CIVIL RIGHTS JURY ORDERS CAMBRIDGE, MA TO PAY $ 3.5 MILLION IN PENALTIES FOR HEARTLESS BEHAVIOR

1. Context.
2. Jury Order.
3. Reality.
4. The Cambridge Pols and Reality.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Context.

The City of Cambridge has a massive internal lobby which runs around making all sorts of lovely but ultimately false generalizations about the government and its City Councilors.

The most outrageous statements claim that these people are pro-environment and pro-civil rights.

They indulge in frequently reprehensible behavior.

They take the outrageous action and then refuse to discuss it, while making loud and very general proclamations about themselves which are the opposite of the behavior.

The heartless treatment of the Charles River White Geese, to the extent they will allow any discussion, is dismissed in ways which translate as:

*********

How dare you mention my treatment of these animals. These are the little guy. How dare you object to my mistreatment of the little guys.

*********

Similarly, the treatment of Kathy Podgers get a related explanation:

*********

That is just one person. How dare you expect me to treat one person’s civil rights with respect.

*********

Kathy Podgers has now obtained two findings of probable cause of discrimination against these bastards at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

They brag about treatment of Blacks and gays, but Blacks and gays are well-organized powerful lobbies in Cambridge, MA.

Civil rights is about respecting the rights of the little guy.

2. Jury Order.

Last week’s Cambridge Chronicle (May 29, 2008) headlined a jury award against Cambridge, MA for civil rights violations.

The plaintiff, a former department head, complained that she was singled out for mistreatment for grounds that constituted violation of state and federal civil rights .

The first jury trial found no basis for this claim.

The second jury trial found violation of her civil rights because of RETALIATION against the plaintiff for filing the basic claim.

The jury award slightly over $ 1 million in damages, and added an additional $ 3.5 million in punitive damages.

That $ 3.5 million in punitive damages is simply the jury’s way of communicating to the City of Cambridge that the City of Cambridge is a very reprehensible entity.

This is not surprising.

Cambridge keeps itself going internally by its massive internal lobbying arm, the Cambridge Pols, who run around saying lovely false things about this very destructive city government. The governmental and elected people do not want to know reality. All they want to know is what the Cambridge Pols are saying.

The jury very clearly hopes that the $ 3.5 million will communicate reality to the nine members of the Cambridge City Council.

3. Reality.

My feeling based on years of observation is that there is too often a feeling that if you want me to obey the clear requirements of law, sue me.

If you want me to be environmentally responsible, sue me.

One clear example of this mentality is the flat out refusal of the Cambridge Election Commission to obey the recent Jack E. Robinson decision based on the “opinion” of the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Another excellent example is the outrageous environmental destruction which is normal when the City of Cambridge does public works projects. Altogether too often, the first thing they do is destroy healthy trees.

Another excellent example is the “opinion” supposedly given by the Cambridge City Solicitor informing of legal requirements needed to be satisfied to protect the pittance of undestroyed open space in the Public Library area. I have gone into this extensively.

4. The Cambridge Pols and Reality.

The Cambridge Pols are not at all concerned about reality. They will just run around singing the praises of these bastards.

On Open Space in Cambridge, MA and Con Games?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.

What would you say about a “community leader” faced with an issue of use of open space in his neighborhood, about which the following applies?
a. The city has destroyed the best park in the neighborhood TWICE.
b. First they destroyed something like thirty out of 40 one hundred year old trees, promising they would provide perhaps 50 saplings as “replacements” in a nearby, inferior location.
c. The city has just destroyed the 50 replacements.
d. The “leader"’s constituents want protection for the pittance of open space which has not been destroyed yet.
e. In the key meeting, this “leader” introduces his wife.
f. His wife was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit which obtained ON APPEAL a preliminary injunction against the destruction of the original park with its hundred year old trees. It is next to impossible to get injunctions on appeal.
g. The judge eventually allowed destruction of the park and most of the hundred year old trees based on his interpretation of a state statute protecting parks.
h. At the key meeting, the “community leader” suppresses providing his constituents with the the judge’s decision on the meaning of the statute protecting parks in the case in which his wife was lead plaintiff.
i. Instead the “community leader” bullies his organization to obey the “legal opinion” of the attorney for the city government which destroyed the hundred year old park and just destroyed the supposed replacement trees.
j. The “legal opinion” quoted by the “community leader” certainly seems to be exactly the opposite of the clear language of the statute and the opposite of the judge’s opinion concerning the exact same open space.
k. The “legal opinion” would have the constituents chase their tails for a few years.
l. Cambridge Pols have a long record of getting well meaning people to chase their tails.
m. The “community leader” orders that the “opinion” of the city solicitor be obeyed and posted on the neighborhood association website.
n. The “community leader” orders that the court decision WHICH HIS WIFE GOT, be ignored and not be posted on the website.
o. The “community leader” is the head of a group with a long record of Cambridge Pols control.
p. The Cambridge Pols have a long record of getting constituents to chase their tails.
q. Is it any wonder that Cambridge is so terrible on environmental matters?

2. The bitter details:

a. Fake groups dominated by the Cambridge Pols.

The front organizations controlled by the Cambridge Pols and through them, by the City of Cambridge, date back to the 1970's.

In my opinion, the worst, as far as getting damage to their OWN supposed causes, has long been the “Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association.”

This sort of group commonly “appears” when a developer has a project and the group purports to represent the neighborhood with regard to the project.

A very tiny group then selects a slightly larger coordinating group. They all join together to stomp people who are really concerned about the supposed cause of the group.
It is possible to get things done in such a group BUT you commonly have to beat the people who dominate it. The technical name for such a group is “company union.”

b. Some of my experience with the Mid-Cambridge group.

I have downzoned about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares in Cambridge working with various groups and I have downzoned many other parts of Cambridge.

The purpose of the downzonings has been to protect sidewalk level open space, to protect housing and to minimize the environmental impact of excessively commercial development. Office uses generate three times the vehicular traffic as residential uses, and retail uses generate nine time the vehicular traffic as residential uses. Cambridge has approximately twice the jobs it needs for its population.

Cambridge Pols have been consistently on the wrong side of the Massachusetts Avenue downzonings and have done severe harm, commonly with outrageous lies. The key to these flat out lies has been to troop [people] into a meeting PEOPLE who will vouch for frequently outrageous nonsense.

I, however, have more than once beaten the Cambridge Pols and gotten support of this group.

(1) The La Trémouille Petition.

In 1980, the first zoning petition on Mass. Ave., the petition was written by a committee appointed by the Mid- Cambridge group, and the committee did what it was appointed to do on the downzoning petition it wrote.

The Cambridge Pols tried to bully the committee into turning the downzoning proposal into an upzoning. When the committee would not violate its orders from the group, theCambridge Pols then ran around claiming to represent the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association not only with no vote of the association but also pushing those goals which conflicted with the vote that formed the committee.

We finally forced another vote of the Mid-Cambridge group. We won again. HOWEVER, since we spent so much time fighting the bastards, their rogue effort destroyed the important parts of the initiative. This initiative changed zoning in the middle portion of Mass. Ave.

(2) The Natalie Ward Petition.

In 1989, we achieved a major downzoning of East Harvard Square.

After we had made the key agreements with members of the Cambridge City Council the Cambridge Pols spoke to the neighborhood group which was doing the work with the key lie:

You have made your deal with the City Council, now you have to deal with the Planning Board.

A flat out lie, but it bullied major concessions out of the petitioners.

In spite of the backstabbing, this downzoning forced the Inn at Harvard building on Harvard. Harvard wanted a building 72% larger and built to the lotline.

(3) The Anderson Petition.

In 1998, the Anderson Petition downzoned that portion of Massachusetts Avenue nearest Cambridge City Hall. This area had been in the original La Trémouille petition and had been lost because of the malfeasance of the Cambridge Pols. We got the same residential zoning we achieved in East Harvard Square with ciutywide improvements to reflect lessons learned from the Inn at Harvard building. We provide clear protection for adjacent owners and for trees on the site.

c. The latest outrage.

I attended a meeting of the Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. I spoke quite a bit. My biggest regret is that I was not belligerent enough. There were at least three terrible actions. Key was the behavior of the chair and his buddies. I will only report on one of the outrages right now.

Key in the Cambridge Pol group structure is a small core controlled by an even smaller group. The small core does the wishes of the smaller group. The small core is selected by the smaller group. Such sub groups commonly make it impossible to get Cambridge Pol groups to work for the supposed goals of the group.

That Wednesday the bad guys, as usual, were well organized, knew what they wanted and did not give a damn about reality.

d. Open space at the Public Library / High School site.

(1) The history.

Destruction of Library Park located between the Public Library and Cambridge Street could have been the reason why the Mid-Cambridge group was created in the mid-70's. The average member would have no knowledge of these machinations. The ones with knowledge would be the city employees who got their buddies to form a group.

Very promptly as these things go, after the group was created, the key organizers worked for the destruction of the best park in the neighborhood.
They promised a “better” park.

Better than a park dominated by 30 to 40 one hundred year old trees, creating an excellent visual connection between the two major streets of the neighborhood, exceeded in quality only by the Cambridge Common as a city neighborhood park?

The Cambridge Pols got their “improvement” with serious harm to the neighborhood and the destruction of irreplaceable beauty.

Part of the deal was a large number of trees in front of the Public Library building. The city, with help from Cambridge Pols, destroyed those trees last year.

(2) The bad guy’s forced decision this time.

Now, decent people want some sort of guarantees that the little which has not been destroyed of their park will not be destroyed. They want the park protected as a park. The Cambridge Pols came up with the usual bizarre solution.

They say they have an opinion from the Cambridge City Solicitor saying that they have to get permission from the legislature to protect parks.

The Cambridge City Solicitor is the same guy who, a couple of years ago, told the Election Commission that they do not have to obey the OBVIOUSLY APPLICABLE Jack E. Robinson decision.

Blatant lawlessness is not unusual in Cambridge government. There frequently is seen in Cambridge the mentality:

If you want me to obey that very clear law, sue me.

This could stem back to the city solicitor situation. So the Cambridge City Solicitor told the good guys to chase their tails.

The relevant statute is Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 45, section 5, which reads:

"Land taken for or held as a park under this chapter shall be forever kept open and maintained as a public park, and no building which exceeds six hundred square feet in area on the group shall be erected on a common or park dedicated to the use of the public without leave of the [state legislature]. . ."

The statute says “no building shall be erected on a common or park dedicated to the use of the public without leave of the [state legislature].”

The City Solicitor, according to the Cambridge Pols, says exactly the opposite from the very clear wording of the statute: protection is not legal without leave of the [state legislature].

So the Cambridge City Solicitor’s “opinion” is exactly the opposite of the law.

So the Cambridge Pols are passing this nonsense on to their victims as gospel.

(3) Legal history on that site.

In the 70's, I represented a 10 taxpayer group which fought against the destruction of that park. The case was sufficiently strong that I obtained a preliminary injunction ON APPEAL. Getting a preliminary injunction on appeal is, for all practical purposes, impossible. But I had a good case. I got it on appeal.

(a) The gift in trust.

We primarily based the suit on the terms under which the property was given to the city by a major donor who gave the city a very significant part of its key buildings. The City of Cambridge has contempt for the terms of gifts if Cambridge can evade the terms of gifts. The donor gave the property for use as a library.

He specifically said he did not want the property used for ordinary city purposes such as a school building. The donor gave the adjacent property for use as a school building. He also gave the city its city hall.

Trouble was that, after the suit was filed, the state Supreme Court came down with a charitable trust decision which was not fully thought out. The decision seemed to wipe out the distinction between two lines of cases to our severe detriment. A decision in the 80's clarified the situation. That decision in the 80's confirmed the legal rationale for our original filing, but when we got to court, we were going to have to appeal to get what we wanted. We needed to win on other grounds and to appeal to clarify the trust decision.

(b) General Laws, chapter 45, section 5.

We tried the case on General Laws, chapter 45, section 5. The judge, under chapter 45, section 5, found that our magnificent park was not a park but library grounds. There was no contention whatsoever that the nonsense currently being handed by the Cambridge City Solicitor had an relation to anything.

In the current situation, all that is necessary is for the City of Cambridge to say that the City of Cambridge is using the property as a park and has been using the property as a park since 1968. PERIOD. According to the Cambridge Pols, the City Solicitor says protection of open space cannot be achieved without vote of the State Legislature.

(4) City Solicitor’s Opinion being placed on website.

The chair announced that his organization was putting this bizarre piece of paper on their website as an example of The Truth. Earlier in the meeting, the chair introduced his wife. I commented that his wife was my lead plaintiff. The chair was not at all impressed with the idea that I suggested: put the judge’s decision in the 1970s case on the website. The case’s lead plaintiff is now the chair’s wife. Reality is not the sort of thing that concerns the Cambridge Pols.
The Cambridge Pols do not want the decision in ““Carmean v. Cambridge”” on their website. The Cambridge Pols have no interest whatsoever in a COURT DECISION DECIDING HOW THE SITE SHOULD BE USED.

The Cambridge Pols want to publicize an apparent piece of nonsense which conflicts with the court decision and with the clear statutory language, the “legal opinion” for the attorney for their most destructive enemy.

Note, however, that I have never seen this “Legal Opinion,” this piece of nonsense. I have only heard the con job presented to the group as to its contents.

3. More to Come.

I have written enough for now.

I will proceed later.

Deer Sighting on Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge

Karen Parker reports with Bob La Trémouille analysis:

Saturday evening at about 10 pm, saw a deer on Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge. She called the police to get help for the deer with no success.

When she last saw, the deer was last seen heading up Rindge Ave. That is a good direction. The urban wilds are in that direction.

This is not at all a surprise. Nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council are destroying animal habitat on a large scale at Fresh Pond. Smaller animals have been seen at the Fresh Pond Shopping Center, driven there when these heartless bastards destroyed their homes.

Why are their homes being destroyed? So that the nine hypocrites can put in saplings and brag about the saplings. They will not want to hear about the thousands of healthy trees and animal habitat destroyed to put in the saplings. If they knew what they were doing, they would not have such a good lie to tell about themselves.

DCR's BU Bridge sidewalk repairs and the White Geese

Marilyn Wellons reports on the May 20, 2008
Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting:


I spoke with the DCR representative at the Cport NA
meeting last night about the DCR's nighttime work
under the BU Bridge on the Boston side.  We agreed the
[DCR] flyer was confusing.  She said she'd look into it.


Today [May 21] she says the night work is to put shielding
under the bridge.  It'll take 10-14 days.


I said the contractor had told me that work would be
from the barge, and it's supplied by pickup truck
through the goose meadow.  (As the resident engineer
and I stood there last week a pickup did drive over
the curb at Memorial Drive, into the meadow, and down
the hill.  Someone got out, went to the base of the BU
Bridge, got into a boat, and went out the barge.)


I asked the DCR representative whether the barge would
be supplied through the goose meadow at night.  She
said she'd find out.  I think we agreed that if that
was the case it would be a problem for the geese.


I told her I was glad the DCR press release said there
would be no harm to the White Geese.  But, I said, the
DCR's history is to say just that even as they are
harming the geese.  For example, in September 2004 the
Globe quoted DCR planner Richard Corsi as saying the
DCR wouldn't harm the geese--even as the agency and
Cambridge were keeping the White Geese from their
primary source of food at Magazine Beach, i.e.,
starving them.


(As we know, the geese haven't starved only because of
the heroic work of the people feeding them.  I had a
very good visit with Bill N. and the geese Tuesday
morning.  It was a beautiful day and the geese were
beautiful.  I saw goslings and ducklings.  I was
impressed by the logistics, coordination and
dedication of the people involved in that effort.


(Bill told me one of the construction workers had
commented on how beautiful the geese were, how
interesting their urban wild is.)


I believe the workers will be as careful as they can.
However, as I told the DCR lady, since the DCR and
Cambridge decided the White Geese didn't belong on the
Charles, occasions like this provid either cover or
opportunity for people wanting to attack the geese. 



Without going into detail, I recounted my conversation
with Julia O'Brien, head of DCR plans, in 2000. Yes,
O'Brien said, destroying the White Geese's nesting
habitat would expose them to predators when they were
most vulnerable, but the DCR didn't intend to harm
them.  I told the DCR representative that DCR plans
had in fact solicited a memo that recommended
eliminating all the geese.


I told her about the violent attacks on the geese in
2001, and that the DCR and Cambridge had failed to
condemn them.  She knew that people who attack animals
like that are a danger to humans.  I told her about Io
Nachtwey's kidnapping, rape, and murder, that the rape
took place exactly where we found the body of the
first goose, that like the human victim, that mother
goose was stabbed and beaten to death.  I said the
method of attacking the geese changed radically after
the arrest of her killers.


Again, the DCR representative listened, for which I
was grateful.


I pointed out that the White Geese have been confined
to the goose meadow since 2004.  In the old days, the
geese were at the goose meadow for 4 months or so.
Before the DCR and Cambridge changed their policy, the
gaggle would be finished nesting by now, and be
leaving the goose meadow to feed along the river at
Magazine Beach and by the Hyatt Hotel.  Now they're
confined to this ghetto year round.


It would be much better if the geese could resume
their mini-migration, if they once again had safe
access to the grass at Magazine Beach and near the
Hyatt.  That way work on the BU Bridge wouldn't
endanger them.


And we could all enjoy the White Geese in their entire
habitat.  I always think of my friend's son, whom I
knew as a child, bringing his own daughter down to
visit the White Geese not that many years ago.  I'm
looking forward to the day when the geese are once
again free animals.


For now, I'm waiting for further word from the DCR
official about how work on the BU Bridge will affect
the geese.

Photos from Phil Barber

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Phil Barber was kind enough to pass on these photos.

The brood of four is clearly larger now. They are beautiful. Their parents are showing them to the world and showing the world to them.

I saw the bunny in that portion of the upper meadow which was not destroyed last week.

These are what Massachusetts' Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge are aggressively destroying on the Charles River, as much as they can get away with.

Cambridge destroys wildlife pretty much as it finds it.

Another very aggressive area of Cambridge destruction is Fresh Pond where massive habitat destruction has now been ongoing for two years. Destruction of thousands of trees is slated along with associated habitat. Those healthy trees and animal habitat are in the way of saplings.

But Cambridge does love to put out nonsense about being pro-environment. The false words appease responsible members of their constituency who make the mistake of thinking they are telling the truth. When dealing with claims which impact the environment that only Cambridge can destroy, claims about behaving responsibly are belied by strikingly irresponsible behavior, on a large scale.

Thank you Phil.

I wish Cambridge, MA had a government which bore meaningful resemblance to the government's lovely words.



Addendum:


I separate sent the first two by email to various friends. I got rave reviews which I passed on to Phil.

Phil responding by passing on the following shot from last winter.


I think it is an oppossum. These are lovely beings who are still struggling and surviving in spite of aggressive destructive actions by some truly reprehensible pols and bureaucrats.

Diversity was heavily and deliberately destroyed by these bastards with their self-serving lies and hypocrisies.

Karen responds with regard to the oppossum:

I have some of them in my yard and they are cute.

Activities in the Fenway, Urban Ring planning

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.
2. The Monday Meeting, Urban Ring Citizen's Advisory Committee.
a. General. Two or three rail crossing options.
b. The consultants.
3. Fenway neighborhood meeting.
a. Longwood Hospital Area Tunnel.
b. Yawkey Station.

1. General.

Last evening, the City of Boston conducted a meeting of residents of the Fenway neighborhood. Monday I attended a meeting of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on the Urban Ring.

2. The Monday Meeting, Urban Ring Citizen's Advisory Committee.

a. General. Two or three rail crossing options.

Urban Ring planning is of major importance on the Charles River. The Fenway neighborhood is smack in the middle of the most complicated maneuverings.

One of the key requirements in the bizarre bus planning in place of the rail transportation that makes sense is that the bus planning do nothing to impact rail in the area. Naturally, the "planners" are working to impact rail planning to push the option favored by Harvard, MIT and Boston University.

There are two key possible crossings of the Charles River. One is the Kenmore Crossing with a station under Brookline Avenue between Kenmore Square and Fenway Park. That station is, from a transportation point of view, excellent. It provides an ideal connector between commuter rail, the proposed Urban Ring Subway and the three Green Line branches, plus it gives excellent support to Fenway Park.

The other option, the BU Bridge crossing, give BU a private station within view of Marsh Chapel, and gives MIT and other Cambridge developers their own private station. There is a third station under Park Drive between the Riverside and Cleveland Circle Green Line branches.

The Kenmore crossing has one station in a part of the proposal where the other has three stations. Two of the BU Bridge crossing stations are so close together as to be silly. This is needed to attempt to duplicate the connections the Kenmore crossing does in one elegant package at Kenmore.

Harvard seems to be pushing a different route for the benefit of Harvard. That route would include the two stations where the Kenmore crossing has one.

The BU Bridge and Harvard alternatives would move the Fenway Park rail station two blocks further away from Fenway Park to connect to the Marsh Chapel station.

b. The consultants.

The consultants dropped the other shoe on Monday. They are proposing that, in the name of buses, the state build one of the two BU Bridge crossing stations as part of the bus planning. And they are supposed to do nothing which will prevent the Kenmore crossing?

The proposed station would be on the edge of the Fenway neighborhood, connecting Fenway Park station to Beacon Street / the Cleveland Circle line.

3. Fenway neighborhood meeting.

The meeting last night impacted two urban ring options.

a. Longwood Hospital Area Tunnel.

The people at Longwood seem to be hardening on a subway tunnel called a bus tunnel to service Longwood and get traffic off their streets. The proposal is firming up as a tunnel to the Riverside line, hitting the Riverside line west of Park Drive and west of the Fenway Park station.
The City of Boston is proposal a small vehicle path in the same area.

I raised the point. They provided two answers: (1) Boston's planning is for the next two years. The Urban Ring is ten years out. (2) They think it all can be fit in.

b. Yawkey Station.

The state people show a bus route to Yawkey Station, the commuter rail station servicing Fenway Park. It seems to do a loop in the large parking lot at that location.

In the fine print of the city's plans for Brookline Avenue, they mention that changes, general, may have to be made for mass transit purposes. That would be the bus maneuverings at Yawkey Station.

More news on Brown Beauty and her babies

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The goose parents take their babies around to show them off, and to show the babies their world.

I understand Brown Beauty even brought her babies over to the traffic island which is their least dangerous source of food.

The reprehensible people from the city and state in their heartless starvation abuse on the beautiful animals have created a situation where they have to cross traffic to get food. Brown Beauty showed her babies that food.

One of the two babies died of natural causes.

The other "disappeared."

Urban Ring Plans Destructive to Geese; BU Condemns Other Part

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Yesterday afternoon, I attended the meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the plans for the bus / highway phase of the Urban Ring planning.

Their plans are on the Internet. http://www.theurbanring.com/currentmaterials.asp?area=gen is the indes to the most recent posting. It is not up to date.

The plans include a pedestrian / small vehicle highway through the same area where the DCR / its agents just destroyed vegetation and probably / possibly killed Brown Beauty's babies.

The DCR was represented by the environmentally vile Julia O'Brien. She has been a key part of the leadership in the outrages going on in Cambridge on the Charles river.

Boston University condemned part of the plans which they say are destructive to their campus.

I commented that, given the destruction being inflicted on the environment in Cambridge by BU and the DCR and implemented in the Urban Ring plans, it is a pleasure to see these reprehensible, destructive bastards bitterly objecting to "harm" to them.

Years of heartless abuse, years of heartless starving, the first attack on the Charles River White Geese when BU illegally destroyed the nesting area in 1999 (destruction which is a key part of the Urban Ring plans), probably repeated destruction of nests over the years and killing of geese who defended their nests, lying about the Charles River White Geese in their alumni magazine - there is a lot to have contempt for BU for. Truly reprehensible people.

Brown Beauty Mate Alive; BU Destructiveness

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Yesterday evening after the Urban Ring meeting reported separately, I went to the Goose Meadow to demonstrate the destruction inflicted by the DCR / their agents.

In the grass on the other side of the ramp to Memorial Drive were Brown Beauty and her mate.

I helped them cross the ramp when they had had enough food. They have been forced to make this dangerous trip by their access to food at Magazine Beach being destroyed.

In the Urban Ring report, I mention publicly condemning the environmental destructiveness of BU and the DCR on the north side of the Charles.

In addition to the physical destructiveness, Boston University has stooped so low as to print a false statement by a BU related goose-feeder that the Charles River White Geese cannot survive if feeders stop feeding them. The statement is true NOW because BU, Cambridge and the DCR have been so destructive as to their habitat. The statement is a flat out lie if the destructiveness of BU, Cambridge and the DCR is omitted. The Charles River White Geese survived for 25 years living on the food which BU, Cambridge and the DCR have taken away from them.

The lie was printed in BU's alumni magazine. Friends of the White Geese submitted a response which BU would not print.

It is scary to have such a flat out lie printed. It is scarier still to have these hypocrites refuse to correct it.

It is even more scary that the Charles River White Geese are relying on somebody doing such harm to them. We have no choice. The geese need to be fed.

FOWG did the feeding for a number of months until we could find people who would do the feeding, but these two key feeders with their political harm to the Charles River White Geese are most definitely not friends. We are overworked as it is. The geese need to be fed. We cannot do it, but the two key feeders are a cancer within.

Vegetation Changes - Baby Killers?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Over the fall and winter, severe damage has been done to protective vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting area.

This was rather clearly done by vehicles of government workers and contractors. They trampled over protective briar patches.

Between the main path and the BU Bridge was damage done by workers inspecting the BU Bridge.

Between the ramp to Memorial Drive and the worn out portion brambles were apparently crushed as part of the "sidewalk project."

The wasted area toward the river has heavily been created by nuts from the DCR and their agents. They have, over the years, shown their contempt for nature here and under the trees to the east.

These nuts dug up the protective ground vegetation and dumped poisons. This is an excellent example of man's destroying our world. Vegetation needed by nature and by our world is considered "unsightly" by nuts who have no business managing nature. That is our DCR and its agents.

The damage that was done to the briars has been picked up during the last week.

Prior times when nuts from the DCR and their agents have destroyed nature in the goose meadow, they have destroyed nests as well. The difference between the killing of geese by the rape-murderer who is now in jail and the DCR activities was that the rape-murderer left the dead bodies.

When the DCR / their agents were indulging in their outrageous cleanups, mother geese simply disappeared. We have seen mates become flat out nuts when the DCR / their agents did their vile work. I have seen day old babies wandering the nesting area looking for their mothers, crying for their mothers.

My first indication that somebody other than an individual nut was killing mother geese came after second the brood in the 2001 nesting season was hatched under a large board leaning against the BU Bridge. The board was too big for one person to move, but it disappeared, leaving a missing mother, a mate who had gone nuts and babies crying for their mother.

Brown Beauty has, in the past, been severely beaten protecting her nest.

Mother geese do not abandon their broods. Sick nuts kill mother geese.

The work that cleaned up vegetation that had been trampled was in the area I mentioned above.

Brown Beauty has been nesting in the area toward the on ramp.

Brown Beauty's babies have disappeared. Brown Beauty is very distraught.

Did the sickos from the DCR commit yet another outrage?

Well, we could ask them. These are the guys who promised to do no harm to the Charles River White Geese and then explained that they do not consider starving them to be harming them.

We are dealing with truly reprehensible people. Reprehensible people who are proud of being reprehensible except when they lie to decent human beings.

What do you think?

Afterthought:

Has anybody seen Brown Beauty's mate?

When the sick bastard's were "cleaning up" nests, mother geese rather clearly were killed and removed for defending their nests. Brown Beauty was alone yesterday. I have almost never in recent days seen her without her mate.

I have not seen a goose look like that since the rape-murderer apparently killed Bumpy.

Was Brown Beauty's mate killed for defending the nest and babies?

If anybody has seen Brown Beauty's mate, I would very pleased to learn differently.

Brown Beauty: Joy turns to loss

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Brown Beauty has had two surviving broods.

In 1999, she had five babies, three males and two females. Two of the males were shot in the ensuing years. One died rapidly. The second possibly died a year later.

In 2005 or 2006, she had one surviving baby, a male, a white beauty with a black hood.

Last week, I saw two babies huddling up to her under her wing. This was under the vegetation toward the tracks, but near the historical nesting area.

This week, they were no longer there. I found Brown Beauty under the vegetation near the river and not that far from the bridge. She was by herself, no mate, no babies.

She looked bedraggled.

Environmental Destruction and Lying on the Charles River

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introductory.
2. Objection to lying on the Charles River, long form.

1. Introductory.

In my prior blog report, I passed on a letter printed by the Cambridge Chronicle, and commented on a response published on line and probably printed in today's paper.

The response to my letter may, for now, be found at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/homepage/x2032091241/Guest-commentary-Should-the-Charles-be-a-private-cooling-pond-for-power-plant.

After an exchange, I submitted an op ed response. The Chronicle editor has asked me to cut it down to a 400 word letter.

The following is the full version. I will work on cutting it down to 400 words for the Chronicle.

2. Objection to lying on the Charles River, long form.

Editor

I have a great deal of difficulty with the Guest Commentary entitled “Should the Charles be a private cooling pond for power plant?”

The difficulty very strongly comes from the fact that one week before the submission of this article, I, yet again in the Cambridge Chronicle, condemned the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the Charles River .

In my letter, I used an indelicate comment with regard to my years of standing up to environmental destruction by these people on the Charles River: “The only thing that has been consistent on the Charles River has been lies and suppression of the truth.”

The variety of lies, deliberate or otherwise, which I have seen has been incredible. The subset of lies to which I have been subjected includes the approach of this op-ed piece, whether deliberate or not:

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge love to point fingers at the Mirant Power Plant, people who are cleaning up their act on the Charles River .

The fact that the DCR and Cambridge are aggressively going in the wrong direction is something that Friends of the DCR and Cambridge DO NOT want to hear about.

Two years ago, in late summer, all of a sudden, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge .

THE DAY BEFORE the Charles River was dead, the DCR applied Tartan fungicide to Ebersol Fields, across the river from the Mirant Plant. Tartan is marked with prohibitions against use near water. But the DCR had replaced GREEN maintenance with CHEMICAL maintenance at Ebersol Fields and their beloved CHEMICALs did not work. So the DCR tossed on Tartan and THE NEXT DAY the Charles River was dead.

Cambridge and the DCR are doing the same thing at Magazine Beach . Cambridge and the DCR have a location which works perfectly well with GREEN maintenance. Cambridge and the DCR want to put in their beloved CHEMICAL maintenance.

Magazine Beach has seen the contempt for the environment practiced by the DCR and Cambridge . The DCR and Cambridge destroyed the wetlands and animal habitat to install a bizarre wall of bushes. Friends of the DCR and Cambridge publicly called this bizarre wall blocking the Charles River from Magazine Beach a way to improve swimming on the Charles River .

This bizarre project walled off the Charles River White Geese from their principal source of food for 25 years. Simultaneous with this project, Cambridge put up a wall barring access from the Charles River to their alternate source of food of the Charles River White Geese for 25 years, the grass across from the Hyatt.

These heartless, cruel people have isolated these beautiful, valuable animals in their nesting area, perhaps 5% of their 25 year habitat. Now these heartless people want to destroy half their nesting area in a project called a sidewalk project.

I complained on the pages of the Cambridge Chronicle. The Cambridge Chronicle got a response which talks about the Mirant plant.

Friends of Cambridge and the DCR do not want to know reality.

Friends of Cambridge and the DCR do not want to know that Mirant is decreasing pollution.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know that Cambridge and the DCR are aggressively increasing pollution.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know that the DCR and Cambridge certainly look like the only current aggressive destroyers of the Charles River environment.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know about DCR’s five years of destroying as many eggs of water fowl as is possible.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know about the DCR’s five years of destroying as much protective vegetation on the Charles River as is possible.

Friends of the DCR belligerently want to believe the DCR’s promise repeated over many years: We will not harm the Charles River White Geese.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know the caveat given after starvation commenced. Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know the caveat that the DCR does not consider starvation harmful to the Charles River White Geese.

As far as I am concerned, whether knowing or not, loudly yelling about Mirant and not wanting to know about Cambridge and the DCR destructiveness on the Charles River is flat out lying.

As far as I am concerned the litany of skillful lying techniques used by the DCR, Cambridge and their stand-ins are all just lying.

The lying techniques I have observed over the years include the technique in this op ed piece, whether the writer is "consciously" aware or not. The lying techniques I have observed include working through agents and denying responsibility. The lying techniques I have observed include playing games with funding.

I object to the ongoing destruction on the Charles River . I object to the decade of lies of so many different techniques which has helped make the destruction possible.

I object to holier than thou’s from Cambridge and the DCR, people who are most definitely not holier than thou.

Censorship in Cambridge, MA - Cambridge Chronicle letter

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Letter in Cambridge Chronicle.
2. Apparent response by bad guys.

1. Letter in Cambridge Chronicle.

The following letter was printed in the May 1, 2008, Cambridge Chronicle minus the paragraph starting with "Nine heartless animal abusers." The entire letter was printed on line, from which this copy is taken.

*********

Cambridge -

The city recently started fining people for posting notices on lampposts.The city of Cambridge and Harvard University are exempt from the fines. Signs have gone up on the BU Bridge announcing “sidewalk improvements.” Typical DCR lies.

The “sidewalk improvements” include major destruction in the last remaining habitat of the Charles River white geese — their nesting area in which they are currently nesting.

Nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council and School Committee member McGovern are imminently destroying the food of the Charles River white geese at Magazine Beach by digging up all seven acres, creating a wasteland in order to replace green maintenance with chemical maintenance.

Censorship of fliers is no coincidence.

The only thing that has been consistent on the Charles River has been lies and suppression of the truth.

These vile people will not behave in a manner consistent with their holier-than-thou pieties, so they are shutting people up.

ROBERT J. LA TREMOUILLE

2. Apparent response by bad guys.

The bad guys apparently responded by submitting an extended piece yelling about the Mirant power plant. It is in the Cambridge Chronicle on line. I do not know if it made today's edition of the paper.

When I refer to non-stop lies, I refer to a pattern of lying using an incredible variety of techniques.

One of the techniques is to change the subject and misdirect from the problem.

Mirant is cleaning up their act. Cambridge and the DCR are aggressively destroying the Charles River environment.

So the bad guys, friends of the DCR and Cambridge, do not want to hear about Cambridge and the DCR, they yell about Mirant.

Holier than thou hypocrisy and censorship: Cambridge, MA

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn Wellons on Censorship and The Law.
Flier Ordinance Cannot be Enforced.
3. Your editor on Cambridge, MA's contempt for The Law.
Flier Ordinance Cannot be Enforced; Response - Cambridge has contempt for inconvenient laws.


1. Introduction.

The following exchange appeared on the Cambridgeport listserve on May 5, 2008.

2. Marilyn Wellons on Censorship and The Law
Flier Ordinance Cannot be Enforced.

If the city's already hired a compliance officer and fined Riverside Neighborhood Association, it may be silly but someone's serious about it. Why, and why now, I do not know, but this move does follow hard upon others to limit public speech, especially in City Council.

How we're to find lost dogs or cats, advertise yard sales or neighborhood meetings without being able to put signs on utility poles I also don't know. Postings like these are a public means of communication unlike the telephone, e-mail, snail mail, or door-to-door leafleting.

Marilyn Wellons

PS Something about this reminds me of the poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoeller: see http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ First_they_ came...

3. Your editor on Cambridge, MA's contempt for The Law.
Flier Ordinance Cannot be Enforced; Response - Cambridge has contempt for inconvenient laws.

Standard game with the City of Cambridge is: "If you want us to obey the law, sue us."

That is the reason they get away with so many truly reprehensible things, all the time putting out "Holier than thou" lies.

One excellent example is Kathy Podgers' case at the MCAD, two findings of probable cause so far in an obvious case.

Another excellent example the flat out refusal of the Election Commission to obey the Jack E. Robinson case. Most sane people do not spend thousands of dollars fighting these bastards.

They wind up in court only when they force somebody into a corner, as those dirty bastards did with Kathy Podgers. With Kathy, however, it says wonders that a roomful of rogue cops have not been punished for siccing a pit pull on her guide dog in the lobby of the Cambridge Police Station.

Major Two Front Attack Imminent on Charles River White Geese - City Censors Fliers on Lampposts

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Censorship by Cambridge with Cambridge and Harvard above the "law."
2. DCR Work at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
3. DCR / Cambridge Work at Magazine Beach.
4. Summary.

1. Censorship by Cambridge with Cambridge and Harvard above the "law."

The City of Cambridge recently started fining people for posting notices on lampposts.

The City of Cambridge and Harvard University are exempt from the fines.

2. DCR Work at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Signs have gone up on the BU Bridge announcing "sidewalk improvements".

Typical Department of Conservation and Recreation lies.

The "sidewalk improvements" include major destruction in the last remaining habitat of the Charles River White Geese: their nesting area in which they are currently nesting.

These "improvements" were presented at meetings quite awhile ago. Efforts to find current plans have so far been unavailing.

My memory is that signficant work (in spite of the "sidewalk" claim) was proposed in the northern part of the goose meadow abutting the ramp to Memorial Drive.

The plans shown would rather clearly obstruct access for feeding to remedy the ongoing starvation attacks by the DCR/Cambridge.

Additionally, vehicles have been in the goose meadow which have damaged native vegetation. The initial investigation concerned the stability of the BU Bridge which supposedly is scheduled for work in several years.

Other vehicle use is shown in damage to vegetation in or near the area of construction.

Geese are nesting in this vegetation. This vegetation is crucial to the health of the goose meadow and to the lives of its residents.

Repeated destruction of ground vegetation by the DCR and its friends combined with poisoning of the ground has left a very significant part of the goose meadow bare, just as river banks are left essentially bare by these sick people and their contempt for nature.

3. DCR / Cambridge Work at Magazine Beach.

Nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council and School Committee member McGovern are imminently destroying the food of the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach by digging up all seven acres, creating a wasteland in order to replace GREEN maintenance with CHEMICAL maintenance.

4. Summary.

Censorship of fliers is no coincidence.

The only thing that has been consistent on the Charles River has been lies and suppression of the truth.

These vile people will not behave in a manner consistent with their holier than thou pieties, so they are shutting people up.

The DCR, however, does have an eight year records of sweet lies promising good behavior followed by undisclosed disclaimors.

I.E. We have no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese - repeated ever since 2000, quoted by the Boston Globe next to the photo of the earth movers in fall 2004.

Starving the Charles River White Geese is not harming them - stated in public meeting of Cambridge pol organization, in front of 20 to 40 people.

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL TO FURTHER RESTRICT PUBLIC COMMENT TO CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL? REACTION TO KATHY PODGERS?

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.
2. Kathy Podgers?
A. Probable Cause of Violation of Her Civil Rights.
B. Explanation of the Cambridge Pols.
C. Explanation of the Cambridge City Council.
D. Explanation of the City of Cambridge according to Kathy.
E. But Kathy Podgers talks about other abuses of the Cambridge City Council and Cambridge Government.
3. Your editor’s reaction.

1. Introductory.

The Cambridge City Council has voted to look into furthering restricting the information they allow the public to present to the Cambridge City Council in the meetings of the Cambridge City Council.

The vote was 8 to 1.

Public participation in Cambridge City Council meetings is dramatically reduced as it is. The public is prohibited from talking in the meetings about anything except things the Cambridge City Council wants to talk about. Then the public has a three minute limit on the amount of words the public can say. And the public can only comment before the matter is discussed by the Cambridge City Council.

The restrictions get so bad that the city staff is allowed to make false statements about the positions that particular members of the public may have. I was once prohibited from responding to a flat out lie made about my position. The chair ruled that it was my flat out duty to foresee the flat out lie and respond to the flat out lie before it was said.

Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that very few intrepid souls bother to comment in city council meetings.

The Cambridge City Council, however, seems to think that the Cambridge City Council is hearing too much public opinion.

Thus, the reasonable question is: what is going on?

2. Kathy Podgers?

A. Probable Cause of Violation of Her Civil Rights.

One possible explanation could be that Kathy Podgers is embarrassing the Cambridge City Council by exposing the Cambridge City Council to reality.

You see, the Cambridge City Council and its City Manager has an extremely active and visible group, the Cambridge Pols, who are the approved talkers about the Cambridge City Government. This well organized clique can be relied upon to say some of the most bizarre, favorable things about these people.

The Cambridge Pols have the nerve to call the Cambridge City Council pro-environment. The Cambridge Pols even have the nerve to call the Cambridge City Council pro-civil rights.

The latter is one aspect to where Kathy Podgers comes in. You see, Kathy Podgers has had two findings of probable cause to determine that her civil rights have been violated by the Cambridge City Council. You see, the City of Cambridge and the City Council has problems with Kathy using a guide dog. Things have gotten so bad that a group of rogue cops abused the guide dog in the lobby of the Cambridge Police Station and apparently have not been punished.

The Cambridge City Council, through its mayor, tried to throw Kathy Podgers out of a Cambridge City Council meeting because the Cambridge City Council objected to the presence of her guide dog. So the two findings of probable cause of violation of this handicapped woman’s civil rights.

B. Explanation of the Cambridge Pols.

The explanation of the Cambridge Pols is pretty predictable. This is one little person. How dare anybody object to the Cambridge City Council abusing the civil rights of one little person. This explanation is very similar to the Cambridge Pols explanation of some of the more irresponsible treatment of the environment. You listen to the Cambridge Pols talk about the Charles River White Geese, and you would be certain that you are listening to a wife abuser talk about his wife.

C. Explanation of the Cambridge City Council.

As is usual with the Cambridge City Council on the outrageous behavior by the Cambridge City Council, their explanation is silence.

And you can’t talk in the Cambridge City Council meetings about something on which the Cambridge City Council is silent.

D. Explanation of the City of Cambridge according to Kathy.

Kathy has had a number of incidents in which she has been evicted from public places because the public places object to the presence of her guide dog.

According to Kathy, the City of Cambridge sees nothing wrong with this behavior. Evicting Kathy because of her guide dog violated federal civil rights laws. Cambridge has its own civil rights laws. Cambridge is above obeying federal laws which grant more civil rights than do Cambridge laws.

E. But Kathy Podgers talks about other abuses of the Cambridge City Council and Cambridge Government.

Kathy actually has the nerve to think that the Cambridge should be respecting the laws of Massachusetts and the laws of the United States.

Kathy has the nerve to say these horrible things in public.

Kathy has the nerve to say things which contradict the propaganda put out by the Cambridge Pols as cheerleaders for the Cambridge City Council and Cambridge Government.

Behavior such as this is unacceptable in the City of Cambridge.

3. Your editor’s reaction.

There are various other really nasty explanations for this initiative toward further censorship. I will go into those explanations at a later date.

Rose Kennedy Greenway and Memorial Drive

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Summary.
2. Comment of a Key Cambridge Pol.
3. Response to the Bad Guy.
4. Final Comments.

1. Summary.

The Charles River White Geese are the most valuable asset the City of Cambridge and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation have in their part of the Charles River.

They have lived, beloved by the general public, in a mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge since 1981.

Nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council have deliberately starved these beautiful animals since 2004 as part of a truly bizarre project at Magazine Beach, formerly their principal feeding area. The nine heartless abusers now propose to poison their food at Magazine Beach by replacing GREEN playing fields with CHEMICAL maintained playing fields.

The same City of Cambridge has had two findings of probable cause made against them at the state’s Commission Against Discrimination as part of their fight to keep a handicapped elderly woman from using her guide dog.

The fight against the guide dog was punctuated by a group of rogue cops abusing the guide dog in the lobby of the police station by siccing a pit bull on the guide dog.

Keeping this sick situation going is large well organized group, the Cambridge Pols. Their explanation for their behavior are attacks on the beautiful Charles River White Geese and on the handicapped woman with words that sound strikingly like a WIFE ABUSER justifying his abuse of his wife.

But they do do a lot of lying about which side they are on.

Cambridge has a really, really vile political situation.

2. Comment of a Key Cambridge Pol.

The following comment was placed on his listserve on March 11, 2007 by a Cambridge pol who runs an organization he calls a neighborhood organization.

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

Subject: The Greenway and the Memorial Drive way

Award winning Boston Globe columnist Steve Bailey, (who I am told was asked to leave the Globe as part of cost cutting), wrote a great business section column Friday March 7, 08 on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, and the focus of the column was on limiting height and density to preserve the open space, parkway feeling that was the purpose of the Greenway in the first place. Here is a link to Steve Bailey's column.

http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2008/03/07/greenway_sanity/

The development pressures around the Greenway are phenomenal. Builders are proposing 800 foot tall towers according to Bailey, which would make the Greenway a shadow-way. Anyhoo, these issues are of course almost perfectly parallel to the issues that the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association and others have been addressing regarding open space along Mem Drive, so as we learn about the Mem Drive open space issues, it is certainly relevant to be aware of these looming Greenway debates involving parallel issues.

3. Response to the Bad Guy.

I offered the following response to the listserve. It has not been distributed yet. The Cambridge pols find comments which reflect reality unacceptable, but they sure can heap wife-beater type abuse on their victims when nothing else works.

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

The obvious response on Memorial Drive is to kill and otherwise reverse the initiatives of the Cambridge Pols and their buddies.

The destruction of Magazine Beach to replace the GREEN there with chemicals, apparently including chemicals to drive away animal life (Ebersol Fields) must immediately be reversed.

Actions to starve local wildlife must immediately be reversed.

The Memorial Drive Overlay District must be killed.

Actions to turn the Grand Junction Railroad into an extension of the Binney Connector, paired with Vassar Street must be killed.

Any and all actions to assist moving the Mass. Pike exit to the Grand Junction railroad bridge (and then by way of the railroad and Vassar Street to the Binney Connector / Inner Belt must be killed.

Plans to destroy from 499 to 660 healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, including every Cherry Tree must be killed.

Etc.

A lot of stuff the Cambridge pols have been fighting for must die.

Trouble is that the Cambridge pols have been very consistent over the years, great words, exactly the wrong actions.

4. Final Comments.

The language of the bad guy is instructive: "As we learn about the Mem Drive open space issues" gives the impression of good intent.

We have been telling them about the destructive behavior for eight years including very strong documentation, and SOMEHOW, they just cannot understand where the problem is.

I learned quite awhile ago, with regard to another key Cambridge pol, that they just cannot be that stupid.

An excellent example is the "Green" organization this guy's friends have created which claims to represent Cambridgeport, but which does not want to know about the bizarre projects at Magazine Beach.

But the Cambridge pols sure do like Wife Abuser type comments aimed at their victims.

The reality is that, as my comments in 3 above demonstrate, there is a lot going on here, and a fake neighborhood association controlled by them is a well established Cambridge pol tactic to PREVENT ORGANIZATION.

Psychoanalyzing a Heartless Animal Abuser

Bob La Trémouille reports:

When I first became aware of the plans of the City of Cambridge for the Magazine Beach area in Fall 1997, I could not get anybody to believe me.

First of all, there clearly was no need to "improve" Magazine Beach. Second of all, who would be so heartless and wasteful as to harm the habitat of the beautiful and extremely valuable Charles River White Geese.

After the announcement of the City Manager’s plans, the Department of Conservation and Recreation sought to receive complaints against the Charles River White Geese. Cambridge pols who had organized the show-and-tell of the City Manager’s plans happily filed complaint.

After the Cambridge City Manager announced his plans, the Cambridge Pols happily started running around bad-mouthing the Charles River White Geese.

The DCR talked about complaints against the Charles River White Geese as excuse for their heartless treatment of the geese. Friends of the White Geese made a freedom of information demand.

THE ONLY COMPLAINT received against the Charles River White Geese since their first residence in 1981 turned out to be the complaint filed by the Cambridge Pol group IN RESPONSE TO the request of the DCR.

The sort of personal destruction which the Cambridge Pols attempted to inflict on Kathy Podgers in the Cambridge Chronicle was strikingly similar to the activities of the Cambridge Pols against the Charles River White Geese. The Cambridge Pols started badmouthing and belittling beings who were and continue to be the city and state’s most valuable resource on their part of the Charles River.

The geese are the subject of tourist visits. The geese are beloved by commuters, by a large number of locals and by so many people who just happen to encounter them.

The Cambridge Pols got very busy and very nasty.

When Peter Valentine attempted to get Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons to behave like a responsible human being with regard to the Charles River and the Charles River White Geese, Simmons spouted words which reaffirmed the campaign of destruction by the Cambridge pols.

Demeaning your victim is key to an abuser. Dehumanizing, devaluing is key to an abuser.

There was no way Simmons was about to treat the Charles River White Geese as anything of any value whatsoever.

This is not unique to Simmons. It just happens to be specifically recognizable through a recognized third party.

They spout this standard abuser garbage and they fit the mold.

Cambridge politics is a very filthy entity and the heartless animal abusers upon whom Cambridge politics revolve fit the mold.

"Environmental" Councilor Can Be Made to Oppose Destruction of Green?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The letter to the Cambridge Chronicle editor was published in the Chronicle on February 21, 2008.

The following Tuesday one of the usual Cambridge pol type groups held a meeting which discussed the Charles River.

In attendance were the local State Rep, State Senator and a city councilor who has run very beligerently as an environmentalist. The Rep, Walz, continued to support the environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. The Senator was willing to talk and the city councilor offered to allow constituents to talk him into opposing destruction of the Green at Magazine Beach.

I am reminded of an attempt by Peter Valentine, a very fine person and supporter of the Charles River White Geese, to interest the latest Cambridge Mayor in behaving responsibly on the Charles River. She flatly and simply ruled out any discussion of NOT indulging in heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.

An honest translation of her opinion:

HOW DARE YOU EXPECT ME TO REFRAIN FROM HEARTLESS ABUSE OF THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE. THEY ARE THE LITTLE GUY!!!

The ongoing destruction of thousands of healthy trees at Fresh Pond combines with the destruction of the homes of thousands of animals and the creation of homelessness for them.

That letter published in the Chronicle referred to the abuse of a guide dog in the lobby of the Cambridge Police Station by a rogue cop in a room containing other rogue cops who did nothing. The rogue cop on duty at the desk both did nothing and refused to accept a complaint concerning an outrage which occurred to his face.

A more accurate condemnation of the situation concerning animals in the City of Cambridge is that we have nine belligerent animal abusers who are proud of it except that they try to hide themselves to responsible people.

Those rogue cops in the police station lobby abusing the guide dog were implementing very sick policy coming straight from a truly reprehensible city government.

I have compared the current situation in the City of Cambridge to the stench I noticed when working with the Walsh law firm in the 80's. None of the people from the Walsh law firm who went to jail were jailed for bribery.

Letter Published

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On February 16, I reported on the Cambridge Chronicle shutting down comments in its on line edition on reports published in the Chronicle. I included in my report a letter I had submitted to the Chronicle editor on the subject.

The letter I submitted was published on page 10 of the February 21 edition. Without going into a detailed comparison, it definitely sounds unedited.

Frankly, I was very surprised. I only learned about the publication from a friend on the street this morning. I confirmed it in the back issues rack at the Public Library.

Even with with the moderating edits which I pointed out in my report, that was a strong letter. The Chronicle editor is to be thanked and commended.

Cambridge Chronicle shuts down on line comments on articles

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Civil Rights a saving grace?
3. No way is Civil Rights a saving grace.
4. Self-censorship. Rogue cops. Jim Crow.
5. Cambridge Chronicle editor position.
6. Response by your editor to the Cambridge Chronicle editor.

1. Introduction.

The truly sick abuse being afflicted on the beautiful and extremely popular Charles River White Geese as part of the bizarre project at Magazine Beach says pretty much everything that needs to be known about nine Cambridge City Councilors and their cohorts at state level. They plan to very quickly make things much worse by destroying the green playing fields at Magazine Beach and replacing the green playing fields with grass maintained by poisons.

The nine hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council extended their reprehensible behavior from heartless treatment of the Charles River White Geese and other Charles River animals to the destruction of the homes and habitat of hundreds if not thousands of free animals living at Fresh Pond. These nine hypocrites have proceeded with a bizarre project at Fresh Pond which, among other things, is destroying thousands of healthy trees to plant one thousand saplings.

2. Civil Rights a saving grace?

Throughout their reprehensible behavior against the Cambridge environment, the apologists for these vile indivuals bragged about the record of the nine on civil rights.

3. No way is Civil Rights a saving grace.

Kathy Podgers has been abused by the Cambridge government for a number of years.

Shopkeepers have more than once barred her guide dog in spite of the clear protections that that guide dog has under Federal law.

The Cambridge government has been unsupportive of Kathy's civil rights. They claimed that Cambridge has its own civil rights laws and thus Cambridge does not have to obey Federal civil rights laws.

A little over a year ago, the Cambridge City Council tried to throw Kathy's guide dog out of a City Council meeting.

Kathy filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. The MCAD now has made two findings of probable cause of discrimination.

4. Self-censorship. Rogue cops. Jim Crow.

The Cambridge Chronicle reported the recent victory both in its hard copy and on line.

The on line edition allows comment on stories. The Cambridge Pols unleashed personal attacks and taunts in at least five to ten written on line attacks on Kathy Podgers. I responded three times with objections to their behavior accordingly.

Last summer, Kathy's guide dog was abused in the public area of the Cambridge Police Station by a bunch of rogue cops (one actor, the rest "failing to protect" the victim). She filed complaint with the department head. I am not aware of any punishment or apology. I commented on that abuse in my response.

Cambridge's selective respect for civil rights strikes me as outrageous. An excellent example is Cambridge insistence that Cambridge's ordinance is good enough and that Federal laws be damned if Federal laws provide more protection than Cambridge's ordinance.

This stinks of Jim Crow. The Jim Crow south had their own Civil Rights laws. The Jim Crow south protected those they thought should be protected. The Jim Crow south was outraged that the Federal government actually expected the Jim Crow south to obey federal civil rights laws. The Jim Crow south used rogue cops to enforce their contempt for civil rights.

Cambridge's treatment of Kathy, including the personal attacks and taunts on the Chronicle website, stinks to me of Jim Crow.

My objections were pulled by the Cambridge Chronicle three times. Before the third time, I realized that there were buttons on the comments allowing readers to object to objectionable content. Clearly the sick Cambridge Pols were clicking on that button when they saw comments which meaningfully stood up to them. The third time, I clicked on the buttons associated with the personal attacks and taunts. My comment was pulled. Then the Chronicle shut down public comments.

There was a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle on Thursday objecting to the shutdown of comments.

My letter below, submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle yesterday, omits saying the abuse of the guide dog was done by rogue cops. My letter omits the accurate association of the nine Cambridge City Councilors with the Jim Crow south.

5. Cambridge Chronicle editor position.

The Cambridge Chronicle editor announced the comment shutdown as follows:

**********

Cambridge - Most of the conversations happening at WickedLocal.com/Cambridge are spirited and informational. But a number of them have been just mean-spirited.

With this in mind, we must shut down comments on all our new stories. I personally apologize that we must remove this feature, but until we have the ability to block repeated offenders who wish to spread ignorance, fear and lots of profanity, it must go.

Please keep reading this space for updates, but know there are still ways you can weigh in here on your local news site. Continue to comment on the Chronicle's blog here, where you can talk about all things Cambridge. Feel good about writing a letter to Cambridge@cnc.com which we can publish online. Or call our print-only SpeakOut line at 617-715-5050.

And for those who have kept the conversation clean these past months, thank you. I hope to work with the good folks here to come up with a solution for you soon.

6. Response by your editor to the Cambridge Chronicle editor.

The following, in accordance with Chronicle practice, was sent by me Friday before noon to make it timely for next Thursday's paper:

**********

I think you are to be commended for shutting down what was a nasty situation on line.

Kathy Podgers' interim victory over abuse of her federally guaranteed civil rights by the City of Cambridge exposed the very dirty side of the unified group of Cambridge Pols who keep a nasty situation going by calling it the exact opposite.

When the facts are the opposite of the propaganda, the propaganda gets tossed out anyway. If non stop falsehoods will not work, personal attacks are mercilessly used with the deliberate intent of destroying a person fighting for what the Cambridge Pols falsely claim to stand for.

Cambridge has filthy hands on environmental and civil rights issues.

Cambridge has filthy hands on environmental issues with the worst, but by no means the only, examples being, at Fresh Pond, the needless destruction of perhaps thousands of trees and associated animal habitat in the bizarre project, and, on the Charles River, the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese as part of the bizarre project.

On civil rights, Cambridge clearly calls itself above federal law. If Cambridge does not protect somebody in its local civil rights ordinance, Cambridge has clearly called itself exempt from Federal laws which do protect people not protected by the Cambridge ordinance. Kathy Podgers has, with success, stood up to this highly irresponsible position and now has two victories at state level.

The Cambridge Pols have responded with great nastiness.

KATHY'S GUIDE DOG HAS BEEN PHYSICALLY ATTACKED. How can anybody be so irresponsible as to attack a guide dog? Well, this is Cambridge, a city governed by holier than thou hypocrisy. So the Cambridge Pols physically attacked her guide dog.

Your report on Kathy's victories was turned into another effort at destroying Kathy rather than obeying the requirements of civil rights law.

Pols abused her on line. Pols mocked her on line. Pols taunted her on line.

Kathy would likely have settled for an apology at the state. The Cambridge Pols will respect nothing less than a big cut of money taken out of the tax rate. Kathy should proceed. What has been physically done to her dog and verbally done to her on line is just part of the problem.

Cambridge politics is a very filthy place and a very hypocritical place.

The Cambridge Chronicle has shut down use of its website as part of standing up to the filthiness.

Thank you.

Con Game on the Charles from Cambridge City Councillor Craig Kelley

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Cambridge City Councillor Craig Kelley got elected to Cambridge City Council the first time by presenting himself as a meaningful environmental activist.

He played the same game that all the Cambridge Pols and the rest of the hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council do:

Do as I say, not as I do.

In Cambridge that translates into non-stop destruction of that part of the world that only they can destroy while loudly yelling about anything and everything other than their own so reprehensible behavior.

Kelley has discovered the Charles River. Kelley has spent years not wanting to know about Cambridge and the state's consistently reprehensible behavior on the Charles River.

Kelley does not want to know about the 449 to 660 trees slated for destruction by the DCR between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, including every single cherry tree.

Kelley does not want to know about the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese or the more than three year starvation attack on them by Cambridge and the DCR.

Kelley does not want to know about the bizarre, inexcuseable destruction going on at Magazine Beach which is schedule to get much worse.

Kelley does not want to know about the poisoning of the Charles River AND THE LOCAL WILDLIFE by the dumping of poisons BY THE STATE AND, SOON TO COME, BY HIM on the lands abutting the Charles.

Kelley does not want to know that, in a project strikingly similar to HIS project at Magazine Beach, the Charles River was poisoned by the State from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge.

Kelley's only comment on the outrage at Magazine Beach came when he learned that a bridge connecting Magazine Beach to the other side of Memorial Drive had been damaged. He specifically said that that FINALLY he had him something to complain about at Magazine Beach. After the destruction of the wetlands, after the heartless starvation, after the bizarre blocking of access between the Charles River and the playing fields, after the destruction of the animal habitat.

Now, Kelley has heard there is something dirty in the Charles near the side facing Magazine Beach of the Longfellow Bridge. Kelley has no reason to think that HE OR HIS BUDDIES might be causing that mess.

So Kelley brought the problem up at Monday's City Council meeting.

What about his own poisoning?

What about all the trees BEHIND HIM, as he stands by the Longfellow Bridge which are slated by the DCR for wasteful destruction as he looks at the dirt HE HOPES somebody else did?

Kelley does not want to know about that.

KELLEY WANTS TO LIE TO HIS CONSTITUENTS that he is DEFENDING the Charles River.

KELLEY WANT TO KEEP HIS CONSTITUENTS FROM LOOKING AT HIS OWN FILTHY HANDS.

Kelley has found something to defend against on the Charles River.

That something could very likely be the results of the POISONING of Ebersol Fields on the other side of the Longfellow bridge and the south side of the Charles River, POISONING BEING FOLLOWED UP WITH BY POISONING SOON TO COME AT MAGAZINE BEACH WITH KELLEY PAYING THE BILL.

But Kelley does not want to know that.

MCAD finds probable cause of Cambridge civil rights violations.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

A little over a week ago, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination found probable cause that Cambridge violated the civil rights of Kathy Podgers when Cambridge tried to throw her guide dog out of a Cambridge City Council meeting.

You will recall that Cambridge considers itself above Federal civil rights laws. Cambridge has its own civil rights law, and Cambridge thinks its only duty is to obey ITS civil rights law and that, in Cambridge, people who want more civil rights than Cambridge guarantees are out of luck.

The MCAD is not controlled by Cambridge pols. The MCAD thinks that Cambridge's behavior looks quite unacceptable.

A bunch of rogue cops apparently followed up on the outrage in Cambridge City Council. They followed up by abusing Kathy Podger's guide dog in the lobby of the police station. Last I heard, their fellow police officers continued to treat these rogue cops like police officers.

After all, they are only implementing the clear policy of the Cambridge City Council.

The Cambridge City Council has contempt for civil rights and for guide dogs guaranteed by Federal law.

Nine members of the Cambridge City Council are heartlessly and publicly animal abusers. They have deliberately starved the Charles River White Geese now for more than three years as part of a public works project that only the people paid to do it can love.

And they are heartlessly destroying the animal environment at Fresh Pond while they destroy thousands of healthy trees because the thousands of healthy trees are in the way of a thousand saplings they want to plant.

Hey, so rogue cops implemented their vile positions.

Cambridge, the city in which guide dogs are abused by rogue cops, the city in which civil rights violators call themselves defenders of civil rights, and environmental destroyers and animal abusers call themselves environmentalists.

At least the MCAD stands up to these reprehensible people.

Chronicle on Wolf, Outrageous Wolf Press Release

1. Chronicle Article on Representative Wolf.
2. Wolf's hypocritical press release.
3. Key omission in Wolf on line biography.
4. Environmental outrage starting with the School Committee, continuing to last year.
5. Summary.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Chronicle Article on Representative Wolf.

This morning, I noticed a good sized article in the Cambridge Chronicle's on line edition concerning State Representative Alice Wolf. It is perhaps a precursor to tomorrow's hard copy. They print weekly on Thursdays.

You will recall that, last Saturday, I responded to an on-line, reprehensible piece of hypocrisy from Wolf in which she claimed to be defending the Charles River.

Today's article included not a single word on Wolf's attempted claim to environmental sainthood.

2. Wolf's hypocritical press release.

I followed up by checking her website. She has a press release there which shows the level of hypocrisy to which she will stoop. It may be found at: http://www.alicewolf.org/index.cfm?cdid=10608&pid=10266. This press release gives her outrageous claim to environmental sainthood.

3. Key omission in Wolf on line biography.

I found this outrageous item there looking for Alice Wolf's biography. In particular, I was looking for Alice Wolf's period of service on the Cambridge School Committee.

I think it is telling that Alice Wolf's on line biography does not state when Representative Wolf joined the Cambridge School Committee.

4. Environmental outrage starting with the School Committee, continuing to last year.

Elsewhere on this blog, I thought we had a link to Roy Bercaw's photos of the Public Library site. Right now I cannot find it. After I could not find the link, Roy was kind enough to provide another. It is readily available. Thank you again, Roy.

The Public Library was an environmental masterpiece UNTIL THE CAMBRIDGE CITY GOVERNMENT WITH LEADERSHIP FROM THE CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL COMMITTEE destroyed that environmental masterpiece.

Between the Public Library and Cambridge Street was a magnificent grove of 30 or more ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD TREES. It created an excellent frame for the Public Library and visually linked Broadway to Cambridge Street.

The Cambridge School Committee and the Cambridge City Government destroyed two-thirds of those trees for a building which did not have to go on top of those trees.

When the Cambridge School Committee and the Cambridge City Government accomplished this destruction they displayed contempt for the gift of the library site by Frederick Rindge.

Rindge gave the city the Public Library site for use as a library and not for use for regular city purposes "such as a school building." Rindge gave adjacent sites for school construction.

The School Committee and the Cambridge City Government bragged that they were "replacing" the HUNDRED YEAR OLD TREES with saplings on Broadway.

The Cambridge City Government destroyed pretty much all of the saplings for the obvious phase 2 of the project last year.

5. Summary.

So, was Alice Wolf, self-proclaimed and extremely hypocritical environmentalist part of yet another environmental outrage?

The repeated environmental vileness of Cambridge pols is most definitely not limited to the Library site and the Charles River. Wolf is a long time Cambridge pol.

Could the clearly reprehensible behavior on the library site be why Alice Wolf does not give the period during which she served on the Cambridge School Committee?

If it was before her tenure, does she have filthy hands anyway?

The Cambridge Pols, a well organized group of environmentally very destructive hypocrites.

Representative Wolf Saving the Charles River?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction. Claim of Wolf to be defending the Charles River.
2. Reconstruction of my Post. I strongly disagreed.
A. Wolf’s Current Record, Ongoing and Continuing Environmental Destruction at Magazine Beach.
B. Related outrage – poisoning the Charles River.
C. Suggestion for constructive action by Representative Wolf — Resign.
3. Explanation of terms. I used the word "lie." It is well intended.
A. Councilor’s Seidel’s Analysis.
B. Comparison of Wolf’s words to Wolf’s Record.
4. Summary. Possible favorable explanation of missing posting.


1. Introduction. Claim of Wolf to be defending the Charles River.

Saturday morning, January 12, 2008, I checked out the Cambridge Chronicle's website at the suggestion of Roy Bercaw. I found a report on an email from Alice Wolf to reporter Erin Smith in which Wolf was claiming that she was getting aggressive in defending the Charles. I filed a response to Representative Wolf. An hour or so later, I checked the Chronicle on line and I was able to find the exchange.

An hour or so after that, I checked it again. At that point, I could not find the exchange, and as of the end of the day, I still could now find the exchange. If anybody reading this report can find the exchange on the Cambridge Chronicle website, I would be very pleased to modify this report accordingly.

2. Reconstruction of my Post. I strongly disagreed.

A. Wolf’s Current Record, Ongoing and Continuing Environmental Destruction at Magazine Beach.

Wolf was claiming that she was getting aggressive in defending the Charles.

I responded that, if Representative Wolf were meaningfully concerned about people destroying the Charles River, she should look in the mirror.

Wolf clearly supports the pending project at Magazine Beach to destroy the GREEN playing fields there and replace the GREEN playing fields with phosphate / poison supported playing fields.

Wolf clearly supported Phase 1 of this outrage commencing in September 2004, in which all wetlands at Magazine Beach, all the protective vegetation at the Magazine Beach playing fields and all the animal habitat at the playing fields were destroyed. The Charles River White Geese commenced to be starved.

Wolf's friends in the Department of Conservation and Recreation had spent four years denying any intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. Wolf's friends say that they, with Wolf's clear blessing, are not harming the geese, they are only starving them.

Wolf's supports this heartless and destructive behavior.

Wolf rather clearly supported and may have participated in a swim-in the following September (not certain of the month) by a bunch of non-profits (at least one with major developer contributors). This swim-in occurred at Magazine Beach and was a well organized photo opportunity. The people in the photo-op bragged that phase 1 would improve swimming in the Charles River.

Phase 1 replaced meaningful environmental entities with a wall of bizarre designer bushes which prevents access between the Magazine Beach playing fields and the Charles River. As is common with the liars so actively destroying the Charles River, phase 1 did exactly the oppositte of "improv[ing] swimming on the Charles River."

These bizarre designer bushes were claimed to be native. These bizarre bushes proved the word "native" false by repeatedly dying.

B. Related outrage – poisoning the Charles River.

The soon to come furtherance of outrage at Magazine Beach by destroying its GREEN character and introducing poisons is not the first such action by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The last such action was at Ebersol Fields on the Boston side of the Charles River near Mass. General Hospital.

The DCR apparently destroyed a GREEN environment and replaced that GREEN environment with an environment sustained by their beloved poisons. The beloved poisons did not work.

About 18 months ago, the DCR applied Tartan herbicide to Ebersol Fields. Tartan’s label prohibits use of Tartan near bodies of water.

THE NEXT DAY, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge. So now, the Cambridge pols, the DCR and Representative Wolf, want to extend the benefits of replacing GREEN environment maintenance with their beloved poisons at Magazine Beach.

So now, Representative Wolf, who supports this outrage, is making noises about looking into entities damaging the Charles River environment.

C. Suggestion for constructive action by Representative Wolf — Resign.

If Alice Wolf is meaningfully concerned about protective the environment of the Charles River, the best thing she can do is resign in favor of somebody who has not been involved in the environmental lies keyed on the Charles River.

3. Explanation of terms. I used the word "lie." It is well intended.

A. Councilor’s Seidel’s Analysis.

I think Councilor Siedel did the best job imaginable of condemning Cambridge Pols as a bunch of liars on environmental matters in the article he published in the Alewife newspaper which is published elsewhere in these reports. There is a link at the top of the blog page. The URL is http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

Siedel, in the Cambridge pol manner, bragged about using words which conveyed the opposite of reality.

Basically Siedel brags that the Cambridge pols have their own SECRET definition of environmentalism. Seidel sniffs that this editor is out of touch when this editor keeps on using the English language definition of environmentalism.

My interpretation of Siedel is that he is accurately branding the Cambridge Pols as a bunch of liars. You do not use secret definitions which exactly reverse the meaning of the words you are using and be anything other than a liar.

B. Comparison of Wolf’s words to Wolf’s Record.

Wolf has been and continues to be on the wrong side of the reprehensible environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. Now she claims to be looking into and trying to prevent damage to the Charles.

The two are mutually inconsistent.

4. Summary. Possible favorable explanation of missing posting.

The Cambridge Chronicle seems to be behaving in a responsible manner in general.

That puts the Cambridge Chronicle at variance with the Cambridge pols.

I hope the Cambridge Chronicle uses this occurrence to provide meaningful reporting on the outrage going on on the Charles River including the participation / willful lack of knowledge of Representative Wolf.

Wolf’s attempt to claim sainthood is very clearly inappropriate.

Response to recent publicity about the White Geese

Friends of the White Geese Co-chairs Robert J. La Trémouille and Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Editor of Bostonia, the Boston University alumni magazine. Bostonia's Fall, 2007 issue published an article about the White Geese.

******

To the Editor:

There may be no such thing as bad publicity. However, your recent article on the Charles River White Geese asserts the geese can't fend for themselves in their habitat. This misstatement is not only false but extremely dangerous for the animals and their friends.

For more than 20 years the White Geese did fend for themselves on the river. With waterproof down jackets, acres of meadows for food, an increasingly clean river, and the love of thousands of residents and visitors, they were safe, healthy, and a source of delight and education for their human friends. They enjoyed our contributions of food as much as we enjoyed giving them, but our contributions only supplemented what they independently got from their habitat.

Before September 2004 we had no idea how supplementary our feeding was. That month the DCR-Cambridge "restoration" prevented the geese from going ashore to feed at Magazine Beach. (The fields there have grasses and other plants, including polygonum, a wetland-defining member of the buckwheat family that is an important source of food for waterfowl.) The White Geese were frantic, because they fed here—quite on their own—all day long.

Since then it has been impossible or extremely dangerous for them to feed at Magazine Beach. They have essentially been confined to their nesting area, now their ghetto. This accords with the DCR-Cambridge policy of eliminating them from the river by whatever means necessary. If that includes starvation, too bad for the geese.

A heroic group of people, including the ones featured in your article, have kept the geese from that fate. The geese’s need for such help now is not proof they have always needed it or always will. They undeniably fended for themselves until the DCR and Cambridge deliberately denied them access to food. (This followed the DCR's deliberate destruction of the nesting habitat, using Boston University as its agent, in 1999.)

Saying the geese can't survive in their entire habitat will also allow the DCR and Cambridge to claim the geese shouldn't be there—that they're pets or farm animals, not natives—and should be removed (read: destroyed). This has in fact been the agency's line since 1998, as indicated in a memo Friends of the White Geese obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and in subsequent DCR-Cambridge actions.

Will ignorance of this history condemn us to repeat what followed from that memo?

• In 2000, the MSPCA, working with the DCR and then-State Rep. Barrios, offered "humane measures" to deal with the 1998 memo’s fabricated problems with the geese. When Friends of the White Geese proposed "humane measures" for Rep. Barrios, he claimed we wanted to assassinate him.

• In 2001, the MSPCA, still working with the DCR, again offered "humane treatment" at its happy farm in Methuen to save the geese from DCR-instigated violence. Three people, including an MSPCA employee, independently told [us] the animals would be destroyed there.

• Since 2000, the DCR has claimed it doesn’t intend to harm the geese. Since the starvation began in September, 2004, the DCR has announced that starving the geese is not harming them.

If Boston University, once again the DCR's agent, tells us the White Geese—Charles River natives for 25 generations—aren’t fit to live on the river, what's up? Can we expect another offer of "humane treatment"? DCR "No-Feeding" signs in Cambridge like in Boston and arrests of people who do feed them? More vilification of a "non-native species," more violence?

There’s a simple remedy for the geese's current plight. Restore them to their entire habitat. Recognize it as habitat, the wildlife sanctuary it is. Recognize the White Geese as the treasure they are: sources of delight and knowledge of the natural world, symbols of Cambridge, Boston, the Charles River, and even Boston University, and a sentinel species that warns us of threats to their, and our, habitat here.

With this recognition of the status quo before the DCR, Cambridge, and Boston University began their attacks on them, the Charles River White Geese would be fine.