There Exists one Cambridge City Council Candidate fit to Vote For

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have just posted a link to the secret definition of environmentalism which really drives Cambridge and State Pols and Bureaucrats.

I noticed, however, a comment by me in that link saying that, if Cantabridgians were concerned about the environment, the Cambridge pols gave them good reason not to vote.

So far I am aware of one Cambridge City Council candidate this year fit to be voted for, Kathy Podgers.

Please note that this post was placed without discussion with my co-blogger, Marilyn Wellons.

Environmental Hypocrites on the Move at Magazine Beach, on Charles River

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following is Communication number 19 from the Cambridge City Manager to the Cambridge City Council at the meeting of September 17, 2007:

To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-95, regarding a report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:

We were informed on September 11, 2007 by Richard Corsi from the DCR that the bid package for Magazine Beach was delayed once again, due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system, which required further review and revisions to the drawings. He anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out for bids in mid-October of 2007. This latest delay will result in a construction delay, thus the field will not be renovated in time for next year’’s Little League season. No projected completion date was provided.

Very truly yours,



Robert W. Healy
City Manager

Response to Boston Globe editorial, "In jittery Allston, a lack of trust," August 27, 2007

On August 30, Marilyn Wellons sent the following response to the Globe's August 27 editorial, "In jittery Allston, a lack of trust."

There are plenty of reasons why Allston residents may not trust assurances of benefits they're supposed to get from Harvard's plans for their neighborhood. The letter outlines reasons to doubt the supposed benefits to the larger public of Harvard's plans for its Allston holdings.



To the Editor:

To quiet the neighborhood’s concerns, you propose a community center on Harvard-owned land in Allston. The site, described as “between Western Avenue and the Mass. Pike,” is land the university sees as “blighted” and “underutilized.” It would convert this land to an “academic precinct.”

Before you sign on to Harvard’s limited vision, consider its impact on an issue also in the news, our state’s transportation infrastructure.

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s April, 2007 Freight Study says the industry, trucks, and trains here constitute the intermodal freight yard closest to the Port of Boston. As such, they reduce the cost of delivered goods, the wear and tear on our roads, and help maintain the region’s increasingly fragile competitiveness.

The university is a private entity. It understandably failed to include an easement for the Beacon Yards in its deed for the land. Only the intervention of the Attorney General, over the protests of Harvard and the Pike's lawyers, protected the public interest here.

Given the pickle the state is in economically, and given the importance of the Beacon Yards for any improvement, endorsing a project--while invoking the public interest--that nibbles away at it is short-sighted, to say the least.

Environmental Waste at Fresh Pond, Using State Money

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.
2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.
3. Request to Use.
4. Glowing authorization with additions.

1. Introduction — Fresh Pond.

We have stated any number of times that the outrages on the Charles River are anything but unusual with regard to the City of Cambridge. Another excellent example is the wild areas at Fresh Pond in West Cambridge. The City of Cambridge is destroying thousands of healthy trees to put in saplings.

And they get state subsidies for this outrage as a part of which they neglect to tell the state about the needless destruction.

2. Karen Parker concerning Fresh Pond.

I was just riding at Fresh Pond on my bicycle.

I saw the work they are doing there, although they are putting some nice plants in that are pretty to look at. I asked some passerbys what they thought about all of the work, did they think it was good or bad, and they said, bad, because they are destroying the natural plants and they are not native the stuff they are putting in now.

I said, thank you and I agree, I will tell my friends.

Too bad, I did not have a flyer with me to pass along.

Just wanted you to know.

3. Request to Use.

You normally say it is ok to quote you.

I would be pleased to post this on the blog.

Thank you.

4. Glowing authorization with additions.

Its never a problem, if it were I would let you know. I figured everyone would be glad to hear this.

The other thing is I mentioned the plants they put at Charles River keep dying and they will at Fresh Pond probably.

The people agreed. They said they didn't like the change at Fresh Pond.

You can copy all of this.

Karen

Most of Show on Cambridge's Jim Crow Attack is on the web

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post two more segments from Kathy Podgers' August 12, 2007 appearance on The Cambridge Environment.

I have not been able to review these in detail. However, clearly these segments include the first portion and the last portion of the show. I will amend our links to place the links in the proper order. These clips are edited, and are not the complete show.

Thanks Roy.

First segment: http://tinyurl.com/2wgzzx.
Final segment: http://tinyurl.com/2m7c29.

Cambridge, MA, has a terrible city government which spends a lot of time saying false things about itself.

Letter to the Boston Globe about Mirant-Kendall power plant and the algae blooms

This letter from Marilyn Wellons responds to an editorial in the Boston Globe that managed to discuss the algae bloom without mentioning Ebersol Fields' contribution to the phenomenon.

Among other reasons, since it is over the Globe's 200-word limit for letters, it may not be published.



To the Editor:

Your editorial on the Charles, “A river system in hot water” (August 13, 2007), oddly subsumes a major factor in the 2006 and 2007 algae blooms under the rubric of “runoffs from nutrient-rich fertilized lawns.”

It’s no secret that runoff from 6 acres of commercial sod, installed in the spring of 2006 at “Teddy Ebersol’s Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park,” have fed the algae and disrupted the river’s chemistry. These DCR fields by Mass General Hospital are directly opposite the Mirant-Kendall power plant in Cambridge, where other pollutants collect before discharge into Boston Harbor.

While you hesitate to ascribe full responsibility for the algae blooms to Mirant-Kendall, you omit this other, critical piece of the puzzle. Mirant-Kendall ran at an even higher capacity in August, 2005, but there was no explosion of algae. A year later, in August, 2006, your paper quoted a water quality scientist as saying of the astronomical counts, “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before.” (“Toxic algae levels feared in lower Charles River,” August 16, 2006, p. A1.) There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.

Boaters could smell the fertilizer offshore from the fields all last summer. Other chemicals applied to the 6 acres also disrupted the river’s chemistry. In July, 2006, Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf. The DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres, to provide the “quality of turf our players deserve.” (Boston Conservation Commission hearing, August 2, 2006.)

The label for “Tartan” warns against its use near water. (“Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)

The first application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. The DCR supplemented the two treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation.” (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.) The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.

Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million to clean up the river for swimming. By 2013 we will have spent $19 million more. Now Cambridge is paying $1.5 million to pollute the river. It will install 7 acres of commercial sod at the DCR’s Magazine Beach this summer, to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and make swimming impossible there. Since the project’s puddle, billed as a “wetland” and far upriver from Mirant-Kendall, has already had an algae bloom this summer, we can expect really spectacular Cyanobacteria once the fields go in.

Video on Jim Crow attack, August 4, 2007, Cambridge, MA

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have now done two posts on the apparent police abuse of Kathy Podgers because she had the nerve to expect Cambridge, MA to obey federal civil rights law.

I have also had Kathy on my Cambridge, MA Cable Show, The Cambridge Environment, twice concerning this matter. The first was on the day after the attack, Sunday, August 5. The second was Sunday, August 12.

The second show was taped by Roy Bercaw and a key part posted on his blog. He has been kind enough to provide a link, it is: http://tinyurl.com/338had. I have also posted the link in the active links to this blog.

Comments on Police Brutality, Cambridge, MA USA

Bob La Trémouille edits:

1. Joe, 8/6.
2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.
3. Bob, 8/12.

The following respond to our report of August 6, 2007, "Cambridge Woman Alleges Abuse by Cambridge Police in Cambridge Police Station Because of her Handicap."

1. Joe, 8/6.

Every day I get more and more frustrated with this City's management, politicians and upper echelon officials and how they thumb their noses at the public they are supposed to serve. It seems that every year, for the past decade, it's been nothing but getting worse and worse.

2. Kathy, 8/9 - A sick and cowardly act of brutal terror.

August 9, 2007.

The vicious attack on my service dog, Shannon, was a sick and cowardly act of brutal terror. Shannon lay crying on the floor, attached to me by a 2 1/2 foot lead. She did not fight back, as per her training, as I would have been seriously injured. She was brave and true.

None of the police present did anything to protect Shannon nor myself.

I am 64 years old, sick and totally disabled.

Also, I have just received notice that my MCAD complaint vs. CVS for discrimination based on I entered the store accompanied by my service dog was dismissed based upon police perjury, false police reports, and the refusal of the police to accept internal complain, more perjury, and 3 other laws were violated by police, including my civil rights.

BTW, Is there not a law that makes it a crime to provide false statements in a civil rights investigation?

Take care folks

this will be over when it's over
Your neighbour

Kathy

3. Bob, 8/12.

A young woman has been raped and murdered on the Charles River as part of the ongoing problems there. The rapist/murderer had good reason through silence and through their/their friends mistreatment of the Charles River White Geese to think that he was implementing the policies of the City of Cambridge / Department of Conservation and Recreation as he killed nesting geese. He then graduated.

The City of Cambridge, along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation is aggressively moving the environmental approach to the Charles River into the 19th Century. The DCR brags about it as explanation for their pending (with Cambridge blessing) destruction of hundreds of mature trees.

The City of Cambridge is aggressively now in the company of the 50's and 60's South in the realm of civil rights.

The City of Cambridge PUBLICLY calls itself above federal civil rights law. The City of Cambridge in its attack on Kathy Podgers having her guide dog at a Cambridge City Council meeting PUBLICLY confronted her individually.

The City of Cambridge with this apparently clear abuse of Kathy through her guide dog, BY A ROGUE COP IN A ROOM FULL OF SILENTLY COMPLICENT "POLICE OFFICERS", has removed the most important distinction between Cambridge, MA, 2007, and the South in the 50's and 60's.

Will we hear that this also "did not happen"?

Will Cambridge change its stripes and start behaving like the city it claims to be?

Cambridge Woman Alleges Abuse by Cambridge Police in Cambridge Police Station Because of her Handicap

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Kathy Podgers has a long standing “disagreement” with the City of Cambridge and its police department over her guide dog. Kathy has the odd impression that the City of Cambridge should be obeying and enforcing Federal laws on the matter. Cambridge considers Cambridge’s local ordinance more important than federal law.

Federal law, according to Kathy, gives her a right to have her guide dog accompany her in public places to assist her because of neurological problems. The City of Cambridge’s local ordinance does not give her that right and Cambridge is downright offended that Kathy would expect Cambridge to obey and respect federal laws.

The confrontations with city officials over Kathy’s use of the guide dog have been quite public including one situation in a meeting of the Cambridge City Council in which the chair tried to evict Kathy from the room because of the presence of her guide dog.

Saturday morning, August 4, Kathy was at the main lobby of the Cambridge Police Station reviewing complaint files because of public distress at difficulties getting the Cambridge Police to accept citizen complaints.

Kathy says that a police officer opened a door between the main lobby and the police area. Kathy says that a pit bull came through that door and immediately latched onto her dog’s leg.

Not only did the officer with the dog fail to defend Kathy’s dog, the officer expressed lack of concern about the matter. The “police officer” finally removed the dog from her dog by picking up the pit bull with the guide dog’s leg still in the pit bull’s mouth. The pit bull was finally removed with added pain to the guide dog.

At no time did the guide dog do anything to defend itself, in accordance with its training.

Kathy thinks the police were trying to goad her dog into self defense so that they could charge her dog as the aggressor. Police refused to take a complaint on the attack. Police stated no harm because the pit bull had no teeth.

An animal control office was called. The animal control officer demanded to see the guide dog’s papers. The police refused to provide to Kathy the relevant papers on the pit bull, and, to Kathy’s knowledge, no demand for papers was made by the animal control officer on the police.

The guide dog was treated at Angell Memorial Hospital. Kathy was treated at Mass. General. All medical personnel expressed distress at the behavior of the Cambridge Police and the refusal by the Cambridge Police to obey minimal paper exchange requirements.

Kathy Podgers may be contacted at 617-642-3154. Your reporter has no personal knowledge of the incident on Saturday morning.

Visibilities 356-362 at the Goose Meadow of the Charles River White Geese — Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1, Visibilities 356-362.
2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.
A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.
B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.
C. Summary.
3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.
4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.
5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.

1. Visibilities 356-362.

Monday, July 23 (356), Tuesday, July 24 (357), Wednesday, July 25 (358), Thursday, July 26 (359), Friday, July 27 (360), Tuesday, July 31 (361) and Wednesday, August 1 (362), Marilyn did visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The visibility on August 1 started at the BU Bridge and moved to the nearby City of Cambridge ball field.

Her response, as usual was excellent.

Marilyn reports:

Lots of people are taking the flyers, and I get thumbs-up signs and waves.

[ed: The latter come from passing motorists. The visibility location takes on a love-in type of thing based on the general love of the commuters for the Charles River White Geese and for the Charles River. This love is recognized by the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats. That love is exactly the reason for the repeated flat out lies.]

2. Cambridge City Council Pushes Governor.

The evening of July 28, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers responded at Cambridge City Council to a motion from the Cambridge City Council asking the governor the status of the next stage of environment destruction at Magazine Beach funded by the Cambridge City Council.

A. Marilyn’s Letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.

Marilyn did an excellent job of summarizing her position on the Cambridge City Council’s funding of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach in a letter printed in the Cambridge City Council today, August 2, 2007.

It read as follows:

********

David Harris, Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

To the Editor:

Your otherwise excellent article and editorial on the First Annual Charles River Swim Race failed to mention the cause of last summer’s unprecedented, astronomical algae bloom: 6 acres of commercial sod installed in the spring of 2006 at the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park, by Mass General Hospital in Boston. “We’ve never seen an algae bloom like this before,” one water quality scientist was quoted as saying. There had never been those 6 acres of commercial sod at the river’s mouth, either.

The matter is especially important for the Chronicle’s readers, since our city is poised to install 7 acres of the same sod at Magazine Beach.

At Ebersol Fields, the DCR replaced existing ball fields with professional-level ones, to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve,” as a DCR spokesperson put it.

In the river offshore from those 6 acres before they became "professional level," water quality was B+ in August, 2005. A year later, in August, 2006, the river was dead from the Museum of Science dam to the Mass. Avenue Bridge. Runoff from those 6 acres’ fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicide created a major public health hazard for humans and wildlife.

Taxpayers in the Charles River watershed have spent $60 million so far to clean up the river. We’ll spend another $19 million by 2013, without factoring in the algae. Taxpayers in Cambridge — where water rates continue to rise — are about to pay $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach and make swimming impossible. The joint Cambridge-DCR “restoration” at Magazine Beach, even before the 7 polluting acres, has already caused an algae bloom in the puddle installed as there as “wetlands”

In this election year, it would be interesting to hear candidates’ justifications for the project. Our City Council has approved it and given the Governor the funds to proceed. With wisdom and enough calls from the public, he will think twice about water quality and withhold the funds.

I’m hoping to read all about it in the Chronicle.

B. Charles River Conservancy director only supporter.

Mr. Rob Johnson, a director of the Charles River Conservancy, was the only person, including members of the Cambridge City Council, who spoke in favor of the Magazine Beach project.

Mr. Johnson was a leader of the predecessor organization to the Charles River Conservancy, the “Friends of Magazine Beach.”

One of the first things that Friends of the White Geese did after organizing was to demonstrate at a supposed environmentally favorable project by “Friends of Magazine Beach.”

The Friends of the White Geese demonstration was in opposition to the destruction of the Goose Meadow a few months, and to the balance of these people’s destructive plans which include but very much are not limited to:

(1) The wall of designer bushes which has replaced the wetlands at Magazine Beach and should be removed; and

(2) The current proposal to poison Magazine Beach and the Charles River.

Not long after our demonstration against the "Friends of Magazine Beach," the "Friends of Magazine Beach" for all practical purposes disappeared and, Da Da, we had the Charles River Conservancy, which included directors of the "Friends of Magazine Beach."

The Charles River Conservancy conducted a “swim in” at this project in 2005, the year after they, the City of Cambridge and the state pols and bureaucrats, destroyed the wetlands and started to starve the Charles River White Geese.

The CRC claimed that this batch of stuff would assist swimming in the Charles.

A quick view of the wall of designer bushes now blocking access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River readily shows just how much of a flat out lie the "swim in" was.

The poisons that nine city councilors and their pol and bureaucrat buddies are poised to introduce once again demonstrate just how much the CRC (and their pols and bureaucrats) lack credibility.

The CRC has run around for the past five years poisoning the eggs of water fowl on the Charles River. For the same period, they have run around destroying more and more protective vegetation on the Charles River needed by migrating birds such as cranes.

For one of the directors of the CRC to be the only public supporter of poisoning Magazine Beach and the Charles River, says a lot about the project at Magazine Beach and about this developer funded group.

The only person standing in the way of this continuing outrage is Deval Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

C. Summary.

Is Governor Patrick on the side of our world or on the side of the destroyers of our world? The latter group includes NINE Cambridge City Councilors, and the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats.

There is a very major difference between reality and the repeated lies of the destroyers.

3. Marilyn Responds on Commuter Comments.

Motorists and passers-by are very concerned about the White Geese's trips across the road to get to the grass.

I always point out that the geese can no longer get to their primary sources of food, the grass at Magazine Beach and on the river by the Hyatt. Since 2004 the White Geese have been confined to their nesting area, now their ghetto, by the Cambridge and DCR projects in both places. They cross the road now because they have to--and didn't for 20 years previous to the joint Cambridge-DCR starvation campaign.

Then people ask why the DCR and Cambridge would do that. I mention the cover story, that the White Geese are said to be "not a native species." We all know that humans are "native" to Africa only, but apparently humans are exempt from this stringent standard for living on and around the Charles River.

4. Ed: The hunt for food forced on the Charles River White Geese.

The Charles River White Geese frequently commute from their Goose Meadow to grass located under Memorial Drive. This was extremely difficult before the first attack on the Charles River White Geese, by Boston University acting on behalf of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. In October 1999, BU removed sections of fence which kept the Goose Meadow safe from people at the same time that BU destroyed the goose meadow.

Since the starvation campaign was commenced in September 2005 by nine heartless Cambridge City Councilors and by their pols and bureaucrats at state and local level, the Charles River White Geese have hunted for food wherever they can find it.

Their search for food includes a dangerous walk across the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge. This on ramp constitutes the northern boundary of the goose meadow.

The Charles River White Geese are extremely cautious pedestrians, especially given their lack of formal education in traffic laws. The Charles River White Geese will stand on the sidewalk next to the on ramp. They will look and look and look until they think it is safe to cross. Trouble is that, after all that cautious looking, they cross the on ramp like a bunch of geese. They walk with very little speed. Many of them will wander all about in the process of crossing the on ramp.

I have frequently seen commuters patiently watching their progress with admiration for their individual beauty and determination. Many will get out of their cars and take photos. I have never seen drivers treat these travels with lack of respect.

5. Marilyn Responds on the Charles River Conservancy.

Robb Johnson was the only person who spoke in favor of
the MB scandal. Remember too that his Friends of
Magazine Beach organized the annual volunteer cleanups
of Magazine Beach a week or two before BU's graduation
ceremony there--without telling the volunteers they
were subsidizing BU as well as the DCR.

When we pointed out the timing, FOMB rescheduled the
next cleanup for after the graduation and then
dissolved, discontinuing them altogether.

His organization was the one the DCR solicited the
anti-White Geese memo from. When I followed up on
their statements about the White Geese, I found the
people they quoted disavowed what the memo attributed
to them. In fact, one official has been completely
misrespresented.

While Johnson was speaking about the plan for Magazine
Beach he favored, Kathy Podgers pointed out to me that
his organization approved the plans in secret, that in
subsequent public meetings people told the DCR the
plans didn't do what they had wanted done--clean up
the pool and fix the old stone building at Captain's
Island made from granite in the original magazine.

As it is, the plans Johnson and the DCR are pushing
will do away with the turnout and parking at the
swimming pool. Everyone I talk to about that says
it's not only crazy, but should be stopped.

Michael Vick and the Cambridge and MA Pols and Bureaucrats

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Michael Vick, a National Football League quarterback, has been indicted on felony counts related to dog fighting with pit bulls.

I received an email from Grey2K at about the same time I heard of the indictment. Grey2K is an excellent organization dedicated to ending dog racing. They consider that sport abusive of greyhounds, animals who are lovely beings, much like properly raised pit bulls.

Reports in the press indicate severely injured pit bulls as a result of Mr. Vick’s operations. Other reports indicate his ordering the killing of pit bulls who did not fight up to his standards.

In the City of Cambridge, MA, we have large scale animal abuse by the state and local government: starvation is considered normal treatment of beings living in the wild parts of Cambridge who are on the receiving end of government action destroying their homes as part of bizarre and commonly large scale government projects.

We have the strikingly bizarre position that the bastards are heartlessly starving beautiful, valuable animals, while loudly saying they are not “harming” them. In their sick minds, starving them is not harming them. Correction, not even these people have such sick minds. They are just lying.

The most important difference between the accusations against Mr. Vick and very clear behavior by Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats, in my opinion, is that Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats loudly call themselves pro-environment. In short, the important difference is belligerent hypocrisy.

There is a secondary difference of importance: the abuse and mistreating of children by the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats. This is a matter of truly reprehensible behavior, in both cases, by role models. And thus bending the twig to become as reprehensible as the role models.

In the case of the pit bulls, the behavior accused of Mr. Vick was fairly secretive. In the case of the reprehensible Cambridge and state pols and bureacrats, the behavior is very, very public from people who loudly proclaim themselves holier-than-thou.

Frankly, Mr. Vick looks a heck of a lot less reprehensible than do the Cambridge, MA and state pols and bureaucrats.

But then again, there is a major matter of a rape and murder of a young woman by one of the people apparently egged on by the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats combined with a wink and a nod when he started off attacking the Charles River White Geese.

This is an excellent example of truly vile results of “leaders” who are unfit to lead.

They observed repeated very vile attacks on animals. They were begged to stand up to the reprehensible behavior.

They were warned that people who do these terrible things graduate to human beings.

When their protege graduated, the Cambridge City Council spent an extended period of time discussing the rape and murder and DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where it occurred, exactly where he had been killing geese with a wink and a nod from sick pols and bureaucrats.

The rape and murder is another situation in which the National Football League is one heck of a lot more responsible than the City of Cambridge and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The National Football League has suspended Vick. The City of Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats run around calling themselves holier-than-thou, and look to see what further vile thing they can do.

And the governor of Massachusetts?

Visibility at the Charles River Annual Swim - Reality Check in the Face of False Representation

Yesterday, July 21, 2007, I attended the "First Annual Charles River Swim," from 7 to 10 am. After the race I handed out flyers about the cause of the algae bloom on the river--the DCR's 6 acres of commercial sod at the Ebersol Red Sox fields at Lederman Park by Mass General Hospital in Boston.

The DCR replaced the existing riverfront ball fields in the spring of 2006 with professional-level ones. Runoff from the fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and the fungicide applied to those 6 acres caused the unprecedented algae counts in August and September, 2006.

Once the algae are in the river they're there forever. After the bloom, the spores sink, go dormant, and overwinter at the bottom of the river. When summer comes they re-emerge and bloom again.

So organizers were racing the algae this year. The real "First Annual Charles River Swim" was to have been in late August, 2006, but it was canceled because of the algae bloom that month. Even so, for the 2007 "First Annual Charles River Swim," it was a close call this year, since the algae also began a month earlier. Should we attribute that to global warming? In any case, only a change in the weather saved the day for the race on July 21, 2007.

Swimmers entered the water from the boat dock nearest the band shell where the Pops July 4th concerts are held. (The Charles Station on the Red Line is the closest T stop.) They swam an oval course around 6 bouys between the Longfellow and Mass. Ave. bridges. It was quite thrilling to watch such excellent swimmers. And the day was brilliant.

Everyone was very aware of the dangers of the algae bloom. Race organizers cautioned the swimmers before the start. The algae are toxic after they die, and the bloom had only begun. So they said the water was safe enough for swimming, but could cause an allergic reaction. They recommended washing off after the swim in the portable showers provided. They asked that anyone with an allergic or other reaction notify them, since this was a public health matter.

The race had been oversubscribed--100 swimmers was the limit--but there were cancellations and only 69 competed. I talked with one Masters swimmer who opted not to swim because of the algae. He was there to support a teammate, who in fact came in first, at 20 minutes 20 seconds. I also talked with the winning woman, who swam it in 21 minutes 46 seconds. As I said, it was thrilling.

All but one of the swimmers (the man who came in first) I talked with after the race had blue-green algae inside their suits. It wasn't pretty, and they were eager to get out of their suits and wash off.

What the so-called environmental organizations were handing out about water quality and the algae bloom is disturbing. There is no mention of the DCR's Ebersol fields. Not one glossy handout mentioned how the millions of dollars spent on the DCR's 6 "professional level" acres is undoing the work of 17 years and $60 million so far to clean up the Charles.

There's another $19 million budgeted for now to 2013, without factoring in the algae. Since the DCR and the "environmentalist organizations" do not even acknowledge the effect of the Ebersol fields on the river's health, we have no reason to believe they will address the problem, or how much it might cost to remedy it, assuming a remedy is possible. This is all the more disturbing because they are doing nothing to prevent Cambridge and the DCR from installing another 7 acres of commercial sod at Magazine Beach.

Since Friends of the White Geese first sounded the alarm about the Ebersol fields and the algae bloom, these "environmental organizations" have done their best to point their fingers in any direction other than the DCR's blunder there. CRWA informational boat rides, for example, mention everything but the Ebersol fields' chemical runoff.

Yet the 2006 bloom, fed by fertilizers at Ebersol fields, exploded the day after the DCR applied "Tartan," a fungicide not to be applied near water. And, after a decline, the count rose again in early September when the DCR reapplied "Tartan" on September 1. ("Tartan" was necessary, the DCR explained at the time, to provide "the quality of turf our players deserve.")

The "environmental organizations" even mention goose poop as a cause of the algae bloom. What can account for this disregard of the truth?

The DCR has worked for years to rid the river of waterfowl, although the Charles is on the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds. With its agent the Charles River Conservancy, it routinely destroys plants that provide cover for herons, ducks, geese, and other birds.

The DCR and the CRC have worked for at least 5 years to get rid of Canada geese. They have worked for at least 9 years to get rid of the Charles River White Geese. They poison eggs, they use teams of border collies, they use plastic coyotes, and they have used other, less visible "volunteers" to get rid of these animals. By 2004, by the DCR's own estimate, there were no more than 200 resident Canadas on 10 miles of river and the count was going down. The population of White Geese was far less and also decreasing because of the DCR's efforts, including starvation.

(For three years, the DCR and Cambridge have denied the White Geese access to their primary source of food, the grass at Magazine Beach and by the Hyatt Hotel in Cambridge. Only the heroic efforts of the public have kept the White Geese from starvation.)

These animals did not cause an algae bloom of unprecedented proportions in 2006 or the ones this summer.

As part of the DCR-Cambridge project at Magazine Beach, the DCR and Cambridge plan 7 more acres of playing fields with commercial turf, like Ebersol fields. The project will dig up, truck out, and replace the dirt and natural grass there now with gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, and fences.

It will gold-plate the playing fields there now, and destroy "Bordering Lands Subject to Flooding," a wetland category that is both rich habitat for waterfowl and supports ball games during the season. The DCR says that human activity has already destroyed waterfowl habitat at Magazine Beach, and the City of Cambridge accepts that lie. Both are working to pollute the river at Magazine Beach by repeating the environmental crime at Ebersol fields.

As "mitigation" for the loss of what they claim is no longer habitat at Magazine Beach, the DCR and Cambridge have cut down healthy trees and installed a large puddle with a bridge over it. Water does not circulate in it, so it collects filth. The DCR routinely refuses to maintain whatever its assets are, and this is no exception. In addition to trash, the puddle now has what seems to be a fine bloom of algae and its toxic byproducts. Swimming in or near such a sump is unthinkable.

The DCR and CRC had a swim-in at Magazine Beach to celebrate thiss "restoration," which last year blocked human and animal access to 95% of the river. Contractors hired to deal with the wall of plants there faced three work order changes within a week. They concluded the DCR and Cambridge officials didn't know what they were doing.

Ignorance?

"Nothing is so frightful as ignorance in action," it is said. Cambridge gave permission to reproduce the Ebersol field disaster last September, after it was on notice of the August, 2006 algae bloom caused by runoff from those fields. It is difficult to believe Cambridge and DCR officials are ignorant, or that they really want a "swimmable Charles." It may be more frightful to see the wanton, deliberate pollution of the Charles River.

These are the same officials who are wantonly destroying every cherry tree on Memorial Drive between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, in addition to hundreds of others there, as part of a "restoration."

The "environmentalist" organizations and officials, including nine Cambridge City Councilors, depend on a secret definition of the term that bears no relation to a healthy environment, including a clean river, for humans and wildlife. To be in on their secret, see elsewhere in these reports, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

Marilyn Wellons

Goose Meadow Visibility 355, Algae en Masse at Bumpy Pond

Report 355 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese; Outrageous situation at the Bumpy Memorial Pond

1. Visibility Report.
2. Status of Bumpy Memorial Pool.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Visibility Report.

On Friday, July 20, 2007, Marilyn and Kathy Podgers conducted a visibility at the Goose Meadow's BU Bridge entrance. I joined them for part of the visibility.

Clearly, people are very supportive and quite concerned.

2. Status of Bumpy Memorial Pool.

One of the nuttier things (of many nutty things) done on the Charles River was the creation of a small pond perhaps 10 feet from the Charles River at the Magazine Beach parking lot.

Several healthy trees were destroyed in the process.

The local animals loved the pool, so, a year ago, we named it after Bumpy, the killed leader of the gaggle.

This year, the Charles River White Geese have been driven away from Magazine Beach in general and from the Bumpy Pond in particular. They visit, if at all, early in the day. 95% of the shore is now blocked to them.

Their only access is through a tiny break near the Bumpy Pond. They leave immediately when dogs start coming. Some of the environmentally destructive lobby rather clearly let their dogs run free as a means of attacking free animals.

As a result, this year, few birds use the Bumpy Pond except for ducks.

Thursday and Friday a mother duck was visiting there with babies. It was quite distressing because the Bumpy Pond is so filthy.

The filth was fully predictable and was a main reason why we opposed it.

The DCR DOES NOT MAINTAIN its properties. The DCR expects the public to do normal maintenance.

The Bumpy Pond is nothing but a hole in the ground which became an excuse to put in a bridge over it.

There is no means of circulation of water. There is no means of adding water and no means of removal of water. When it rains, we get water. If we get too much water, it overflows. The silly clay pathway which replaced a bituminous walkway is eroding because of overflows.

When no rain comes for awhile, the obvious happens. Water evaporates. The water level decreases, and there is no defense against algae.

As of yesterday, there was a depth of the Bumpy Pond measurable in inches. And it was filthy with algae and trash.

But the DCR and its apologists are proud of the DCR not maintaining its property.

And the DCR and its apologists are very happy to limit the DCR's contribution to the environment to make work projects for their most vocal apologists. Silly projects like the Bumpy Pond get built with serious environmental harm and no maintenance. The apologists do not make money out of maintenance. They make money out of make work projects.

So we have a filthy hole ten feet from the Charles River, and the pols and bureaucrats and their friends are fighting for even worse environmental destruction at Magazine Beach.

Outrageous? Yes!!!

Business as usual with the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge and their friends at the state level, pols, bureacrats and contractors one and all.

Visibilities at the BU Bridge, numbers 353 and 354

Marilyn reports:

There were lots of drivers and pedestrians, even some cyclists, taking the flyers Monday and Tuesday, July 16 and 17, at the BU Bridge. There was a good number of thumbs-up as people drove by.

Some people who stopped to talk were mystified why anyone would want the project there. Others commented that it was the usual cynical stuff.

I try to tell people, briefly, that we've paid almost $4 billion to clean up the Charles River (this is the figure I got from the Charles River Watershed Association) and now Cambridge taxpayers are paying $1.5 million to pollute the river at Magazine Beach.

Chemical runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod at the Ebersol Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park caused the algae bloom last August and September. Now Cambridge will be installing 7 acres of the same at Magazine Beach. We'll have astronomical algae blooms even farther upriver every year if Cambridge gets its way.

And our water rates that include the costs of the Charles River cleanup have just gone up.

Pit Bulls and the Aggressive Destroyers of our World

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.
2. Application.

1. A nice visit, July 17, 2007.

I practice law in an office in a modern building between Harvard and Central Squares in Cambridge, MA, USA (across from the "People's Republik" bar).

I am frequently in the office late working on various projects. Last night, July 17, 2007, there was a group of three people and a dog on our front steps for half an hour to an hour at least.

I first encountered them on the way out. I had things I was doing in the neighborhood, so I went by several times after that.

The dog was a black shorthair, intermediate in size between a small dog and a medium sized dog, in excellent physical condition, not the slightest fat and appropriately muscular for his size.

I said hello to the people and the dog, being very careful the first time to properly introduce myself to the dog.

Each time I went by, I happily pet the dog and briefly spoke to the folks. He was clearly a pleasant, friendly being, out in the world and very pleased to meet the inhabitants of his world.

I asked during the first discussion whether he was a baby Labrador Retriever.

The response was that he was a adult black pit bull, but that he commonly passes for a black Lab, and the master clearly indicated that that was to his advantage.

At that point, I had been in the process of going my way, but I reversed myself to look at the dog's face, clearly not a Lab, clearly a Pit Bull.

2. Application.

The general group that the enemies of this beautiful, friendly animal belong to is the same sick people who are fighting to destroy all wildlife on the Charles River.

These destructive people use whatever lie or false analogy (lie, lie, lie) they can get away with to destroy anything and everything that has a semblance of nature in our world.

The destructive people cannot get away with killing all dogs, as they are aggressively trying to kill the Charles River White Geese, so they regulate them to death, and they try to restrict dogs to bizarre "sanctuaries" as in the sick situation on the Charles River.

Not all attackers of pit bulls are aggressively destroying our world. The tiny minority of world destroyers manipulate people all over the place.

I was in the legislative hearing a few months ago on the latest attempt by this sick organization to attack nature at whatever weak links these sick people can find. This was an attempt to apply bizarre restrictions on pit bulls.

The testimony at that hearing mentioned the tendency of the press to identify a pit bull as the aggressor in all bad situations involving pit bulls, but to downplay attacks by other dogs.

One example of a difficult attack mentioned in that hearing was an attack by a large size Golden Retriever. My brother has a large Golden. The most minimal thing that can be said about her is that she is an excellent example of extreme but intelligent pleasantness.

Nevertheless, I had one incident in which I scratched the ear of my brother's Golden and she responded defensively and quite rapidly and aggressively. Apparently she had some sort of infection and was defending herself.

I am a dog patter. My brother's Golden walks around the world intelligently looking to be friends with every human and every dog she encounters. I am the same way with dogs.

I had a situation in Central Square, Cambridge, in which I encountered a Golden with a face similar to that of my brother's dog. I pet her and, as with my brother's dog, did something inadvertently to hurt her. She defended herself. The owner's reaction went from pleasure to surprised mortification. I tried to placate her explaining that I must have hurt the animal in some way.

In the case of the attack I mentioned above by a Golden Retriever, I can imagine some fool tormenting that poor dog and the dog defending itself.

Similarly the folks fighting against the legislative attacks on pit bulls report similar fact patterns involved in pit bull attacks, problems with humans, not dogs.

We live in a world which is generally very, very good. There is a truly reprehensible minority aggressively destroying our world while piously claiming sainthood.

This reprehensible minority includes Cambridge pols and bureaucrats and their friendly pols and bureaucrats at the state level.

In order to prevent the destruction of our world, we must stand up to these reprehensible people, particularly those, such as nine Cambridge City Councilors, who abuse their power and lie about which side they are on.

We should regulate the destroyers of our world. We should not regulate their victims.

Report 352, Video of the Goose Meadow, April 2000; Perspective

Report 352 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese - Roy Bercaw posts his report of the geese in April 2000 - Thoughts on the changes which have come since.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Visibility Report.
2. Roy Bercaw's Video.
3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.
4. Marilyn Responds.
5. Further Thought.

1. Visibility Report.

Yesterday, Saturday, July 14, 2007, I did another visibility on the edge of the Goose Meadow, saying hello to people on the BU Bridge. I went fairly late. There was a Red Sox game. They commonly get a lot of traffic over the BU Bridge, but traffic in that direction was a lot quieter than I expected. I anticipate that I was later than the game rush.

People were, as usual, quite friendly. One gentleman followed up on discussions with Marilyn.

2. Roy Bercaw's Video.

Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to post a video on the internet that he took of the Charles River White Geese in April 2000. Marilyn Wellons performed as commentator. Roy brought a camera to the Destroyed Nesting Area shortly after the geese returned to the BU/DCR imposed desolation. His video ended with an excellent shot of some very strong flying by one member of the goose gaggle.

I have created a link to one of the postings in the right margin. The video may be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/ypd6sh and at at video.google.com.

The developer lobby tends to descend upon people who have the nerve to talk reality when it comes to the environmental attacks by state and Cambridge bureaucrats and pols. They sound so good, but they toss out one lie after another lie after another lie.

One of their bizarre explanations for the pols and bureaucrats destroying wildlife on the Charles River was a lie that the Charles River White Geese do not fly.

The end of this video shows one Charles River White Goose flying, and flying very high.

Well, when one lie does not work, they switch to another lie. Their definition of THE TRUTH is that lie which works. Their world is a non-stop search for this very bizarre "truth." The Cambridge City Council's definition of "environmentalism" is an excellent example.

3. A "Sanctuary" claim from very destructive liars.

The lie this week is that they want to create a "sanctuary" in the goose meadow, where there is no food. That "sanctuary" promise has no more credibility than the four years of promise of "no intent to harm" the Charles River White Geese. Then they disclosed that their definition of "harm" does not include starvation.

We are dealing with people who are proud of having no ethics.

Decent people cannot imagine how low the people they are trying to deal with are.

Promises have no value. Decency is treated as a weakness. And they will lie and lie and lie until they find a lie that works and call that lie the TRUTH.

4. Marilyn Responds.

You're right.

To call the White Geese's ghetto a sanctuary is an
abomination.

5. Further Thought.

The true sickness of the Cambridge and state pols and bureaucrats and the developer-types who are so prominent in the tiny minority egging them on is demonstrated by the fact that Marilyn is right.

But much more than that.

These reprehensible people took a thing of beauty and turned it into a ghetto.

For the first more than 20 years that the Charles River White Geese were proud, beautiful residents of the Charles River, this place was their holiest place. The Charles River White Geese lived in a mile long habitat.

Three quarters of the time, they lived at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

The other quarter of the time, they migrated to their place of life, their place of mating and of raising their babies.

These sick people have wantonly destroyed three quarters of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese for their use and turned the holiest part of their habitat into a ghetto.

And they are doing it as part of a package in which they are destroying all animal habitat, all wetlands and all wild areas in the City of Cambridge along with repeated, needless destruction of trees and trees and trees.

The pols and bureaucrats of the City of Cambridge and the state along with their tiny gathering of sycophants are nothing less than reprehensible.

And they have the nerve to call themselves "environmentalists" using a secretly redefined term in which environmental destruction becomes "environmentalism."

Fliers Available in PDF

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

The most recent visibility included one pleasant surprise.

One lady informed me that she had received our flier at her door. Trouble is we have not gone door to door with that flier.

Clearly, somebody got a flier from us, copied it and has distributed it.

People are soo good on these issues and soo supportive, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend all the materials which are on the street.

I have all three fliers we are currently distributing in PDF format. I would be pleased to provide these PDF files to interested friends.

Available are:

***********

1. Cambridge / state Pols and Bureaucrats are at it again on the Charles River.

This is the main flier, telling people about the imminent destruction of the grass and earth at Magazine Beach for replacement by grass, dirt and poisons.

2. DCR poll: Most people think no improvements are needed on the Charles River.

This fact sheet provides an 18 point bulleted list of environmental destruction on the Charles River in the past 10 years by the city and state pols and bureacrats.

It is normally printed back to back with number 3, but that is not necessary.

3. Cambridge / state pols and bureaucrats are implementing a 19th Century "Environmentalism".

Definitely the prettiest flier of the three. Features graphics of a tree, goose, chipmunk, possum, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel and heron. All are threatened by the vile Cambridge and state pols and bureacrats.

This flier, with 15 bulleted counts, provides a brief summary of major items of environmental destruction in Cambridge.

It is normally printed back to back with number 2, but that is not necessary.

*******

It would be best to communicate with me on these items at my personal email address, boblat@yahoo.com.

Thanks in advance.

Report 351, Clarification

Report 351 from the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On Monday, July 9, I conducted a visibility outside the Goose Meadow. People, as usual, were very responsive and friendly.

In my last posting, I spoke of a less vile time. Most people are not vile. Most people are not the nine members of the Cambridge City Council. Most people are not the lying bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and Resources.

Most people are good people. The trouble is too many rotten people have power and too many rotten people indulge in really vile tactics to do really vile things.

The bad guys are responding to the leaflets. They are shocked at the detail in the fact sheets. From their sick sense of entitlement, we are being unfair to them. We are providing too much information. Their lies won't work if we inform people of the very sick reality the bad guys are.

We will continue to tell the truth. We will continue to try to protect people from the repeated lies of the bad guys.

But they have had such sick successes on the Charles River.

Once again, the secret definition of "environment" used by these reprehensible people may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html.

The phone number of Governor Patrick is 617-725-1100.

Our fliers tell people to call the Cambridge City Council as well. The reality is that Governor Patrick right now is very very much more important than these nine destructive people.

The weakness of nine Cambridge City Councilors is their repeated lies. Governor Patrick has the money.

Governor Patrick has the power to do the latest terrible things on the Charles River. A lot of developer types want further destruction.

Tell him NO.

Memories from a less openly vile time

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I was just checking the links on this blog to ensure they are still valid, when I clicked on the Cambridge Candle link to the first public comment on this outrage, entitled "Who would want to destroy the homes of a bunch of harmless, beautiful geese?"

The Link is: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html.

It was published in February 1999 when my big problem was convincing people anybody could stoop so low.

A brief quote may suffice:

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

When I try to tell most people that these beautiful geese are in danger, they only answer with incredulity. People cannot conceive that there are people irresponsible enough to attack these beautiful creatures.

A totally different story appears if you talk to a tiny number of people who claim to be “friends” of Magazine Beach. Many of these people fought, unsuccessfully, to put large trailer trucks on Memorial Drive a few years ago. Many if not most of them, seem to make their livings from development or from planning for development.

Many of these people have a dream. It is a dream which most people would consider unattractive, but you see, developer types live in a different world from most people and developer types know how to get things done that most people would consider offensive. Developer types call this “creativity.”

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

Now we have nine proudly reprehensible City Councilors falsely calling themselves "environmentalists" as they indulge in truly sick behavior on the Charles River.

The issue is no longer whether they could possibly stoop so low. The issue now is how low they can go.

Report 350, Mental Health Input

Report 350 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, Mental Health Input

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Yesterday, Friday, July 6, 2007, Marilyn and I did a visibility at the Goose Meadow. The entrance created in October 1999 is very close to the Cambridge end of the BU Bridge. It sees a great deal of rush hour traffic.

I had my long time sign with me and on display: an excellent photo of the gaggle by Anne Lynch with the message, "Save the Geese." As we always have had, there was a lot of very favorable input.

I had an extended discussion with a mental health professional from Marlboro Street in Boston.

We were specifically talking about the rape and murder of the young woman in October 2001 with regard to the level of blood on the hands of the then nine Cambridge City Councilors.

Her analysis was that the person who killed multiple mother geese on their nests with great brutality was always a danger to human beings. The difference and the culpability of nine city councilors lies in his getting up the nerve to do the same sort of thing to humans.

The goose killings were cowardly acts. He used a blanket or the equivalent to prevent self defense by throwing it over the nesting geese before he proceeded to beat them to death. The rape and murder of the woman in October was accomplished by a gang which overwhelmed her on the nearby rail bridge after one person raped her in the goose meadow.

Nine Cambridge City Councilors repeatedly heard pleas to stand up to these actions. The silence of the guilty was their reaction even after the clearly political killing of the leader of the gaggle. Channel 4 led their evening news with video footage of his body being dragged out of the Charles River. The Cambridge Chronicle dominated their front page with reports of our memorial service.

Nine city councilor with a wink and a nod sent exactly the message the killer wanted to hear. Nine city councilors told the killer by their silence that they saw nothing wrong with his behavior.

Nine city councilors reemphasized their venality by spending more that an hour discussing the rape and murder WHILE NOT WANTING TO KNOW WHERE IT HAPPENED. Councilor Davis briefly mentioned the location of the rape and murder. She looked around with a guilty look, swallowed her words and did not say it again.

Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors are showing the reason why they were silent and encouraged that rape and murder.

Nine truly vile Cambridge City Councilors have indulged in three years of heartless, undeserved, abuse to the Charles River White Geese by their deliberate starvation attacks on them at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt Regency.

Now the next step is coming. Nine truly reprehensible people intend to dig up their food itself, the grass at Magazine Beach, and the dirt upon which that grass sits. They intend to replace it with dirt, grass and poisons, poisons which are not now necessary.

Like their protege in 2001, they have built up the nerve. Like their protege in 2001, they have looked to see if there was any sanction coming.

Their pious lies of environmental sainthood, their holier than thou lies, with the support of their syncophants, have worked.

Like their protege in 2001, they have gotten up the guts to take the next step.

They are now going, very quickly, to expose the children of Cambridge to poisons when the children of Cambridge play on those athletic fields. They are very quickly going to increase the level of poisons in the Charles River by the run-off from these fields of poison into the Charles River.

They could very quickly kill off the Charles River as the DCR rather clearly did at Ebersol Fields LAST YEAR.

And they will continue their holier-than-thou lies of environmental holiness.

Once again, please see the analysis on their behalf by the head of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. It is republished below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html. He goes into the theoretical nonsense of their lies about environmental sainthood. He clearly claims to speak for them.

And a governor who certainly looks no better (and just as holy in his proclamations) will be the weapon.

I appreciate the excellent insight of this mental health professional. Her analysis is not new. It is the same analysis we repeated over and over again before and after the rape and murder.

I have a great deal of concern for disturbed people who live in anguish.

I have flat out contempt for these nine disturbed people who spout holier-than-thou lies while doing these terrible things.

Oh, yes, the sign will be updated. The front with its photo and message will stay the same. The back will read: "Save Magazine Beach!"

But these nine reprehensible people, like their protege in 2001, will get worse and worse and worse as long as their lies work.

Marilyn Does Visibility against Charles River Conservancy, Herter Park, 7/5/07

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On the Charles River, we are doing with people doing truly reprehensible things, and they do a lot of lying. The lies come in all sorts of varieties. We see a lot of skill at this sort of thing.

It is highly unusual for the destructive people we are dealing with to come out and admit they are lying, as they did below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/exchange-on-cambridges-view-of.html.

So we have to stand up to their lies in any way we can.

One technique of lies is to pass out rewards for "environmental achievements" to people helping in the destruction of the environment.

One such occurrence came yesterday, Thursday, July 5, 2007, at Herter Park across from WBZ on Soldiers Field Road.

The environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy passed out rewards to people helping them destroy the environment. Naturally, the CRC said exactly the opposite.

Marilyn showed up with the truth. Our fliers.

Marilyn had the nerve to distribute the truth.

She tells me that one of the CRC staffers got quite unpleasant to her. Environmental destroyers lying about themselves can get touchy when faced with the truth.

Hopefully, Marilyn will have time to expand on this posting.

In any case, Marily deserves commendation for doing one little contribution to the cause of truth and the cause of the environment on the Charles River.

Reports 348 and 349, Nice Reaction

Reports 348, July 2, 2007, and 349, July 3, 2007, from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese - Nice Reaction.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Marilyn conducted visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese on Monday and Tuesday, July 2, 2007 and July 3, 2007. I joined her on July 3.

Both visibilities were in the evening rush hour. I was very pleased with what I saw.

Traffic, both auto, pedestrian and bicycle was heavy, including traffic to an evening Red Sox game.

Marilyn had a new sign from past years. She stood on the sidewalk near the entrance to the Goose Meadow. I worked without a sign from the traffic island in the middle of the intersection. Marilyn also had an information board with photos. She had frequent extended discussions with passers by.

As in the past, we in no way interfered with traffic.

A number of people went out of their way to ask for materials. Clearly an excellent sign.

The reality is that people were quite shocked at the behavior of the state and of the nine Cambridge incumbent city councilors. People were clearly very responsive to our communications.

I have since dusted off and cleaned up the sign I first used in March 2000. It has had many refurbishments. It, however, still features, untouched, the excellent photo provided by Ann Lynch way back when.

It is now readily available for use and will be updated.

Thoughts on Resumption of Visibilities

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The last two reports have been reports from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

Reports 346 and 347 follow a long and distinguished line, and I thank Marilyn for taking the initiative.

These reports started in March 2000. Until then, the Charles River White Geese were migratory within a mile long habitat on the Charles River. They would live in most of the habitat for nine months of the year and in the spring would return to their Nesting Area to mate and raise their babies.

In October 1999, Boston University destroyed their Nesting Area acting on behalf of the state bureacrats.

Nine truly reprehensible Cambridge City Councilors along with pols and bureaucrats at the state and local level destroyed their migration in September 2004, when they, with extreme sickness, destroyed the habitat of the Charles River White Geese except for the regrown nesting area.

Now nine truly reprehensible (not all the same) Cambridge City Councilors are going one step further and destroying the very land upon which the Charles River White Geese fed at Magazine Beach.

They are destroying the land because they think it is an improvement for kids to be playing in poisons.

I will not be running from Cambridge City Council this year.

Additionally, I will not be so stupid as to give any credence to fraudulent environmental campaigns such as that run by Craig Kelly two years ago.

As far as I am concerned, the only responsible action for Cambridge environmentalists to take in Cambridge is boycott.

I will look at supposed environmentalists as they announce themselves and I will not be so stupid as to give them the benefit of the doubt as I gave Craig Kelley two years ago.

As we reported on May 29, 2007, with a complete quote from one of Kelley's fellow fake environmentalists, the Cambridge pols have a built in lie every time they use the word "Environmentalist." They have their own sick, destructive definition.

The use of the word "Environmentalist" by Cambridge pols is flat out fraud.

As newcomers show up and make claims such as those made by Kelley two years ago, I will assume those claims of being "environmentalists" are just as fraudulent as they are when coming from the known fraudulent environmentalists.

Report 347, June 29, 2007 visibility

Report 347 from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. June 29, 2007 visibility.

Marilyn reports:

This time I had a sign that said, "Save Magazine
Beach," and it started out with two beautiful photos
of Phil Barber's--a winter shot and one in the summer,
at sunset, with a pink sky, White Geese in both.

They both fell off since I had only glued them, one
blew away. I'll replace them for next time.

Report 346 from the Destroyed Nesting Area: Visibilities Resume at the Destroyed Nesting Area

Principal raconteur: Bob La Trémouille.

Update, July 5, 2007. The number 600 referred to below is actually the number of reports, approximately. The number 345 is very certainly an accurate count of visibilities at the Goose Meadow.

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

In the six years starting the beginning March 2000 and ending February 24, 2006, Friends of the White Geese conducted more than 600 visibilities at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

After each visibility, I would put out an email newsletter. The newsletters were numbered consecutively. Newsletter distribution at one point reached about 1300, but Yahoo made such newsletters more and more difficult. Distribution time went from about an hour each after writing to four days each after writing. We finally were worn out.

My count of 600 visibilities is based on 345 reports in the regular series reported as they occurred and ending December 1, 2003, and 260 reports in the Evil series which responded to evil on the Charles River. This is the series which ended February 24, 2006.

Plus there were visibilities reported in different series. So we had quite a bit more than 600 in six years.

I initially published this report as Evil Report 261. On thinking things over, we never abandoned the Reports from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. We abandoned the visibilities.

Since we are resuming the visibilities, we are resuming the reports. Thus this is Report 346.

With the good materials I told you about in the last report, Marilyn resumed the visibilities on Tuesday, June 26, from 5 pm to 6:45 pm. Marilyn reports:

**********

Flyers said Friends of the White Geese and were
visible.

I had photo boards showing Magazine Beach that I'd
used at Dana Park and the River Festival.

***********

Response to the visibilities has always been good. We would stand either at the entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area or on the traffic island. We would leaflet people walking or driving by. A lot of materials went to drivers. I was doing a visibility on the day Bumpy was killed.

Thank you Marilyn.

Visibilities, New Fliers

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Friends of the White Geese have published two new documents:

1. A flier announcing the forthcoming destruction at Magazine Beach UNLESS either the governor or nine city councillors change sides on environmental issues to the side they claim to be on.

You have to realize that the Cambridge pols have their own SECRET definition of environmentalism or to understand their reprehensible record to realize the difference. They keep on using that secret definition of environmentalism. It is silly to describe this secret definition as other than flat out lying since their secret definition is at dramatic conflict with the definition used by responsible human beings.

The secret definition was announced by one of their insiders and published in these pages under the title, "Exchange on Cambridge views of environmentalism."

2. A fact sheet in two sides. One side has a lot of graphics and briefly describes environmental low lights in Cambridge. The other side gives a blow by blow (but brief) summary of 10 years of attacks on the Charles River by the City of Cambridge and its bureacrat and pol friends.

Marilyn distributed the flier and the front of the fact sheet at a neighborhood potluck last Sunday, June 10. Saturday, June 16, the back side of the fact sheet was ready, so she distributed the flier and the double sided fact sheet at the Riverfest celebration on Memorial Drive between Western Avenue and John F. Kennedy Street.

Marilyn tells me that the response was excellent. That is the normal situation when dealing with normal human beings. Regrettably, the situation with regard to Cambridge pols and bureacrats is based on this fake definition of "environmentalism" which translates as white-washing environmental destruction.

If you would like either of these documents, please give us a ring at boblat@yahoo.com or onblueriver@yahoo.com. Thanks.

If you would like to volunteer to help, please contact onblueriver@yahoo.com or call 617-792-7738. Thanks again.

Wildlife Report from Porter - Davis Squares

Karen lives a few blocks in either direction from Porter and Davis Squares. She reports (passed on by Bob La Trémouille):

I have possum and racoons that come in my yard, skunk too. Bluejays and Cardinals sometimes too. I think also a few other species of bird, Marilyn mentioned Grackels, something like that when I described some before. Hope you are well.

Sometimes when the racoons are rolling around playing on my back porch they sound like cats screaming.

At times last fall the possum, I dont know if there is more than one still sits in my lilac bush waiting for the food to be put out, and hangs by its tail on one of the trees. My mother thought she was hallucinating at 530am. Just before sunrise.

White Geese, wildlife to the West on the Charles, Brush Fire

1. Teddy K with good photos.

Hi,

I am resident of Watertown MA and just found you great site. I would just like to let you know, that I put a link to your site in the blog roll of my site. I usually discuss sports and politics on my site, but I also post a lot of pictures of Birds and other wild life along the Charles River when I see the while riding my bike to work.

http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/05/22/pictures-of-a-crane-near-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/05/02/pictures-white-geesedog-chase-on-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/01/28/pictures-swans-on-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2007/03/25/pictures-stone-markers-painted-bird-foot-prints-and-swans-along-the-charles-river.aspx
http://blog.sportspoliticandrevenge.com/2006/05/31/the-charles-rivers-newest-invader-with-pictures.aspx

Keep up the good work

Teddy

2. Marilyn Responds.

Hi Teddy,

Thanks so much for the kudos and the link. Your photos are beautiful.

The swans were down around the boat kiosk near the Eliot Bridge about two months ago. This is the third or fourth year they've showed up, then disappeared. Do they go back upriver, do you know, or are they off to parts unknown? The photos of them with the ice are really very fine.

The cormorants and all the other waterfowl show us how much the Charles has improved. A couple of years ago by the Weeks footbridge I watched one take five minutes or more to wrestle and swallow what seemed like a very, very long rope but must have been an enormous eel. I thought the bird would choke but it got the thing down--amazing.

Someone commented that nature goofed with cormorants because they don't have oil on their feathers like ducks and geese, and have to dry out their feathers after diving. Then I read that the reason they don't have oil is that the buoyancy they'd get would keep them from swimming as long and far as they do when hunting.

As for the goose droppings, why not think of them as nature's own lawn fertilizer? Geese are vegetarians, so it's grass in, grass out. Their shit doesn't attract flies, is water soluble, and goes right back to the grass itself. A state biologist told me he doesn't recommend it, but you could eat several handfuls of the stuff and it wouldn't hurt you.

As an athlete you may have noticed the new regulation ball fields at Lederman Park in Boston near MGH. The unprecedented algae bloom there last August and September followed the DCR's installation of 6 acres of commercial sod last spring.

You may know that grass for such fields needs very intensive care: lots of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, and, in this case, fungicide. The DCR made a big point that the fertilizer used would be "organic," but nitrogen is nitrogen, and runoff from it and the other chemicals caused the algae bloom. In August the algae count shot to astronomical levels the day after the DCR applied "Tartan," a fungicide whose label says not to use it near bodies of water, and the algae count went up again after the reapplication of "Tartan" September 1.

All of this is by way of suggesting you reconsider your opinion of goose shit!

Thanks again,

Marilyn Wellons

3. Marilyn: Brush Fire.

PS: Do you know what's happening on the Watertown side of the river just downriver from the Arsenal St. bridge? I've seen what looks like a bit patch of clearing and burning in the reeds there.

4. Teddy with details.

There was a brush fire there a few weeks back. Here is the link to video of the news report about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jC1vAyxcg

Exchange on Cambridge's View of Environmentalism

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have commented on the exchange between me and Cambridge political insider Sam Seidel in May 2007 issue of The Alewife. I have not been able to find the exchange on line and a request to the publisher has not been successful.

The following is my retyping of the exchange. It starts on page 6 and is continued on page 15, although the paper says the continuation is on page 21.

1. Your Editor:

I read with interest the article of Sam Seidel in April’s issue, especially the environmental comments at the end. Seidel’s praise of city-partnered initiatives which could give a damn less about the city’s ongoing destruction of the Green in the City of Cambridge goes a long way to explain why youths are not voting.

I would suggest that people who understand Cambridge and who are not in the middle of Cambridge’s really destructive situation have good reason to abstain from voting. When Mr. Seidel was on the Cambridge Conservation Commission key votes were taken in support of environmental destruction on the Charles River.

Most visible now is the blockading of Magazine Beach from the Charles by silly designer bushes which have no business on the Charles. We had a swim in before this blockage to swimming was installed. That swim in claimed that the work at Magazine Beach was pro-swimming.

The next phase will dig up all the dirt in the playing fields and replace it with dirt and poisons. The last time the DCR installed their beloved poisons, at Ebersol Fields near MGH, the next day the Charles River was dead.

Reality says everything about why many intelligent people would lack trust in “environmentalists” who could give a damn less about Cambridge and their buddies ongoing destruction of the Green.

Destruction of thousands of trees (starting with Fresh Pond) combines with destruction of as much wetlands as is possible, destruction of as much wildlife as possible, and a lot of other outrageous things.

You combine this with pious nonsense that fighting for fancy light bulbs has some sort of meaning in this environmentally reprehensible city.

I would think that young voters should be commended for the bad turnout.

2. Seidel’s Response.

Let me start by saying that I admire Robert La Trémouille. His relentless pursuit of goals that he holds dear is, well, relentless. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who’s as willing as him not to change his tune in spite of the prevailing wind of opposing opinion. This is not said in jest. He is the antithesis of group-think.

Unfortunately, Bob La Trémouille happens to be dead wrong in his understanding of the complex interactions between human and natural resources, especially those that happen in dense urban environments. Urban

[Page break, marked “please turn to page 21". Continued on page 15.]

ecology is a field of environmental science just now coming into its own. Biologist, planners, water resources specialists and many others are developing a deeper understanding of the natural systems enmeshed in the traditional built form we associate with cities.

The challenge in today’s age is to question long-entrenched assumptions about what it means to live in an urban environment, and what rights and responsibilities we have toward natural processes that occur here. One of the basic principles underlying our desicisons must be “sustainability”. Simply put, a sustainable decision is one that actively balances today’s consumption desires with tomorrow’s needs. In other words, we can’t mortgage future generations to satisfy our current wishes.

I take it as part of my understanding of this principle that urban natural areas can improve through human intervention. By definition, these areas have already felt the impact of human choices at some point in their history. Further intervention, with an eye toward restoration or improvement, finds part of its justification in this fact.

Water quality is only one such example, but it serves to make the point well. Hydrologists and landscape architects, among many others, have come to a much fuller understanding of how natural systems such as wetlands can improve water quality through processes such as filtering and sediment removal and at the same time create habits that encourage (and support) biodiversity in relatively unforgiving settings (such as cities). Many creative strategies replacing traditional engineering methods of water management with “bioengineering” approaches — where nature by itself does the important work— address both ecological and societal concerns simultaneously.

Contrary to Mr. La Trémouille’s assertion, you people should be inspired by the work of their elders, for two reasons: these efforts are intended to rebalance the equation between humans and their environment making our livability on this planet a longer-term proposition, and; they are a down-payment on the world that young people will inherit. If today’s society must respect the future’s rightful claim on earth’s resources, future generations much acknowledge good choices and hard work accomplished today to protect the assets of that claim.

3. So that is why the Cambridge pols are adopting environmental practices of the 19th Century!!!!!

New "Environmentalist" Looks for Campaign Manager

On May 13, 2007, in this blog, I reported that Cambridge insider Sam Seidel had publicly mocked me because I believe in the old definition of Environmentalism rather than the secret definition which he shares with other Cambridge insiders.

Seidel is a member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. He and his group have been supporting really outrageous environmental destruction on the Charles River.

Read this blog. Read the destructiveness I oppose. It is highly likely that this group with its still secret definition of environmentalism support the destruction in the name of their "environmentalism," whose secret definition they have yet to disclose.

I found the following on Craigslist:

***********

Campaign Manager sought ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: job-335198976@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-05-21, 10:18AM EDT


Looking for an opportunity to do something challenging and fun this summer and fall? Interested in politics? Want to gain some very good experience while developing leadership skills in a demanding environment?

Help a strong challenger win a seat on the Cambridge City Council this year.

Sam Seidel is making his second bid for a seat on the Council. A strong progressive, Sam came 90 votes short in 2005. Sam is an urban planner who understands that responsive government, environmental stewardship and children's services are important priorities in this dynamic and vibrant city.

Sam is looking for a campaign manager to manage all aspects of this local campaign. Tasks include: strategic campaign planning, developing communications materials, web and database management, voter contact, working closely with the candidate on a variety of other tasks.

Important skills for the position are: ability to handle multiple tasks in time-pressured environment, ability to communicate effectively both verbally and in written form, comfortable working knowledge of computers including Word and Excel and web-based programs, prior campaign experience preferred but not required.

This will be a paid position in Cambridge, MA and all are encourage to apply.

To find out more, please contact the campaign at info@SamSeidel.org or 617-547-1067.

Location: Cambridge
Compensation: $1,500 per month
This is a contract job.
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

Attacks on Pit Bulls Part of a Pattern

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Karen Parker.
2. Your Editor. Not just this one problem.
a. General.
b. Tree Destroyer who wants to destroy Canadas.
(1) His achievement. Destruction of excellent trees.
(2) "Replacements" loudly promised. Casually destroyed.
(3) Wife on board of reprehensible Charles River conservancy.
(4) "Fight" for Swimming in the Charles River.
(5) Destroy the Canadas.
(6) Possibly a few isolated events.
c. Summary.


1. Karen Parker.

Now the pitbulls are invading our state right? You heard about that on the news I guess, some people want to be able to question to ban pitbulls, my brother's girlfriend has a pitbull that is the sweetest dog in the world. Our old dog Bobbie was part pitbull.

My mother and I joked we will have to hide my brother's girlfriends dog Skippy in the attic, just like they did to the Jews, that is awful, these people are sick. How obnoxious can people get.

Pitbulls attack because bad people train them to be aggressive, its not the dog. Obviously the people that are behind this are not too bright.

Pitbulls are wonderful pitbulls that attack are victims of violence and they are not bad, they are victims of abuse by human beings. We should put the people in jail that abuse these animals, not ban the pitbulls.

2. Your Editor. Not just this one problem.

a. General.

It not just the people who abuse pit bulls who are part of the problem.

The problem is the destructive people running around trying to destroy whatever they can that is living and is non-human.

I was at the public hearing on pit bulls (and other animal regulations) at the state house. The opponents of the bills clearly communicated the problem.

b. Tree Destroyer who wants to destroy Canadas.

What interested me was a person who sat down next to me on the subway either then or on a following day.

(1) His achievement. Destruction of excellent trees.

He achieved destruction of a park containing truly massive trees in Cambridge (after I got an preliminary injunction under nearly impossible circumstances). The trees which he did not destroy are an example of just how irresponsible this person and his buddies are.

(2) "Replacements" loudly promised. Casually destroyed.

When the Cambridge pols destroyed these ancient, irreplaceable trees, the destroyers promised a large number of saplings half a block away.

Now the Cambridge pols have destroyed the saplings they provided as "replacements."

(3) Wife on board of reprehensible Charles River conservancy.

This individual bragged that his wife is on the board of the reprehensible Charles River Conservancy.

(4) "Fight" for Swimming in the Charles River.

The leader of the CRC was part of a group that conducted a "swim in" at Magazine Beach in 2005.

In September 2004, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge started starving the Charles River White Geese by walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River for this project. At pretty much exactly the same time, the City of Cambridge walled off the rest of their 25 year food across from the Hyatt Regency as Cambridge LEFT a sewerage project.

The DCR and Cambridge, at Magazine Beach, installed a wall of designer bushes blocking access to an from the Charles River, aggressively fighting to prevent swimming.

The "activist" was absolutely shocked that we should expect the Charles River Conservancy to HONESTLY state that a project is doing EXACTLY the opposite of what their photo opportunity says the project is doing.

(5) Destroy the Canadas.

When I mentioned the Charles River Conservancy's five year poisoning of every goose egg they can get away with on the first ten miles of the Charles River, he gave the knee-jerk and inane responses.

First he came back with "we are not poisoning. We are oiling."

Then he spouted "Too many Canadas." The fact that these are water fowl being destroyed because they are living on a water way was totally irrelevant.

Then objected to the fact that animals defecate. English translation: kill each and every animal living anywhere near human beings.

(6) Possibly a few isolated events.

Now, it is entirely possible that these examples are a few, very isolated events. It is much more likely that these examples are not.

I honestly cannot say. But I would be silly to call him the opposite of his actions.

c. Summary.

This is part of a culture of destruction.

The people attacking pit bulls are part of the culture.

The City of Cambridge is part of the culture. So many state bureaucrats are part of the culture.

Most people are neutral. A very, very tiny number of people are aggressive destroyers.

When aggressive destroyers find neutral people, the destructive people who know what they want have a distressing tendency to bully their way into dominance, especially if you have two who get together and reinforce each other, falsely praising each other's "achievements."

Destroy, destroy, destroy.

What is the excuse this time?

Cambridge Declares Norwegian Maples Invasive

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Cambridge, MA calls Norwegian Maples Invasive.
2. Your editors opinion.
3. Bhiksha Raj.
4. Your Editor.
5. Bhiksha Raj.


1. Cambridge, MA calls Norwegian Maples Invasive.

Karen Parker tells us:

The city calls Norweigian Maple trees invasive now. We have a Norweigian Maple planted in front of our house, there were two but one was destroyed by a drunk driver, we have waited three years for the city to replace the tree. They have not yet.

I saw Craig Kelley and told him about it, he has been helpful. I dont see the Norweigian Maple in front of our house invading any other plants so I dont how they consider it invasive. My mom told me I should let you know.

2. Your editors opinion.

The city has planted purple loosestrife on Magazine Beach as part of their replacement of the wetlands there. They call purple loosestrife invasive at Fresh Pond.

The city destroyed a grove of about 8 to 12 four story high trees at Squirrel Brand and replaced them with grass. "Invasive" sniff.

The city and its friends destroyed most of the trees in the parks at Inman Square and at Porter Station. The city replaced the bird sanctuary in front of city hall (bird song 365 days a year) with grass.

State plans (with close Cambridge coordination) are to destroy every Cherry Tree from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach as part of the destruction of 449 to 660 trees there.

The city wiped out meaningful yard protections on Memorial Drive loudly proclaiming they were increasing protections.

I wish I could call this latest outrage a surprise.

3. Bhiksha Raj.

Its outrageous that supposedly sane people can even *think up* such ridiculous
plans. At a time when they should be cherishing all the greenery we have
they want to wipe it out.

Im not sure if they actually think about this matter, but urban concrete is hot.
Replacing a half acre of trees with a half acre of lawn can warm up the
surrounding areas considerably. Replace it with concrete and the neighbors
suddenly have to turn on the AC in summer when they didnt have to earlier.

It is not merely a matter of environment, or natural beauty or aesthetics
that can only affect future generations we dont worry about. The effect
of such depradations is immediate and it is on our physical comfort and
lifestyle!

Just how shortsighted can people get!

4. Your Editor.

Thank you, but this is business as usual in the City of Cambridge.

I neglected to mention the thousands of trees being destroyed at Fresh Pond.

5. Bhiksha Raj.

The destruction of trees at fresh pond is *very* distressing to me.
Its quite frustrating that people can be so stupid.

“Neighborhood Association” Honors Bureaucrat Who Shafted Neighborhood.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Announcement of Intended Presentation.
3. Reality, my response.
4. Marilyn's Response.

1. Introduction.

The announcement in section 2 was sent to the Cambridgeport listserve. The author has been censoring communications on the listserve as stated below, with apparent emphasis on protecting the Upzoning Which Destroyed Zoning Protections on Memorial Drive.

The core group of this group has made very pious comments about how unreasonable is the expansion of the hotel next to Trader Joe’s and across from Magazine Beach.

What they do not want people to hear is that the unreasonable expansion was made legal by an upzoning whose advocates claimed they were fighting for to protect Memorial Drive. The advocates told people that their very destructive upzoning did EXACTLY the opposite of what is done by fine print they did not tell people about.

This outrage is part of a series of related upzonings which related individuals have fought for over the past ten years. It is a standard package. These upzonings are always written by city employees. These upzonings more often than not include secret fine print which does the opposite of key claimed benefits (or interrelate with fine print sneaked into the zoning ordinance before with the same result).

The key city employee in this continuing outrage has been invited to talk to the group, without mentioning his record or his part in the false statements made to destroy zoning protections on Memorial Drive.

Comments which accurately describe the fake downzonings have been suppressed from the listserve.

Some comments favorable to certain people (yours truly) have been suppressed on the list serve, no matter now true. The censor finds my reality based comments unacceptable and thus finds comments favorable to me unacceptable.

The announcement in section 3 was sent to the Cambridgeport Free List, a list I created to counter the censorship.

2. Announcement of Intended Presentation.

Titled: "Get Smart!" Come to the Monthly CNA Meeting!

[omitted] wrote:
To: cportneighbors@yahoogroups.com
From: [omitted]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:33:55 -0000
Subject: [cportneighbors] Get Smart! Come to the Monthly CNA Meeting!

If you are wondering whether modern glass buildings will be the new face of Memorial Drive from River Street to Magazine Street, you need to come to the monthly Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting.

If you want to know what the most accident-prone intersections are in Cambridgeport, you should also come to this meeting. The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association will hold that monthly meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson Court apartment community room on Fairmont Street from 7 to 9 pm.

Les Barber, from Community Development, will present an overview of Cambridgeport zoning, and address CNA concerns about overdevelopment, specifically within the Memorial Drive Overlay District.

Susanne Rasmussen, also of Community Development, will address traffic and transportation issues in light of the recently conducted "hot spots" survey on the CNA list serv.

And we'll hear the latest news on the CNA's Dana Park Party for June 9th.

Bring a friend! See you then.

3. Reality, my response.

We have had flat out censorship by the listserve, [censor’s name omitted to protect the guilty] apparently, for the purpose of keeping the outrageous upzoning that the Development Department wrote.

Now, rather than kill this outrage, we are told that we should pay obeisance to the author who, as usual, FAILED TO INFORM of the fine print which destroyed his lovely and FALSE promises.

Why believe the author of this outrage?

Why does the chief censor give credibility to the author of this outrage after belligerently censoring objections to the outrage while allowing attacks on the principal person standing up to the outrage? [Ed. Badly worded. Big brother clearly censored favorable comments about me.]

And why is swallowing further nonsense from a proven misleader supposed to be "smart?"

FALSE promises belied by undisclosed fine print is not somebody it is "smart" to listen to, especially since the behavior is part of a long-standing package.

4. Marilyn's Response.

[Ed. This was printed on the Cambridgeport Listserve. The fact that it has been printed indicates to me that the bad guys who control the organization figure that their censorship has successfully squelched the indignation of their victims.

[So now they can resume giving the impression that they are the good guys.]

Dear Neighbors

Soon after the Planning Board vote on the Radisson, I sent this to the Cport list. Possibly through some error of mine, it wasn't posted. Time and topics move on, and we're all busy, so I didn't follow up. However, as the issue is on the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting, I resubmit this, slightly revised:

Given the law about special permits, it was almost certain the Planning Board would vote as it did on the Radisson. Given the Board's history, it's not surprising it seemed contemptuous of the public, as several neighbors commented.

The City Council has sprinkled special permits throughout the zoning ordinance. To gain immediate advantage in any one zoning issue, affected neighbors have chosen to believe the special permits are either 1.) good in themselves because they talk about design issues or the like; and 2.) the price they have to pay to get the immediate benefit at issue.

The most recent example of this was the provision for Planning Board special permits in projects less than 50,000 SF in Bus-A2 zones, I believe, as a condition for adequate setbacks of development parcels along North Mass Ave. where they abut residential zones. I think the vote was in March this year.

The special permit provision will come back to bite, as the ones in the Memorial Drive Overlay District did at the Radisson and will do again. But by the time that special permit does in North Cambridge, people will have forgotten warnings about special permits and their own agreement to them for the reasons given above--as we've seen on Memorial Drive.

Neighborhoods expend a great deal of misplaced time and energy at the Planning Board. Accountability for special permits and the tangible benefits they deliver to developers rests with the City Council. The Council has been happy to pass off hard choices between developers and neighborhoods in regular zoning (where they are forced to a public vote) to the discretion of the Manager's appointees on the Board. It is the Councillors who collude in this expansion of Manager's and Planning Board's powers at the expense of the Council's own accountability.

All the wheel-spinning at Planning Board hearings exhausts residents' political energies and diminishes the life of the city. These are significant costs as well.

Nevertheless, people seem to like things as they are and re-elect, time and again, the Councillors who insulate themselves from public accountability. When the special permits are granted and the building in question is done, who will remember the Overlay District, Area of Planning Concern, or whatever category its special permits fall into? Or who spoke in their favor, or who voted for them?

Marilyn Wellons