News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
The Grant Street Ash is dead—and the Cambridge City Council wants answers.
The city’s legislative branch is standing by last week’s resolution lambasting Harvard’s “failure to protect” the centenarian tree, which was felled at the University’s Riverside Housing Development on Oct. 11. Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio argued that the accusations against Harvard in last week’s resolution went too far out on a limb, but the Council voted 7-1 last night to uphold the measure.
Galluccio hoped to strike seven clauses from the document, two of which claimed that Harvard’s failure to install a legally mandated barrier around the trunk “resulted in substantial damage to 4 out of 6 buttress roots, requiring that the tree be removed as a safety hazard.”
“I just didn’t want to presume what the cause of the damage was until we get the investigation back, Galluccio said in an interview following the meeting. Galluccio, citing a city official, said that the stump wouldn’t be removed until the investigation was complete.
Galluccio’s revision wouldn’t have altered the resolution’s final section, which calls for “possible sculptural use” of the stump. And following last night’s vote, the entire 255-word resolution—unlike the tree it trumpets—remains standing.
Five members of the public, who gave comment at the start of the meeting, were just as happy holding Harvard to blame.
Sarah Smith distributed copies of an architectural drawing from Harvard Real Estate Services, which depicts a protective area around the notorious ash—one, she says, was never built. “There is nothing in [the resolution] that is untrue or needs revision,” she said.
Kevin Whitfield described the resolution’s claims as “a reasonable conclusion that Harvard University may bear some or all of the responsibility for the loss of this tree.”
“What we’re about here, besides all the whereas-es,” he said, “is saying that Harvard has some answering to do.”
Harvard’s senior director of community relations, Mary Power, however, said the 110-year-old tree’s decay began long before the University made plans on Grant Street.
She said that a study had found rot at the tree’s base in early 2004, and experts concluded the ash was a “safety hazard.”
“Regrettably, trees do eventually have health issues,” she added.
The council took Harvard to task on more than just landscaping during yesterday’s meeting.
The city discussed a recent reimbursement of $21,124.37 from the University, which provided compensation for use of the Cambridge Police during a visit from former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to the Institute of Politics on Sept. 10.
Cambridge’s security costs, which included the use of the “Tactical Patrol Force,” totaled around $31,000; the remaining expenses were paid out of the city’s coffers.
Massachusetts Gov. W. Mitt Romney barred state police forces from providing security for Khatami, deeming Harvard’s invitation to the Iranian ex-chief “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists.” The council condemned Romney, saying he had “chosen to compromise public safety for his own political ambition.”
However, while commending area universities for bringing prominent speakers to Cambridge, Councillors Galluccio and Michael A. Sullivan proposed forcing private organizations to pay for security costs surrounding their visitors.
According to Sullivan, the council believed that the U.S. State Department would reimburse Cambridge for security expenses incurred during Khatami’s visit, but he added that the federal agency had not footed the city’s bill. “Maintaining constitutional rights is expensive,” he said in an interview.
Still, Sullivan said he doesn’t believe the city should demand full reimbursements from less well-funded organizations. “We’re very fortunate that Harvard reimbursed us for two thirds of the cost. But what happens when it’s somebody who can’t afford that? You have to be careful about quashing their rights.”
—Staff writer Nicholas K. Tabor can be reached at ntabor@fas.harvard.edu.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.