State Senator Travellini to be Replaced

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.
2. Evaluation of Senator Travellini.
3. Evaluation of Senator Barrios.
4. Announcement of Senate Candidates Debate.

1. General.

I have received an announcement of a debate by the potential replacements for Senator Robert Travellini, the State Senator representing the Charles River White Geese.

The announcement is below in part 4.

2. Evaluation of Senator Travellini.

The situation with regard to Travellini was as follows:

The earliest clear, unambiguous understanding we had of the pending destruction of the goose habitat was when the goose meadow was destroyed by Boston University acting on behalf of the DCR (then MDC) in October 1999.

As part of the destruction, the former solid fence at the sidewalk was opened up. This, of course, encouraged the geese to wander out and bad guys to wander in. Marilyn went to Travellini's office to complain about the opening.

The minute Travellini heard that the fence had been opened up and the pieces left to one side, he said he would take care of it. He got on the phone in front of her to show her his sincerity.

The next day, the pieces which had been taken out of the fence had been removed.

3. Evaluation of Senator Barrios.

Barrios, of course, has been one of the worst. Barrios was the State Representative representing the Charles River White Geese. He timed the announcement of his candidacy for State Senate in such a manner that he encouraged the destruction of his district as part of a general redistricting.

Barrios's lead action was a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle in the beginning of August 2000, cosigned by the MSPCA. Barrios and the MSPCA proposed "humane treatment" for the Charles River White Geese.

I posted sarcastic fliers reporting his initiative and proposing "humane treatment" for Barrios. Barrios then went on Cambridge Community Television objecting to what he called my inciting his assassination.

4. Announcement of Senate Candidates Debate.

RNA Moderator wrote:

Ward 5 Democratic Committee and the Cambridge City Democratic Committee are jointly sponsoring a forum for the two Democratic candidates, Anthony Petroccelli and Dan Rizzo, who are running for election to the recently vacated Senate seat of Robert Travaligni. I believe it is the First Middlesex and Suffolk District, but don't quote me on that.

The forum will be held on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 7:00 - 8:30 P.M., at LBJ Apartments, 150 Erie Street, between Brookline and Pearl. It's important that we get as many people there as possible so the new Senator understands that Cambridge is part of the district.

Censorship in Cambridge, MA

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

1. Introduction.
2. The leader of the core group’s communication.
3. Your editor’s censored response.
4. Censorship Notice.
5. Your editor’s response.
6. Yahoo! Groups Notification wrote.
7. Roy Bercaw Responds.


1. Introduction.

I have mentioned the problems with “grass roots organizations” in Cambridge which have nebulous connections to the City of Cambridge.

One of these groups, the so-called Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association used to have a rather vibrant listserve, until it started censoring things.

What follows is a series of emails and censorships with names deleted to protect the guilty.

“Derogatory stereotyping of a group" is given as the reason to censor disagreement with statements of the leader of the CNA core group concerning the CNA and its record.

Outrageous, yes!!!

I understand the leader of the CNA core group earns a living in a municipal field.

The guy doing the actual censoring leads a related and just formed “Green” group. I had an extended discussion with him about the fact that the group's organizers could give a damn less about destruction of the Green ongoing by the powers that be in Cambridge. He did not see any problem with that.

Censored document is in section 3. “Reasons” for censorship are in section 4.

2. The leader of the core group’s communication.

[Ed. This series of communications, in typical email fashion, led with section 6 and continued in reverse order. There was doubling of communications. I have deleted the doubling and structured chronologically.

[Additionally, I do not remember the letter in this section as the communication to which I (section 3) was responding. My response was intended to specifically respond to particular comments. This document does not track. Could it have been substituted in the process or could I have responded to the wrong email?

[If I find the one I remember, I will substitute. I am confused, but there is key stuff here in sections 3, 4 and 5 which are of value.]

Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association letter opposing setback reduction in front of Radisson Hotel site attached. Letter urges that open space and parkland uses along the river are cherished, unique, used by thousands from neighborhood and region and setback reduction along a river would be very bad precedent. Other reasons included. Letter follows vote by general membership at last meeting of Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association. Letter was hand-delivered to Planning Board today to meet March 13th deadline for inclusion in package sent to Board members.

FYI, next Planning Board meeting on Radisson setback and Radisson zoning is March 20th. Notice of meeting was previously forwarded to group.

Signed: The leader of the Core Group.

3. Your editor’s censored response.

Bob LaTrémouille wrote:

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob "LaTrémouille"
Subject: Re: [cportneighbors] Letter re Radisson Hotel zoning from Neighborhood Association
To: Cambridgeport Neighbors

The one thing you are doing a terrific job on is patting yourself on the back. This undeserved self-praise gives the false impression that you are on the side you claim to be on.

I would have responded to this yesterday, but we seem to have an Animal Farm situation here. I am quite certain this is not the ONLY communication from you on Monday. All animals are created equally, but some are more equal than others. [Ed: The Core Group previously limited posts to one per day. The Core Group's leader had two posts on this particular day. His self-praising was the second of the day.]

On Blessed Sacrament, you did a great job yelling about it being too large. So you made it LARGER.

We are faced with massive and highly irresponsible destruction of the green on Memorial Drive, 449 to 660 trees, all wetlands, all animal habitat. So you created a "green" organization which has no business calling itself "green." "Look at our fancy light bulbs. Don't look at the massive destruction of the green."

And now you are falsely calling yourself on the neighborhood side with regard to the outrageous zoning destruction between Putnam Avenue and Memorial Drive and between the MicroCenter and Riverside Press. You have destroyed yard requirements at the WHIM of appointees of your buddy, the City of Cambridge. You have massively increased the retail district.

Now, with crocodile tears, you claim to be concerned about yard requirements after you have thrown out the yard requirements. You have trashed meaningful protections for the right to near meaningless objections. So, with crocodile tears, when it has almost no value because of your destructive zoning, you are objecting.

You are as much on the neighborhood side on zoning as you are on the neighborhood side on destruction of the green.

But you love fancy light bulbs and you love next to meaningless objections.

4. Censorship Notice.

The head of the “green group” which could care less about destruction of the Green wrote:

This posting was deleted because it did not conform with a rule of the list:

"...language that is defamatory, libelous, personally insulting, profane, threatening, obscene, or indecent --including but not limited to name-calling, vulgarity, and derogatory stereotyping of groups--is inappropriate, is not allowed, and/or should be avoided on Cportneighbors." [Ed.: Bolding in original]

click below to read the full "Cportneighbors Rules and Procedures":

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/UKD2RS4TR1A8eY4qI78M3zoppyUa7xwTMZ_3Olv-vZHqDtm9y_CGEoLz1emXSlge_5_COb1CBNSNjhYtpcXBew/CportneighborsRulesandProcedures5.24.pdf

Thank you.

5. Your editor’s response.

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: Cambridgeport Neighbors
From: Bob "LaTréémouille"
Subject: RE: Re: [cportneighbors] Letter re Radisson Hotel zoning from Neighborhood Association

How dare anybody talk reality.

Something might get done that people CLAIM to stand for.

You have a group which is lying about itself to the great damage of the cause for which it claims to stand.

It is prohibited to say that your group is lying about itself because that is "stereotyping of a group."

So what is allowed is the sort of nonsense that the CNA and YOU pat yourself on the back for screwing the causes you claim to stand for.

I would call that shameless.

6. Yahoo! Groups Notification wrote:

Date: 17 Apr 2007 07:37:47 -0000
From: Yahoo! Groups Notification
To: boblat@yahoo.com
Subject: Message to cportneighbors group not approved

Hello,

Your message to the cportneighbors group was not approved. The owner of the group controls the content posted to it and has the right to approve or reject messages accordingly.

In this case, your message was automatically rejected because the moderator didn't approve it within 14 days. We dothis to provide a high quality of service for our users. A complete copy of your message has been attached for your
convenience.

Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups

Regards,

Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

7. Roy Bercaw Responds.

What I find amazing is the great difference in standards between the CNA list and the City's standards. The City violated laws unless there is a high likelihood of being sued. At CNA it is what if someone does not like what is posted?

[Ed: I see the censorship as part of a pattern of Core Groups with nebulous relationships to the City of Cambridge doing whatever it takes to achieve the environmentally destructive goals of the City of Cambridge and taking advantage of well-intentioned people in th process.]

Urban Ring Phase 2 Policy Order before the Cambridge City Council Monday, April 23, 2007

Marilyn Wellons sent the following e-mail to two neighborhood associations in Cambridge about three transportation meetings she attended in the week ending April 13, 2007.

Presentations at those meetings bear on a Policy Order about the Urban Ring Phase 2 tabled at the Cambridge City Council session on April 9. On April 23, 2007, the Council will again consider the Order. Although the Order identifies compelling reasons that justify rejection of Phase 2, it nevertheless asks the Council to endorse the project.

In addition to the Order's self-contradiction, Wellons gives other reasons to reject both the Order and the Urban Ring Phase 2.

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

Dear Neighbors,

The recent transportation meetings I've attended have focused on the costs to
the region of poor transportation planning in the past. Just this morning [April 13, 2007] Secretary Bernard Cohen recited a litany of items in the region's "declining [transportation]infrastructure" that must be addressed. Last night we heard a projected increase of Storrow use in the next 23 years of 3%, which is close to nothing. On Wednesday the RTAC heard a presentation on "How Massachusetts's Neighbors are Responding to 21st Century Transportation Challenges," and the message was, Much Better Than Here.

In New England we're at the end of every supply line, and the costs of living
reflect that. Even so, the state has done little to improve efficiency and reduce
transportation costs. Short-sighted decisions, lack of strategic thinking, and
lack of investment in this sector have contributed to the loss of population and
businesses. They now place us at a tremendous disadvantage relative to other regions.

To take only the example of the Urban Ring Phase 2: while other cities--New York,
San Francisco among them--are building rail for rapid transit, Metro Boston is going
for buses. Phase 2 buses, grade-separated or not, are a false economy that will
only confirm the region's stagnation. Councillor Kelley's proposed Order
itself, while paradoxically endorsing the bus highway, indicates some of Phase 2's
costs: air pollution, asthma, heart and lung disease, diversion of resources from
better projects. And there are additional costs not mentioned in that order, i.e.,
damage to freight capacity at the Beacon freight yards in Allston, corresponding
damage to roads and highways from the resulting increased truck traffic, loss of
public parkland, damage to our neighborhoods.

While other regions--NY-NJ-CT and VA-WVA-OH--are actually building (not just thinking
about or studying) multi-modal freight infrastructure to create jobs at the ports
and from the ports throughout the transportation corridors, Massachusetts is not.
These other states' investments in multi-modal freight reduce the money costs
of fuel, air pollution, and damage to roads and highways, and corresponding costs
to quality of life. They're investments that make things better.

In Massachusetts we have the Turnpike Authority selling the Beacon yards to Harvard
for a pittance. In this deal, all the lawyers for Harvard and the Pike somehow
missed the need for an easement for the freight yards--the closest to the Port of
Boston--and for the Pike itself. Only the intervention of the Attorney General,
at the very last minute, at the Registry of Deeds, prevented the obliteration of
this public interest in the property.

It is simply not true that the universities, bio-tech, and the medical industry
or the like will keep everything ok, or at least ok for those now relatively well-off.
In the past, medical interns and residents competed for who would stay in Boston.
Now they leave, knowing they can't afford to live here. Fidelity is moving
out as quickly as possible, taking thousands of jobs to North Carolina, for example,
where the company's costs are less and their employees will live better for
much less. Here, with the continuing loss of population and businesses, tax revenues
will fall. There will be even less money for ordinary maintenance of public assets,
let alone the improvements necessary for the region's competitiveness.

Officials and attendees at the transportation meetings mentioned are well aware
of these very real problems.

In this context, building another bus route, grade-separated or not, would continue
the errors of the past. It would also squander whatever funds might be available
for real public transportation.

As voters and members of the attentive public, we also bear some responsibility
for our planners' and elected officials' short-sightedness in the past.
The Urban Ring bus highway, grade-separated or not, is planning consistent with
what has brought us to a difficult spot. I believe we and our elected officials
should reject it.

Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons

Secretary of Transportation Reaffirms Interest in Grand Junction Railway in Cambridge

Bob La Tremouille Reports:

1. General.
2. The Grand Junction according to Secretary Cohen.
3. The Grand Junction’’s Importance, comments from Port Authority representatives.
A. General.
B. Importance of the Allston Freight Yards.
C. Container Service Drives Moving the Allston Freight Yards.
D. Port Authority Position.

1. General.

At the MOVEMassachusetts monthly meeting this morning, April 13, 2007, the guest was the Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bernard Cohen.

Secretary Cohen gave the packed room an impressive presentation which was both comprehensive and lacking in detail. In the middle of his long list of ongoing efforts was a comment on negotiations with CSX about obtaining rights of way for state transportation use.

2. The Grand Junction according to Secretary Cohen.

Marilyn Wellons was the first member of the audience to be recognized for questions. She did not even blink. She did not ask if he was talking about the Grand Junction. She simply translated his words as the Grand Junction and asked for the details.

Secretary Cohen declined to provide details since negotiations are in process. He did comment that freight transportation is being encouraged through plans for raising bridges to allow double stacked freight cars to be able to pass.

3. The Grand Junction’s Importance, comments from Port Authority representatives.

A. General.

After the meeting, Marilyn was addressed by representatives of the Port Authority who were quite interested in the freight issues. One thing that they were proud of was inserting language into the deed of the freight yards to Harvard in which a tiny portion of the yards could not be taken away from freight use.

There are a whole bunch of things going on, as usual.

Clearly and very visibly, the state is working to put in the inner belt on top of the Grand Junction railway.

In its usual manner, the City Council has a motion on its table claiming to protect Cambridge from this new highway while supporting the initiative if the initiative is done in a manner that the state says it wants to do it. The city council calls this “protection.” I call it being on the wrong side and tossing nonsense at their constituents.

B. Importance of the Allston Freight Yards.

The freight yards in Allston that Harvard has purchased are of major importance.

Harvard is not a charitable institution. Harvard did not buy the Allston freight yards out of a charitable impulse. Harvard bought those freight yards four months after the MBTA proved the Grand Junction bridge capable of taking traffic from the Mass. Pike and moving that traffic to Cambridge.

The rail traffic on the Grand Junction moves cars between the Allston yards and the North Station yards. If there is no meaningful Allston yards, there is no need for the Grand Junction.

If there is no need for meaningful Allston yards, Harvard has that much more room for easy expansion.

C. Container Service Drives Moving the Allston Freight Yards.

CSX has long been considering moving the freight yards outside I-495.

This is because of container service. Containers are carried on freight cars over long distances and moved to/from truck beds for local delivery. When containers were first used, they were only used one high on the freight cars. In more recent years, two containers high has become the norm. A very, very large number of bridges over railroad tracks inside I-495 were not built high enough above the railroad tracks to allow double container cars to be able to go under them.

If the freight yards are moved to I-495, our highways would be subjected to a lot more truck traffic.

If the freight yards are moved to I-495, Harvard can build on the yards.

If the freight yards are moved to I-495, the need for the Grand Junction railroad disappears.

If the freight yards are moved to I-495, the inner belt can be built on the Grand Junction using whatever sales pitch works.

D. Port Authority Position.

The gentleman from the Port Authority rather clearly had no problems with moving the freight yards. He rather clearly thought providing adequate bridge clearance for double container trains to be an impractical use of money.

4. Summary.

But thanks to Marilyn, an excellent question brought out some good information.

State Conducts Urban Ring Update in Fenway

1. Introductory.
2. Charles River Crossing.
3. Harvard’s Allston Campus.
4. Summary.

1. Introductory.

Last night, April 9, the state conducted the middle of three urban ring updates in the collegiate arts building behind Fenway Park on Ipswich Street. The last update meeting will be conducted next Tuesday, April 17, 6:30 to 8:30 pm at the Somerville High School Auditorium.

The Urban Ring is a massive transportation project supposedly designed to ease public transportation needs for a ring one to two miles outside Downtown Boston. The part which makes sense is rapid transit. The state is talking buses and new highways before doing anything on the rapid transit.

There were significant changes in that part of the proposal which most impacts us. As usual, key comments from the state differed significantly from Cambridge reports.

2. Charles River Crossing.

As an option, the state has proposed conversion of the Grand Junction railroad bridge under the BU Bridge to a two way highway. Contrary to the Cambridge reports, at no time has this highway been proposed to go to Harvard’s Allston campus.

This latest report has changed the point at which this new bridge would connect to Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. The DOT consultants are proposing that the traffic lanes go under the BU Bridge on an expanded Grand Junction bridge and then be elevated on a new bridge which would go over the Mass. Pike. The new state highway would connect to Commonwealth Avenue apparently above the Mass. Pike, west of the BU Bridge.

There clearly is plenty of room on Commonwealth Avenue above the Mass. Pike to make this connection. The new connection, however, would greatly complicate what is already a complicated intersection. It would have devastating environmental impacts in Cambridge.

Other alternatives suggested for crossing the Charles River as part of new highway construction include a possible bridge / tunnel to the east of the BU Bridge. I remember the discussion but do not see it on my copy of the slides. The handout differs from what was shown in several aspects.

Archie Mazmanian, a Brookline activist from the Cottage Farm neighborhood spoke against use of the Grand Junction bridge, among other things because of the environmental destruction on the Cambridge side. He tells me that the Citizen’s Advisory Committee has also been informed of a third Charles River construction option, to add two lanes to the BU Bridge.

Archie referred me to the "On Brookline" website, which can be read at www.onbrookline.com.

They clearly present his reports quite visibly. He was modest in communicating the level of visibility. I will add a link to this website for the benefit of people.

3. Harvard’s Allston Campus.

The very big change was the formal addition of proposals for bringing Harvard Allston into the scheme. At no time (contrary to Cambridge nonsense) has the state ever proposed connecting the Grand Junction to Harvard Allson.

I had to drag this information out of the presenter, frequently having to correct him on street names and to dig out exact details. The rest of the audience clearly was closely listening because I was immediately corrected at one point when I made an error in referring to Harvard Avenue / Street in Allston Village.

The straight bus option would be quite simple, just go out Comm. Ave. to Brighton Avenue, turn at Allston Village, to Cambridge Street to North Harvard, to Harvard Square, with grade separation at Harvard Stadium.

As they get fancier, the level of new construction increases dramatically.

The next level of complexity calls for turning off Commonwealth Avenue at Packard’s Corner on the street which hits the Packard's Corner intersection from the north. This would include a bridge over the Harvard owned railroad yard, a left turn, and up Cambridge Street. This proposal uses a new road Harvard is proposing on the major road which goes north from Cambridge Street between North Harvard and the river. Harvard is proposing that this road be upgraded and connect to North Harvard Street, I guess just before Harvard Stadium. This proposal includes a lot of grade separation on Harvard's upgraded street.

The extreme proposal would service Harvard Allston by a tunnel which starts at Mountfort Street. Mountfort Street is just south of the Mass. Pike connecting the BU Bridge spaghetti to Park Drive. The tunnel would start very close to St. Mary’s Street which ends at Marsh Chapel, the current core of the BU Campus. This location is the proposed location for an Urban Ring Rapid Transit stop in phase 3.

4. Summary.

The spaghetti in the BU Bridge - Harvard Medical Area is getting so massive it is silly to call the complicated options anything other than Phase III with the decision made for the worse of the two Charles River crossing options.

I spoke against the spaghetti.

Instead of connecting the Grand Junction Bridge to Commonwealth Avenue just west of BU Bridge, I suggested that area be used to connect to Harvard Allston. My proposal would put switches in the Green Line in this area and run a new street car line off Commonwealth Avenue just south of the Mass. Pike, following the Mass. Pike to the south to Harvard's railroad yards.

Such a green line spur would be far less intrusive than the Grand Junction connection. There is quite a bit of slack in this complicated intersection, and the location where the tracks would cross highway traffic can handle this added activity, particularly since the street cars would be going onto the existing tracks and not be added to the traffic pattern except to cross.

Read "From the Port" - On Censorship in the People's Republik

The following blog report is strongly recommended to you: http://fromtheport.blogspot.com/2007/03/veneer-of-civility.html.

It is from Kathy Podgers concerning very severe censorship being practised on the listserve of the "Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association."

I cannot say it better than she did.

White Goose Song from The Netherlands

Phil Barber reports as follows, Bob La Trémouille passing on with capitalization edits only, and responding as stated at the end:


1. Report from the Netherlands.
2. Phil Barber.
3. Your Editor.


1. Report from the Netherlands.

Hi Phil,

This morning at Dutch time, I published my third song for the album 'songs for fairy tails' called ' White Goose'.

The song is hidden under the word white goose. I have some errors running on my website,and don't know where to look. Some things may not work properly, sorry for that.if you like to hear the song without my voiceyou can listen to it at this location.

Thanx for the image and best regards,

Ferrie (artist name is differentieel)
notitieblogje.nl
ferrie@notitieblogje.nl

2. Phil Barber.

Hi Bob

Hope this finds you well. A fellow in the Netherlands (!) asked me for permission to use a photo of our friends on his Website, so their fame is spreading. Here's a copy of the e-mail he sent me, with address and particulars.

All the best,
Phil

3. Your Editor.

Thank you very much, Phil.

I have checked out the website. The photo is excellent.

I am not in a position to listen, but I will add your communication to the blog, along with a link. I think that would be ok with everybody.

Copying Elizabeth, among others, with a request that she add a link on the website.

Making the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association principal addressee to pass on this news through them. This is a very nice reaction, and a very common reaction in truly Green circles.

Marilyn's Letter to the Governor

As Bob La Tremouille reported previously here, the governor's proposed budget includes funds for the DCR's destruction of Magazine Beach.

Blog co-editor Marilyn Wellons delivered this letter to Governor Patrick's office by hand on Wednesday, March 14, 2007:

Dear Governor Patrick:

Please review and reject your budget item for the misconceived DCR project at Magazine Beach in Cambridge. It is a poison pill for the river and for your administration.

This boondoggle would destroy a fine public park and deprive us of passive open space and habitat for wildlife. It would substitute 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, an irrigation system, fences, and chemical-drenched sod for the beautiful fields there now. It would involve you in the destruction of parkland for the revival of the Inner Belt, a highway connecting the Mass. Pike and I-95 that Harvard University and others now work to create. These are toxic issues.

Chemical runoff from the project's prototype, "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" near Mass. General Hospital in Boston, gave us 2006's unprecedented algae bloom in the immediately adjacent Charles River. In 2005, the water there was clean enough for swimming. However, to maintain the 6 acres of new sod the DCR applied "Tartan" fungicide on August 8, 2006. The algae bloom was detected the next day, August 9, and was at astronomical levels by August 11. "We've never seen an algae bloom like this before," said a Charles River Watershed Association official quoted in the Boston Globe on August 16, 2006. Those 6 acres had never had an application of "Tartan" before, either--it's not approved for use near water.

At Magazine Beach, where proponents hope for swimming, the DCR--having learned nothing--is set, with your help, to replicate the disaster of the 6 acres downriver. The project in Cambridge will require the same fertilizers and herbicides as in Boston.

Further, "native" plants (a prior part of the project you would fund) already introduced at Magazine Beach have failed and will continue to fail, contrary to the hype for such items. The project removed sturdy natives planted by the birds, wind, and water, and has introduced purple loosestrife (never before seen at Magazine Beach), which thrives in disturbed soil. The DCR will work, unsuccessfully to eradicate it with herbicides when physical methods fail, as they will. Magazine Beach will thus get a continuing double dose of herbicides.

The DCR has previously failed to secure the funding you now would grant because the public does not support the destruction of this much-loved, undeveloped bend of the river.

The DCR acknowledges those riverfront acres at Magazine Beach are ordinarily rich wildlife habitat, but claims human activity has so altered them that they are no longer habitat. Any causal visitor to Magazine Beach can see this is a patent lie. Many thousands of people know and cherish their moments of calm here, in the midst of the city. The Mass. Pike, Storrow Drive, commuter rail, and the Boston skyline are in clear sight, but we can also gaze at the river, sky, and waterfowl. The DCR project will destroy this refuge for humans and animals alike.

The project has hidden implications. You may not be aware of plans for the Inner Belt, the highway river crossing to connect the Massachusetts Turnpike to I-95, cancelled in 1972 and now revived as the Urban Ring Phase 2, for the benefit of Harvard University, among other private entities. In 2003 the Pike Authority negotiated the sale of 51 acres (containing the Cambridge-Allston ramps and tolls, 3000' of the Pike, and the Beacon freight yards) to Harvard University. Harvard is working to move the Mass Pike exit from its 51 acres to the Inner Belt's proposed river crossing, i.e., the Magazine Beach-BU Bridge-Grand Junction rail bridge nexus. The move would free Harvard to develop its valuable new riverfront land for its own purposes.

The DCR development of Magazine Beach is part of the infrastructure for this new Pike exit. The 7-acre project will stabilize what the DCR calls a riverfront Magazine Beach "multipurpose path" whose specifications, on file at the Cambridge Department of Public Works, are for a two-lane road suitable for cars and small trucks. The DCR has temporarily shelved plans to connect Magazine Beach to the Grand Junction rail bridge under the BU Bridge via this service road.

Funding the DCR at Magazine Beach will allow it to restore the connection as well, of course, as destroy a unique public asset. The funds you would grant the DCR here is [sic] not for water-dependent activities! The quiet enjoyment of the river and its denizens--now in place, at no expense to the taxpayers, but in grave danger--is very much so.

Please remove this budget item and protect passive open space and wildlife habitat at Magazine Beach. Your administration would thus demonstrate its commitment to protecting the environment--by not destroying a successful public park.

Yours sincerely,
Marilyn Wellons

Governor budgets $235,601 for continued environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in Cambridge.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Governor Patrick has included $235,601 in his budget to proceed with the DCR / MDC’s strikingly irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. This project is so irresponsible that the DCR / MDC manager spent years flatly and simply lying about what he was doing.

The governor's budget for Magazine Beach destruction is specified in his budget for the Department of Conservation and Recreation. It is at http://mass.gov/budget/brec08/dpt08/hdcr.htm.

It is difficult to think of a project which by the terms that the proponent claims to stand for, has more to oppose it.

I today hand delivered the following letter to the Governor's Office (some edits added):

March 12, 2007

Governor Deval Patrick
State House, Beacon Hill
Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Patrick:

Your budget calls for $235,601 for continued environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in Cambridge.

Your have included $235,601 to proceed with the DCR / MDC’s strikingly irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. This project is so irresponsible that the DCR / MDC manager spent years flatly and simply lying about what he was doing. The details of your budget proposal call for environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in Cambridge as specified in the request for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

It is difficult to think of a project which by the terms that the proponent claims to stand for, has more to oppose it.

This is a project for a department which has claimed it is fighting for swimming in the Charles River. The department has proceeded to wall off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with a wall of designer plants which the DCR calls "native," but which are unfit for the Charles River. The DCR had major delays because its falsely native plants kept dying.

The DCR claims to be concerned about wetlands. The DCR spent many thousands of dollars destroying the wetlands at Magazine Beach to put in the designer plants. Then they put in an artificially created puddle several feet from the Charles River, the Bumpy Memorial Pool. This artificial pool was quite popular with the native Charles River White Geese and other aquatic birds in the area until, apparently, the geese sensed the death coming to Magazine Beach. The DCR calls this artificial pool wetlands.

The DCR’s "Charles River Master Plan" calls for a lawn stretching to the Charles River at Magazine Beach. But those designer plants directly conflict with their claimed wishes.

The Charles River White Geese have been the DCR’s most valuable possession in this part of the Charles River. The DCR recognized their importance by guaranteeing, repeatedly over a period of four years, that their project would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese. In September 2004, the DCR, simultaneously with the City of Cambridge, walled off the Charles River from the luscious grass that the Charles River White Geese had been eating for 26 years. The Charles River White Geese have been living in this one mile habitat centered on the BU Bridge throughout that 26 year period. In one big swoop, the DCR and the City of Cambridge took all their food away from them.

When asked how this starvation campaign fit his promise to do no harm, the manager stated that starving them is not harming them.

The DCR took a poll on the public’s opinion of the Charles River. A majority of respondents said do nothing. So the DCR is spending millions not just on the continuing outrage at Magazine Beach, but also in destroying between 449 and 660 trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.

The DCR’s explanation for the tree destruction translates as "Won’t it look great in 40 years!" Part of the mumbo jumbo is historical ranting for a history that never existed, and this non-existent history is their justification for destroying hundreds of trees, killing all the resident animals, and destroying all the wetlands.

The forthcoming project that you are funding fits the pattern. Normal human beings looking at Magazine Beach see no need to "improve" it. The concept is flatly and simply foreign to the sane viewer.

The plan of the DCR is to exacerbate the starvation they spent fours years denying they would do.

They are digging up all the grass at the Magazine Beach playing fields.

This is in furtherance of the DCR’s emphasis on water-related activities on the Charles River. But they are starving aquatic animals for "improvements" to athletic fields which are anything but water related and the "improvements" are a waste of money.

After digging up and removing all the grass and topsoil, the DCR intends to put in grass, plus topsoil, plus poisons, plus sprinklers. The sprinklers are needed to replace the wetlands which were destroyed to put in that wall of bushes which has no business on the Charles River.

This project follows on a similar equally "water related" project at Ebersol Fields near Massachusetts General Hospital.

Until this project, there was no need for poisons at Magazine Beach, but the DCR is putting in poisons. If the poisons do not work, they can be expected to receive similar treatment that the DCR did at Ebersol Fields. The DCR put in more powerful poisons, poisons labelled with prohibitions against use near water. The next day the Charles River was dead from the Mass. Ave. bridge to the harbor.

The most important real results of this project will be corporate welfare to the companies paid to do the project and a significantly worse situation at Magazine Beach.

The moral and fiscal bankruptcy of the work on the Charles River is nothing less than outrageous.

The key DCR people should be fired for their part in this project and for the lies which have gotten them this far.

The project should be killed and the money put toward open space expenditures which make sense.

It is my very strong hope that you will immediately reverse your support for this outrageous and wasteful project.

Sincerely,


Robert J. La Trémouille

Brown Beauty loses a daughter

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Over the winter, Brown Beauty, daughter of Bumpy, lost one of her two daughters, Little Girl.

Brown Beauty was hatched in 1996. Her parents were Bumpy, the long time leader of the gaggle, and his mate. She, through recessive genes, was for many years the only brown member of the gaggle of the White Geese. She bears markings similar to those of a Brown China Goose, and has the characteristic bump.

She, because of her distinctive looks and because of her very clear pride as the daughter of Bumpy, has long been a key part of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese.

Brown Beauty’s three sons from 1999 all had black wing tips and bore the distinctive look of White China Geese. She was training them for gaggle leadership. Her two daughters were less easy to spot.

Two of these sons have died. One died very quickly after being shot. The second was shot at the same time and apparently died of complications.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the third son continues to survive, has just become lost in the gaggle or is Brown Beauty’s mate.

I find the son / mate analysis hard to believe because she had the five babies by somebody and nobody has ever shown me that her current mate is different from her prior mate. Additionally, the three sons had black wing tips. The current mate does not have black wing tips.

With the winter’s death, one daughter survives.

Brown Beauty was one of the gaggle most severely hurt by the October 1999 destruction of the nesting area by Boston University acting on behalf of the DCR / MDC. The vegetation in the middle of the nesting area, in which she had nested, was destroyed. She was sufficiently disturbed that she did not nest in 2000.

In 2001, at one point her eggs were broken on her head. Later large scale nest destruction was accomplished by the DCR / MDC or by a functional equivalent entity. Brown Beauty defended her nest. Brown Beauty was beaten severely. At the same time as Bumpy was killed in July 2001, five other geese were severely beaten including Brown Beauty. More large scale nest destruction occurred in a subsequent year.

In 2003 and 2004, sickos from the Charles River Conservancy ran around poisoning eggs of the Charles River White Geese. This sick organization has poisoned every goose egg it could get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. These are the same guys who are destroying all the protective vegetation they can on the edge of the Charles River and who have threatened the lair of the Charles River White Ducks.

In 2006, Brown Beauty had a proud son, a real beauty whom I call Angel. Angel stands out with very distinct markings that I compare to a hood.

The CRUWI people think that L.C. who also hatched in 2005 is a son of Brown Beauty. He certainly looks similar to Brown Beauty. L.C. begs to differ since he does not consider Brown Beauty his mother.

Brown Beauty bore the several barren years from 1999 to 2005 not well. For a period in 2005, she showed symptoms of being mentally imbalanced because of her problems. Since she bore her beautiful son in 2006, she has regained her characteristic pride and excellent carriage.

By 2006, the vegetation in the middle of the goose meadow had finally regrown after the sick initial and continued destruction by BU / MDC / DCR / whoever is doing the dirty work. For the first time, Brown Beauty was able to nest where she nested in 1999. The geese get quite possessive of the places where they nest. Birth of their babies has great meaning to them. The result, in 2006, was Angel.

Brown Beauty’s deceased daughter, Little Girl also had two babies in the 2006 nesting season. They may have been adopted by Brown Beauty, but she would normally have a close relationship with her grandchildren.

Thank you to CRUWI for reporting on this distressing passing and on the 2006 grandchildren. I was aware of neither.

There was no apparent cause of Little Girl's death. One day Little Girl was alive and alert. The next day she was gone. It was during the coldest part of the winter, but her death was isolated. That is the way of the world.

Desolation at Cambridge Public Library Site.

1. The current status of the Cambridge Public Library Site.
2. Brief environmental context.
3. Frederick Rindge, the Library and High School Block.
4. The law suit.
5. Phase 2.
6. That is the way things are done in the City of Cambridge, MA.
7. After words.

Except for section 1, Bob La Trémouille reports the following.

1. The current status of the Cambridge Public Library Site.

Roy Bercaw reports:

Except for two large ones all of the trees in front of the Main Public Library campus are now gone, along with the pile of wood chips they generated.

2. Brief environmental context.

The Cambridge Public Library site is an excellent example of the environmental depravity of the Healy - Sullivan monarchy as Cambridge City Manager, dating back to 1974.

Differences now, however, include:

A. We have three city council incumbents who have run for office a environmentalists.

B. The entire city council loudly calls itself environmentalist.

C. Phase I of the Library site development was an isolated instance of environmental depravity.
Now it is part of a consistent pattern of large scale environmental depravity. The louder an incumbent calls him or herself an environmentalist, the greater I cringe.

3. Frederick Rindge, the Library and High School Block.

I will try to be as specific as I can be in my historical analysis, trying to avoid statements which may or may not be correct. In the 70's, I knew the history very well.

It is difficult to imagine a greater contributor of land and property to the City of Cambridge.
Frederick Rindge gave the City Hall to the City of Cambridge. I think he built it.

Frederick Rindge gave the Public Library site to the City of Cambridge. I am quite certain he built the oldest building in the public library. Rindge probably gave the sites to the east and west of the public library to the City of Cambridge and he probably gave buildings which were located on that site.

Rindge clearly gave the Public Library site to the City of Cambridge on condition that it be used for a Public Library and not for ordinary city purposes such as a school house.

The public library site extended from Broadway to Cambridge Street in the heart of the City of Cambridge. The public library site was the centerpiece of that part of the city and a library was a jewel in the middle of that centerpiece. The site visibly connected the two streets and was a unifying factor in the City of Cambridge.

There are now perhaps 10 massive trees located between the public library and Cambridge Street. They could very easily date back to the gift of Frederick Rindge in the late 18th Century. In the early 70's, there were 30 or more.

To the west of the public library site was Cambridge Rindge Technical School, a high school level trade school. The site was accumulated over the years and grew to fill the area between Broadway and Cambridge Street. Rindge Tech grew to fill that site.

On the east was Cambridge High School which consisted of two older buildings, the older of which, to the rear, was probably the gift of Frederick Rindge. In perhaps the 1950's, there was added in the northern part of the site a gymnasium / pool complex. Three to six houses continue to this day to site between the high school complex and the northeast corner of what would otherwise be a rectangle totally owned by the City of Cambridge.

4. The law suit.

In the 70's, the City of Cambridge wanted to modernize its high schools. The construction in the 70's decreased the land and floor space occupied by the high schools. The city could very easily have phased the construction to replace one high school building and then the other. The result would have been a campus style school centered on the public library and excellently using its open space.

Instead, the city combined the high schools on top of those century old trees.

I conducted a law suit on behalf of 10 taxpayers to save that excellent park based on the wishes of Frederick Rindge when he gave the city the Public Library site to "be used for a Public Library and not for ordinary city purposes such as a school house." In the middle of the suit, the state Supreme Judicial Court came down with a decision which seemed to change the law of public trust. The change was on an issue not really in dispute in the case, but the words were said. So in the middle of the case, I was faced with a case that had to go to the Supreme Judicial Court to correct that language. The language was corrected the way I expected it would be, in the 80's.

I got a preliminary injunction against destruction of that excellent woods on appeal, which was generally considered next to impossible. At one point, my case was simultaneously in front of the Superior Court, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court. On consecutive days, at one point, I had hearings in front of two different levels of Court, fully briefed.

We were faced with a judge at Superior Court who decided as a matter of "fact" that the excellent woods on the Broadway portion were not open space, were not a park. The judge, as a matter of factual finding, found that the wooded open space was part of the public library and was thus not available for protection under state law protecting open space.

I could have appealed and won on legal issues. The finding by the judge that, as a matter of "fact," that excellent park was not a park killed the law suit and killed the park.

Two buildings were built on top of those excellent trees.

An undeveloped expanse of grass was created where the two Cambridge High School buildings had stood on Broadway. Large numbers of trees were constructed between the Public Library and Broadway.

Broadway residents stabbed their neighbors in the back for the benefit of this blood money.
But the large expense of grass was OBVIOUSLY land banking.

5. Phase 2.

When phase 2 was announced, in that open space, the back stabbers fought to defend their blood money. They lost.

If those neighbors had not stabbed their neighbors, their neighborhood and their city in the back, the excellent open space which Rindge had created and demanded to continue would have been laid out such that further construction would have been impossible.

But the back stabbers gave the open space destroyers the position they needed to go forward.
As Roy said in the beginning, the magnificent collection of trees which were in front of the library in the first place and which were added as part of the blood money in the 70's has been destroyed except for two trees.

6. That is the way things are done in the City of Cambridge, MA.

Thank you, Roy.

7. After words.

For what it is worth, this report is being posted off the Public Internet connection in the temporary public library.

Charles River White Ducks still search for a replacement for their irresponsibly destroyed home

Bob La Trémouille reports:

It looks like I may have been wrong in reporting that the Charles River White Ducks found a new lair.

A tiny minority of very destructive people have led me to cling to pretty much any straw. It is entirely possible I saw two Charles River White Geese setting up nesting and, with nobody to compare for size near them, I incorrectly assumed they were Andrake and Daffney. Andrake and Daffney are BIG ducks, not as large as the Charles River White Geese, but nevertheless quite big.

This afternoon, the Charles River White Geese pretty much filled the destroyed nesting area, looking around for places to call home.

The Charles River is thawing. It never fully froze. There is a lot of free water under the Grand Junction railroad bridge. The ice next to the destroyed nesting area still is separated from the shore in the same spot it has been throughout the coldest part of the river, but now it is a big sheet of ice with free water beyond.

Most of the ice sheet was occupied by mallard ducks, with a couple of white geese and one sole gander. On the furthest point were the Charles River White Ducks.

The situation on the Charles River is the same as in Cambridge, MA. Some very destructive hypocrites are doing a lot of damage. The hypocrites on the Charles River are agents of the state bureaucrats who run the place. All have contempt for nature and aggressively are destroying nature.

The vegetation which has protected the Charles River White Ducks since their freedom has been destroyed by these sickos, the Charles River Conservancy. This vegetation is part of a well established wild part of the Boston side of the Charles River very close to Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road. The vegetation has vastly improved the view from the Cambridge side because it hid the highway. This vegetation has been terrific for water born animals.

But we have sick people with contempt for nature and for the Charles River. The Charles River Conservancy destroys, destroys, destroys. They fit in very nicely with the Cambridge City Council.

The Charles River White Ducks find a new lair

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have frequently reported on the status of the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney.

They were abandoned at Magazine Beach last summer on the day before our memorial for Bumpy the leader of the gaggle, on the fifth anniversary of his very political killing. During the celebration a sick alleged human being loosed his dog on them. I saved the two. I used the dog as a football when he had his teeth on Andrake's neck.

Bill Naumann taught them what the Charles River was for. He backed into the Charles River while feeding them. They followed him and were overjoyed by their discovery of the Charles River. They established a lair under vegetation on the south side which has since been destroyed by sickos from the Charles River Conservancy.

I was very pleased today to get the impression that they have a new lair. It looks very safe and could be a good place for baby ducks to hatch.

*********

Caveat: I have been putting out reports on the Charles River since March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to the Destroyed Nesting Area to learn that sickos from Boston University had destroyed in on behalf of the DCR/MDC.

My reports since then, combining email newsletters and this blog, have easily exceeded 700.

One thing I have always done is realize that there are truly reprehensible people in this world: Boston University, the state bureaucrats, the Cambridge City Council, and loads of people who are either pulling their strings or having their strings pulled.

Given this truly belligerent, but very destructive, minority, I have been extremely careful about divulging information which could lead to harm to the animals of the Charles River if the wrong sicko got that information.

I am not going to say any more about the new location of the lair of the Charles River White Ducks.

Thank you.

Cambridge Chronicle - Odd Environmental Actions

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Recent Environmental Destruction.
2. This week's Cambridge Chronicle.
A. Silver Maple Forest.
B. Fake Environmental Group.
3. Proposed letter to the Editor, Silver Maple, Fake Environmental Group in Context.
4. Existing Record of the City of Cambridge and its "Groups."
5. The Bad Guys respond.
6. Cambridge Chronicle prints letter.

1. Recent Environmental Destruction.

A couple of weeks ago we reported about strikingly irresponsible tree destruction coming in the City of Cambridge.

The Cambridge Chronicle promptly dispatched a photographer who took some excellent photos of Kathy Podgers, her companion dog and me under eight excellent and threatened trees. Their reporter interviewed me on Friday, Monday (the photo session) and Tuesday.

But nothing appeared in that Thursday's issue and what appeared in today's issue is exactly the opposite.

2. This week's Cambridge Chronicle.

A. Silver Maple Forest.

They printed a letter concerning the planned private destruction of the silver forest in Belmont / Cambridge near Alewife and Cambridge Highlands. Excellent letter. Writer with strikingly problematic record.

B. Fake Environmental Group.

They devoted an entire section front page to a new, fake green group.

The group claims to be pro-environment, but could give a damn less about the massive environmental destruction ongoing by their friends, the City of Cambridge. But they love fancy light bulbs.

Interestingly, they look like friends of incumbent Cambridge City Councilors. Standard position of the Cambridge City Council: "How dare you look at our massive environmental destruction. Look at our fancy light bulbs."

3. Proposed letter to the Editor, Silver Maple, Fake Environmental Group in Context.

I just submitted the following proposed letter to the editor, some edits added:

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

I appreciated the letter about the impact of proposed construction on Route 2 on Cambridge Highlands. That is a very major concern, but it must be placed in context.

The context is that the greatest environmental threat is irresponsible environmental behavior by the City of Cambridge and its friends in the state bureaucracy.

Cambridge Highlands is across the street from the Fresh Pond Reservation. Cambridge is in the process of destroying thousands of trees at the Fresh Pond Reservation. The reason is that Cambridge wants to put in saplings so that Cambridge can brag about all the saplings that Cambridge has installed without mentioning the healthy, mature trees destroyed to put in saplings.

At Alewife, next to the private project on Route 2, Cambridge plans massive environmental destruction of near virgin woodlands to put in a drainage tank which should be installed under a parking lot about 500 feet to the south.

Hundreds of trees are being destroyed on the Charles River along with all wetlands and all animal habitat.

Pretty much every city project starts with the destruction of trees, almost all the destruction not only unnecessary but silly. Street trees and trees in new construction are constantly destroyed, even the largest.

The city's response to objections about their environmental destuction? The city's friends create "green" groups which could care less about massive government destruction of the green, but the "green" groups love their fancy light bulbs. But they sound so good while their friends at the city and state aggressively destroy Cambridge's green heritage.

4. Existing Record of the City of Cambridge and its "Groups."

Cambridge is a very active community.

The City of Cambridge started creating grass roots groups back in the 70's. They would talk with their friends and their friends would create the groups.

It was not at all surprising that the friends would work to make these groups as fake as possible, that is work to make the supposed grass roots organizations work to accomplish the dirty tricks that the City of Cambridge is trying to do.

There are all sorts of lovely techniques to make a group look real and to have it be REALLY FAKE. But the fake groups can be used to achieve their supposed purposes because, usually, there are more real people in the group than there are fakes, but you are fighting against major, very real institutional obstacles.

Thus groups which give the impression of being created to control the government in reality act to control the activists.

In the middle of this reprehensible situation are fake environmental groups.

I have no problems if friend of the Cambridge City Council want to run around fighting for fancy light bulbs. I just expect their groups to be honestly named.

"The Group Fighting for Fancy Light Bulbs" sounds like an excellent name.

"Greenport" strikes me as a name which is a flat out lie for a group which is managed to prevent defense of the Green when the friends of the organizers (city councilors) are aggressively destroying the Green in Cambridge.

And there is no way the organizers of these fake green organizations will name their groups in an honest manner.

But this is business as usual in Cambridge.

Reprehensible, for all practical purposes fraudulent, but business as usual.

5. The Bad Guys respond.

I have discussed the above analysis of this alleged Green organization with one of its founders.

Her response was to give them a few years and see how they look. That, to me, sounded like just another con in a city very consistent for its con jobs.

I passed on to the Cambridgeport list an announcement from an incipient Green organization in Allston in which the incipient Green organization was talking about all sorts of Green things.

But this Cambridge "Green" organization is talking about fancy light bulbs and is very visibly being organized by people who don’t want to hear about REAL Green issues in Cambridge.

And their friends on the Cambridge City Council have consistently used this fraud on the voters of claiming environmental sainthood, but the only sainthood they have is fancy lightbulbs.

Do I think it is just an extension of the environmental fraud on the Cambridge City Council? Of course, I do.

And they would not even dream of using an honest name for their fancy light bulb group.

6. Cambridge Chronicle prints letter.

My original draft of the letter in section 3 was printed by the Cambridge Chronicle in its March 1, 2006, edition, at page 10. The title they gave was "Trees are more important than light bulbs." The letter printed, being the original draft, has differences from what I have given you above, but does not differ at the bottom line.

The Cambridge Chronicle printed the letter close to an op-ed piece by another of Cambridge's "Green" groups which could care less about Cambridge's and the state bureaucrats' ongoing destruction of Cambridge's green heritage.

The "Green" group's piece said pretty much nothing, as usual. They did not even mention their fancy light bulbs.

Flooding of Innocent Victims - Reality impacts Harvard's Application for Sainthood

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have recently quoted a number of comments about Harvard University in a report quoting extensively from the Cambridgeport (Cambridge) listserve.

The following is a report today from the Riverside (Cambridge) listserve. I have added paragraphing and nothing else.

The Mahoney's site is just west of Western Avenue across Memorial Drive from the Charles River. The neighborhood got shafted with an outrageous upzoning to maximize Harvard's development potential there. Key people in the shafting sounded tremendously like the people I was calling "Bad Guy 1" and "Bad Guy 2" in my report.

Riverside Place is between Western Avenue and the part of the project Lawrence is mostly mentioning. Actually, the Harvard project is on both sides of Western Avenue

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

From Lawrence Adkins:

Today I was with the Ashe Family who has ran into some bad luck.

This is the family living on Riverside Place Street, directly behind the former Mahoney site. The home on the street is flooded with 3 ft. of water in there basement.

They called Ed Laflore (Harvard mitigation manager) to be told that when he gets to work on Tuesday he will see what can be done. If you recall some of our concerns were the lack of proper drainage due to the ADA cross walks, this trapped the rain water on the entire street. The Ashes' are renting a pump to get the water out of the basement.

I did call Tom Lucey (Harvard Director of Community Relations), only able to leave a message. Someone from the University told the Ashes they did have access to a pump.

This is strange with the university having their power station directly across the street.

Boston Globe Photo, CRUWI, Report from the Charles River

Roy Bercaw reports:

In Saturday's Boston Globe, February 10, 2007, on page B2 there is a picture of Alison Bleyler feeding the geese. No story just a picture.

Bob responds:

For the interest of our visitors, Alison Bleyler is one of the two key people in the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, the people feeding the Charles River White Geese and other free animals in need on the Charles River.

I said hello to her and to Bill Naumann, the other leader, just yesterday afternoon at the Goose Meadow. She was crouched at the river's edge. She happily pet one gander on his way to the river. We exchanged our mutual pleasure at how well Andrake and Daffney, the Charles River White Ducks are doing. They were abandoned on Magazine Beach in July. They was so unsophisticated that they did not even know what the Charles River was for. Bill enticed them into the river by backing into it while feeding them. They are now surviving well. As things have frozen in, they have moved close to the goose meadow while only nominally entering on its land. I have seen them hopping on and off the first row of rocks, which Allison says the extent of their entry into the meadow. Their caution allows CRUWI to watch and assist them as necessary.

Today things are thawing, but even yesterday, after many days of bitter cold, the water near the goose meadow had a lot of unfrozen areas. The white geese can be seen in those unfrozen areas in the morning and they tend to vary their behavior during the rest of the day.

This morning, walking along the on ramp to Memorial Drive, a main road parallel to the Charles, I was surprised to see ganders on the railroad tracks just downriver from the goose meadow. The railroad tracks are normally not an area they consider in their habitat EXCEPT during mating season when the ganders gather and prance.

Early spring from their mentality? Not at all impossible.

But 4 to 7 inches of snow are predicted for tomorrow. The Charles River White Geese are very accustomed to it. CRUWI, very certainly, will be watching the Charles River White Ducks. I will keep an eye out as well, but CRUWI is more important.

Public Hearing on Tree Destruction: Cambridge Protecting Its Environment from Trees?

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.
A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.
B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.
2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.
A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.
B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.
C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.
D. Memorial Drive plans.
E. Cherry Trees.
3. Summary.

Wednesday evening, February 7, 2007, I attended the public hearing on tree destruction in Harvard Square and behind the Hyatt Regency near Memorial Drive.

1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.

A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.

The City of Cambridge's Development Department defended the destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square on two grounds:

(1) The trees are in the way of their beautiful pavers (fancy bricks) that they are using to replace the cobble stones.

(2) Trees block light.

B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.

As near as I can gather, the Development Department and the City Arborist justified moving / destroying all but one tree on Church Street to make Church Street more compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Trouble is they are moving the trees closer to the existing buildings. How moving / replacing trees to get them closer to existing buildings increases the ADA's wish to make room for wheel chairs is beyond me.

But then I find the Development Departments explanation for Palmer Street flatly and simply sick.

2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.

Sixteen trees are being destroyed on Vassar Street. Eight are being destroyed at the demand of MIT, eight at the demand of the City Arborist.

A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.

All sorts of lovely reasons were given for MIT's eight.

The reason MIT really pushed at the end was that the trees are in the way of MIT's lovely bike path.

Additionally, MIT is widening the sidewalk and does not want trees in the middle of their lovely new sidewalk.

B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.

The City Arborist is the one fighting for the destruction of those eight magnificent trees behind the Hyatt Regency. These magnificent eight trees grew over the street and have massive root systems in place to support that growth. The city arborist is afraid they will fall over. And he is going to replace them with saplings.

But those trees have only been able to grow in one direction. The buildings are at the lot line. It is very obvious that, as the trees grew, their root system grew, and the root system, of necessity grew to hold up the trees. This argument is an argument against putting trees in districts where buildings are allowed to the lot line.

But then, the Development Department representative was very serious when she said she was destroying every tree on Palmer Street because trees block light (and are in the way of her lovely bricks, oh, I beg your pardon, pavers).

To my point of view, the city does not want to embarrass MIT. MIT is putting in a lot of saplings. Those massive trees would make MIT's saplings look small. So the massive trees "have to go."

Cambridge cannot have its eight mature street trees overwhelming MIT's baby street trees.

C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.

The arborist gave other, technical reasons for destruction.

The reality is that the city has a bad reputation with regard to saving street trees.

I hear these other, lovely reasons. They sound oh so technical and oh so impressive.

The trouble, among other things, is the timing. How is that the city has suddenly gotten so concerned about these matters at the same time as MIT is rebuilding Vassar Street?

I know of other excellent street trees in the way of "improvement" which were casually destroyed and suddenly disappeared and got out of the developer's way.

I am not at all comfortable with findings which, to put it as delicately as possible, certainly look self-serving on the part of the City of Cambridge.

They are excellent trees. Period.

D. Memorial Drive plans.

This portion of Vassar Street hits Memorial Drive across from a thick woods which is slated for destruction. To the west of the woods is the goose meadow of the Charles River White Geese. Sickos from the City of Cambridge and the state bureacracy have aggressively starved them and propose to destroy pretty much all those trees as well.

The eight massive trees are on the north side of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The south side faces on the Charles River and Memorial Drive.

The plans are to destroy more than 449 to 660 trees from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach. Across from the Hyatt and going east to the split of Memorial Drive, off the top of my head approximately 85 out of 110 trees are being destroyed.

The state bureacrats and their buddies explain the destruction on the grounds that Memorial Drive will look great in 40 years.

A thick woods just before the Memorial Drive split is slated for destruction. The woods is in the way of their lovely bike path. The Memorial Drive split is a block or two east of the Hyatt.

E. Cherry Trees.

Vassar Street is slated to have a number of young cherry trees planted.

The state bureaucrats are destroying every cherry tree on Memorial Drive from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach because cherry trees are not the IN tree this week.

This is being done in collusion with MIT and the City of Cambridge. You will recall that a Cambridge planner justified destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square because trees block light.

3. Summary.

Business as usual in the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.

Respect for Law, Harvard University and the City of Cambridge

Bob La Trémouille reports:

A. Bad Guy #1.
B. Roy Bercaw.
C. Bad Guy #2.
D. Response of Roy Bercaw.
E. Bad Guy #1 again.
F. Roy Bercaw.
G. Terry McKay - Which side is Bad Guy on?
H. Your Editor.

The following exchange occurred on a local listserve. I am not positive what the omissions refer to. The omissions are not from me. Passed on because I like Roy’s and Terry's input, obviously.

This report has expanded and expanded as good comments have come from good guys. The bad guy comments are reported to maintain context. I have kept in some comments by me which are now dated, once again to provide context.

Based on comments from Jeff Manzelli, I have added some commas to Roy's input, corrected one or two spellings and split one run-together sentence. Thank you Jeff.

Actually I think I made one comparable edit to Bad Guy #2 as well, and I may have corrected a spelling in Bad Guy #1.

It should be noted that, as of this point (February 15), at least three other people have jumped on Bad Guy #1. I am getting tired of this line and this entry really has gotten as large as I want it to get.

It, however, is a very major item of pleasure to me to see so many people doing so much good on that listserve right now. Roy Bercaw deserves very major praise for his efforts.

[Added 2/16/07] I gave in. Item H is my response to all the nice comments, with a couple of edits.

A. Bad Guy #1.

1. The complaints about the former Mahoney's site and Radisson sound similarly overblown. [Ed. The Mahoney’s site is a Harvard project going up just west of Western Avenue on the North Side of Memorial Drive. Truly outrageous stunts were pulled to obtain an upzoning there a few years ago. The Radisson site received its own upzoning last year, I believe. It is across from the Magazine Beach Swimming Pool. The usual characters ran around getting both upzonings, although the latter featured a smaller number of the usual characters] [...]

2. The Allston opponents of Harvard expansion will never be satisfied. If the sites were going to be developed privately rather than by Harvard, there would be similar "noise, air, and visual pollution," without a lengthy public meeting and comment process. [...]

3. Stem cell research and other biological research is actually not that controversial, especially in Massachusetts, and concerns about protests or threats are both unlikely and premature, given the early planning stage.

4. Harvard has dozens of plans out, newspaper articles, websites, meetings, etc. but apparently that is not enough for them to be considered "forthcoming. "

B. Roy Bercaw.

1. The legal process for the Mahoney's site was corrupted about 22 times. The Open Meetings Law was violated about 20 times. The permanent easement for the land under Hingham Street was transferred to Harvard before the City complied with the Procurement Act, another state law violation. The City's ordinance on transferring city land to a private person was ignored because of Harvard's offer of affordable housing.

2. Harvard is a private developer. All developers must go through a public process. What rules are you thinking about?

3. Like stem cell research abortion, is not controversial in Massachusetts. Yet there are regular protests.

4. The idea of Harvard being forthcoming depends upon the beholder, like beauty. Historically they never made neighbors aware of their plans. It is a major reason for much of the distrust among Cambridge residents. It is why at University Relations Committee meetings the facilitator bars negative comments, preventing the search for truth and any ability to correct past abuses.

C. Bad Guy #2.

1. Let's keep recall Cambridge is what is is mostly because of Harvard. Denying that would be a stretch.

2. Not sure about the details of how the legal processes were corrupted or which laws were violated, but it would be great if specifics could be provided. Otherwise, the comments are likely to be dismissed as zany opinion, at least by this member. [...]

3. I kind of liken it to the way President Clinton responded about his use of marijuana or his relations with "that woman." [...] I'd understand if Harvard were to do the same.

4. Anyway, I think Cambridge is such a thriving city in part becuase of Harvard and MIT and the trickle down effects [...]

Thank you.

[Bad Guy #2]

D. Response of Roy Bercaw.

1. Now that the working class has been forced out of Cambridge, and all of the factories have left and are being converted into upscale condos, yes, Harvard and MIT and the Biotech companies are what remains of Cambridge. But the charm and the safety is also gone replaced by uncaring yuppies who worship Harvard and MIT and the Biotech companies. That is not what made Cambridge unique.

2. If I took the time to repeat all of the details, the "member" would also think of it as "zany." So let's save my time, and leave him with his fantasy view of the legal process between Harvard and the city facilitators.

3. Actually the comparison of Harvard to Clinton's follies is a good one for different reasons. Until Summers resigned, five top administrators were former Clinonistas. If I don't name them for you will you think that is "zany" also?

4. "Trickle down effects?" Now that's a great system of sharing that always worked in this country.

E. Bad Guy #1 again.

[Ed. I have had past experiences with Bad Guy #1 in the past in which he kept tossing in personal insult after personal insult after personal insult.

[I find Bad Guy #1's subsequent response falling into the same level of lack of meaning, but Roy responded to it again. I will not follow this line any more. If we get constructive add-on's, I will further amend. Otherwise, this is it.]

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

1. And? If whatever they supposedly did was so egregious, why didn't you and all of the other frequent opponents do something about it then?

2. Harvard voluntarily has gone above and beyond what is required of it and what the average private developer does.

3. Abortion is much more controversial than stem cell research, in Massachusetts and everywhere else. Have you ever seen a stem cell research protest at a research lab in Massachusetts?

4. I have yet to see anything of much benefit come out of these meetings, certainly not the "search for truth," as you called it, and I am rather busy, so I generally don't have time to attend. This also goes to Carolyn's very fair point about my anonymity, but I don't believe understanding these local issues requires first-person interaction and attendance at every community meeting.

F. Roy Bercaw.

1. At Harvard and other institutions, there are well-paid men and women who spend their time teaching people like you history. There are as you may have noticed many different versions of history. Seldom are the official versions accurate. But it usually takes 50 or 100 years for the truth to be revealed.

2. You report Harvard's version of history. Harvard promotes your version and denies all others.

3. You report your version of what is more controversial.

4. No one else is busy. In fact all of us have nothing to do, so we go to meetings and then we make up stories for others about what happened at the meetings. If you weren't there we can say what we want because you are too busy to check. And anyway those of us who don't have anything else to do, we represent you and all the others who are too busy to go to the meetings. Sometimes, we get 150 votes each because so few people show up.

That is what we did in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. You didn't listen when Woody Allen said, 90 percent of life is just showing up. I always show up because I'm never busy. I'm bored and never have anything to do.

I never sleep either, no time, too many meetings. I just wait for people who are too busy so I can tell them all of what happened over the past five years at the meetings so they don't have to attend.

Thanks for explaining what happened and what we should do for you. We are here to serve you better.


Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM P.O. Box 400297
Cambridge MA 02140 USA [...]

G. Terry McKay - Which side is Bad Guy on?

[Ed. I said the above was the last one. Well, I will try this for the last. Paragraphing added by ed.]

It's curious to me that some on this listserve feel that we (the commuity) should feel beholden to Harvard University and sit holding our breath....for the 'trickle down' of good things that come when a major University is within ones community. We should be happy that Harvard gobbles up any and every parcel of land that it can get its hand on and then proceeds to overdevelop it...frequently as the powers that be at Harvard smile and tell the community "we will work with you...this will be good for your neighborhood. "

Well Mr. Listserve individual (who shall remain un-named)some of us have been around long enough to know how things really work when Harvard is involved. And although it may be hard to comprehend, some of us have nothing at all to do with Harvard and are not so impressed with this University and its tactics. Some are concerned about something called 'quality of life' and how the areas that we inhabit are effected by things such as overdevelopment, benefit to the community as a whole, affordable housing, parking,etc. This is why we take time out of our busy lives (yes, we're busy too)and try to keep tabs on what is happening within our community and how it will effect us.

Your being on this listserve would suggest that you too care about the community in some way but your words suggest something else....curious?

Terry McKay

H. Your editor.

I have done a lot of leafletting at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

You will recall that Boston University, in October 1999, as agent for the DCR/MDC destroyed the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. They started their actions BEFORE a meeting of the Cambridge Conservation Commission to discuss it. BU then DENIED doing the destruction until the CCC condemned their destruction. BU then blamed all the false denials of the secretary to their president.

It was a pleasure talking to normal people at the Destroyed Nesting Area, and most people were normal people. They sounded strikingly different from TWO people telling us how great Harvard is.

Then there were several people who sounded strikingly similar to the TWO people telling us how great Harvard is.

Oh, these people sounded so terrific. They would toss out one piece of nonsense after another piece of nonsense after a piece of blatant insults at the geese.

They would offer to resolve all our problems with fast solutions which sounded so great, unless you knew what they were really talking about.

I have seen people with similar smoothness destroy citizen zoning initiative after citizen zoning initiative. They always sound so great, and they are always so destructive.

I have read the thread of the responses to the TWO people who tell us how great Harvard is.

I have counted with pleasure the many people who have stood up to the TWO.

Thank you to all of you.

Massive Tree Destruction Proposed Behind Hyatt Regency; Blocks to be destroyed in Harvard Square

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. The legal advertisement.
3. "Public hearing."
4. Vassar Street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
A. General.
B. Importance to the Charles River White Geese and other Water Fowl.
C. Outrageous destruction proposed.
5. Harvard Square.
A. Recent History in Harvard Square.
B. The latest make work project in Harvard Square.
C. Palmer Street and Church Street.
(1) General.
(2) Reality at Palmer and Church Streets.
6. Key motivation in an environmentally repulsive City of Cambridge, MA.

1. Introduction.

This is an update of a report issued a couple of days ago. I have already corrected some typos.

I just viewed what is being destroyed behind the Hyatt.

One of the biggest hypocrisies in the City of Cambridge is the city and its pols’ belligerent claim to environmental sainthood.

The large scale environmental destruction ongoing or pending on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond and at Alewife are excellent large scale examples of their very destructive hypocrisy.

The reality, however, is that in pretty much every public works project of any scope, the first thing that happens is tree destruction.

2. The legal advertisement.

The February 2, 2007 Cambridge Tab at the bottom of page 19 announces a "public hearing" in front of a City Manager appointee on the destruction of a lot of street trees.

It announces that they are considering destroying two 8 inch Norway Maples, an 18 inch, a 14 inch, an 18 inch, and a 13 inch Norway maple, two 12 inch Honey Locusts and 18 inch, 17 inch, 18 inch, 19 inch, 19 inch, 21 inch, 22 inc, and 20 inch Norway maples. All of these are being destroyed as part of "improvement" of Vassar Street between the Charles River and the MIT campus.

Some have "pruning damage." Guess whose friends did the pruning damage?

It also announces destruction in Harvard Square.

It announces destruction of five 3 inch dbh Ginkgo trees and one 12 inch dbh norway maple trees on the short Palmer Street. No sickness. No reason given except: "to be removed as part of the Palmer Street reconstruction."

The same advertisement states that the adjoining Church Street is proposed to see the excavation of eight 2 to 5 inch Gingkos to "recenter" them in the tree pit if possible. Golly gee, the trees are not centered in their tree pits. No thought to rearranging the tree pits. They are going to move the trees, IF POSSIBLE.

3. "Public hearing."

If you feel like talking with an appointee of the Cambridge City Manager to discuss whether the Cambridge City Manager should casually destroy even more trees, the "public hearing" is scheduled for February 7, 2007, at 5:30 pm in the conference room at 147 Hampshire Street, Cambridge, the city’s public works department. Comments are expected in writing.

4. Vassar Street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

A. General.

The reason for the rewrite and republication of this report is that I just drove up Vassar Street near the Charles River. I had deprecated the destruction of the Vassar Street trees in the prior report because I figured the trees were in the heart of the MIT Campus between Mass. Ave. and Main Street, an area which has seen major street work.

B. Importance to the Charles River White Geese and other Water Fowl.

The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts on part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

The Charles River White Geese fed on the banks of the Charles River across from the Hyatt Regency for 25 years. In 2004, the City of Cambridge did a sewerage project there.

When Cambridge was done, Cambridge left a wall barring access from the Charles River. The wall had nothing to do with the sewerage project and plenty to do with an environmentally really sick city government.

That wall continued to bar access until sickos from the Charles River Conservancy wiped out the riverfront vegetation. But by then, the Charles River White Geese had been trained that there was no food for them there.

At the same time as Cambridge created this wall across from the Hyatt Regency, Cambridge and the state bureacrats created another wall blocking access to Magazine Beach from the Charles River.

100% of the 25 year food of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously taken away from them.

This is a city in which the city and nine city councilors constantly claim environmental sainthood.

Massive tree destruction is proposed by state bureacrats friendly with the City of Cambridge on the banks of the Charles River across from and within a block or so from the Hyatt Regency. Planned tree destruction is between 80 and 90 of about 110 trees. Trees were destroyed as part of the sewerage project.

C. Outrageous destruction proposed.

One block off the Charles River is a row of eight magnificent street trees directly behind the block containing the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

These trees cover Vassar Street. Truly excellent.

Certainly there is pruning damage.

These excellent trees are so large that the buildings next to them are in the way of their normal limb growth. The buildings are built to the sidewalk.

Similarly, they have been pruned to allow for utility wires.

Most definitely the limbs are totally over the street, but they are really over the street. Massive, beautiful trees covering an entire block of Vassar Street. Clearly, they must have massive roots. There is no way these magnificent trees are dangerous.

But Cambridge has an environmentally sick City Government.

Cambridge’s city government routinely destroys excellent trees to make work for its contractor buddies.

These excellent trees fall into that category.

I see three less large trees about a block closer to the MIT campus which are also marked.

Clearly healthy, fine trees and quite mature, just not as massive as the eight behind the Hyatt. I am not certain where the other trees in the advertisement are.

Naturally, the hypocrites will brag of the saplings they put in to replace excellent trees.

Alleged "hearing" as stated above.

5. Harvard Square.

A. Recent History in Harvard Square.

A couple of years ago, the city showed its contempt for the environment in the Brattle Square part of Harvard Square in a small park next to the Harvard Square Hotel. This little park was constructed as part of the Red Line extension a couple of decades ago. Its trees were just reaching adult beauty.

Scorched earth destruction of all of these twelve healthy trees was followed by replacement with an equal number of saplings. The city’s brags of saplings. The city calls healthy trees destroyed to plant saplings "irrelevant." Nine destructive city councilors call themselves "environmentalists."

B. The latest make work project in Harvard Square.

Cambridge’s Harvard Square is in the middle of yet another contractor make work project. Most visible NOW is ongoing construction on Mt. Auburn Street near the Harvard Lampoon building. The city is putting in a strikingly useless traffic island. The most important "benefit" of that traffic island is that it forces yet more traffic through the heart of Harvard Square. It partially blocks a short cut to get through Harvard Square from central to west Cambridge. The short cut still exists. It is just necessary to drive an additional two blocks in the core part of Harvard Square.

The reality of these bizarre projects does not come when they are announced since the City Manager and nine city councilors keep tree destruction secret when announcing projects. The reality comes with the chain saws or in the legal notices should you read legal notices.

C. Palmer Street and Church Street.

(1) General.

In the fine print legal ad on February 2, 2007, the Cambridge Tab dropped the other shoe on one of the silliest parts of the Harvard Square boondoggle: Palmer Street and Church Street.
Cambridge's friend, the DCR / MDC, claims to be destroying hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive in the name of a history that never existed.

The Palmer Street project destroys the last cobble stone street in Harvard Square (and probably the last in Cambridge) to replace cobble stones with bricks.

Palmer Street is one short block out of Harvard Square proper. It is a one block long street which connects the beginning of Brattle Street to Church Street. Palmer Street is parallel to the highly visible leg of Massachusetts Avenue between the Coop and the MBTA subway entrance.
Palmer Street is a very quiet street. It sees a few pedestrians and almost no cars although it is located in the middle of a thriving municipal square. Those cobble stones, when they were maintained, were absolutely beautiful.

The idea of spending money to destroy a cobble stone street to replace the cobble stones with brick is so bizarre as to be flat out sick, but that is the part of the project they are bragging about.

(2) Reality at Palmer and Church Streets.

I looked at the logging site just before the prior publication of this, now modified, report.

This make work project will destroy EVERY tree on the one block Palmer Street.

There is only one tree on the two block Church Street which is not posted for destruction. That one tree has grown at a 60 degree angle to the ground rather than the usual 90 degree angle. It is entirely possible that this tree simply could not hold the notice given its odd growth.

As far as the tree pits go, if this were not part of a long time record of environmental irresponsibility, the claim of concern for centering would be downright silly.

6. Key motivation in an environmentally repulsive City of Cambridge, MA.

The obvious key to both projects is the city's tax for creating new open space. The voters approved the tax because the voters want new open space. The city manager does not want new open space. New open space takes property off the tax rolls. So the City Manager and City Council churn the existing environment, destroying healthy trees and bragging about saplings.
But people who look connected to Cambridge City Councilors are creating "Green" groups in the City of Cambridge, MA. The "Green" groups just could care less about massive destruction of the Green in the City of Cambridge. "Don't look at the destruction. Look at the fancy light bulbs."

Take a peak at the construction / logging zones before they are accomplished.

PARTICULARLY look at the block behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

The block does not have the political importance of the blocks in Harvard Square which are not particularly large trees.

The destruction of that block just constitutes truly sick environmental behavior.
And nine environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors and their fake "green" groups will simply not want to know what is going on.

Sick, bizarre? That is the way the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, is.

The Bad Guys brag of Environmental Sainthood on The Charles River - Response

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The February 1, 2007 issue of the Cambridge Chronicle printed a letter from a representative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He bragged about the efforts of MIT and its friends, including the Charles River Conservancy to clean up the Charles River and to otherwise "improve" the Charles River.

I have offered the following letter in response.

**********

I appreciated the letter from MIT emphasizing the need for cooperation in returning the Charles to a healthy environment.

MIT lauded the swim-in media event at Magazine Beach in July 2005 as an example of going in the right direction.

Only a brief look at Magazine Beach will show that the animal habitat and wetlands is now gone as a result of the effort praised by that swim-in. During the construction, animals, of course were heartlessly starved by having access from the Charles totally blocked. The wetlands have been replaced with a wall of designer bushes which have no place on the Charles River. They, in fact, repeatedly died since their introduction at Magazine Beach.

These introduced bushes create a wall blocking most animal access from the Charles and PREVENTING swimming from most of Magazine Beach.

The next phase of construction will dig up and remove the dirt in the playing fields at Magazine Beach. The dirt will be replaced with dirt, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers will replace the wetlands. The poisons will protect the new dirt from insects which are not a problem with Magazine Beach before "improvement."

There, of course, is no concern about starving local animals during this project either.

Similar "improvements" were made at Ebersol Field near Mass. General Hospital last year. The new poisons were not enough to protect against insects, so the DCR / MDC introduced even more powerful poisons. The more powerful poisons were labelled with a prohibition against use near water.

The next day, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, swamped with algae. A first annual "swim in" was cancelled because of the algae.

Before the ongoing "improvements" to the Charles River, the DCR / DCR took a poll. Most people said we do not need "improvements."

Some of the people swimming with MIT have been poisoning every goose egg they can get away with on the Charles for the last four years. These same people brag about running around destroying as much native vegetation as they can get away with.

The DCR / MDC is fighting for "water related uses" while attacking local aquatic animals and vegetation, and fighting for swimming while walling off the Charles River. Naturally, playing fields seem to be water related uses but water animals and water vegetation do not seem to be.

MIT's idea of cooperation is interesting. It seems to be cooperation in exactly the opposite direction of what most people want on the Charles River.