicle a little league improvement at a location which that former school committee member did not identify.
One week later an anonymous message in the Chronicle agreed on the "improvement" at the unidentified location.
This looked to me like the sort of underhanded game that goes on.
Normal people consider the Magazine Beach playing fields perfectly adequate. The plans are dig up all the dirt, cart it away and replace it with dirt and poisons.
The DCR claims to want only water related activities on the banks of the Charles. They starve water birds, poison eggs of water birds and instal poisons to support "improvements" which are unnecessary for playing fields which are most definitely not water related.
The last time the DCR applied poisons to one of their water related playing fields was at Ebersol Fields near Mass. General Hospital.
This was last spring. The next day, the Charles was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge.
So Thursday, State Representative Marty Walz bragged about these destructive, environmentally wasteful "improvements" in the Cambridge Chronicle in response to the letter which did not identify the target. Walz identified the target as Magazine Beach.
Business as usual. Starve the animals, poison the environment and do it in response to a letter which identified nothing.
Truly reprehensible.
2. Marilyn Wellons Response, Letter to Representative Walz.
Dear Rep. Walz,
I was disturbed to read that you support the DCR's plan to install
commercial sod on the playing fields at Magazine Beach. Such sod will need
continuing applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
These chemicals are not good for young athletes or for the Charles
River's water quality.
The prototype of this project is the DCR's Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox
Fields at Lederman Park in Boston. In the spring of 2006 the agency
replaced 6 acres of grasses adapted to the water's edge there with commercial
sod. The unprecedented algae bloom in the Charles River just offshore
from these fields followed in August. "We've never seen an algae bloom
like this before," the Boston Globe quoted a Charles River Watershed
Association spokesperson as saying. There had never been runoff from 6
acres of chemically treated sod there before, either.
In fact, the algae bloom followed by days the application of "Tartan,"
a fungicide. The label warning for "Tartan" states it is not to be
used near bodies of water. Nevertheless, the DCR, citing the need for the
"quality of turf our players deserve," applied it to the stressed
grass. I attended the Boston Conservation Commission hearing at the DCR
representative made this statement.
In a part of the river that had been safe enough for swimming, the
algae bloom created a public health hazard, dangerous to humans and
wildlife. The DCR has never denied that runoff from the newly installed,
heavily fertilized, and chemically treated sod, including the use of
"Tartan," led to the algae bloom and cancellation of the second Charles River
swim.
The DCR now proposes to repeat the blunder at Magazine Beach's 7 acres.
Organized, regulation baseball at "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at
Lederman Park" is not a "water-dependent activity" supposedly privileged
on Charles River parkland. Casual riverside ball playing, cited as
suitable by the Charles River Reservation's original designers a century
ago, bears no resemblance to the klieg lights on 60' high poles,
extensive fences, and chemically treated sod there or what is planned for
Magazine Beach.
Please also note that childrens' soccer leagues have backed off from
their endorsements of chemical lawn-care companies when they discovered
what exposure to the chemicals meant for the children. I do not know if
Little League teams have similar agreements or are aware of the
dangers.
Please reconsider your support for the duplication of this disastrous
project at Magazine Beach.
1. Introduction.
2. Bob La Trémouille Response.
3. Marilyn Wellons Response, Letter to Representative Walz.
1. Introduction.
Several weeks ago, a former Cambridge School Committee member published a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle supporting destruction of Magazine Beach without saying he was supporting destruction of Magazine Beach. He said he was "improving" an unidentified Little League field. A week later, the Cambridge Chronicle published an anonymous supporting comment also not identifying the place being destroyed.
About three weeks after the anonymous communication, the original signer, Marc McGovern cosigned with State Representative Marty Walz a letter bragging about the destruction and identifying Magazine Beach.
The following are my and Marilyn Wellons' response to the more recent communication.
2. Bob La Trémouille Response.
It is always interesting to see the bad guys at work in Cambridge.
In November 1999, nine members of the Cambridge City Council voted for environmental irresponsibility at Magazine Beach, being fully aware of the harm to wildlife.
Since then nine members of the Cambridge City Council, with individual incumbents varying from time to time, have done their best not to know what they were doing.
When heartless killers targeted the Charles River White Geese, nine Cambridge City Councilors were "neutral" with what amounted to the usual complicant wink and a nod.
When the leader of the gaggle was brutally killed and the Cambridge Chronicle headlined our memorial ceremony, the Cambridge City Council was neutral with what amounted to the usual complicant wink and a nod.
When a young woman was murdered in what seemed to be clearly a graduation from killing geese, the Cambridge City Council spent an extended period discussing the killing. They just did not want to know where she was killed. Another wink and a nod.
The killer was sentenced to life and clearly looked like the goose killer.
The DCR took a poll. A majority thought that the Charles River was fine without "improvements."
Over a period of seven years, nobody could see any value in the most reprehensible part of the "improvements," the destruction of Magazine Beach.
Walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with designer bushes in place of wetlands was heralded with a swim-in that claimed that walling off the Charles River was a way to assist swimming in the Charles.
The starvation attacks involved in that bizarre walling off with vegetation which had no business on the Charles River was described by the DCR as doing "no harm" to the Charles River White Geese who were being starved by the project.
The DCR defined starvation as "no harm."
Finally, about a month ago, a former school committee member, Marc McGovern, supported in the Cambridge Chronicle a little league improvement at a location which that former school committee member did not identify.
One week later an anonymous message in the Chronicle agreed on the "improvement" at the unidentified location.
This looked to me like the sort of underhanded game that goes on.
Normal people consider the Magazine Beach playing fields perfectly adequate. The plans are dig up all the dirt, cart it away and replace it with dirt and poisons.
The DCR claims to want only water related activities on the banks of the Charles. They starve water birds, poison eggs of water birds and instal poisons to support "improvements" which are unnecessary for playing fields which are most definitely not water related.
The last time the DCR applied poisons to one of their water related playing fields was at Ebersol Fields near Mass. General Hospital.
This was last spring. The next day, the Charles was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge.
So Thursday, State Representative Marty Walz bragged about these destructive, environmentally wasteful "improvements" in the Cambridge Chronicle in response to the letter which did not identify the target. Walz identified the target as Magazine Beach.
Business as usual. Starve the animals, poison the environment and do it in response to a letter which identified nothing.
Truly reprehensible.
2. Marilyn Wellons Response, Letter to Representative Walz.
Dear Rep. Walz,
I was disturbed to read that you support the DCR's plan to install
commercial sod on the playing fields at Magazine Beach. Such sod will need
continuing applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
These chemicals are not good for young athletes or for the Charles
River's water quality.
The prototype of this project is the DCR's Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox
Fields at Lederman Park in Boston. In the spring of 2006 the agency
replaced 6 acres of grasses adapted to the water's edge there with commercial
sod. The unprecedented algae bloom in the Charles River just offshore
from these fields followed in August. "We've never seen an algae bloom
like this before," the Boston Globe quoted a Charles River Watershed
Association spokesperson as saying. There had never been runoff from 6
acres of chemically treated sod there before, either.
In fact, the algae bloom followed by days the application of "Tartan,"
a fungicide. The label warning for "Tartan" states it is not to be
used near bodies of water. Nevertheless, the DCR, citing the need for the
"quality of turf our players deserve," applied it to the stressed
grass. I attended the Boston Conservation Commission hearing at the DCR
representative made this statement.
In a part of the river that had been safe enough for swimming, the
algae bloom created a public health hazard, dangerous to humans and
wildlife. The DCR has never denied that runoff from the newly installed,
heavily fertilized, and chemically treated sod, including the use of
"Tartan," led to the algae bloom and cancellation of the second Charles River
swim.
The DCR now proposes to repeat the blunder at Magazine Beach's 7 acres.
Organized, regulation baseball at "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at
Lederman Park" is not a "water-dependent activity" supposedly privileged
on Charles River parkland. Casual riverside ball playing, cited as
suitable by the Charles River Reservation's original designers a century
ago, bears no resemblance to the klieg lights on 60' high poles,
extensive fences, and chemically treated sod there or what is planned for
Magazine Beach.
Please also note that childrens' soccer leagues have backed off from
their endorsements of chemical lawn-care companies when they discovered
what exposure to the chemicals meant for the children. I do not know if
Little League teams have similar agreements or are aware of the
dangers.
Please reconsider your support for the duplication of this disastrous
project at Magazine Beach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)