Good job, Chronicle, good job

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following is my electronic copy of a letter printed in the December 7, 2006, Cambridge Chronicle, page 13. Placement was excellent.

To the best of my knowledge, the only edit changed "Charles Rive White Geese" to "Charles River white geese."

The letter was printed as "Good job, Chronicle, good job." He printed two other responses to the Reeves article. Roy Bercaw was kind enough to suggest, in the spirit of Reeves comments, a public expansion of the brothel business in Cambridge.

*************

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I strongly appreciated the juxtaposition of your two lead articles in the November 30, 2006, Cambridge Chronicle:

“YWCA fire leaves 110 homeless” and “Reeves: Let’’s get the party started.” [Ed: Reeves is the Mayor / City Council Chair in Cambridge.]

Elsewhere in the paper is a report on the DCR [Ed: Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Department of Conservation and Recreation, the owners of large amounts of open space in Cambridge, MA including the Charles River] prettying up but not correcting very real problems with portions of Alewife.

Not mentioned in the paper was a report just issued in which the City of Cambridge once again proposes to destroy the core of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese in the last remaining relatively undeveloped part of the Charles River .

You have, deliberately or otherwise, placed the key problem of the City of Cambridge right where it belongs: the City Council.

The truly offensive reality in the City of Cambridge is that we have a inhumane government working with an inhumane state bureaucracy to further goals which are strikingly different from what the real goals of the city should be.

Not long ago, a group of friends of the Department of Conservation and Recreation wandered about Alewife reservation picking up “trash.” They then tut-tutted in the Chronicle about all the belongs of the homeless they had confiscated. Your predecessor printed my response.

On the Charles River , the DCR took a poll. The poll said that most people do not think the Charles River needs improvement.

So the City of Cambridge and nine city councilors are finding more and more ways to indulge in cruelty to the Charles River White Geese.

So the DCR and the City of Cambridge are spending millions destroying trees, wetlands and animal habitat both on the Charles and at Fresh Pond.

So the DCR and Cambridge are doing "improvements" on the Charles River which will install poisons into a relatively clean environment.

So the DCR and the City of Cambridge are spouting pieties about swimming in the Charles River while destroying wetlands and starving animals to wall off the Charles from Magazine Beach with designer bushes that have no business on the Charles River .

And Reeves is quoted as saying “Let’s get this party started.”

I thought your predecessor as editor did a good job.

I find your juxtaposition on the front page very appropros.

Don't look at the tragedies, don't look at our destructiveness, look at out parties!!!!

Keep up the good work.

Bad guys on move

Bob La Trémouille reports:

There is now a crane in the area which has fencing just west of the playing fields.

The nine Cambridge City Council hypocrites are moving closer to attack against the Charles River and Magazine Beach.

Major starvation moves against the Charles River White Geese, addition of poisons to the environment, etc., all for a project that makes no sense except as make work for a politically active lobby of contractors.

Thanks to the Good Guys - Harvest Coop

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Because of federal tax requirements, we have two main, separate organizations concerning the Charles River White Geese and other environmental matters.

Separate from the political arm are the great people who have been feeding the Charles River White Geese to save them from the destructiveness of the state bureacrats and the nine hypocrits on the Cambridge City Council.

The organization which puts things together is the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.

I had been aware that on of the stores providing contributions to feed the Charles River White Geese is the Harvest Cooperative in Central Square, Cambridge.

Nevertheless, yesterday, it came as a very pleasant surprise to see a lovely color color announcement of the providing of greens to the Charles River White Geese on a very visible bulletin board in the store of the Harvest.

I have sent an email to the head of CRUWI to ask for more names so that I can thank them on this blog.

The Harvest is known and is appreciated.

Thanks to the good guys.

Do anti-Green groups have any business calling themselves Green?

1. General Introduction.
2. Neighborhood Association head says nice things - Cambridge Chronicle and fancy light bulbs. 11/17/06.
3. Laura Blacklow - Urban Ring, “Green” Group, Neighborhood Association, 11/19/06.
4. Kathy Podgers - Where does Green Port and Green Decade stand on the Urban Ring? 11/20/06.
5. Bad Guy responds to Your Editor. 11/21/06.
6. Your editor to Bad Guy. 11/21/06.
7. Kathy Podgers - Where does Green Port and Green Decade stand on the Urban Ring? 11/20/06.
8. Marco - Green Port Working Group - Help in any way possible. 11/25/06.
9. Kathy Podgers - Green Groups and Energy Conservation, 11/25/06.
10. Close associate of Green-Destructive City Councilor - Excellent example of the genre. 11/25/06.
11. Editor responding to bad guy, 11/23/06.
12. Editor: “Green” Group, 11/27/06.


Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General Intro

As I have reported elsewhere, nine Green-destructive Cambridge City Councillors are poised to push the next SICK step in Cambridge’s attack on the Charles River and starvation attacks on the resident animals including the Charles River White Geese.

It comes as no surprise to see increasing visibility in a group which sounds pro-Green but which, with careful investigation turns out, in general, to be saying next to nothing about their real goals, but to loudly proclaim with NO MEANINGFUL SUPPORT: We mean well. Help us achieve goals which we really do not disclose but which SEEM to be going in the right DIRECTION.

As usual in Cambridge, the Devil is in the details.

And the details COMMONLY are bad from groups which fit this modus operandi.

Here is a sample of email exchanges on the matter. I have edited some of my points for clarification, but attempt to simply quote other positions. Correction of capitalization and spelling errors has been done wherever I deem appropriate without regard to the side that is talking.

Please note the repeated requests that the supposed Green group define its position on the issue of destruction of the Green. Please also note the total failure of the supposed Green group and its apologists to do so.

2. Neighborhood Association head says nice things - Cambridge Chronicle and fancy light bulbs. 11/17/06.

From Bill Augustus:

Neighborhoods Section in yesterday's Chronicle has good blurb on Greenport and our last CNA meeting and the discussions about neighborhood association helping to get it going.

Chronicle also has a great article on distribution of compact fluorescent bulbs, written by Susan Butler of Cambridge Green Decade. Chronicle seems to be very supportive of these issues.

3. Laura Blacklow - Urban Ring, “Green” Group, Neighborhood Association, 11/19/06.

I thought there really is a problem with phase 2 [of the Urban ring, ed.] (see craig's message below). I thought that what we suspect is that, once the urban ring backers get their polluting buses---most of which won't even stop in the port, right?---okayed, the powers-that-be will probably tell us that they have run out of money. we will be stuck with noxious fumes, no rapid rail, and busier streets to serve Harvard and MIT employees mostly.

So, again, I ask---what is the neighborhood association planning to do? and what about the Green group?

For those of you who praise Robert Healy, the city manager, please note that he has NOT responded to our plight. on the contrary, healy seems to support more gas guzzling traffic in
our neighborhood.

Laura

4. Your Editor responds to Laura. 11/20/06.

My understanding is that the green group follows the position of nine members of the Cambridge City Council.

Our world is being destroyed because people everywhere in our world are destroying their back yards. Nine members of the Cambridge City Council are aggressively destroying our back yard.

Their explanation is: "How dare you look at our destruction of our back yard and thus of our world. The important thing is our fancy light bulbs." Then they loudly call themselves environmentalists.

5. Bad Guy responds to Your Editor. 11/21/06.

[Ed. This individual has a long and very clear record.]

Why does every group have to take a stand on every issue?

6. Your editor to Bad Guy. 11/21/06.

It depends.

Is this a group which is concerned about our environment or a misnamed group selling fancy light bulbs?

There is very real problem about people who are concerned about things being persuaded to act against the causes they think they stand for.

The people I have seen who are most aggressively fighting for fancy light bulbs disclose their real goals with their contempt for fighting ongoing destruction of our back yards and thus standing up to destruction of our worlds.

People certainly have a right to sell fancy light bulbs, but to call themselves "green" if they have contempt for the real green around us which is being ruthlessly destroyed and thus our world ruthlessly destroyed.

I very strongly object to false statements of position / names of organization which mislead people from working for goals that they really want to work for and I very strongly believe that people who are totally indifferent to massive destruction of trees, wetlands and animals calling themselves "green" if that applies to these so-called "green" organizations.

If they want to call themselves the fancy light bulb people, let themselves call the fancy light bulb people.

If they want to call themselves the contractors coalition to sell fancy lightbulbs, let them call themselves the contractors coalition to sell fancy light bulbs.

The problem is not with the goals of the organization. The problem is with using a misleading name and not even approaching living up to that name.

7. Kathy Podgers - Where does Green Port and Green Decade stand on the Urban Ring? 11/20/06.

Laura makes a good point about the money "game" that's often played regarding transportation issues. Half measures, unfinished projects, dragged out construction (taking 2-4 years to complete a project that can be done in 6 months, lack of oversight, and too cozy relationships between our "representatives" with the "manufactures" of expensive "accessible busses" and other infrastructure items, and all mixed in with union employment demands.

Tell me true, Steve and Sue, where does Green Port and Green Decade stand on the Urban Ring?

Kathy

8. Marco - Green Port Working Group - Help in any way possible. 11/25/06.

Though I did not attend the session the Greenport group held a couple of weeks ago, I have heard enough about it from folks who are part of it and who attended to know a few things:

1. It's billed as a "working group," in other words, it's a group that functions as a satellite of the CNA for those in the community who are concerned with issues related to the environment and how to address them at the very local level, i.e. within Cambridgeport.

2. The Green Port working group is about brainstorming at this point. The initial discussion from what I understand was productive in this sense. I trust that any major issues they discuss and want to take action on as part of the CNA will be brought forth at CNA [Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association] meetings.

3. The positive direction taken by this group follows a passionate plea by a few key people in the community (Steve Morr-Wineman, Rosalie Anders, and Hubert Murray in particular) to address local solutions to global issues. And instead of characterizing what they and others have undertaken in a negative light, they ought to be supported (especially at such an early phase in their existence), if for no other reason than the fact that the environment has emerged over the past two decades as the decisive issue that is and will be affecting the entire world. We are connected to the environment at a local level. It connects us to energy policy and, ergo, foreign policy. It is the future of us all. And I know for a fact that the citizens and neighborhood leaders present at that meeting understand those connections. That's precisely why they were there.We should help them in any way possible.

Marco

9. Kathy Podgers - Green Groups and Energy Conservation, 11/25/06.

Hi, As one of the first to "form" or "join" Green Port I am not sure what is the purpose of "Green Port." I do not know what the relationship Green Port has with the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association. I do wish that could be answered by either the Board, or the membership.

Initially there were a few of us who were present at the meeting when "Green port" was formed. I had been under the impression that Herbert Murry and Steve Winman, (Erie St Neighbors) had come to the Cambridgeport neighborhood Association meeting for support of this "new" idea. Bill suggested they schedule the first meeting at the Community room at Woodrow Wilson for accessibility reasons.

However it was held at the private (and inaccessible) home of Rosalie Anders. Rosalie works for the City of Cambridge, and heads up the Pedestrian Committee. She is responsible for the City's Pedestrian Plan that was found by the MAAB to be non compliant last March. She announced this in the next Pedestrian Committee meeting, and that she would be working on it to bring it into compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts safety Code, but has informed me that this has not been done yet.

Rosalie Anders is on the Green Decade Cambridge Steering Committee. The Green Decade is a totally different organization. I attended one of their meetings and discovered that their model is to hold small meetings hosted by home owners, and for the purpose of raising money. They plan to write/rewrite legislation that will affect citizens as much as affect the "environment."

Green Decade is a chapter of the Mass Climate Action Network; a coalition of 27 local and four state environmental groups devoted to public education and influencing municipal governments to achieve local reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Bill August is a municipalities attorney, he has been president of the Dana Park Nighborhoos Asociation (now known as the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association?) for some 20 years now.

I care very much about the environment, and have been writing, raising awareness, and "educating" the public on this issue for some time now. However, none of the basic environmental issues raised at the Green decade meeting I went to were understood by the "leaders."

I would, therefore, like to know just what the relationship between the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, Green Port and Green Decade really is.

Take care

Kathy

10. Close associate of Green-Destructive City Councilor - Excellent example of the genre. 11/25/06.

It is time to stop all the negativism about a proposed energy conservation group for Cambridgeport that isn't even formed yet. A small group of Cambridgeport residents met this month to brainstorm ideas for what an energy conservation group for Cambridgeport would look like. The organizers have given this energy conservation group a provisional name: Greenport.

The group is in now way a legal entity yet. The group, as far as I know, has not filed papers with the Commonwealth to be a 401c3 or to be any other type of corporation under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Yet, already there are the dissenters, the mud-slingers, and of course, round up the usual suspects.

I believe in taking positive action and the power of positive actions. If anyone really cares about energy conservation, they should be trying to help the fledgling group, not destroy it by complaining about the intentions of the group or any of its actions while it is in a formative stage. Give them a break people!

LET'S STOP THE NEGATIVISM OR KEEP IT OFF THE CAMBRIDGEPORT NEIGHBORS LISTSERV. SEE THE WORD "NEIGHBORS" IN THE LISTSERV NAME? LET'S TRY TO BE NEIGHBORLY. IF YOUR WISH TO POSIT AN INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT, DO IT WITH A DOSE OF RATIONAL, POSITIVE, AND FACTUAL COMMENTARY. THANKS.

11. Editor responding to bad guy, 11/23/06.

It depends.

Is this a group which is concerned about our environment or a misnamed group selling fancy light bulbs?

There is very real problem about people who are concerned about things being persuaded to act against the causes they think they stand for.

The people I have seen who are most aggressively fighting for fancy light bulbs disclose their real goals with their contempt for objections to ongoing destruction of our back yards and thus destruction of our worlds.

People certainly have a right to sell fancy light bulbs, but to not call themselves "green" if they have contempt for the real green around us which is being ruthlessly destroyed and thus our world ruthlessley destroyed.

I very strongly object to false statements of position / names of organization which mislead people from working for goals that they really want to work for and I very strongly believe that people who are totally indifferent to massive destruction of trees, wetlands and animals calling themselves "green" if that applies to these so-called "green" organizations.

If they want to call themselves the fancy light bulb people, let themselves call the fancy light bulb people.

If they want to call themselves the contractors coalition to sell fancy light bulbs, let them call themselves the contractors coalition to sell fancy light bulbs.

The problem is not with the goals of the organization although the misleading method of presentation is very much wrong. The problem is with using a misleading name and not even approaching living up to that name.

12. Editor: “Green” Group, 11/27/06.

We have had a couple of comments that because people are interested in energy conservation products that it is destructive to expect them to have respect for the Green of the earth.

Last I heard, these people were calling themselves Green.

Every time I go to the Charles River since September 2004, I have been dramatically reminded of the CONTEMPT of nine members of the Cambridge City Council for the Green. Deliberate destruction of wetlands, cruel starvation of beautiful animals, needless destruction of trees, the walling off of the Charles River to PREVENT swimming in the Charles, the walling off of the shore to starve animals.

I see preparations for things to get much worse: a silly, wasteful project which will destroy more trees, which will make the DELIBERATE starvation that much worse, which will needlessly destroy the earth, and which will instal POISONS into a habitat which has been free of poisons.

People have been trying to find out from these purveyors of energy procucts what their position is on deliberate destruction of the Green.

This is not at all minor with regard to people who are running around calling themselves Green activists. The consistent refusal to answer these questions says EVERYTHING.

It is highly destructive of people with contempt for the Green to run around falsely calling themselves Green.

If these anti-Green people want to call themselves The Coalition for Energy Conservation, so be it.

If these anti-Green people want to call themselves The Coalition for Fancy Light Bulbs, so be it.

BUT HOW DARE THEY call themselves Green if they are not Green.

And HOW DARE ANYBODY call it destructive to expect self-proclaimed Green activists to be Green!

There is something very wrong here.

I am not at all amused by people claiming to be Green who consider environmental destruction normal.

Thanksgiving Weekend in the Habitat

Bob La Trémouille reports, November 25, 2006:

Preparation for environmental destruction looks more visible than before. It is more likely that I am just noticing more. Apparently more trees wrapped leaves me with a horrorible thought: are more trees being destroyed by the DCR and the destructive nine councilors than I was aware of?

"They would never stoop so low" has long been proven wishful. These people have stooped way low and are continuing with their practices.

The Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffne swam closer to Cambridge than I have previously seen, north of the midline of the river. The thing that is surprising about them is that, even with a long swim, I do not see their migratory four friends. Perhaps the four friends have migrated.

I did see a number of Mallards at the Goose Meadow, but, judging by their numbers, they look like the one large brood of Mallard babies hatched this season, and their Mommy and Poppy, just one very large duck family.

The Charles River White Geese were riding out the new chill in accordance with their policy of minimizing effort and saving up their fat to survive the winter. They were sleeping, but they happily greeted me when I checked on them.

We have had some quite strong wind and rain in the last few days. The larger vegetation looks it.

The situation is scary. The destructiveness of the DCR and the nine destructive city councilors is so great.

The destructive nine seem to be on the offensive in Cambridge with their lying version of conservation being pushed.

Groups which call themselves "green" but which have contempt for nature are being excessively vocal in Cambridge, and they stink of connection to the destructive nine city councilors. They brag of fancy light bulbs but have contempt for any objections to destruction of trees, wetlands, animals and animal habitat. But they love to call themselves "green."

Thanksgiving Eve at Magazine Beach

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The Charles River White Geese were asleep in their Destroyed Nesting Area.

The overnight temperature approached freezing. When that happens, the White Geese do a lot more sleeping, conserving their energy and using their goosedown jackets to the best effect.

I have not seen them at Magazine Beach for several days, but the temperatures have changed along with their habits. I very easily could have missed them.

The Charles River White Ducks can be seen on the Boston side of the Charles River perched on the pontoons. The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative is taking special attention to them. This is their first winter of freedom and very close watch is being taken for them. With winter's advent, their thick cover of green is gone, with help from the vile Charles River Conservancy. Their home is only feet from the quite busy Storrow Drive / Soldiers' Field Road.

They were true innocents last July when they were abandoned at Magazine Beach. At first, they quite belligerently stayed where they had been dropped, looking for their master.

Once CRUWI taught them to swim in the Charles River, they have been happy, at home.

Construction fences continue to accumulate.

Bad news for the Boston Esplanade?

Bob La Trémouille reports.

Last night, November 14, 2006, I attended a presentation by the Department of Conservation and Recreation entitled the “Granite Landings Restoration Project.:

Three things stood out in my mind:

1. They are going to clean up graffiti.
2. They say they are not going to destroy trees, BUT . . .
3. They changed the subject on application of poisons.

First of all, the project manager is Rick Corsi.

Corsi is the manager of the outrage on the Cambridge side of the Charles.

Corsi spent four years insisting he had no intention of harming the Charles River White Geese.

In September 2004, he and Cambridge proceeded to starve them by blocking off all food in their mile long habit from access from the Charles River. When Corsi was asked about his statements, he proclaimed that starving them was not harming them.

For few months, he has reduced the starvation attacks, but is poised to resume them with a bang.

1. They are going to clean up graffiti.

This is a major part of the work contractors whom they are hiring. The contractors are cleaning up graffiti

I asked when was the last time graffiti was cleaned up. They could not say.

I asked what the policy was on cleanup of graffiti, whether it is cleaned up as part of normal maintenance.

They could not say.

The nicest thing that can be said about this is that it is blatant incompetence.

Once again, as I have said many times, Corsi should be fired.


2. They say they are not going to destroy trees, BUT . . .

On direct questioning the contractors said they are working on their plans and are UNLIKELY to destroy trees unless for HISTORICAL reasons.

I pointed out the "native" vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach in place of destroyed wetlands. I point out that the "native" vegetation was unfit to grow on the Charles River and had no business on the Charles River.

I also pointed out that the "native" vegetation served a function exactly the opposite of the lies being put out by the DCR as to their plans. The DCR says they want to encourage swimming. A wall of bushes which have no business on the banks of the Charles has replaced an open meadow. Which do you think is more conducive to swimming?

3. They changed the subject on application of poisons.

I pointed out the Ebersol Fields project, a precursor of Magazine Beach located between Massachusetts General Hospital and the Charles River Dam.

Playing fields were installed with a large amount of poison intermixed to kill off bugs. That was not enough, so the DCR added poisons labelled "do not use" near water. The next day, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge, algae everywhere.

The guys who did these terrible things and are planning even more terrible things did not respond. One member of the audience, residents of Back Bay and Beacon Hill, did remember the poisons and commented on them.


A truly reprehensible government agency.

Farewell to a good editor and a good reporter

Bob La Trémouille reports:

There have been good people in the local press.

Chris Helms, editor of the Cambridge Chronicle until last Thursday, is one of them

Chris not only did a good job looking at and communicating issues, he dramatically changed the editorial content of the Cambridge Chronicle for the better.

I have, for many years, bought every issue of the Cambridge Chronicle and religiously read the letters page. I, however, looked at next to nothing else. Chris changed that.

Chris not only significantly improved the editorial, letters and op-ed page, he made the rest of the Cambridge Chronicle interesting.

What more can you say of an editor.

His new assignment is as editor of the Watertown Tab and Press.

I wish him the best of luck.

I also remind him that the Charles River runs in Watertown, and he has significant DCR holdings in his jurisdiction.

Heartless Destruction Resuming at Magazine Beach

My report yesterday was a pleasant resumption of winter time.

I missed some very big evidence at the other end of the playing fields.

Construction fences have been built, tape protecting areas and not to be victimized trees.

The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start with the destruction of the playing fields at Magazine Beach with all that food.

The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start with the destruction of perfectly healthy tree(s) for a yet another contractor boondoggle.

The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to start the project which will apply poisons to the previously clean Magazine Beach playing fields.

The environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation are preparing to resume their attacks on the Charles River White Geese and other animals living at Magazine Beach.

City of Cambridge Harasses Guide Dog

1. Summary.
2. Your Editor’s Initial Press / Neighborhood Report (basis of the following, most reported above).
3. Tenant Organizer Response.
4. Editor response.
5. Kathy Podgers provides details.
6. Kathy Podgers on “Disability.”
7. Karen Parker response.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Summary.

Monday night, October 30, 2006, the Cambridge City Council was in its fake environmental mode. I separately report on these hypocrites with regard to tree destruction.

In addition to the people commenting to the Cambridge City Council on the destruction of the Grant Street tree, a regular speaker by the name of Elie Yarden spoke. Mr. Yarden commonly speaks to the City Council. The meaning of his comments are frequently abstruse. I was not listening closely but, apparently, the mayor, chairing the meeting, did not have the slightest idea what Yarden was talking about. After perhaps two minutes, the Mayor asked Yarden to say what item on the agenda he was talking about. Yarden refused. The mayor declared him out of order and when Yarden refused to leave the microphone, the mayor declared a recess and called the police. Yarden left the mike and the meeting resumed.

At the same time, Councilor Decker was in the audience talking to Kathy Podgers. Apparently a staff member had previously informed Kathy that Decker had forgotten to take her allergy pills and asked Kathy to move to the far end of the chamber for the benefit of Decker. Kathy complied with the request. Decker, during the Yarden confusion, went to Kathy and demanded that Kathy leave the room with her dog. Kathy refused.

The mayor ordered Kathy out of the room with her guide dog. Kathy refused. The mayor declared another recess and called the police on her.

I noticed Yarden sitting to my left by a couple of seats. He had left the room and, possibly, after talking with police, returned to the chambers. He was besieged by reporters.

The reporters did not notice that the police had come in and were talking with Kathy about her dog. Kathy has had repeated harassment about her guide dog and carries legal papers supporting her right to bring it with her.

The police left and city officials warned that they would “research” the law.

My past experiences with Cambridge’s research of laws has demonstrated severe bad faith. Their people once tried to keep my name off the ballot because their people refused to obey a very well publicized case in 1998 concerning Jack E. Robinson, a candidate for governor whom people tried to keep off the ballot with alleged defects in nominating signatures. The Supreme Judicial Court very clearly struck that attack. Cambridge Election Officials and the City Solicitor refused to obey this very clear decision with regard to me. To my understanding, the City of Cambridge still refuses to obey the extremely clear Jack E. Robinson decision and will trash completely valid election nomination signatures on that basis.

Kathy has done the smart thing. Thursday, she complained to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

2. Your Editor’s Initial Press / Neighborhood Report (basis of the following, most reported above).

RE: The Police Action at City Council last night - anti-dog and anti-handicapped action

Following up on my telephone discussion last night, I do not know what happened with your reporter on the matter.

What happened was public and semi-public. The public part got the press. The semi-public may have been the real game and got no press interest that I could see.

Publicly, Elie Yarden indulged in a rather general attack on the Cambridge City Council without apparent connection to anything on the agenda. Reeves told him to talk to the agenda. Yarden would not identify what he was talking about.

Reeves called a recess and the police. Yarden left the room.

Not generally noticed was Decker talking to Kathy Podgers and telling Kathy to get Kathy's guide dog out of the chambers. Kathy refused. Kathy has had a number of incidents in which any number of parties have tried to keep her from having her guide dog with her in public.

There was a public exchange between Reeves and Kathy concerning the dog, but which did not to other people in the room seem to be other than an outburst by Kathy. Basically, according to Kathy, Decker went to Reeves, Reeves told her to get the dog out of the chambers and Kathy refused. All that the rest of us really notice was Reeves telling Kathy to be quiet when Kathy was publicly objecting to the order to get out with her dog.

Reeves called another recess with regard to Kathy.

Apparently Yarden spoke with the police outside the Chamber (I have no knowledge, this is just a guess) because he returned to the Chamber quietly sitting there.

The police came into the Chamber in response to the complaint against Kathy. Kathy, because of rather wide bias against the guide dog being with her, carries legal papers on the use of the dog. The police declined to take action against Kathy. That I saw and I was confused as to how the dog got involved until I discussed things with Kathy. To the public, the exchange with Kathy had seemed that Kathy was backing up Yarden, not that it was a "separate" incident, although apparently an incident which occurred under cover of the exchange with Yarden.

The city said they would research the law. The city's research of laws tends to results in distinctive rulings. For example, the city tried to keep me off the ballot once based on the city's bizarre refusal to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson ballot case in a gubernatorial nomination. Kathy says that she intends to file a preemptive complaint. Given the record of the City of Cambridge of lack of respect for law that is a good idea.

When Decker could not get Kathy's dog out of the room, Decker left.

My take is that the Podgers incident is a serious human (and animal) rights matter which is part of a continuing series of attacks on her. With regard to Elie, I am not at all positive if he ever told the city council what he was talking about, although he seemed to be telling the people who interviewed him.

Copying Kathy. I do not see Yarden on my list, so I am copying a couple of neighborhood associations who have him on their list.

3. Tenant Organizer Response.

Why do people object to Kathy having a her guide dog with her. Is Kathy a blind person and the dog seeing eye dog or is this just a woman who wants to have her dog with her. If Kathy is blind and the dog is a seeing eye dog then the law requires that she be allowed to have toe dog with her. If she is not blind and the dog is not a seeing eye dog then what basis does she claim she can have the dog with her. What type of dog breed is the dog,

[Ed: Second issue raised, very much not relevant. References to the second issue deleted here and below.]

4. Editor response.

Copying you to Kathy Podgers and the Cambridgeport list for obvious reasons. I would encourage each to reply as they deem fit.

I am copying to others not shown as well and probably will add your comments to my blog deleting identification of you and the comments about the Cambridgeport list.

To me, the attacks on Kathy are part of a package of maximum destruction possible to all beings who are not human beings. The destructive people cannot kill every dog in the city, so they simply do their best to regulate them to death.

Animals in general are subject to destructive behavior by destructive people. Period.

That is the real reason for the outrages at Fresh Pond and on the Charles River. The people who behave like that deserve to be condemned. These are the people who are destroying our world.

As far as Kathy goes, Kathy has physical problems which require the use of a guide dog, and that is pretty much the end of the discussion.

5. Kathy Podgers provides details.

Kathy gave the following response to the above:

*************

In response to the question raised about my "dog", legally, my service animal is not a pet, but a service animal. The city constantly refers to it as a dog, to avoid using the legal and apropiate term.

My service animal is a purebred siberian husky, 3 years old, and is trained to help me with my locomotion. One think she does is help me to "get up" so I don't trip, or fall, also she helps me walk, as one of the symptome of my disability, liver disease, is profound fatigue. I also have several severe diseases of the spine, including radiculitis, which means inflamation of the nerve roots. My neck has "collapsed" I have lost 4" of my height, and when the spine, esp the neck become irritated, the nerve roots becomew inflamed. This is not felt as a pain in the neck, but as pain, and weakness in the extremities, such as feeling like I have a broken arm, or my foot can't "feel" the ground. I can soon feel "sea sick" and "loose my balance" so the service animal can walk in front of me, and "part the crouds" so folks don't bump into me, provided a steady "pull" so I have a "counter weight", well, I cound go on and on.

I selected the husky because their temperment is just what I need for my disability, and because huskies are not territorial, so she does not "protect" me from agressive people, and does not bark or growl to "protect" her territory. So if folks yell at me, lean over me, she is not "provoked" to "defend or protect" me. she is beautiful and friendly, and most folks love her, and want to pet her.

Both Mass State law and city ordinences re service animals are non compliant with the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1990, public law 1990, also known as The Americans With Disabilities Act, the ADA.

The ADA trumps both state and local law. neither the state nor the city is allowed to have writen policies or unwriten "practices" that discriminate against people with disabilities as defined by the ADA. It is difficult to meet the definition, and I do. The ADA protects the "person" from exclusion, and segregation, based on their disability, and provides that the person must be allowed to have service animal accompianied them any place the publ;ic is allowed. Alergies and fear are not reasons to exclude a person using a service animal. If a persons alergie is so severe that it rises to the level of a disability as defined by the ADA, the person using the service animal can be seated away from the person with the alergy. In the case of the public meeting, the City is required to accomodate both equally, and not exclude one or the other. Guide dogs, dog guides, hearing dogs, seisure dogs, all are examples of "service animals" as are monkies, cats, birds, etc.

It is not about the dog. A seeing eye dog can not be allowed to attend a meeting where pets are not allowed if the person with the guide dog is not blind. The dog must be trained to perform a task for the person with the disability.

If anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

6. Kathy Podgers on “Disability.”

I was asked, in an e-mail, about Decker's "disability." This is my response. (This e-mail is blind copied to quite a few selected individuals.)

I do not know if Decker's disability raises to the level that would afford her protection under the ADA, and no one has made that claim to date.

On Oct 16th, [Cambridge City Employee] Sandy informed me, outside of City Council chambers, that Decker's allergies were bothering her because she had not taken her medication, and asked me if I would mind moving to the far side and back of the public seating area in Sullivan Chamber. I did not ask about the degree of Decker's allergies, and I agreed to move, for which Sandy thanked me. I agreed to move "as if" I had been told that her allergy was so severe that it was a disability as defined by the ADA. By that act I already agreed to accommodate her allergy as though it were a qualified disability. I did not violate her privacy by making unessary inquiries into the nature of her allergy, nor inquire if she had a disability, which might be a violation of law.

The law should not "pit" one person's disability against another's, and if in fact Decker should claim the city must provide her an accommodation based upon her disability, she would need to show, or at least claim that she had a disability as defined by the ADA. The City could not provide her an accomodation by refusing to provide an equal one for me. That is why I agreed to sit in the back and the far side of the room, because I rfesponded "as if" they had told me she was disabled and protected from discrimination by the ADA. That is the accomodation they requested, and I did agree to it.
Thanks

Kathy

7. Karen Parker response.

Bob,

I am sorry this happened to Kathy, hope you are well, this Decker woman is crazy and so aren't the other city counselors, I wouldn't even put them into the category of city councilors, buffoons is probably a better description. [Comment on other issues omitted.]

Magazine Beach as the Cold Sets In

Bob Reporting:

This morning was the first really cold morning of the Fall. Temperature dropped to the 20's,

When I got to Magazine Beach at about 7:30, the Charles River White Geese were there, spread in a row near the new and washing out path. In this path, they extended a bit beyond third base on the soft ball field.

I fed them some corn, but they quickly went into the water as a result of a false scare. They came back and fed in a group on the near outfield after finishing the corn.

Another scare, on return, they were grouped between the outfield and the water. That did not last long, another scare, this time real. Ignorant older man walking dogs, not only off leash, but he is encouraging them AGAINST their best wishes into the goose territory. He then LED them into the area just vacated by the geese, as close as possible to the geese in the water. We are dealing with really sick people.

The Charles River White Ducks were happily swimming and feeding near their lair on the Boston side. Leaves have heavily fallen particularly from the lower vegetation, including the vegetation protecting their lair.

The ducks are happy. I was on that side yesterday. They were swimming next to the area that the sickos from the CRC devegetated. They saw a human (me) and went further into the Charles for safety.

The sick bastard walked his dogs to the far end of the fields at Magazine Beach. The geese remain in the water. They may come back on land after he leaves. They may come back tomorrow.

As I left, the gaggle had moved into an area in the Charles between the boat dock and the infield. They were as close to the land as possible, wading four abreast, but they were still in the water.

The narrow Western extension of the Bumpy Memorial Pond showed signs of starting to freeze.

Boston Globe Prints Letter on Tree Destruction

Bob Reports:

A couple of weeks ago, I gave you a copy of a letter sent to the Cambridge Chronicle placing destruction of a tree near Harvard Square in context with the policies of nine Cambridge City Councilors.

That letter was printed last Thursday, November 3.

Last Sunday, the Boston Globe reported on the same tree and a number of people spoke Monday night on the tree destruction at the City Council meeting.

I wrote the following letter to the Boston Globe during the City Council meeting and sent it out during the meeting over the city's public wireless, pretty much at the same time as the city was harrassing a handicapped lady because she brought a guide dog into the City Council meeting.

The following is the letter to the Boston Globe as published today on page 8 of the City Section.

***********

Title: Cambridge sacrifices healthy trees.

I appreciated your article on tree destruction on Grant Street (“A tree died in Cambridge,” Oct. 29, City Weekly).

The Cambridge City Council, all nine members, showed exactly where they really stand on this matter the next day. A large number of residents complained to the City council about the tree destruction.

The very first item considered by the Cambridge City Council after the discussions was a park project on Harvard Street, in which nine city councilors have destroyed 9 out of 10 street trees on the first block of Clark Street. Nine excellent trees were destroyed because they were “in the way” of a park.

Thousands of trees are being destroyed at Fresh Pond. Hundreds of trees are being destroyed on Memorial Drive. Destruction of trees is the first thing done when nine city councilors do work in parks.

There is no real question why the tree on Grant Street was destroyed. Harvard is following the example of the City Council.

Writer wants to "move" Canada Geese

1. Introductory
a. Initial.
b. Second Thought.
c. Third Thought.
2. [Deleted] writes.
3. Karen Parker's Response.
4. Marilyn Wellon's Response.
5. Mr. [deleted] responds.
6. Your Editor.

Editor: Bob La Trémouille

1. Introductory.

a. Initial.

The first thing to be aware of with regard to this post is that the writer is writing concerning Canada Geese, not the Charles River White Geese. That being said, here are his thoughts and those of Marilyn and Karen.

The writer responds to Marilyn and Karen. I toss in a final word. I am of mixed feelings as to whether this post will remain. As of this writing, I have no use for further additions except, as appropriate, to tweak my comments.

Nothing that the three other contributors provide is edited except for capitalization type of matters.

I have gotten a comment that the c.sativa which he claims to be defending translates as marijuana. I am increasingly leaning toward just pulling the comment.

Responses should be directed to me at boblat@yahoo.com.

b. Second Thought.

I did a google search on the writer. Very few articles, including this one.

I checked out one of the articles, twice.

I got a program which claimed to be a free sample of a testing program from Microsoft. It proceeded to claim to be checking my computer for evil software without my permission.

Looks to me like a trap.

I am deleting the name of the writer to keep people out of the trap.

c. Third Thought.

I have spent two hours checking out my computer.

This persons's initial comments generated some valuable responses from Marilyn and Karen. I have provided a general comment at the end, in part responding to him.

This person's name is out of the blog. He insisted on responding to Marilyn and Karen.

I do not like what I have seen with regard to that trap. This person's name is out of this blog.

To the extent there is any good faith here, he has nothing to gripe about. The second writing was quite long. It is gone.

2. [Deleted] writes.

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: [deleted] [email deleted]
Subject: goose transport
To: charlesriverwhitegeese@yahoo.com, boblat@yahoo.com


Hey there Bob,

My name is [deleted], like the cookie, yes, I get razzled all the time for that, so please no jokes. I was searching the internet for information on "how to get rid of unwanted geese" and I came across your website. I read some of your blog and I thought you might be a good person to contact about the geese that are destroying my property since you seem to have a plethora of knowledge about these wild creatures.

Here it is almost November and the geese are still here. What happened to migrating south for the winter? I have been praying to Jesus every night that when I wake up, the geese will be gone, but every morning, as I step out onto my front walkway and I step in goose feces. My shoes are ruined. I have to buy a new pair everyday to abstain from shlepping the refuse into my home.

The geese ate my nectareous licopersicon esculentum (tomato plants) that I grow in mass production every summer and they also have gotten into the crop of wild c.sativa that is growing in the rear of my property.

Now I am a true believer in the after life, so I would not want to bring harm in any way to these caustic creatures. I just would like your thought on how to rid the unwanted guests.

Thanks very much.

[deleted]
Peabody, MA

3. Karen Parker's Response.

Why cant he just wash his shoes off, his poop goes into the Boston harbor too.

An idiot as usual. The geese's poop is never as bad as people make it out to be, its just their hatred of nature.

Karen

These people exaggerate and show their true colors in their letters. He really showed his utmost hatred for animals. If you love animals, you tolerate and respect their existence regardless of anything.

I guess this guy doesn't have bowel movements


4. Marilyn Wellon's Response.

Can he ask them what happened to their usual winter
home? Could they be refugees?

Maybe their winter habitat was turned into something
for humans only. Maybe they think it's ok for them to
turn his lawn into something for them only.

And I understand it's been a very warm fall there.
Maybe it's not cold enough for them to move on yet.

You could pass on the word that goose poop isn't
toxic, doesn't attract flies, and nourishes the grass.

5. Mr. [deleted] responds.

[deleted, some of the below comments refer to this package]

6. Your Editor.

One of the most difficult things to find among "animal protective" organizations are organizations which are concerned with animals for their own sake, as valuable beings in our world.

Most people approach the situation from this direction. Most "animal protective" organizations do not.

The two types of visible "animal protective" organizations are the activist vegetarians and the anti-animal lobby under false colors.

PETA is a vegetarian front organization. The vegetarian-fronts have no interest in animals, as far as I can see, except as forbidden goods. I recall participating in one's list serve (not PETA) and finding that any and all comments about protecting animals as valuable parts of our world for their own sake were censored.

The MSPCA is an excellent example of the other category. The MSPCA's hospitals do some good work. The activism of the MSPCA is contemptible.

The activism of the MSPCA approaches animals as problems and the approach toward animals as problems is EXACTLY the way humanity is destroying our world - by driving animals into smaller and smaller enclaves if they are not killed outright. And all the time, the MSPCA spouts non-stop pieties about how great they are. PETA supports the MSPCA types.

In August 2000, the MSPCA, together with then State Rep Barrios put a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle in which they offered "humane" treatment for the Charles River White Geese. I put out a sarcastic flier explaining what he had done and offering "humane" treatment for Barrios.

Barrios went on Cambridge Cable indignantly insisting I proposed to assassinate him.

The MSPCA proposed to move the Charles River White Geese to a "happy farm." Marilyn checked out the "happy farm." Its water for swimming consisted of a child's wading pool. The MSPCA proposed to let out the members of the gaggle for "adoption." They would not ask if "adoption" included Sunday dinner. Marilyn on questioning determined that geese who were not quickly "adopted" would be killed.

The MSPCA on behalf of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Charles River Conservancy has been active for four years now poisoning as many goose eggs as they can get away with on the Charles River.

During the first two years, the poisonings included the eggs of the Charles River White Geese. We yelled. The last two years only the eggs of the Canadas were poisoned. This last summer I saw exactly ONE baby Canada Goose.

The Contractor-Developer Lobby and Others on Cambridge Destructiveness

Bob La Tremouille Reports:

1. Well meaning person responds to my comment, October 18, 2006.
a. Well meaning person.
b. Your editor.
c. Your editor further.
2. Contractor Lobby on Cambridge Destructiveness, October 18, 2006.
a. Contractor lobby.
b. Your editor responds, October 19, 2006.
c. Councilor Kelley's position(?), October 19, 2006.

I posted my preceding (October 15, 2006) report on the Cambridgeport listserve with a number of responses including the following two. My responses on the listserve to these responses are also included, plus one added comment.

Note that my posting on this blog and the listserve was of an edited letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. I did not send my letter to the paper in time for their deadline for today's paper. The Cambridge Chronicle did run several interesting responses to the report to which I was responding.

1. Well meaning person responds to my comment, October 18, 1006.

a. Well meaning person.

The following was posted by Sarah Ruth Bernard:

***********

While the driver wasn't ticket and the student was jaywalking, I think the larger problem is the lack of safe crossing spots along Mem Drive and the general speed of the drivers. If you go the speed limit (35) along Mem Drive other drivers honk at you and make not nice hand gestures.

I would love for cyclists to get tickets too, as I 've been nearly knocked over by cyclists running red lights, traveling down one way streets the wrong way and not stopping for marked crossings even though the cars have.

Also could someone explain to me how putting money aside for open space is environmentally destructive? Open space improves our quality of life, especially when we all live in condos/apartments or houses with very small yards.



b. Your editor.

In most cities, open space money would be spent for open space.

The City Manager objects to NEW open space with a vengeance. NEW open space takes money off the tax rolls.

The City Manager does not create NEW open space if he can help it. ZERO open space is being created with open space tax money at Magazine Beach. Wetlands are being destroyed. Animals are being deliberately starved. SWIMMING in the Charles, in spite of the media event is being prevented by the wall of designers being installed walling off the Charles. The LIE "native vegetation" is used to sell these designer bushes which are so very non-native to the Charles River that they kept dying.

Wetlands was deliberately destroyed. Wetlands were described as a "water problem."

Purple loosestrife has been planted as part of the these "improvements. " This is an excellent example of a highly destructive, invasive species. It was not there before the "improvements. " It is there now.

Acres of perfectly good playing fields are being wastefully dug up to, once again, starve the local animals. They will also replace the wetlands which should not have been destroyed with sprinklers.

Perfectly good ground under the playing fields will be replaced with new ground, and POISONS to keep away insects. If those poisons do not work, you will see REALLY powerful poisons AS THE MDC did at Ebersol Fields between the MGH and the Museum of Science, the project which preceeds this outrage. Those poisons are labeled "Do not use" near water.

THE DAY AFTER application of these poisons, you saw a dead Charles River between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Harbor.

At the same time as the outrage of the rebuilt playing fields, more starvation will be accomplished by moving the parking lot with tree destruction.

ZERO increase in open space. Plenty of environmental destruction. Plenty of money to the contractor lobby.


More than 449 to 660 mature healthy trees are being destroyed between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. The contractor lobby brags about the saplings and how great it will look in 40 years. The fact that these healty trees look great now is irrevelant. They are making money.


Fresh Pond. Thousands of healthy trees being destroyed. One thousand saplings replacing needlessly destroyed trees.

ZERO increase in open space. Plenty of money for the contractors.

Squirrel brand. 8 12 healthy four story trees destroyed. Grass replaces it. And less trees in the total, already existing lot.

ZERO increase in open space.


Vellucci Park at Inman Square. Three quarters of the healthy trees simply destroyed.

ZERO increase in open space.


Brattle Square next to the Harvard Square Hotel. A 20 year park destroyed with all its trees, approaching maturity excellently.

Replaced with an equal number of saplings and an inferior (but pretty) bike rack.


NINE CITY COUNCILORS. I repeat NINE. NINE city councilors are very happy to talk fancy light bulbs.

NINE city councilors will not discuss outrageous and needless destruction of our environment.

Why man is destroying our world by destroying our back yard.

NINE city councilors are destroying our back yard and heartlessly destroying the animals.

If you are pro-environment.

If you are pro-animal.

You have no choice but to oppose NINE city councilors.

PS: The jaywalking and bicycle situation continues a century of contempt for public safety on our highways. The beligerent expectation is that cars have a duty to save fools who deliberately and in clear violation of law jump in front of moving vehicles.

The only sane response to such ingrained nuttiness is massive ticketing.

c. Your editor further.

Ms. Bernard comments on the deceased jaywalking as if the collision occurred in the open highway.

The hotel being used as a dormitory for the deceased's school, Boston University, has a signalized intersection with protected crosswalks directly in front of it.

The first report on WBZ radio gave the impression that the driver was proceeding on a green light. That would rather clearly say that the deceased was in the protected crosswalk crossing in violation of her responsibilities on a protected crosswalk.

It is highly common for Boston area jaywalkers doing this sort of thing to jump in front of cars in such intersections with the car moving on the light. The jaywalkers expect the drivers to refrain from hitting them.

Failure to give a ticket under these circumstances could indicate that the deceased demanded to protected from beligerant indifference to her own life, and that the driver did not notice her.

2. Contractor Lobby on Cambridge Destructiveness, October 18, 2006.

a. Contractor lobby.

The following entry appeared on the Cambridge Neighborhood Association listserve in apparent response to my immediately preceding blog entry. The name used was Ohiomeister.

A few caveats are in order. Ohiomeister is a constant contributor to this listserve. Ohiomeister's comments fit the developer-contractor lobby script to a T, right down to the tone of voice and to the constant denials of having anything to do with the Contractor - Developer lobby.

I have long since stopped believing self-serving proclamations of people of this ilk in Cambridge. I believe what they sound like. I am not silly enough to believe their denials and their nonstop proclamations of neutrality.

******************

I support open space in Cambridge, support Craig Kelley's efforts, and trust his judgment completely on the open space issue. He is a dedicated and caring member of the Cambridge City Council, unlike some of the other members. I am not an architect, builder, developer, etc., just a resident and observer. Some issues require balancing competing demands, and I trust him to exercise good judgment in striking the correct balance.

I'd far rather see the Cambridge Police Dept. enforce the no murdering and no shooting people laws than the no jaywalking law or the no riding your bike through a red light law. The costs of strictly enforcing the jaywalking law and bike riding laws are prohibitive. Cambridge has a massive jaywalking rate, and the pedestrian right-of-way law can make things tricky for drivers. This girl's death is tragic and sad, but I would imagine that thousands and thousands of dollars spent on jaywalking enforcement would not have made a difference. Enforcing the speed limit on Mem. Dr. may well have made a difference, however. They could also put in additional traffic lights to slow things down.

b. Your editor responds, October 19, 2006.

He whose name shall not be mentioned is to be commended.

Since the ceilings started to fall on the big dig, the people who have fought highway safety for a century in the Boston area with this argument have kept mercifully silent. Responsible members of society would have contempt for them.

The same sort of slogan is non-stop from the developer-contracto r lobby: "We can’t afford normal maintenance of our parks."

In both cases, there is a kicker. The outrageous waste of money, waste of the environment and waste of free animals at Magazine Beach was pitched with this combination.

The argument goes: We can’t afford normal maintenance, but your friendly developers and contractors would love to provide assistance for the trash on MDC property. Pay us to destroy wetlands. Pay us to starve beautiful animals. Pay us to instal bizarre designers plants to block swimming on the Charles. We are calling those designer plants "native." How dare you call us liars. How dare you point out the fact that our designer plants can’t live where we sold them to be put. How dare you point out the fact that we are walling off the Charles and preventing swimming by our designer plants. Don’t they look beautiful?

Somebody somewhere was talking about some sort of lovely designer-contractor lobby project to "improve" highway safety on the Charles. How dare you talk meaningful enforcement of laws against belligerently lawless jaywalkers and bicyclists. We can’t afford to resolve the real problem. We can afford to repeatedly pay millions and millions of dollars to repeatedly "solve" a problem which amounts to normal maintenance. How much is repair of the "we cannot afford highway safety" pitch in those ceilings? How long have those highway safety opponents caused the big dig to be closed?

A very busy lobby makes big bucks out of repeatedly putting in massive highway "improvements. " They do not make money out of paying our salaried employees to do their jobs. They do not make money out of really solving the problem.

They use the same sales pitch on wasteful projects on the bank of the Charles. Part of the standard sales pitch, by the way, is the contractor-develope r lobby always denies being part of any organized lobby, and the lobby and its friends cry all the way to the bank.

Oh, by the way, again, the last I heard, tickets generate revenue in the form of fines, a very proper user fee for people with contempt for their own personal safety egged on by those who say "we can’t afford normal highway safety."

c. Councilor Kelley's position(?), October 19, 2006.

Councilor Kelley (mentioned favorably by the Developer-contractor lobby, above) comments as follows. Strictly a coincidence, of course.

**********

People should also feel free to let the City Council know their feelings via emails to Council@Cambridgema .gov.

I may be reached individually at Craig@Craigkelley. org or via phone at 617-354-8353 if people want to discuss the Council goals with me.

Cambridge Chronicle shows how good guys get handled in Cambridge.

Bob La Tremouille reports:

In last Thursday's Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 2006, the Editor had an editorial praising an initiative by recently elected Councilor Craig Kelley. This initiative would reallocate moneys from the Affordable Housing portion of the "Community Preservation" Tax to Open Space. The voters of Cambridge imposed this tax on themselves by referendum. The Housing allocation of tax moneys is at the maximum allowed by law, the open space allocation at the minimum.

I very strongly want real open space improvements in Cambridge, as do the average voters. Trouble is nine city councilors, including Kelley, certainly look like they are destroying the environment in Cambridge in the name of "improvements."

Next to the editorial was an cartoon blasting Harvard for destroying ONE excellent tree in its project in a residential neighborhood between East Harvard Square and the Charles River.

This is a standard game by the nine environmental hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council. Yell like mad about one individual tree that SOMEBODY ELSE is proposing to destroy. DEAD SILENCE on the City of Cambridge's gross environmental irresponsibility and massive tree destruction.

The combination is the flat out lie that a city government, which is grossly and belligerently irresponsible when it comes to its own back yard, is in reality pro-environment.

The following is a letter I have submitted. This is version 2 submitted. The first version omitted a few short but key words.

I saw another omission or two which I have corrected below. I do not have the nerve to formally submit a third version.

Nothing in this letter or this report is intended to be at all derogatory to the Cambridge Chronicle editor. The combination of actions raises an excellent example of what gets done to well meaning people in Cambridge. In Cambridge, good people get shafted by these shell games.

The letter was printed by the Chronicle in its November 2, 2006 edition.

************

Editor, Cambridge Chronicle

It is ironic to see you editorializing in favor of more money for Cambridge's Community Preservation Act open space money and to see you post that editorial right next to a cartoon lambasting Harvard/Cambridge's destruction of ONE tree.

To see what Craig Kelly, the City Manager and the rest of the City Council mean by their expenditures of open space moneys, you only have to go to the area between Concord Avenue and Fresh Pond. There is more than one big sign there which includes the name of Craig Kelley.

The first trees destroyed on Concord Avenue were mature, healthy trees. Tree destruction will easily run into the thousands by the City of Cambridge in this one project. Those healthy trees are in the way of saplings. Cambridge brags of saplings. Cambridge does not count massive slaughter of mature, healthy trees which are in the way of their saplings.

Go to Harvard Street at the former location of City Hall Annex, a supposed new park. Nine out of ten healthy, excellent trees in the first block of Clark Street were destroyed. Those excellent trees were "in the way" of the new park.

Go a few blocks to the west, Squirrel Brand. A grove of 8 to 12 four story high trees were casually destroyed to put in grass. There are not that many trees in the entire park.

Magazine Beach saw destruction of animal habitat and starvation of beautiful, valuable animals, to put in a wall of expensive designer bushes which have no business on the Charles River.

All the playing fields at Magazine Beach are slated to be dug up to be replaced with playing fields such as that between the MGH and the Museum of Science: new dirt, poisons to protect against insects (not currently needed) and sprinklers to replace wetlands. The entire Charles River from the Mass. Ave. bridge to the Dam was rendered dead the day after poisons were placed on that rebuilt field that are prohibited near bodies of water.

Or go to the area between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge: more than 449 to 660 trees slated to be destroyed and Kelley and the others do not want to know it.
Or go to Lincoln and look at the water resource property purchased with 1.1 millions of "community preservation" moneys.

Craig Kelley wants moneys to be spent with regard to the environment. So do I, but I do not want moneys for the destruction of the environment and I know the record of the people involved.

Taxidemists work on animals in the same way as the City of Cambridge works on the environment.

Lois Reports from Magazine Beach

1. Lois Reports, October 9, 2006.
2. Marilyn Responds, October 10,2006.


1. Lois Reports, October 9, 2006.

The following is from Lois Martin on October 9, 2006. Her final comments are to my response to her at the end of the immediately preceding report.

Bob La Trémouille

***********

I was over to feed the geese this morning. Absolutely gorgeous out and the white geese were joined by some ducks and a few Canada geese. After most of the white geese were back in the water, a large group of pigeons appeared, swooped in and out several times and stopped and ate the residue of the cracked corn. During one of their swoops, one banged into my head (I was sitting on one of the rocks at the time) and evidently kept going. I didn't find any feathers in my head and no bird appeared disoriented around me or dead, thank goodness. From now on I am wearing a hat when I visit there.

I saw Daffy and Andrake [ed: the Charles River White Ducks, residing on the south, Boston, side of the Charles River] and there are several other ducks and geese over there with them. In fact some Canada geese swam over to their area while I was sitting there, which seems good to me. When I first got there a black man with a backpack walked by the geese and they just moved around slightly. They must know him. He went and sat on a bench on the other side of the park for awhile. A white man drove up with his maybe 3-year old little boy and golden retriever on a leash. They walked around, admired the white geese while they were in the water, the little boy walked over to some Canadas in the park area, etc. and the dog was always on his leash. I saw a state police car was sitting at the circle driveway further down Memorial Drive when I made my turn on my way to visit the geese. Later he drove through the edge of the area where I fed the geese but only Canadas were left and they moved away as he drove by. He then drove around the park and I guess out the other side. I took a picture. It seemed weird to me that he drove around the park.

By the way, Bob, you give me credit for something but actually it was Bill and me that got them to the water. Bill and his wife, whose name I can't remember, deserve most of the credit because they spent alot of time with them before I ever appeared. Hope you are well. Lois

2. Marilyn Responds, October 10, 2006.

Dear Lois,

Thank you so much for this report. I'm working updating the website and am at a hard part, the one about "native species." It's so good to get a sense of the beauty of the place there after all the rubbish about "native species."

Marilyn

Charles River White Geese evacuate, vegetation work, other musings

Bob La Tremouille reports on September 23, 2006, with comments coming thereafter.

1. Evacuations.
2. The Charles River White Ducks and their friends.
3. Destructive males with dogs.
4. Changes to the silly, obstructive, vegetation.
5. Analysis of "sicko."
6. Marilyn’s reaction.
7. Lois Martin Reports, October 2, 2006.
a. Lois reports.
b. Response.

1. Evacuations.

The Charles River White Geese apparently spent most of the morning at Magazine Beach. They had a period of snoozing between the western part of the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond, with some swimming. They talked to each other and moved next to the grove of trees where they fed.

Suddenly, at about 11:45, the Charles River White Geese evacuated the area in great haste, some running, some flying. They left in a matter of seconds. When they got to the water, they started swimming toward the goose meadow.

The larger part of the Bumpy Pond was filled with mallards. When an SUV, New Hampshire plates CH C8148, came in they evacuated. The guy got out about a minute later loosing a large dog. The dog immediately ran to the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. He paused in the middle of the bridge, looking at the now empty area from which the mallard ducks had just evacuated.

It was gratifying to see how fast the White Geese evacuated. There was no apparent threat when they evacuated. I think they “knew” what was coming. They have displayed similar non-sensory perception in the past when Little Brook, their long time friend, was coming.

2. The Charles River White Ducks and their friends.

On the south side of the river, the Charles River White Ducks and their two mallard couples conducted their patrol, swimming back and forth in a stretch of the Boston shore about as wide as Magazine Beach.

3. Destructive males with dogs.

As I write, another sick male, also in an SUV, has driven up and let two large dogs run. Massachusetts registration 196 ZCA.

No birds can be seen on the ground. Two sick males who behave like they are closely related to the most environmentally destructive Cambridge City Councilor, Henrietta Davis, have destroyed Magazine Beach for free animals.

It should be noted that I support wiping out almost all of the silly limits placed on dogs in Cambridge by Davis-types. I support free running dogs in most city parks, where they are not destructive. Davis and her buddies want to emphasize permitting free running dogs in areas such as Magazine Beach where the dogs can be destructive to other animals. This "concession" is just more repeatedly destructive behavior by the Davis-types.

Nine Cambridge City Councilors apply the most draconian limits on dogs because they are living beings who don't happen to be human beings. Nine Cambridge City Councilors destroy dogs as much as they can get away with by their draconian limits on dogs. The exception to their attacks on dogs fought for by the worst of them is where they can use dogs to destroy other living beings.

What has been done and is being done in these various patronage projects to Magazine Beach is exactly what the nine Cambridge City Councilors are doing and fighting for throughout Cambridge’s wild areas. It is one of many steps beyond the draconian dog limits toward the destruction of nature in that part of our world which is the back yard of the City of Cambridge.

These nine hypocrites are destroying Fresh Pond for free animals with massive destruction of trees. They plan to destroy Alewife for free animals. The Charles River is an ongoing pit of destruction.

And the nine loudly call themselves "environmentalists."

4. Changes to the silly, obstructive, vegetation.

I conducted a tour of the shore line.

During the week before the day the Cambridge Conservation Commission rubber stamped the plans of the nine destructive Cambridge City Councilors, workers for the Department of Conservation and Recreation started maintaining the vegetation at Magazine Beach sold as native vegetation. A lot of vegetation was pulled up including some excellent flowers. A denuded area was perhaps ten to twenty feet from the water at most and maybe five feet at the least

Markings have appeared in the denuded area. Apparently the contractors are selling more “native” vegetation that has no business on the banks of the Charles.

Starvation walls were put up during the first work. Most of it has already collapsed, thankfully.

There are significant numbers of denuded areas right at the water filled with human trash, five to ten areas, ranging in width from ten to twenty feet. I cannot tell if these areas were made by the DCR or by fisher people. The uniform filling of those emptied areas with human trash is shocking. Perhaps this is trash from the river?

5. Analysis of "sicko."

A friend of mine read the above in front of me and she stumbled on "sicko." I have since rewritten it, but there is a lot to be said about the word.

Her problems with the word pretty much gave me a choice. I could amend "sicko," or I could explain "sicko."

I am doing both.

It is my very strong opinion that the environmental destructiveness which centers on the City of Cambridge in turn centers on a truly reprehensible lobby which consists most visibly of developers and contractors.

These people make a lot of money cutting corners and destroying our world. They have contempt for pretty much everything except for money. If one of their ilk slackens and develops something approaching a meaningful conscience, the others will blackball them to hold them in line and make an example of them.

Some are viler than others but since they will not stand up to the others, there is no difference.

Mankind is not destroying our world. These reprehensible bastards are destroying our world as they destroy anything and everything which gets in the way of their making the almighty buck.

They will and are destroying every bit of animal life that gets in their way. They are destroying the ozone. They are mankind at its worst.

These people brag of their intent to destroy all animals on the Charles River. They are offended by the continued life of the Charles River White Geese. The sick bastards vary the excuses, but they brag.

These people are the sort of infestation decent people cannot understand exist in our world. By any reasonable standard, the flat out contempt these people have for anything that gets in the way of the almighty buck is flat out sick.

The two clowns with the loose dogs fit the stereotype to a T. The fact that the animals they would have killed got out of their way before these sick bastards could kill them does not excuse the stereotype and does not excuse those big dogs being loosed on animal habitat.

And nine Cambridge City Councilors pander to these sick bastards. And their bureacrats pander to these sick bastards.

Apologize? Hell, no.

6. Marilyn’s reaction.

My own reaction is that these dog attacks are the work of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and their little friends in Cambridge after the ConCom decision on Magazine Beach. It would probably take them about this long to get the word out after the vote and the need to finish up "restoring" their "restoration."

In short, it's their way of reclaiming the Bumpy Memorial Pond and Magazine Beach from the geese in case we didn't get the message at the ConCom hearing.

The geese probably know the vibrations from the SUVs as they approach.

I thought the "restoration" involved cutting down the plants at the water's edge, which would give the geese more room to come ashore and to evacuate when necessary. Maybe the DCR and friends thought that through and decided against that part of the plan (as told to me by the contractor).

7. Lois Martin Reports, October 2, 2006.

a. Lois reports.

Hi, I was over to feed the geese cracked corn on Saturday and this morning. Saturday only the white geese and ducks ate it. They seemed well. This morning there were canadas mixed in with them. Then they saw a dog and they left and the pigeons took over. It was a woman with a shepherd but she clearly made an effort to not come down this far. Every time she ran up and down with the dog, she stopped way before coming near the geese. There was an older man rowing with some man following him with a horn and they were in closer than the students who appear to make efforts to row in the middle of the river and not disturb the geese and friends. I yelled to them to row more in the middle but they ignored me. I took their picture.

DCR was over mowing but didn't come near the geese area at all while I was there (about 7:45 - 8:10 a.m.). I brought my binoculars and could see the white ducks.

How do you get near them? When I go over the BU bridge, it looks as though they are near Storrow Drive. Any bike riders I would bet can get near them.

b. Response.

I have separately given Lois very specific response to her questions. The Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney, clearly are near Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road, but they are separated from Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road by the vegetation which has not been destroyed, YET, by the DCR or its operatives.

It is of great value to note that Lois was one of the most important people assisting the Charles River White Ducks when they were abandoned at Magazine Beach.

They were very innocent when Lois helped them. They have matured fast.

Charles River White Ducks make friends

Clearly, my visits to the Charles River in the BU Bridge area concentrate on the Charles River White Geese and the truly reprehensible behavior of nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors and the various bureaucrats.

Nevertheless, very, very, high on my list of interests are the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney. I constantly scour the south bank of the Charles to keep an eye on these beautiful love birds. It is always a pleasure to see them perched on their favorite perch or to see them happily swimming around on the Charles. They seem to be wandering steadily further to the west exploring their world and learning more about it.

It was thus a pleasure, on Monday, September 18, 2006, that a person who is a regular on Magazine Beach pointed out that Andrake and Daffney have made friends who are accompanying them on their travels.

The friends are quite a bit harder to see from the north bank of the Charles, but, with care and knowing where to look, they are visible.

It appears that Andrake and Daffney are joined in their exploration by two other duck couples, probably Mallards, so that it is three couples exploring the south bank of the Charles together, Andrake and Daffney and the two Mallard couples.

Andrake and Daffney, if you know what to look for, stand out. They are reasonably large white beings, nowhere near as large as the Charles River White Geese, but surprisingly close to the size of the Canadas, perhaps two-thirds their size.

Once you have seen them, look around for two pairs of smaller brownish shapes near them, the two Mallard couples.

It is quite lovely, quite beautiful.

It is a shame that the Charles River is being destroyed by sick, hypocritical governments. The Charles River could be a beautiful place; and it is a beautiful place, without the sick government types.

Charles River White Geese Starting to Make Themselves at Home

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Report, September 17, 2006.
2. Update, September 18, 2006.
A. Moving further west.
B. Firefighters.

1. Report, September 17, 2006.

This morning, September 17, 2006, I saw the Charles River White Geese resting at Magazine Beach.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 25 years. Their habitat has been one half mile east and one half mile west of the BU Bridge on the banks of the Charles River.

They migrated in that limited area. They lived nine months of the year at Magazine Beach or across from the Hyatt Hotel. Three months of the year, they lived at their nesting area just downriver (east) from the BU Bridge.

That started to change in October 1999 when Boston University destroyed the vegetation in the middle of the nesting area and opened up the fence which protected the nesting area from the adjoining sidewalks. Boston University spent most of the next six months lying that they did not do it, until they were officially condemned for the act. Then they started bragging about it.

During the early period I have been heavily involved with the CRWG, essentially since that destruction of the nesting area, they fed at Magazine Beach and they slept at Magazine Beach or in the water off Magazine Beach, with frequent visits to the Hyatt Hotel Area.

At Magazine Beach, they had access to the entire area as long as they were within easy access from the Charles River so that they could retreat into the Charles for safety from predators. When they rested or slept, there always would be a guard on duty.

In September 2004 nine heartless hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council along with the regional govenment, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (formerly MDC) started starving the Charles River White Geese.

They destroyed the access of the Charles River White Geese to their food at Magazine Beach and at the Hyatt Hotel. These hypoocrites proudly call themselves "pro-environment."

The Charles River White Geese were left with access only to the nesting area, but there was no food there. It was destroyed in October 1999 by Boston University and, really the Destroyed Nesting Area was far too small to feed them.

The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative has fed the Charles River White Geese since then with major gifts of lovely veggies from local merchants.

A few months ago, the Charles River White Geese were once again given access to a tiny portion of Magazine Beach, that portion on the eastern end of Magazine Beach, near the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond.

But the CRWG have been trained. Those nine sick people on the Cambridge City Council and their friends the bureacrats trained them that there is nothing at Magazine Beach for them.

They have been gradually sneaking through a tiny opening at Magazine Beach, perhaps 5% of what they had had for most of their 25 years. They have come in the morning, furtively grabbed a little food and scurried back to the Charles River and the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Frequently the scurrying has been associated with the presence of a dog in the area. Occasionally, they just decided to go home, probably to take a nap.

This morning, I saw them sleeping at Magazine Beach for the first time in years.

They still leave Magazine Beach after a few hours, rarely staying after noontime. They still spend the bulk of their day at the Destroyed Nesting Area with many extended swims. They still are denied access to almost all of Magazine Beach and the training of the starvation attacks has held firm at the Hyatt Regency.

But at least they do do some sleeping near the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond at Magazine Beach.

Now the nine hypocrites from the Cambridge City Council through the regional bureacrats have gotten rubber stamp permission to do even more harm, to the Charles River White Geese and to the Charles River Environment.

These hypocrites are going to dig up the playing fields and replace the playing fields with playing fields and poison. These hypocrites are going to "move" the parking lot at Magazine Beach and destroy one or more trees.

The nine hypocrites like the situation on the Charles River below Massachusetts Avenue where the water is dead, killed by a comparable project near the Charles River Dam.

The nine hypcrites will loudly proclaim their concern for the environment, everywhere except in their own back yard, and the nine hypocrites will continue their sick ways at Magazine Beach.

Decent human beings still can see no sense whatsoever in any of these bizarre projects.

The very voluble contractors and developers on the city/state dole love the wasteful projects.

2. Update, September 18, 2006.

A. Moving further west.

They are now moving further west. They had been moving north further from the Charles than ever before, to the environms of the grove of trees which is threatened by the nine environmental destroyers.

Today, they were moving west along the river further into the outfield of the Little League field.

They are making themselves at home.

Definitely a good sign, except for the nine environmental destroyers.

They still do not stay much beyond noontime because this is no longer their home.

B. Firefighters.

I do not know if it is new or just that I have been paying more attention, but I have seen Cambridge firefighters on Magazine Beach a lot more than in the past.

Firefighters regularly go to locations throughout the city and pump water through fire hydrants. They are rather clearly clearing out crud in the water lines.

The frequency at Magazine Beach is quite a bit more than would be expected for just flushing one fire hydrant.

There is a fire hydrant just east of the parking lot by maybe 10 feet and perhaps 20 feet north of the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. A variety of fire vehicles use this hydrant with frequently spectacular displays of water pumping. They are probably ensuring that the vehicles are not clogged.

The power of the water varies with the fire vehicle. The biggest, most powerful, vehicles throw water so impressively that it makes an excellent show.

A lot of the water goes into the Charles, which is the usual target. A lot also goes into the Bumpy Memorial Goose Pond. The latter water is extremely valuable to the various water fowl in the area, the Canadas, the Whites, and the Mallards. The geese is particular love to drink from the Bumpy Pond and get fresh water rather than the salty water in the Charles River.

This morning, I stayed at Magazine Beach longer than I would have because I wanted to see the reaction of the Charles River White Geese.

They moved to the west along the shore, away from the fire truck and the Bumpy Pond. Some had been in the Charles. These returned to land and followed the others to the west.

Clearly they were not at all distressed, to my pleasure.

Flash! Cambridge, MA "Conservation Commission" Authorizes Greater Starvation Attacks, River Poisoning

We went through the motions, but we know just how bad appointees of the Cambridge City Manager are.

The Cambridge City Manager avoids appointing people who are meaningfully pro-environment to boards. When it comes to environmental destruction on public lands in the City of Cambridge, the Cambridge City Manager is the key.

The fact that nine fake "environmentalists" on the Cambridge City Council rubber-stamp him and that he is comrade-in-arms with the reprehensible state Department of Conservation and Resources just adds to the sickness.

Last night, September 11, the Cambridge "Conservation Commission" took a vote. THEN they allowed public comment.

Pro-environment people outnumbered the reprehensible DCR and its Charles River Conservancy front organization five to one. Nobody from the audience spoke in favor of this outrage and, I believe, eight spoke out against.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission reaffirmed a vote taken by the Cambridge City Council in December 1999, a vote the Cambridge City Council has reaffirmed by silence throughout the goose killings and even silence about reality, when a probable goose-killer went on to the rape and murder of a young woman where he had been killing geese.

The sick proposal approved by the CCC will dig up all the food for the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach. Dirt is being dug up to be replaced by dirt and poisons. The Charles River between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Harbor is poisonous to humans and animals because of a similar project near Mass. General Hospital and the Charles River Dam.

Cambridge’s rubber-stamp Conservation Commission authorized further river and animal poisoning when it authorized this outrage.

What were nine fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council doing at that time?

The Cambridge City Council had an agenda with the usual pious and false environmentalism. The Cambridge City Council kept the public from talking until after the start of the Conservation Commission meeting, with a possibly unprecedented delay of more than an hour and a half before the start of public comment period.

These nine environmental fakes took no chance on reality interfering with their propaganda.

In other action, the Cambridge Conservation Commission further demonstrated its contempt for the environment by authorizing permanent nighttime disruption of wildlife and peaceful human use on the Charles River by authorizing essentially permanent lighting of bridges from water level.

Robert La Tremouille

Algae bloom and the DCR

1. Marilyn Wellons reports, 9/9/06.
2. Prior Marilyn report with details, 9/9/06.
3. Chris responds, 9/9/06.



1. Marilyn Wellons reports.

Today's Globe has a small article on p. B4, "Charles swim canceled."

The DCR has canceled the first annual Charles River Swim set for today because of the algae bloom. From the article:

"Last month levels of the toxic algae, called microcystis, exploded to levels never before seen in the Charles. Although the concentration dissipated to just below what the World Health Organization considers an acceptable level, DCR officials said yesterday the counts have inched upward. They refused to issue a permit for the race."

We've heard nothing about the relation of this unprecedented algae bloom to the installation of six acres of fertilizer- and herbicide-treated sod this past spring at the new "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" and the application of "Tartan" (a fungicide stable in water and toxic to fresh water fish and invertebrates) to the same six acres of sod just before the algae bloomed. These Little League fields are immediately adjacent to the site of the bloom.

I've seen nothing in the newspapers about any public health officials' investigation of the cause of the algae bloom. The original report in the Globe said fertilizer runoff causes such things.

We are sure to hear no reports of this sort from the DCR, the proud agency responsible for installing the sod for Little League fields so close to the Charles.

Little League ball is not, after all, a "water-dependent activity." The DCR's much-vaunted Master Plan for the Charles wants to eliminate all "non-water-dependent" activities like skating rinks, swimming pools, and veterans' organizations from the river.

However, the DCR seems to have made quite an exception for the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park." We should hear from the DCR why this new, "non-water-dependent" facility was allowed so close to the river. Its grass will continue to need repeated applications of fertilizer and herbicides to maintain "the quality of turf our players deserve," as the DCR's representative told the Boston ConCom this summer. The counts will probably inch upward with runoff from the fields after every rain as long as the warm weather lasts.

The DCR may have denied the permit for the Charles River Swim, but they certainly didn't deny the permit for the "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Little League Fields at Lederman Park."

Marilyn Wellons

2. Prior Marilyn report with details, 9/9/06.

Please note Marilyn's prior report, 8/16/06, updated 8/31/06, entitled Department of Conservation and Recreation Poisoning the Charles River? It provides the key details of the poisoning.

Bob La Trémouille

3. Chris responds, 9/9/06.

I row everyday and its pretty nasty how much algae there is on the Charles... for animal species and humans. It's abnormal and any rhetoric flitting that the charles river is clean and/or cleaner than it has been is rubbish.

The algal bloom represents high temps., off-set water chemistry, and low oxygen levels.

I would not wish to be a fish right now... It's like trying to breathe in Mexico City.

Chris