Day 378. DCR Hiding.

The devastation at the goose meadow is unchanged from yesterday.

Activity with decent people in my visibility at the nesting area was so busy that, at one time, I had four people lined up for leaflets.

Lots of good people cannot understand why Governor Patrick’s people are so heartless and so destructive.

One lady came up to me in my favorite coffee shop and reported that she had left a message at the DCR, trying to talk with them, but the message has not been answered.

Day 377. Patrick’s People make destruction worse.

1. Introduction.
2. Conditions.
3. Decent Human Beings.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.

On Monday, September 7, 2009, I conducted the 377th day of visibilities at the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

2. Conditions.

It always a severe mistake to say: “They would never stoop so low” with regard to the Cambridge Pols or with regard to Governor Patrick’s people.

It looks like they are dumping materials to create a full stage parking lot.

When I last saw this outrage, the dirt in the construction zone, formerly nesting bushes and vegetation, was dirt colored. Now it is clay colored.

On top of this clay outrage has been dumped a load of crushed stone.

If Governor Patrick tells you he is a decent human being, laugh in his face.

As far as the Cambridge Pols go, well we have the judge’s word on them: “Reprehensible.” Notice of appeal filed.

3. Decent Human Beings.

I was well greeted by people who were shocked.

"They [Charles River White Geese] Were Expendable"

Bob La Trémouille edits and reports.

1. "They were expendable."
2. Comment from the Editor.



1. "They were expendable."

From Archie Mazmanian:

This may serve as the headline of an obituary shortly as the current annihilation takes place. Assuming the MWRA introduced a gaggle of White Geese in the 1980s in the area of the BU Bridge - although there may have been an pre-existing gaggle - was the gig for that gaggle to improve water quality or to serve some other environmental purpose? Perhaps the services of the White Geese are no longer required. If such is the case, why not relocate the gaggle? The White Geese are not overrunning the area of the BU Bridge.

Today's Sunday NYTimes (9/6/09) includes a feature in its first section titled "Tick-Borne Illnesses Have Nantucket Considering Some Deer-Based Solutions" by Pam Belluch about that island's Lyme and other disease problems related to deer ticks. Deer were introduced to Nantucket and proliferated. A Boston Globe story on Block Island several years ago disclosed a similar situation there. A proposed solution was to reduce - not annihilate - the deer herd. Animal rights protestors have objected.

I mention this article to contrast the situation with the White Geese, who to my knowledge are not creating health problems for the adjoining community and have not innundated the area. In fact, the White Geese are being squeezed. The "people" behind this do not propose to slaughter the White Geese with abatoir techniques because of the anticipated response to such barbarism. Starving the beast provides these "people" with a clearer conscience. Besides, relocating them can be costly as well as difficult. These "people" are relying upon the fact that the gaggle is not that large. Few know of the plight of the White Geese as they have been squeezed out of the public's vision, as it is difficult for the gaggle to enjoy the waters of the Charles River. Out of sight, out of mind. There is a name for this when a minority of humans are involved.

The deer continue on Nantucket and Block Island, increasing in numbers, despite extended hunting seasons. The White Geese cause us no harm. Isn't there something wrong with this?

2. Comment from the Editor.

When I originally posted Archie's comments, I took the move comment in the vein I really think he meant it. On rethinking, some elaboration is needed.

Clearly the explanation of the Cambridge Pols for the outrage of heartless animal abuse EXACTLY fits Archie's analysis. To the extent these supposed humans deign to mention their behavior, the explanation translates as "These are the little guys. How dare you object to us destroying the little guys."

The Monteiro judge and jury were exposed to this mentality. $5 million damages, including $3.5 million penal.

“Reprehensible.” Notice of appeal filed.

As far as moving goes, Friends of the White Geese have proposed moving and part of the vileness of Patrick's people is the fact that they have not been moved during what is supposed to be temporary work.

The Charles River White Geese should be allowed to return to their home of most of the last 30 years, Magazine Beach.

The outrageous starvation wall should be chopped down. The poisons being dumped on the fields at Magazine Beach by people, state and city, with contempt for the environment should be ended. The expensive poison drainage systems should be filled in since there should be no need for them. The Charles River White Geese should be allowed to return to their nesting area when the Charles River White Geese deem it necessary. The bizarre staging destruction should be removed and returned to nature. The staging should be under Memorial Drive. Plans to use Obama money to destroy hundreds of trees to the east and create another starvation initiative should destroyed. When the project has been completed with minimal environmental harm nature should be reinstated at the nesting area was in September 1999.

This would restore the status quo before the heartless animal abuse and bizarre environmental destruction started.

Representative Walz covers her rear end

1. Representative Walz to defend the Charles before one of the Cambridge City Manager’s Groups.
2. The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, the actions it brags about.
3. Walz’ legislation.
4. Latest outrages.
5. Clarification.


Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Representative Walz to defend the Charles before one of the Cambridge City Manager’s Groups.

The following is the listing of item number 2 on the agenda for the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting on September 10.

2) State Rep. Marty Walz has requested an opportunity to update the neighborhood about new legislation she has filed for better protecting open space along the river, by including, among other things, shadow analysis and better protection of how construction along the Charles should maximize and preserve open space (this follows Marty's supporting the CNA's successful legislative work to have City Council pass other legislation to enlarge the Charles River buffer zone (area without development) along the Charles and within Cport.

2. The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, the actions it brags about.

The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association was created at the request of the Cambridge City Manager. In its first organizing action, it “fought” a project going into the decommissioned Blessed Sacrament Church arguing it was too large. They had a victory. They made the project larger.

The “victory” they brag about on the Charles is the typical fake victory which is the norm from Cambridge Pols.

In, I believe, 2006, close friends of the leaders of this group, fellow members of the Cambridge Pols, destroyed zoning protections on the north side of Memorial Drive across from Magazine Beach and extending to Putnam Avenue. They lied that they were doing exactly the opposite and you have to read the fine print of this fake downzoning to realize exactly what it was.

The “leaders” of the two groups and many friends including at least one current city council member have spent the better part of the last decade destroying zoning protections in Cambridge with many zoning initiatives containing exactly the same sort of lies, lovely big letters, fine print which turned the big letters into nonsense.

Marilyn Wellons and I spoke against the 2006 outrage to the Cambridge City Council and attempted to get this group to stand up to this outrage, but the City Manager’s groups are very well established by now and, as good company unions, prevented organization by being in the way and doing nothing.

The lie that this outrage was protective was very quickly proven by a major expansion authorized for the Radisson Hotel across from Magazine Beach which exactly violated the protections that the authors claimed to be providing.

During the last year, the leaders of the CNA have PARTIALLY reinstated protections which they helped destroy, leaving very major destructive fine print in place.

They have since repeatedly bragged (as in the above) that this PARTIAL reinstatement of protections which they help destroy in the first place was an achievement.

3. Walz’ legislation.

The outrages going on on the Charles River and soon to come on the Charles River which Walz supports prove any "protective" legislation to be just so much lies.

But that is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA.

4. Latest outrages.

The group has kept their friends “neutral” on the latest outrages. They have passed on a key communication of mine to their mailing list.

5. Clarification.

I make no claim as to knowledge of what is in Representative Walz' legislation.

The reality is that, no matter how good it is, it cannot possibly neutralize the truly reprehensible (and I carefully use the judge's word) Representative Walz' behavior is.

Walz' hands are filthy rotten. Walz is flat dab in the middle of massive, irresponsible environmental destruction. Walz is a beligerant and heartless animal abuser as part of reprehensible projects which taken as a whole in meaningful reality and looking at the obvious and easy alternatives condemn her as a really vile person.

Her filing legislation and her running around with such legislation at such a time can only reasonably be interpreteted as her attempt to lie to her constituents that she is a decent human being.

We are way beyond the "have you no shame" level.

She has no redeeming value to anybody with respect for animals or to anybody who might be impressed with whatever her legislation claims to do.

I use the word "lie." I would be a damn fool not to.

Arthur Godfrey + Charles River White Geese

From Archie Mazmanian

*******

Some years back, Arthur Godfrey told a joke on his radio/tv show about a goose that got on a bus and by the time he got off several stops later, the goose was "peopled" six times.

I thought this joke was funny at the time. I recall there were complaints that the joke was too risque. I have thought of this joke over the years as the Charles River White Geese have been "peopled" not on the bus but in their natural habitat. While this joke may still be funny, what is happening to the White Geese is not. Consider the systematic steps taken over the years by the "people" in charge.

All seemed well with the White Geese back in the late '60s and '70s in their gathering along the Charles River shore in front of the Hyatt. At the time, sunbathers frequented that "beach" but made sure not to get too close to the White Geese who were very territorial. We had to keep our children under control so they wouldn't get hurt by the Geese protecting what they perceived as potential threats to their children, just as we humans protect our children. We all got along, the people and the White Geese.

When our children got older, they were more into sports, so we lost track of the White Geese. This Blog awakened me with its reports of how the White Geese were being "peopled" by government and non-profit entities. The growth planted along the northerly bank of the Charles River reduced the habitat of the White Geese, including in front of the Hyatt. But the White Geese survived this assault. Boston University's boathouse on the Cambridge side further reduced the habitat of the White Geese. But they survived that assault. The White Geese were confined to a small meadow between the BU boathouse and the BU Bridge. Of course, they had to cope with the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL), but only on a limited basis.

Then came the Urban Ring Phase 2 project that might utilize a widened GJRL for its 60-foot BRT buses running in each direction every 7 minutes or so. More recently, the BU Bridge repair projects have further threatened the White Geese as reported in this Blog. The White Geese are being annihilated by "people." That is obviously the goal of these "people."

It's time to "goose" these "people," expose them via the ballot box and any other means. This is cruelty. Most of these "people" are government officials and employees. What we need are whistleblowers, nay honkers, in government to expose this goal of annihilating the White Geese. If there is success with the White Geese, who's next in Mother Nature? Don't get mad, get even. Let's "goose" these "people" by naming them publicly. Have they no decency?

*********

Bob: The reference to white geese on the Charles River in the 60's and 70's is interesting because our understanding is that the current gaggle dates to 1981 and the original group to workers in the pollution control plant. Dangerousness is not in the makeup of the gaggle.

What is entirely possible is that our knowledge is based on the memory of a limited number of workers at the plant. Those workers maintained an excellent relationship with the Charles River White Geese and could monitor their well-being. The MWRA employees' work schedule was changed to part time and then to only periodic plant visits AFTER heartless animal abuse became State and City policy.

It is entirely possible that White Geese were living in the Hyatt area which is to the east of the current destroyed goose meadow and further east of the pollution plant/Magazine Beach.

I should think that the gaggles could have merged at some time.

Day 376, Blogger praises environmental destruction, heartless animal abuse, neglects to mention the environmental destruction, heartless animal abuse

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. General.
2. Latest Outrage.


1. General.

In the late afternoon, early rush hour, Monday, August 31, 2009, I greeted people at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The view of the outrage was quite clear from the sidewalk.

Pedestrians were interested and concerned. An increased number of drivers pulled over for leaflets.

2. Latest Outrage.

The bad guys in Cambridge tend to scratch each others' backs a lot.

When a member of the Cambridge Pols praises somebody, and you are pro-environment, look out for the guy getting praised.

The City of Cambridge’s Cambridgeport group runs a listserve on which I have been active. I have recently been amazed to see some of my more indignant posts get passed on to the list.

A few weeks ago, the head of the group issued glowing praise for a new blog which he said was given a link on their website.

Kathy Podgers asked to also be given a link for her blog. That request was copied to me by Kathy but was not passed on to the list.

Yesterday, I asked for a link to this blog. That request was passed on to the list.

My request read:

**********

Looking at the Cambridgeport blog you have praised so highly, I see an outrageous piece praising the ongoing Magazine Beach / Goose Meadow / Memorial Drive environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

A semblance of neutrality would be to post a link to somebody pro-environment and opposed to heartless animal abuse, our blog, charlesriverwhitegeese.blogspot.com.

**********

Last Saturday, this blogger praised the outrage going on at Magazine Beach and the outrage associated with the BU Bridge repairs. The blogger neglected to mention the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse. He did mention “bureaucratic infighting” with regard to the latter.

The blogger also commented on the plan to destroy hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive as a preservation project while mentioning that the plan is “controversial.”

The blogger responded off list yesterday that he “makes a strong effort to maintain neutrality.”

*********

My response to the blogger was:

"You praised an environmental destructive project.

"You praised heartless animal abuse.

"You neglected to mention the environmental destruction.

"You neglected to mention the heartless animal abuse.

"That is not neutral. That is false and misleading praise because the environmental destructiveness is so major.

"Praise of this sort is not neutral, it is part of a continuing con game in which a very destrucive city council and governor lie that they are pro environment, and with regard to their accelerating heartless animal abuse, propounds the lie that they are decent human beings."

********

I have long since stopped trying to read the mind of people taking initiatives destructive of the environment in Cambridge. I have long since stopped trying to figure out whether any individual is a knave or a fool.

With regard to this individual, his entry came after really outrageous behavior by environmental destroyers and heartless animal abusers, with no mention whatsoever of the outrages.

The entry as of the writing of this report is unchanged.

That says everything.

Memorial Drive Trees, White Geese, Atlanta’s BeltLine, EOT’s Urban Ring Phase 2.

1. Memorial Drive trees + White Geese.
2. Atlanta's BeltLine vs. EOT's Urban Ring Phase 2

The following well written comments are from Archie Mazmanian.

1. Memorial Drive trees + White Geese.

Despite its traffic signals, Memorial Drive is preferable to Storrow Drive because of its trees. But apparently no more. Joyce Kilmer’s “Trees” comes to mind, a poem that many of us learned to recite in grade school. MA General Laws in Chapter 87 addresses public shade trees. For cities and towns, these trees are entitled to a “public hearing” that is duly noticed before being cut down. Alas, the rule is different for state highways. But perhaps the public can have its hearing with motorists honking while on Memorial Drive, to give voice to the bark of the trees that had no bite.

And this honking can give voice to the Charles River White Geese, the innocents is all this. This honking can be a form of public assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Let’s be heard. Let the elected officials hear us, loud and clear.

Some years back, here in Brookline, a proposal to expand Hall’s Pond and its sanctuary included a plan to cut down several weeping willow trees along one of its banks. These lovely trees had served a valuable purpose environmentally for many years and were healthy. Some of us in the Cottage Farm and Longwood Neighborhoods made our voices heard and the weeping willows were saved. In fact, a few more weeping willows were planted. Just enter Amory Park and take a look at these weeping willows and what they continue to contribute. Even in winter months, these willows have a patina. One of my favorite jazz songs is “Willow Weep for Me.” A letter to our local weekly from me set forth its words in support of our efforts to save them. These willows still weep for us, tears of joy for the pleasures they continue to provide.

But who weeps for the Charles River White Geese? Not our politicians. Children in the area of the River will be deprived of the joys of the White Geese, the joys of nature that many of us and our children enjoyed. Who would hear our weeping? So honk, honk, honk! If the politicians won’t listen, don’t get mad – get even. There is a word for what is done to people that is being done to the Charles River White Geese. So let’s honk, honk, honk!

2. Atlanta's BeltLine vs. EOT's Urban Ring Phase 2

I recently learned of Atlanta's BeltLine project addressing greater Atlanta's public transit problems. Information is available at its website:

http://www.beltline.org/Home/tabid/1672/Default.aspx

I learned of this from Truthout, an August 30, 2009 article titled: "Gentrification Fears Dog Sustainable Transport" available at:

http://www.truthout.org/083009X?print

The BeltLine project is fairly new, compared to EOT's Urban Ring; however, it seems to be further advanced, based upon browsing through its website. Many more issues are addressed with the BeltLine project than with Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. Perhaps EOT and the Citizens Advisory Board might benefit from taking a look at the BeltLine, which appears to be more ring-like than the Urban Ring.

The Urban Ring is stale. It lacks the ground-up support displayed by and for BeltLine.

Yesterday's (8/30/09) Sunday Boston Globe at page 2 of the Metro Section, Starts & Stops, features "Bridging the interests of commuters, construction" and the BU Bridge repair project that will further reduce its travel lanes to two. (Earlier, its four lanes had been reduced to three.) A suggestion has been made to increase the number of crosstown buses using the BU Bridge, as if that would solve problems. In this same issue of the Globe, check out its lead editorial in the Ideas Section: "In this summer of roadwork, more needs to be done to relieve jams." Yes, transportation has long been a mess in MA with its divided government going back 18 years; but the last two years with Democrats fully in control have not been much better.

Meantime, the trees on Memorial Drive have lost their bark to the bite of the chainsaws. The Charles River White Geese are being silenced as they are further segregated in the course of their ultimate demise. Isn't it time to speak up? Who's in charge?

Day 375, Good People, reprehensible governments

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I did a visibility on Sunday, August 30.

The geese were huddled in the corner of the goose meadow which has not been destroyed.

The illegally dumped truckloads of dirt occupy three quarters of the goose meadow and block access to the BU Bridge for repair, supposedly the purpose of this outrage.

There was a construction vehicle in the middle of the illegal dirt.

The construction zones signs have been moved to make them legal. They originally, for all practical purposes, forbade the feeding of the Charles River White Geese. Since the reprehensible city and state governments have been keeping them away from their food at Magazine Beech for five years now, the combination would be very explicite.

People were out in reasonably good numbers and receptive.

More drivers pulled over for leaflets.

Day 374, Damage Made Worse, Conservation Commission Executive Director Meeting with DCR

Bob La Trémouille reports


1. Visibility Report.
2. Destruction Made Worse.
3. Executive Director of Cambridge Conservation Commission Meeting with DCR this morning.


1. Visibility Report.

I leafleted and spoke with people during the evening rush hour on August 27, 2009.

Some good people.

2. Destruction Made Worse.

I saw the Destroyed Nesting Area after the executive director of the Cambridge Conservation Commission had closed the project down on Wednesday.

On looking at it carefully, I realized that large amounts of dirt had been dumped on top of the devastation created on Tuesday.

I have provided the entire roll of film which I took on Tuesday to the Executive Director of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. Shots on this blog, because of space limitations, are only a portion of the 26 shots taken.

3. Executive Director of Cambridge Conservation Commission Meeting with DCR this morning.

DCR work site at BU Bridge shut down

Marilyn Wellons reports that the Director of the Cambridge Conservation Commission shut down the DCR work site at 3:15 p.m. August 25:

Friends alerted us to the start of work at the BU Bridge on August 25. I forwarded the information to Cambridge ConCom Director Jennifer Wright, assuming she already knew it had begun. In fact this was not the case.

The DCR had failed to give 72 hours' written notice of the start of work, or to comply with other requirements in the ConCom's Order of Conditions. These requirements include the filing of construction documents and copies of various permits. I believe there were 12 conditions for the BU Bridge work.

Ms. Wright accordingly shut down the DCR work site at 3:15 p.m. today. It is closed indefinitely, pending DCR compliance with the Order of Conditions.

By 3:15 all plants within 50’ of the BU Bridge abutment and beyond 100’ from the river’s edge were completely cleared, except for four trees. In this large L-shaped space the soil was bare and dusty, almost sifted of all vegetable matter. Beyond it the White Geese were huddled in the little space allotted to them. It also is, as we know, largely bare.

Near the entrance to the goose meadow where I was standing, a disoriented group of either digging or mining bees was trying to do something to or for nodules I thought might be their larvae’s formerly underground cells. In the hot sun whatever the bees were trying to do seemed impossible to me, but they kept at their task, except for one that walked purposively away toward nothing at all.

I will keep the blog posted with updates as the DCR responds to the stop order.

Day 373, The Goose Meadow before Governor Patrick's Heartless Animal Abuse, What should be done

I have been able to find two pictures in electronic form of the Goose Meadow this year. They were photographed in the first two weeks of July.

The first view is of the location of the two demolition vehicles. This is the area the gaggle immediately inspected once they realized the immediate danger was gone. They used a lot of it for nesting. The portion not destroyed had had significant damage in the last two years by the DCR. The destruction of this area is totally without value. It is being done for staging that should be put under Memorial Drive.














The second is of the area toward the BU Bridge, looking toward the trees.















The project has been timed to maximize environmental destruction and animal harm. The timing should be changed to do exactly the opposite.

If we were dealing with other than heartless animal abusers, the Charles River White Geese would be allowed to return to their home for most of the last 30 years, Magazine Beach and to visit the nesting area as they deem fit.

Access to Magazine Beach is blocked by a bizarre starvation wall of introduced vegetation. The front organization, Charles River Conservancy, has bragged that blocking off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with this bizarre wall helps swimming. The key liar has publicly bragged that he starves the Charles River White Geese with this wall. That bizarre wall should be chopped down.

Additionally, poisons being dumped on the formerly green playing fields should stop, and the expensive drainage system should be filled in. The drainage system supposedly drains the poisons out of Magazine Beach to keep them out of the Charles River. You do not dump poisons, you do not need the drainage. Notwithstanding this, it is inconceivable the drainage system would work in major flooding, which would obviously dump poisons in the Charles which should not be used on the banks of the Charles.

Half the destruction is unnecessary and dumb. The destruction in the north part of the goose meadow is for staging that should be placed under Memorial Drive, but we are dealing with very destructive people.

Day 373, Photos of Governor Patrick's Heartless Animal Abuse

Day 373 at the Destroyed Nesting Area Supplement, very miserable animals

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. First Visit.
a. Damage.
b. Very miserable Charles River White Geese.
c. Response from passers by.
3. Second visit.
4. Summary.


1. Introduction.

I spent three hours at the Destroyed Nesting Area in two groupings.

I had been notified by a friend that there was massive destruction going on.

I drove by and saw the destruction from the street.

I went back, got a sign, leaflets and camera.

2. First Visit.

a. Damage.

The first visit started at 2 to 3 pm. There was still construction equipment at the Destroyed Nesting Area. I could not see the Charles River White Geese.

All of the land and vegetation, including trees, abutting the BU Bridge had been destroyed.

The land abutting the on ramp was destroyed almost up to the bottom of the hill and up to the stair case illegally installed by BU and the DCR in 1999. A very limited amount of ground vegetation was not destroyed nearest the illegal staircase on the eastern end.

Construction zone signs prohibited entrance from the ramp and BU Bridge entrance.

I took a lot of photographs.

b. Very miserable Charles River White Geese.

After awhile, my eyes adjusted to the difference in light, and I saw the gaggle huddled under the trees between the illegal staircase on the eastern end and the railroad tracks.

Eventually, the construction vehicles were removed, and I walked down the illegal staircase on the eastern end.

When they saw me, they came out of their funk, and walked toward what little vegetation had not been destroyed.

They walked into the core area where they have spent most of their lives since heartless pols and bureaucrats started starving them.

After awhile, a line of geese walked into the new wasteland on the north side and walked up to the hillside. This new wasteland held a lot of nests in the past. They then turned around and returned to their undestroyed corner, or rather to the corner which was not destroyed yesterday. The DCR has spent years destroying the vegetation in the southeast corner.

That area is now barred to the public by two construction zone signs.

c. Response from passers by.

Disgust, contempt for the vile state and city environmental destroyers.

One or more passers by shared with their experiences calling Cambridge City Councilors. Evaluation: Clearly rotten people.

3. Second visit.

The second visit was rush hour. It was very busy. There were a lot of concerned people.

4. Summary.

The state bureaucrats have spent years saying they would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese.

Then again, they have spent years calling the hundreds of trees they are about to destroy “healthy.”

Until the Boston Globe got interested.

Hundreds of healthy trees became diseased overnight.

Flat out liars.

Day 373 at the Destroyed Nesting Area – Governor Patrick ups the needless environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

I will supplement or amend this report later to provide more detail.

I simply report to you now that Governor Patrick, today, August 25, 2009, destroyed three quarters of the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

This destruction has been done for a project which needs to be done. The way it has been done has been consistent with a long record of needless environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

The Patrick administration has gone out of its way to maximize the environmental harm and animal abuse associated with it, far beyond anything which could normally be considered reasonable or even decent.

Really, really rotten.

Boston Globe reports massive tree destruction coming. Lying as a technique.

1. Boston Globe Article.
2. Letter to the Editor.
3. On the matter of calling people “liars.”


Bob Reports:

1. Boston Globe Article.

August 20, 2009, the Boston Globe printed on page B1 and article featuring the pending destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive. A very good photo of Marilyn was in the middle of the page. The on-line edition may be found at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/20/growing_disagreement_along_memorial_drive_as_environmental_group_contests_plans_to_fell_trees/.

The title and subtitle are:

Growing disagreement along Memorial Drive
Group contests plans to fell trees


2. Letter to the Editor.

I have submitted the following letter to the editor:

**********

Editor
Boston Globe

For the DCR to call the hundreds of trees they are destroying on Memorial Drive other than healthy is outrageous.

There have been repeated discussions over the years on this destructive project. Any trees that the DCR called other than healthy were destroyed years ago.

These are the same people who have repeatedly promised over the years to "do no harm" to the beautiful and valuable Charles River White Geese and then explained that "do no harm" allows starving them. The DCR’s attack on Memorial Drive’s trees is part of their continuing destruction of the Charles River’s environment and its beautiful creatures.

To call these HEALTHY trees anything other than HEALTHY falls into the same category as the years of flat out lies of DO NO HARM to the resident animals.

And Governor Patrick is using Obama stimulus money for this outrage!!!

3. On the matter of calling people “liars.”

It is quite distressing to repeatedly be calling people liars. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has been quite blatant in this category.

Earlier this week, the same reporter quoted me as referring to a Cambridge City Councilor as part of a group which uses lying as a technique.

There is a difference in level of subtlety. The Cambridge pols routinely lie through use of secret definitions. My reference which the reporter was quoting was to the nonstop pounding of the Cambridge political organization that the City of Cambridge and its pols are “environmentalists.”

The reality is they claim to be environmentalists based on tertiary environmentalism, fancy buildings, while indulging in outrageous destruction of the environment under their control.

To call these environmental destroyers “environmentalists” is just another lie, but more subtle than the DCR is using.

A current Cambridge City Councilor argued that the Cambridge pols' secret definition of "environmentalism" is better than the world’s definition. That argument may be read on this blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

Massachusetts transportation issues

Thanks to Archie Mazmanian, who reports on Massachusetts' transportation planning:

Viewers of your Blog following its posts on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring project should read with care Sunday's Boston Globe (8/16/09, found online at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/08/16/on_the_slow_train_to_financial_reality/) lead editorial in the Ideas Section "On the slow train to financial reality" to better understand the transportation issues we face in MA and the small part that Phase 2 plays currently. Here's the closing paragraph:

"It's admirable to dream, but the immediate post-Big Dig era of Massachusetts transportation will be one of practicality over promises."

The importance of and need for reliable public transit in the Greater Boston area must be voiced loudly and clearly from the ground up and not from the top down. Through 16 years of split government plus two years of Gov. Patrick, transportation issues have not been squarely addressed in MA.

Archie Mazmanian

Tax Lawyer Leads 19 Ducklings to Safety

Archie Mazmanian provides the following:

***********

Here's a Thursday, August 6, 2009 post of interest at TaxProf Blog at:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/

titled "Tax Lawyer Leads 19 Ducklings to Safety." This might be appropriate for your Blog.

Archie Mazmanian

***********

What a relief to associate with normal humans, as opposed to Cambridge pols and state officials who consider heartless animal abuse the norm.

Bob

********

This is a wonderful summer tonic.

Archie rightly points out that Friend of the White Geese Robert J. La Tremouille, Esq., escorts the geese across Memorial Drive to the grass under the Reid Overpass, at the Cambridge end of the BU Bridge when necessary.

(There was of course no need for the geese to search out what little grass is there before 2004, when the DCR and Cambridge barred them from their primary feeding grounds at Magazine Beach.)

A direct link to the duckling post is: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/08/tax-lawyer-leads.html.

Many thanks to Archie,

Marilyn

Day 372, Heartless Animal Abuser “Explains” Voting against Zoo Animals

1. Day 372 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
2. Heartless Animal Abuser Explains her vote against Zoo Animals.
3. Addendum. Full text of response.
4. Summary.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Day 372 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

On August 4, 2009, I conducted Day 372 of the visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

We have updated our flier and distributed it in other locations. This was the first distribution at the Destroyed Nesting Area. It was quite a hot day. I was forced to give up because of the heat earlier than I would have like to.

Response, as usual, was quite good. Drivers waved support or pulled over to get fliers. One lady grabbed everything in my hand. I ran after her to get the excess. She asked to keep at least two and, in retrospect, I regret that she may have intended to put them all to good use.

The issues which people who spoke with me were most concerned about were:

a. The heartless abuse aimed directly at the Charles River White Geese, starving them, the forthcoming destruction of three quarters of the tiny area to which they have been sequestered, and I could go on, as I have repeatedly.

b. The ongoing poisoning of Magazine Beach.

c. The soon to come destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive using Obama moneys.

The last issue has expanded the base of concerned people. Visitors have considered the animal abuse and environmental destruction to be local issues. With Mr. Obama paying for the needless destruction of hundreds of healthy trees, the visitors get interested.

I would be happy to provide electronic masters of the new flier to anybody who wants to distribute them. My printer gets more per page than most printers, however, so it might be necessary to provide hard copies for local reprinting. Contact me at boblat@yahoo.com.

One side of the flier concentrates on Charles River issues and gives contact information for a bunch of bad people including the governor and the president. The other goes into reality in Cambridge in sharp contrast to lies put out by these people that they are pro-environment. We live by the definition of “environmentalism” which reflects reality, in sharp contrast to the Cambridge Pols.

This is a really rotten situation.

2. Heartless Animal Abuser Explains her vote against Zoo Animals.

The local State Representative, Martha Walz is one of the most visible among the heartless animal abusers and destroyers of the Charles River Environment.

She has an op ed posted on the Cambridge Chronicle’s blog explaining her vote against replacing zoo funding vetoed by the environmentally destructive Governor Patrick. Presumably, her comments will be printed in tomorrow’s hard copy.

She got a lot of letters objecting to the anti-animal vote. She "explains," spouting about human needs.

I have responded on line.

The exchange may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x154261939/Guest-commentary-What-zoo-funding-is-really-about.

My response is extensive. It starts with:

*********

I recall a supporter of the heartless animal abuse ongoing on the Charles River getting very indignant about my objection to the heartless animal abuse. She claimed that heartless animal abuse is somehow acceptable from pols in Cambridge because they are so great on civil rights.

The judge in Monteiro called the city reprehensible on civil rights. A lot of people throughout the country have used similar words about Gatesgate.

*********

Needless to say, Walz’s explanation parallels the argument of her fellow heartless animal abusers.

I follow up with details on Walz’s expenditures on destruction. Among other things, I have yet to hear her or her accomplices tell how many times per decade or per century, the fancy drainage system at Magazine Beach will be overwhelmed and their needless poisons flow into the Charles.

I could go on and on. I have repeatedly.

3. Addendum. Full text of response.

I recall a supporter of the heartless animal abuse ongoing on the Charles River getting very indignant about my objection to the heartless animal abuse. She claimed that heartless animal abuse is somehow acceptable from pols in Cambridge because they are so great on civil rights.

The judge in Monteiro called the city reprehensible on civil rights. A lot of people throughout the country have used similar words about Gatesgate.

On the Charles River, Representative Walz friends at the Department of Conservation and Recreation recently bragged to the Cambridge Conservation Commission that they are getting apparently millions of dollars in Obama money. Why? City and state plans call for the accumulated destruction of more than 449 to 660 healthy trees on the Cambridge side of the Charles River from Magazine Beach to the Longfellow Bridge. Obama is soon to pay for destruction of hundreds of trees along Memorial Drive because those trees do not appear on 19th Century plans for what was then a tidal wetlands.

Walz and Obama include in their destruction, destruction of EVERY cherry tree because cherry trees are not the in tree this week. Even knee jerk supporters of their ongoing outrages have problems with that one, or, at least, one very visible supporter objected to their insistence on destroying the cherry trees at the CCC meeting.

Walzs friends at the DCR are in the process of destroying all life living on or visiting the Charles River below the Watertown Dam.

Half the environmental destruction associated with the BU Bridge repairs is for staging that belongs under Memorial Drive. But this would be highly destructive to the Charles River White Geese, so . . .

The DCR, on an annual basis, poisons every egg of waterfowl it can get away with. The DCR, twice a year, chops down all protective vegetation lining the Charles River and needed for waterfowl migration. There is an exception. That exception is the bizarre wall of vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach in place of wetlands. DCRs key manager has bragged that this bizarre wall of vegetation starves the Charles River White Geese. The DCRs cheerleaders have conducted a swim in bragging that walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles helps swimming in the Charles River.

The DCR and Cambridge, with Walzs cheerleading, are conducting an ongoing an very destructing project at Magazine Beach. Neutral observers could never understand why anybody would want to improve Magazine Beach, and Walzs project proceeds, it is very clear just how bizarre the project is.

These environmentalists are dumping poisons on Magazine Beach to replace the GREEN maintenance that existed there for most of a century.

To keep these totally unneeded poisons from going into the Charles, they are spending a significant amount of money with a fancy drainage system. They could care less about the folly of such a system, and they have not announced the projected times per decade or century that they totally unnecessary poisons will overflow into the Charles anyway.

The drainage system REDUCES the recreational area available at Magazine Beach. It takes up space.

So the system to take off totally unnecessary poisons results in less recreation area than we had in the first place.

And, of course, the poison will poison waterfowl eating there, but the DCR is working to destroy them anyway.

And, of course, the poison will poison humans playing there, but the DCR is doing its best.

I could go on and on.

Walz is most definitely not the only person with very filthy hands destroying the environment in Cambridge.

Walz is making lovely noises about animals and funding concerning animals.

It is fascinating how massive wastes of money which harm animals and harm the environment are acceptable to her.

4. Summary.

Cambridge, MA has really rotten politics made all the more rotten by the holier than thou nonsense the pols dress their outrageous behavior in.

Professor Gates, the Rule of Law, and the City of Cambridge, MA

Bob La Trémouille reports:

For the past several weeks, the national press has done a lot about a Harvard professor arrested on the porch of his home after he had been seen doing what looked like breaking in to his home. Professor Gates may or may not have been on the receiving end of a violation of his civil rights by the police officer who arrested him. He made national press by alleging racism as the cause of the civil rights violation.

The basic principle in the Gates battle is the rule of law. On this score, whether you believe Gates or the police, Cambridge looks bad.

A judge and jury recently found Cambridge deliberately violated a former employee's legal rights. The city is appealing a $5 million judgment concerning its retaliation against Malvina Monteiro because she claimed racial discrimination. One of the judge’s many points is that Cambridge is held to a higher standard because of the city’s duty to enforce the law. The judge and jury found Cambridge deliberately violated Monteiro’s legal rights.

A recent, telling example of Cambridge’s approach to the rule of law occurred at a public meeting after the Gates case broke. At issue was a Cambridge rule restricting use of specific playing fields to persons making advance reservations and paying a $90 reservation fee.

Neighbors of Russell Field in North Cambridge report kids have been thrown off the empty field when they tried to play informal, pick-up games without official approval. This rule is apparently the plan for Cambridge-administered playing fields on Department of Conservation and Recreation parkland at Magazine Beach as well.

Before the ongoing bizarre construction began, the Magazine Beach fields were available to all members of the public unless another use was specifically scheduled. The Boston Conservation Commission has now forced the DCR to post notices saying this is the rule at Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital.

In Cambridge, however, the city’s parks manager told a North Cambridge public meeting on Wednesday, July 22, that he would continue to prohibit the use of Russell Field by those without official approval. However, he expected the Cambridge police not to enforce that rule against pick-up games. He seemed to instruct an officer in the room to that effect, in front of his boss, the head of the Department of Public Works, who did not object.

It is silly to call this position anything other than official contempt for the rule of law.

The judge in the Monteiro case condemned the City of Cambridge’s contempt for the law.

Throughout the country, no matter whom people believe in the Gates incident, people are condemning contempt for the law.

The Cambridge City Council should give Cambridge, MA a government with respect for law.

[Ed: An earlier version of the above was printed very prominently among many Gates letters by the Cambridge Chronicle in its July 30, 2009 edition. This version of the letter differs only to add explanatory material about the Gates debacle and to correct a couple of typos. The title used by the Cambridge Chronicle was: "Gates, the rule of law and business as usual in Cambridge."]

Urban Ring: WHO’S BEING RAILROADED?

Archie Mazmanian reports:

Before addressing this question, allow me to report on yesterday’s (7/28/09) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. The major item of interest since the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) filed its Notice of Project Change (NPC) on June 30, 2009, concerns the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’’s (MPO) upcoming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that it is anticipated will not provide for the Urban Ring Phase 2 (or Phase 3 of the Silver Line) because of lack of non-federal funding. This means there will be no New Starts submittal this year for Phase 2’s Northern Tier (that may be otherwise ready to go). Ned Codd of EOT is aiming for a New Starts submission in 2011. This is as a result of the Federal Transit Agency’s (FTA) requirement that New Starts submittals seeking federal funds must identity the non-federal funding portion.

[Ed: The “northern tier” is the Urban Ring Phase 2 bus/highways proposal north of Cambridge and Boston harbor, with service into Cambridge as far as Kendall Square. The “southern tier” is the balance of the Phase 2 bus proposal.]

With respect to the Southern Tier described in the NPC, it continues to face major infrastructure impediments with the Charles River crossing, the LMA/Fenway/Academies area tunnel and the Allston (read: Harvard) connection. While the Northern Tier costs are estimated at $486 million (in 2009 dollars), costs for the Southern Tier are estimated at $2,220 million (in 2009 dollars) Based upon public transit projects with higher priorities than Phase 2 of the Urban Ring (as well as Phase 3 of the Silver Line), it appears quite clear that the LMA/Fenway/Academies area tunnel estimated to cost $1,850 million (in 2009 dollars) will be changed to surface routes through that area.

The Charles River crossing remains, in my view, the most critical aspect of the Southern Tier since it serves as the keystone for connections to the LMA/Fenway/Academies area and Allston (read: Harvard). The costs for the Charles River crossing are estimated at $130 million and at $82 million for the Allston connection (again in 2009 dollars). No estimated costs were provided for the surface routes through the LMA/Fenway/Academies area since a great deal has to be worked out with stakeholders in that area.

The Commonwealth has a deal with CSX, the details of which have yet to be worked out, to acquire the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) in Cambridge to and under the BU Bridge and the rail lines on the Boston side of the River. CSX would continue freight operations on that line such that the two buslanes to be installed for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses along the GJRL would not interfere with CSX’s freight operations.

In addition to CSX, the Charles River crossing must come to terms with BU to accommodate a tunnel under the Boston side of the BU Bridge from the west to the east surfacing on BU land that includes its Academy that would be demolished and relocated elsewhere. Ned Codd referenced BU’s Master Plan. I pointed out that I have long served as a member of the City of Boston’s BU Master Plan Task Force (as a representative of a Brookline residential neighborhood) and that BU has not as yet presented a proposal to that Task Force regarding this tunnel or the establishment of a “beach” from Commonwealth Avenue at the Bridge down to the Charles River over Storrow Drive that might include the closing of University Road which provides convenient access to and from Storrow Drive east for auto commuters.

As for the LMA/Fenway/Academies area, stakeholders there can speak effectively for themselves about “suitable” surface routes through that area for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses. In fact, more than one such stakeholder spoke up at yesterday’s CAC meeting.

So who’’s being railroaded and by whom? Think about the major players involved: EOT, BU, Harvard and CSX. Who’’s got leverage? Surely not the residential communities impacted by the Charles River crossing, the Allston connection and the LMA/Fenway/Academies area. Being railroaded in this matter is not good public transit policy.


Near the close of yesterday’s meeting, I noted that Las Vegas provides betting odds for just about anything and I wondered what odds it might set for Phase 2 - probably longer than MA Lotteries.
Reminder: Public comments on the NPC are due by August 7, 2009. Go to EOT’’s website: www.theurbanring.com for details.

Build it and who will come?

The following letter from Marilyn Wellons was printed in the on line edition of the July 23, 2009 Cambridge Chronicle and in the hard copy on page 11, with the above title:

—News that Central Cambridge Baseball is barely surviving (“The battle to save Central Cambridge Baseball,” Chronicle, July 16, page 18) compounds the city’s squandering of our tax dollars at Magazine Beach.

Build it and they will come? Central Cambridge already has Lindstrom Field, barely 200 yards from the chemically maintained, expensive new field aglow with chemicals that Cambridge is installing on Magazine Beach state parkland. As reported, Cambridge Little League apparently hopes the new field will attract more players than Lindstrom.

Whether parents want their children playing on chemically maintained, endocrine-disrupting turf is one problem. Another is that in return for paying $1.5 million, Cambridge gets to restrict use of this and the other field under construction to those persons it approves. So while the good news is that fewer people will be exposed to the toxins, the bad news is that all the people who previously enjoyed unrestricted, safe access to fields maintained by Mother Nature are out of luck and out of the picture. Same goes for migrating waterfowl and residents animals.

We’ve already paid more than $60 million to clean up the Charles River. This project’s pricey earthworks — again, paid for by Cambridge taxpayers — are designed to keep the new fields’ toxic runoff out of the river. Will they prevent astronomical algae blooms like the ones fed since 2006 by runoff from the project’s prototype at Ebersol Fields in Boston? Maybe the kids staying away from Little League ball will come to the new field to watch the algae bloom offshore.

With a city government like ours, is it any wonder, as Yogi Berra said, “If the people don’t want to come out to the ballpark, nobody’s going to stop them?”

MARILYN WELLONS
Green Street

Are the Feds maiming Canada geese? Report on an injured goose

In October, 2007, we reported on an injured Canada goose found feeding along the Charles River. The goose's right foot was missing and it seemed in pain when it tried to stand or walk. It was, however, eating, with much help from its friends at WBZ.

After discussion about whether to remove it, we took it to Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA. The goose spent several weeks eating and resting, and in December we released it at the goose meadow, where it seemed to know some of the other geese. It stayed and was fed with the others there.

(As readers of the blog know, the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative keeps the Charles River White Geese, confined to the grassless goose meadow since September, 2004, from starvation. With the DCR's and Cambridge's campaign against all waterfowl on the river, this means mallard ducks and Canada geese, including several injured ones, also get food.)

On July 20, 2009 I saw a footless Canada feeding near the Weeks Footbridge, and have tried to confirm that it's the injured one from 2007. Instead what I learned from Cheri at Maple Farm Sanctuary is that US Fish and Wildlife banding of Canadas has led to numerous spontaneous amputations of the foot. If the band doesn't allow for growth and proper circulation, the foot dies and falls off. Cheri saw about fifteen Canadas with this injury in the winter of 2007-08.

Her husband saw something fall off one of the migrating Canadas overhead that winter. The object he retrieved was its foot, with band. Cheri spoke with officials at US F&W, who may have acted to stop the cruelty. She's seen fewer geese with this injury this past winter.

So the goose I saw July 20 may or may not be the injured one from 2007. There are many more out there, too many to tell. In any case this goose, too, was continuing to feed.

Cheri (www.maplefarmsanctuary.org) sends her greetings to readers of this blog.

Marilyn Wellons

“A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT”

Archie Mazmanian reports.

1. Harvard’s Secret (And Not So Secret) Allston Land Purchases.
2. Harvard’s Endowment Grows.
3. Why Allston?
4. “Harvard In Allston” Exhibit.
5. Harvard Adds To Institutional Assaults On Allston.
6. Harvard’s Major Investments In Science.
7. Harvard Seeks Urban Ring Connections.
8. Charles River Crossing, Other Impediments, To Southern Tier.
9. Harvard’s Campus In 2050!


This title might remind moviegoers of Robert Redford’s 1992 film of that name. I use it here to describe Harvard University’s campus in 2050.

1. Harvard’s Secret (And Not So Secret) Allston Land Purchases.

Google searches reveal some of the mysteries of Harvard’s land acquisitions in Allston. However, the picture is clouded as Harvard has long been engaged in long range planning for its future in Allston.

In 1997, Harvard disclosed that it had secretly accumulated 52 acres of land in Allston, 14 parcels located in commercial/industrial zoning districts. A 2001 Harvard Magazine article makes reference to Harvard having acquired 100 acres in Allston; but it is not clear whether this included or was in addition to the earlier secret acquisition. The article does disclose Harvard’s “wish list” including “graduate-student housing, a museum, conceivably a whole new campus for some of the landlocked professional schools in Cambridge.” Then Harvard President Rudenstine “proposed allocating a total of $500 million to the project over the next five years.” This funding would come from Harvard’s endowment that exceeded $19 billion as of June 30, 2000. The article noted that “if endowment returns diminished, or became negative, the proposed five-year spending could be slowed.”

2. Harvard’s Endowment Grows.

Harvard’s endowment returns continued to grow to about $36.9 billion as of June 2008, before the financial crises later that year, with the endowment now rumored to have declined to $26 billion. [“Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina” comes to mind for some reason.] So Harvard was well positioned to continue funding its Allston project over such five-year period. What is not clear is the extent to which Harvard increased its Allston real estate holdings that may presently comprise 350 acres (not counting the Beacon Rail Yards approximately 600 acres that Harvard has acquired the underlying rights in).

3. Why Allston?

Harvard would have preferred to expand in Cambridge, but as noted by spokesperson Kathy Spiegelman (Harv. L. Bull., Summer 2002) “[s]ince most of the campus in Cambridge is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, and displacement of those neighborhoods was not in the university’s interests, or in the realm of possibility, it was necessary to look to other places.”

4. “Harvard In Allston” Exhibit.

The Harvard Gazette of June 8, 2006, features “Harvard takes first Allston steps, refines master plans” by Lauren M. Marshall and B. D. Colen of the Harvard News Office that refers to Harvard’s dealings with Allston communities regarding its then openly proposed Allston campus, a 50-year master plan Harvard was developing. “To that end, the University opened the ‘Harvard in Allston’ exhibit room in the Holyoke Center arcade in October 2005.” The article does not disclose the surreptitious steps taken by Harvard over several decades in its long range planning that resulted in the acquisition of so many acres of land in Allston, a story that remains to be told.

5. Harvard Adds To Institutional Assaults On Allston.

Several years ago, Harvard had built graduate-student housing along the Charles River in Allston. Harvard also recently acquired the Guest Quarters Hotel adjoining the MA Turnpike Extension Allston ramps. Harvard had earlier discussed plans for a museum in Allston. Community activists in Allston (and Brighton) had for years been battling the impacts of expansions of Boston University and Boston College into their neighborhoods. Now these activists have to face the giant Harvard with its much deeper pockets, substantially more than BU and BC combined, with a much more ambitious project, an Allston campus of some 250 acres.

6. Harvard’s Major Investments In Science.

Harvard developed plans for a major science center in Allston and work on the foundations started. However, because of current financial problems, further development of this project beyond completion of the foundations is questionable. Allston residents are concerned that Harvard’s delays in the development of its extensive Allston holdings will negatively impact their neighborhoods.

7. Harvard Seeks Urban Ring Connections.

This science center was to be a significant part of Harvard’s long range investment in science, from Cambridge to Allston to the Longwood Medical Area (LMA), so critical to the economy of the Greater Boston area. In 2005 Harvard openly “wanted in” on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring for a connection to its proposed Allston campus that would also connect with Harvard’s interests in Cambridge and the LMA. As a result, Harvard became a stakeholder in the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) that has been addressing the Urban Ring project. This resulted in a delay of the Phase 2 process. Why Harvard, with presumably its long range plans for Allston underway, waited so long is not clear, even though surely it was long clear to Harvard that proper public transit would be required to service its proposed Allston campus. (Recall that decades earlier the A Branch of the Green Line that had serviced Allston and Brighton had been shut down, replaced with grossly inadequate cross-town buses.) Perhaps Harvard was continuing with secret acquisitions of land in Allston and was concerned that “going public” too early might inflate prices.

In any event, Harvard quite quickly came up with a lengthy tunnel proposal for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring that would accommodate connections between the LMA, Harvard’s proposed Allston campus and Harvard Square. However, the costs involved would be much greater than federal and state funding that might be available, such that the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) did not ““approve”” this long tunnel. (In fact, because of funding problems, EOT currently has dropped the shorter tunnel it had proposed for the LMA/Fenway/Academies area.)

8. Charles River Crossing, Other Impediments, To Southern Tier.

Phase 2's Charles River crossing is a major impediment to what is now referred to by EOT in its recently filed Notice of Project Change (NPC) for Phase 2 as the “Southern Tier” of the Urban Ring that includes the LMA/Fenway/Academies area, the BU Bridge area and Harvard’s proposed Allston campus. With Harvard’s deferral of development of its Allston science center and other aspects of such campus added to the Charles River crossing problems, the issues facing the Southern Tier continue unresolved.

9. Harvard’s Campus In 2050!

But let’s jump ahead to the year 2050, by which time many of these issues may be resolved. Harvard’s campus in Allston may exceed in size its Cambridge campus. The May 20, 2004 issue of the Harvard Gazette includes an article titled “Harvard faculty brings Allston into focus” with “A vision of Harvard a half-century from now” as considered by Harvard faculty task forces on “Allston’s potential from the perspective of Harvard faculty …….” [Note: These task forces did not include members from Allston communities.] The article references 200 acres of land in Allston that “Harvard is in a unique position to think very long range, laying the framework today for the Harvard of decades from now as both sides of the Charles River merge into one campus.” Professor Dennis Thompson, chair of one of these faculty task forces, is quoted: “We do not want to establish a satellite campus in Allston, but rather to create a single campus in which the [Charles] river is an attractive center rather than a forbidding obstacle.”

So just imagine, then, in 2050, Harvard’s description of its single, consolidated campus with the words: A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT.” How modest.

By 2050, the current concerns of Allston residents and others impacted by Harvard’s land acquisitions and decades of development may long be forgotten just as many over so many years impacted by the Big Dig may have forgotten their many years of inconveniences with its eventually successful Charles River crossing. Hopefully, the Urban Ring’s Phase 2 Charles River crossing will also prove to be successful, wherever it may be located. If the Charles River White Geese Blog remains viable in 2050, perhaps the public’s interests in protecting the Charles River will continue, although I wouldn’t expect Harvard students to be fly-fishing –– or swimming - in the center of Harvard’s campus that the Charles River happens to run through.

CHARLES RIVER CROSSING – ROAD TRIP!

Archie Mazmanian reporting, Bob Editing.

1. Archie.
2. Bob response. Nice work Archie.

1. Archie.

In the movie “Animal House” with trouble brewing for the members of the Dartmouth-like fraternity, the call was put out for “Road Trip.” Perhaps there should be a call for a Road Trip to examine the Charles River crossing contemplated for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring as set forth in the Executive Office of Transportation’s (EOT) Notice of Project Change (NPC). Of course, this Road Trip would be on foot.

A good starting point for this Road Trip might be the Cambridge side to (1) traverse Magazine Beach, (2) examine the rotary under the Memorial Drive overpass with its many ways running to and from it, (3) the nesting grounds of the White Geese between the easterly side of the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, (4) the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) under the BU Bridge, (5) the River shore easterly to the Hyatt Hotel, and, if time permits, (6) locating the continuation of the GJRL north of Memorial Drive.

With this portion of the Road Trip, consider the changes that might be required to the rotary and its ways to accommodate Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses for access to and from the BU Bridge if that turns out to be Phase 2’s Charles River crossing, considering also how the GJRL easement area in Cambridge might be utilized with the addition of two (2) lanes for these 60-foot articulated buses. Also consider that if the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge were to serve as Phase 2’s Charles River crossing, how two (2) lanes for these 60-foot articulated BRT buses would be added to the trestle and their impact on the Charles River.

Then cross the BU Bridge, taking care to observe from both sides – but for safety reasons one side at a time – the Charles River. In particular, on the westerly side of the BU Bridge, note with care the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge as it crosses Storrow Drive in Boston and then turns westerly. If the GJRL trestle is to serve as the Charles River crossing, the added two (2) lanes for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated buses would extend southerly over Storrow Drive and then easterly via a tunnel under the BU Bridge on the Boston side to the easterly side, surfacing in the area of the BU Academy that would be demolished; in addition, these two (2) bus lanes may have to be expanded westerly towards the rail yards to accommodate Harvard’s proposed Allston campus. Also, while on the BU Bridge, note the traffic and in particular 40-foot buses in traffic and imagine they were Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses if the Phase 2 Charles River crossing is to be by means of the BU Bridge.

On the Boston side, take Commonwealth Avenue east, use the pedestrian bridge over Storrow Drive (in back of BU’s Marsh Chapel) to access the walkway on the southern shore of the Charles River to observe the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge from both sides of the BU Bridge. In particular, from the westerly side of the BU Bridge, consider the addition of the two (2) bus lanes and their route under the BU Bridge via a tunnel, surfacing on the site of the BU Academy as noted above, if the Charles River crossing for Phase 2 is to utilize the GJRL trestle.

Then return to Commonwealth Avenue and head towards the BU Bridge. At University Road, consider traffic issues its closing might entail regarding access to and from Storrow Drive east; BU has proposed such a closing for its plans for the BU Academy site down to the Charles River. Take a close look at the BU Academy site, where a Phase 2 tunnel would surface to accommodate the Charles River crossing via the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge. Also, take a good look at the southerly side of Commonwealth Avenue which from its sidewalk southerly is in the Town of Brookline, and in particular the Carlton Street bridge over the MA Turnpike Extension. BU has its eyes, long range, on the development of air rights parcels over the Extension from Essex Street (the extension of the BU Bridge to its south) to St. Mary’s Street, bounded on the southerly side by Mountfort Street. (Mountfort Street would serve as a portion of the Phase 2 route between the Charles River crossing and the Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area.)

The next step of this Road Trip would be to observe the westerly side of the BU Bridge at Commonwealth Avenue. That’s where the MA Turnpike Extension from the west dips sharply under Commonwealth Avenue to the Extension’s trench easterly of Essex Street. A significant portion of Commonwealth Avenue is itself a bridge at the BU Bridge, the extent of which can be identified by metal expansion joints in the roadway. This bridge is in need of significant infrastructure replacement, a major undertaking. The B Branch of the Green Line on Commonwealth Avenue crosses this bridge, with trolleys required to reduce speed to a crawl because of this bridge’s condition.

Looking northerly from Commonwealth Avenue over the MA Turnpike Extension where it dips, the GJRL over Storrow Drive can be observed. Consider the addition of two (2) bus lanes at this point to the GJRL to accommodate Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses that would swing easterly under the BU Bridge by means of a tunnel surfacing on the easterly side in the area of the BU Academy if the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge serves as Phase 2’s Charles River crossing; in addition, consider two (2) lanes extending westerly in the area of the rail lines to service Harvard’s proposed Allston campus – and how such may tie-into the two (2) lanes in the tunnel under the BU Bridge to the BU Academy area.

But if Phase 2’s Charles River crossing is by means of the BU Bridge (and not the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge), then Phase 2’s service of Harvard’s proposed Allston campus may require the use of Commonwealth Avenue westerly of the BU Bridge.

While at Commonwealth Avenue, observe traffic patterns in the area to get some idea of traffic issues if the Charles River crossing for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses were to be over the BU Bridge, keeping in mind the recent reduction of the BU Bridge from four (4) to three (3) lanes, as well as the use of Commonwealth Avenue westerly of the BU Bridge to service Harvard’s proposed Allston campus.

While on this Road Trip, keep in mind that a major goal of Phase 2 would be 7-minute trip frequencies to encourage riders to take these 60-foot articulated BRT buses for cross-town transit trips rather than taking a radial line into the hub in downtown Boston and then out to a destination on another radial line. And consider the engineering feats that would have to be addressed if the Charles River crossing is by means of the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge.

Hopefully this Road Trip might disclose some good ideas or recommendations, addressing issues with the Charles River crossing and encourage a “tripper” to review EOT’s NPC and respond to it with public comments. [Reminder: public comments are due by August 7, 2009.]

By the way, in the course of this Road Trip, don’t forget the plight of the White Geese on the Cambridge side of the Charles River that will only worsen with Phase 2’s Charles River crossing. They deserve better, having provided for many decades joy to children and other nature lovers. Their little bit of space cannot be permitted to be destroyed.

For a spectacular view of the Charles River showing both sides taken easterly of the BU Bridge see:

http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/habitat.html



2. Bob response. Nice work Archie.

The proposal for change talks about a lot of difficulties in the "Southern Tier" proposal including problems with the Grand Junction.

Archie's excellent analysis flags at least one very major possible defect for which I thank him. To the extent more sinks in, I will try to further study.

The one that stands out reenforces a point which he has been making to me for some time with my not fully gronking him.

Archie has repeatedly commented on the difficulties associated with widening the Grand Junction Bridge as is proposed by the state. He has driven that point home very effectively above.

In particular, he reminds me on the MBTA analysis which first demonstrated the engineering feasibility of an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge to and from the west only.

The limitations of the approach were underscored by the fact that, all of a sudden a moribund concept to create a Mass. Pike U turn at the Allston Exit became not only active but also implemented. Supposedly, this U turn allows traffic from Back Bay to go to the airport by way of Allston. I understand it is essentially unused for this purpose.

However, that U turn makes the exit to Cambridge by way of the Grand Junction bridge an exit for traffic coming on the Mass. Pike both to and from the west and to and from the east.

The important point, however, is that the bus proposal on the Grand Junction going to University Road and then to Yawkey has to do EXACTLY what the T said could not be done in that location and more so.

The T said it was not feasible to connect the Mass. Pike to and from the east and the Grand Junction bridge. The busway proposal would require ramps even mnore convoluted than that.

Nice work, Archie.

Urban Ring since 2002

Bob La Trémouille edits:

1. Introduction.
2. Archie.
3. Marilyn.
4. Editor.

1. Introduction.

Archie Mazmanian passes on the following with a link to a 2002 Arco Forum presentation on the phase 2 Urban Ring. The Arco Forum is located in an atrium at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government on JFK Street between Harvard Square and the Charles River.

2. Archie.

Perhaps visitors to your Blog might be interested in the Harvard Gazette issue of July 18, 2002 article titled "Ring around the city: Rappaport Institute explores Urban Ring," by Beth Potier, available at:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/07.18/01-urbanring.html

A lot has happened - or not happened - with respect to Phase 2 of the Urban Ring in the seven (7) years since this exploration. I am not aware that the Harvard Gazette has since reported on the Urban Ring or whether the Rappaport Institute has engaged in further explorations. Of course, this article appeared several years before Harvard revealed its secret real estate purchases of approximately 250 acres in Allston for expansion of its campus and its subsequent desire to connect this with Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. This article was also published long before Harvard acquired the lands underlying the Beacon Yards rail system.

Financial issues were a concern back in 2002. Since then the financial plight of MA and the rest of the nation has added to this concern. And Harvard's endowment decrease resulting from recent national and worldwide financial woes has put the brakes on Harvard's development of its Allston campus. As a result, the major portion of Phase 2 now called the Southern Tier is recognized by the Executive Office of Transportation as up in the air because of major impediments in addition to financing. As noted in an earlier post, these major impediments relate to the Charles River crossing at the area of the BU Bridge and surface routes in lieu of a tunnel in the busy Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area, through which Phase 2's 60-foot articulated BRT buses would have to maneuver, largely in mixed traffic.

With respect to the Charles River crossing, auto commuters face great frustrations in their daily commutes in the area of Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge/University Road/Carlton Street bridge on both sides of the Charles River. Recently they have been honking with these traffic conditions. Perhaps these auto commuters should be heard from (other than by honking) as stakeholders at public meetings on Phase 2 and with public comments on the EOT's Notice of Project Change. (Reminder: such public comments are due by August 7, 2009.) It seems as if the Commonwealth, Boston, Brookline and Cambridge are not coordinating efforts to minimize the impacts of work on the BU Bridge, especially the major infrastructure project that will commence later this year and probably last well over a year until completion. And even after such completion, the auto lanes on the BU Bridge will remain at three (3), recently reduced from four (4) lanes. Honking is not an effective means of getting a message across to the authorities. These auto commuters should unite and make their voices heard.

3. Marilyn.

Harvard announced its secret purchases in Allston in 1997, as I remember. There were additional purchases after that, and Mass Pike's sale of the Beacon Yards in 2000? The point is the Rappaport report was written when the Allston stuff was semi-public and well underway.

There was a chronology online at www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349511 that omits Harvard's initial announcement of its secret purchases. The chronology dates those from an initial purchase of 52 acres from 1987-1993.

4. Editor.

The T did nonsense about an express bus route from Newton to Cambridgeport using the Grand Junction bridge. That proved the bridge capable of handling a Mass. Pike off ramp to and from the west.

Then Harvard Purchased the Beacon Yards.

Then the U turn was built at the Allston Tolls, supposed to allow Back Bay traffic to go west and then to the airport, in reality to turn the Grand Junction Mass. Pike exit into a access for both directions of traffic. This made the Beacon Yards available for Harvard to build on.

2003?

BUS RAPID TRANSIT versus LIGHT/HEAVY RAIL

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Archie’s analysis.
3. Response.
a. History of the Urban Ring dates to the 80’s.
b. Northern v. Southern Tier.
c. Light v. Heavy Rail.

1. Introduction.

Archie Mazmanian has presented a well thought out paper on Bus Rapid Transit versus Light / Heavy Rail.

The analysis is copied in part 2. Because he has done such a good job, I feel like giving my two bits worth following Archie.

My response will be technical. Archie has done such a good job, I think it would be inappropriate to do back and forth’s giving my perception of history and trying to come to agreement. He wrote a good analysis. I will give it its proper respect. I will just respond.

2. Archie’s analysis.

When the Urban Ring was spawned by the MBTA some 14 years r so ago, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), a system of 60-foot articulated buses, was its standard for Phase 2. There had been no debate about this standard nor had the concept of BRT been the brainchild from the ground up of public transit riders. Rather, this was the decision of MBTA. After 14 years, it is time to have such a debate. Phase 3 of the Urban Ring calls for light/heavy rail. The failure to implement Phase 2 over such a long period of time might suggest the BRT approach has failed.

Growing up in Roxbury in the ‘40s and ‘50s, and beyond in Jamaica Plan through the ‘60s into the early ‘70s, I was a frequent rider on the elevated Orange Line on my trips to and from downtown Boston while in college, law school and then in my law practice. Shifting the Orange Line route and tearing down the elevated structure was a good thing for residents along Washington Street from Forest Hills to downtown Boston. But these residents did need good, reliable public transit. They were promised light rail on Washington Street with dedicated rights of way.

Eventually, after too many years, the MBTA did come up with public transit (the Silver Line) on Washington Street, but not in the form of light rail with dedicated rights of way. Rather, the MBTA shifted to a BRT system. However, instead of providing truly dedicated rights of way for this BRT system, the MBTA provided buslanes along some portions of Washington Street. The problem with buslanes is that they can and do accommodate mixed traffic in the absence of strict law enforcement. The result for the Silver Line was slow and unreliable public transit. Residents had been deceived: They were promised light rail with dedicated rights of way but instead got the BRT system on this surface route of Washington Street.

The Silver Line along Washington Street has been a failure. A second phase of the Silver Line’s tunnel to the airport area has been a success but only because of its dedicated and exclusive right of way in this tunnel. But the connection between these phases, Phase 3, has bogged down because of disputes of neighborhoods affected and the expense of another tunnel. The surface routes between Phase 1 and Phase 2’s tunnel cannot provide appropriate dedicated rights of way.

EOT has taken over from the MBTA and continues with the push for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring with a BRT system. While a BRT system might work in certain communities with broad boulevards, the Phase 2 routes do not provide such broad boulevards. So EOT has to resort to the gimmick of buslanes in an effort to satisfy the Federal Transit Agency’s funding requirement of a minimum of 50% of dedicated rights of way. As noted above, without strict law enforcement, buslanes end up with mixed traffic, eliminating Rapid from BRT.

The current Southern Tier proposal in EOT’s Notice of Project Change would involve greater ridership than the Northern Tier. EOT has been unable as yet to settle upon proposed surface routes in the Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area. EOT has to overcome the major impediment presented with the Charles River crossing that requires accommodations with CSX regarding the Grand Junction Rail Line, including the trestle bridge under the BU Bridge. This major impediment also affects the Allston connection that would service Harvard’s proposed Allston campus as well as Harvard’s potential development of the Beacon Yards. If such an accommodation cannot be made, then the BU Bridge would serve as Phase 2’s Charles River crossing and the Allston connection would be via Commonwealth Avenue westerly of the BU Bridge. Frankly, the BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue area has too many traffic and transportation problems currently and the addition of Phase 2’s surface routes would only make them worse. This would affect both sides of the Charles River.

So perhaps it is time to start a serious debate on Bus Rapid Transit versus Light/Heavy Rail. While a BRT system may work in Bogata, Colombia, with its wide boulevards, it will not work along the Southern Tier with its narrow, curved and heavily traveled streets. In other parts of the US, the utilization of the BRT system is being questioned, including in a Washington Post editorial, Sunday, July 12, 2009, involving Maryland’s “purple line” that would connect with the District of Columbia’s Metro system. After some 14 years, it is finally time for a real debate on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring and to consider going directly to Phase 3 with light/heavy rail. If a BRT system on the Urban Ring cannot provide timely trips, its passengers will revert to light/heavy radial lines into the hub in downtown Boston and then out on another radial line to destinations. If Phase 2 were to be approved as currently proposed, we might be stuck with it and never get to Phase 3. Now is the time to speak up and demand a debate.

3. Response.

a. History of the Urban Ring dates to the 80’s.

Archie comments about the spawning of the Urban Ring 14 years ago, as a bus phase 2, real rapid transit phase 3.

I have been working on the Urban Ring since 1985. It was a rapid transit proposal then. Only later did it get watered down to buses. In the middle, the state adopted my alternate Kenmore Crossing as a second possibility for crossing the Charles River, compared to the original thoughts of crossing next to the BU Bridge.

b. Northern v. Southern Tier.

Archie talks of Southern Tier and Northern Tier in this week’s proposal. There are a lot of lovely maps at www.theurbanring.com, but, basically, the Northern Tier is a bunch of busways mostly north of Cambridge and north of Boston Harbor. The Southern Tier is the rest of the “phase 2” bus package.

The Northern Tier is separated out, in my opinion, because it makes sense for buses. The Southern Tier is so much nonsense.

c. Light v. Heavy Rail.

Light rail is street cars. Heavy Rail is the Red Line and the other big guys.

There are people running around trying to confuse the two, and they are indulging in quite irresponsible behavior trying to confuse the two.

The reason they are trying to confuse the two is that they are also fighting for the BU Bridge Crossing in the Rapid Transit phase 3.

The dirty tricks come from the fact that the Phase 3 BU Bridge crossing is light rail and the Phase 3 Kenmore Crossing is heavy rail.

The purpose of the Urban Ring is to provide a viable crosstown alternative to going downtown in the Subway system. Light rail cannot provide the speed needed to get people off the downtown subways. So the people fighting, for other reasons, for the BU Bridge crossing, use any and all techniques to fool people into an inferior alternative.

One of the key techniques is to give the impression that there is meaningful competition between the two alternatives. I have elsewhere in this Blog gone into very detailed analysis between the two.

My analysis is confirmed by the nonstop dirty tricks.

Just one example of too many:

There is a “transportation” group in the Boston area whose board has been fooled into supporting the BU Bridge without ever being told that they are supporting the BU Bridge Crossing and without ever being allowed to discuss the comparative merits.

There seem to be two willful activists involved and a much larger number of victims. The two activists clearly have no concern with fair play.

Any attempt to question this silly position has been replied to with cyberabuse by one of the two.

The other of the two is the head of the organization. He supports cyberabuse “on the grounds of free speech.” When the victim publicly objected to receiving off line abusive emails, the victim was permanently thrown off the listserve by the “leader.” Cyberabuse is protected by free speech. The victim objecting to cyberabuse gets the cyber death sentence.

That says a lot as to the level of discourse. And the real purpose is to protect the BU Bridge light rail Phase 3 crossing from meaningful discussion once the two have fooled the board into supporting it without telling them that they are supporting it.

I do not think Light and Heavy Rail should be confused. The bad guys have good reason for confusion. They have no merit to their position.

Monteiro case, Hearing Scheduled, Odd Clerk’s Notice

Bob reports:

The plaintiff’s motion to correct the judgment has, apparently, been scheduled for hearing on August 26.

There have been oddities in the record concerning filing(s) by Cambridge on July 3.

This first appeared as a notice of the filing of a letter from Cambridge apparently pointing out to the judge (I can only see description, not content) that the plaintiff’s motion was improper as filed after the filing of Cambridge’s notice of appeal. Cambridge reaffirmed its notice of appeal.

On checking this morning, this entry, which I very clearly saw a few days ago, has been replaced with a notice of filing of transcripts by Cambridge on July 3.

Fancy Bus Lanes in Context

Archie provides the following with regard to the “rapid transit” buses proposed as part of the Urban Ring:

BREAKING NEWS! BRTs in Bogata, Colombia!
July 11, 2009 – New York Times – Page 1
Found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/americas/10degrees.html?hpw

This front page article by Elisabeth Rosenthal is quite long but worthwhile reading. It tells the reader quite a bit abut BRTs and their use in foreign countries and in the U.S. Phase 2 of the Urban Ring would utilize 60-foot articulated BRT buses. Consider EOT’s Locally Preferred Alternatives for Phase 2 and issues involving dedicated routes. Take a careful look at the NYT front page photo showing BRTs and passengers in Bogata. Then check out this in the inside page:

“But with [Bogata’s] wide streets, dense population and a tradition of bus travel, Bogata had the ingredients for success. To create Trans-Milenio [Bogata’s BRT system], the city commandeered two to four traffic lanes in the middle of major boulevards, isolating them with low walls to create the system’s so-called tracks. On the center islands that divide many of Bogata’s two-way streets, the city built dozens of distinctive metal-and-glass stations. Just as in a subway, the multiple doors on the buses slide open level with the platform, providing easy access for strollers and older riders. Hundreds of passengers can wait on the platforms, avoiding the delays that occur when passengers each pay as they board.”

Since EOT is now planning for surface routes through the dense Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area, how might EOT replicate Bogata’s success on that areas streets?

In fact, a major problem with EOT’s Locally Preferred Alternatives routes is the failure to provide truly dedicated BRT busways in critical areas. Rather, EOT gets to the minimum Federal Transit Agency requirement of 50% dedication by including buslanes that can also accommodate mixed vehicular traffic in the absence of strict (and expensive) enforcement, as demonstrated on the MBTA’s Silver Line on Washington Street in Roxbury, South End and downtown Boston.

And consider the BU Bridge reduced from four to three lanes: what if any dedication can be provided for these BRT buses and also accommodate auto commuters?

This BREAKING NEWS! should be reflected in public comments (due by August 7th) on EOT’s NPC.

Publication Update

Bob reports:

The Cambridge Chronicle published my analysis of the DCR meeting as a highly featured op ed in their July 9, 2009 edition, top of the column, all six columns, opposite to the editorial page. The version published was my edit down to 800 words, essentially what I passed on to you a week ago.

The Chronicle underscored its good performance with the first letter printed below my oped. This was a letter from Jane Rich objecting to the use of poisons to fertilize a park in the central city and to fertilize Magazine Beach.

Jane calls the use of poisons in violation of a very clear Cambridge ordinance.

Reality is that the hypocrites in Cambridge do a lot of lying. Lovely ordinances which they violate at will are a very key part of their lying.

Reality is the Charles River. Reality is poisons, heartless animal abuse, and aggressive environmental destruction from hypocrites who claim to be Green and who claim to be decent human beings.