Just in time for the chicken ordinance…

1.

2.

Via Worcester Wired comes this great quote:

“Over on the west side I can tell you that residents in my district who live on Moreland Hill and live in West Tatnuck routinely hear and see coyotes up there,” Eddy said. “Anything that invites them closer has my attention.”

I know I’m getting into broken-record territory, but D5 is bigger than West Tatnuck.

There’s a chicken house that’s been in my backyard for at least fifty years.  (Its current residents are bikes and a lawn mower.)  The property was likely surrounded by even more woods 50-100 years ago than it is now.  If the previous residents were able to keep chickens, there’s really no reason why the current residents shouldn’t be able to.  (Though we’re personally holding out for the goat ordinance.)

3.

This might come as news to Jordan Levy, but there used to be a rooster in my neighborhood. We used to hear him all the time, though never early in the morning. We haven’t heard him in a while, but I never found it annoying (or, at least, no more annoying than a barking dog and far less annoying than the charge-of-the-light-brigade that occurs every time my neighbors buy fireworks).

Maybe coyotes?  Or do they only live on Moreland Hill?

For those interested in invasive species and/or watersheds

On Saturday June 18, 9:00-12:00 , the Tatnuck Brook Watershed Association will be meeting at 6 Judith Avenue to help remove invasive water chestnut plants growing in a cove of the Coes Reservoir.

If you’re interested in helping:

This is not the water chestnut we eat. If we let them, these plants will propagate rapidly, filling all parts of the pond less than 16 feet deep, forming a mat of vegetation too thick to paddle through, depriving fish of oxygen, and spreading downstream. Bring your canoe or rowboat if you have one!  Bring a life vest and work gloves, and wear shoes, because the seeds are sharp! Join us afterward for a cook-out at the nearby Knights of Columbus, Alhambra 88 Council, 44 Circuit Avenue North.

The ‘New’ Homeless

First, I’d like to recommend you read Heather’s post about being homeless.  Really, go read it.  I’ll be waiting.

There was an article in yesterday’s T&G about the ‘new’ homeless.  That is:

They include unmarried couples, individuals who have recently lost their jobs, adults ages 17 to 25 who can’t find employment, and people who no longer own their homes because of foreclosure proceedings.

Mr. O’Brien told the council that the center was never designed to serve or address the needs of this “new population” and those individuals have swelled to three times the number of clients that the facility is capable of serving.

Now, I’m trying not to be too sarcastic, but it’s not as if teen homelessness is a brand-new issue that at least one organization in the city wasn’t already trying to address in a very basic way.

Who exactly were the homeless before?

People who were working at an investment bank but liked having a cardboard box to sleep in as a status symbol?

Married thirty-something lawyers who prefer living at the PIP to Salisbury Street?

People who owned a home free & clear but who preferred a shelter to the annoyances of having to shovel their sidewalks in the winter?

I don’t have time to write much more, but I do hope someone does.

Someone very dear to me was homeless in his late teens, almost thirty years ago, and none of the reasons he became and remained homeless are new to our community — or any community.

Heather’s written very movingly about her experiences.  I hope she continues to write — and that others share their stories as well.