Thursday, December 11, 2014

Charles River, MA — Meeting on Mass. Pike (I90) Work in Allston, MA, one con exposes itself

Charles River, MA — Meeting on Mass. Pike (I90) Work in Allston, MA, one con exposes itself

Last night, December 10, 2014, I attended a presentation on the Mass. Pike (I90) work in the Honan Library in Allston.  The location is very common for neighborhood presentations.  I was surprised to see the meeting scheduled since MassDOT and the environmental people had a much larger, formal meeting in Brighton High School not that long ago.

It turned out to be a presentation to the Allston Civic Association.

I was determined to keep my mouth shut, until . . .

The MassDOT folks did their usual professional, competent explanation of their plans.

What surprised me was a person who followed the formal presentation.  He had his own slides, including among other things, the position of the Boston Architects group.

His presentation on West Station stood out.

I have posted my environmental analyses to the state environmental people on the pending Mass. Pike and South Station work.

West Station is a commuter rail station which was added to the project with money that suddenly showed up.  It is proposed to be abutting Boston University property on the end of the project away from Cambridge Street.  Here is the original project area map with my suggesting Green Line A spur superimposed.

West Station would go on the upper part of the right side of the orange triangle in the photo, close to the larger rectangular structure.  The green line is the possible Green Line A Spur.



The presenter’s comments stood out because, since last hearing such a pitch, I realized that the rearrangement of South Station in Downtown Boston is severely deficient.

The planners have apparently planned the project so that it will hold expansion of service to South Station by adding tracks to handle projected trains to Fall River and New Bedford.  The planners have, as I understand it from their comments, expanded South Station so that added tracks for the new service will fill South Station to the max, leaving no room for further expansion.

My comments on both of the environmental reviews, South Station and Mass. Pike (I90) called them deficient because the expansion of South Station will prevent receiving added traffic associated with West Station, thus forcing all West Station traffic on the Grand Junction railroad, through the forced residence of the Charles River White Geese and repeatedly blocking traffic on major Cambridge arteries.

Here is the MassDOT map of the Grand Junction in Cambridge showing the conflicts, my thick arrows added.  The Destroyed Nesting Area is next to the river at the bottom left.



Here is Cambridge’s map show their intended attack on the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.  The major commuter rail service would be in addition to one to three trips a day servicing yards on either end of the route.

Traffic would go from slow moves with very kind train personnel to multiple trips on as rapid a schedule as can be achieved.  Minor danger would go to very major danger with a lot of killings likely.



Cambridge's J shaped highway toward the bottom would destroy the quiet of the Destroyed Nesting Area in addition to the multiple destruction of vegetation by agents of the DCR.    The highway would devastate the forced home of the Charles River White Geese.

This outrage follows upon a mass pogrom of long time resident animals at the previously untouched Alewife reservation in West Cambridge.  Cambridge explanation is to yell at private developers destroying other parts of the same reservation while Cambridge’s vileness as secret as possible.  Cambridge is also imminent destroy at least 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common.

Cambridge would add to their shared outrage on the Charles River by  putting up fencing blocking walks between the Destroyed Nesting Area and the wild area east of it where the Charles River White Geese are forced to do much or their nesting because of all the ground vegetation destruction in their nesting area by agents and friends of the Department of Conservation and Recreation / City of Cambridge.

Another thing which stood out in the after presentation presentation on West Station was the emphasis by the speaker that West Station would give residents meaningful access to Back Bay Station and South Station.

There were two major lies of omission (favorite type of lie) in the package: the blocking of added traffic at South Station, plus the true infrequency of commuter rail compared with what the neighborhood would consider adequate service.

I pointed out the likelihood that the neighborhood would not get South Station / Back Bay service based on the limits of the South Station work.  He was aware of it, and sloughed off the limitations.

MassDOT did not make this wild promise.  The person speaking after them did.

I have heard such nonsense repeatedly during discussions.  I had to drag out of the South Station planners that they are setting up South Station so that it cannot expand.  Thus all traffic from the pushed West Station would go through the eastern part of Cambridge with major environmental nightmares.

One key is that MassDOT has studied the desirability of the Cambridge route.  They found it next to useless except for Kendall Square.  The Allston folks would be interested in South Station and Back Bay Station, and the Green Line A spur would be excellent for Back Bay Station.  Allston, like most folks would not be attracted by the Cambridge route which the Cambridge government and its friends want and have used the usual corrupt tactics in the past trying to get.

My environmental letters are posted at:

I90 Comments;  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/charles-river-mass-pike-project-runs.html.

South Station Analysis: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/south-station-expansion-project.html

Expansion of I90 comments:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/expansion-of-i90-change-thoughts-to.html

This is not a unusual problem.

But MassDOT did its usual professional job.

Monday, December 08, 2014

Expansion of I90 (Mass. Pike) change thoughts to elaborate on Grand Junction Passenger Traffic, including heartless animal abuse

Following is my third submittal concerning the environmental reviews on the South Station Expansion Project and the I90 Allston Interchange project.

The two projects overlap because of their undisclosed environmental destruction in East Cambridge, using the Grand Junction in eastern Cambridge for passenger service without spelling it out in the documents.

First I wrote the I90 Allston (Mass. Pike) analysis.  Then I wrote the South Station analysis.

My I90 comments on the Grand Junction passenger traffic were brief.  The relevant South Station analysis was detailed.  This amendment to the I90 comments adds the relevant South Station Analysis without substantive change.

Prior posts are as follows:

I90 Comments;  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/charles-river-mass-pike-project-runs.html.

South Station Analysis: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/south-station-expansion-project.html

Following is the amendment bringing the I90 comments up to date with my thinking in the South Station analysis.  It is a direct copy and the copy links the changes.

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

December 8, 2014



Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Holly Johnson, EEA #15278
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA  02114
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us

RE: EEA #15278
I90 Allston Interchange Project
Modification of submittal of November 22, 2014

Madame Secretary / Ms. Johnson:

Introduction.

I submitted comments on November 22, 2014 with regard to EEA #15278.

On December 2, 2014, I submitted comments with regard to the South Station Expansion Project, EEA No. 15028, Draft Environmental Impact Report.

There was considerable overlap between the two submittals.  The latter submittal constituted my greater analysis of the overlap area.  In particular, section 3.c, West Station should be amended by inserting almost all of sections 1, 4 and 5 of my December 2, 2014 concerning my comments on the South Station Expansion Project, EEA #15278.  The only portion of these sections NOT hereby added to my submission on the I90 Allston Interchange Project is the second paragraph of section 1 of the South Station Analysis.

I am submitting this modification to the I90 Allston Interchange Project, EEA #15278, to provide the benefits of my further thinking in this file as well.

Therefor, I hereby modify my November 22, 2014 submission on the I90 Allston Interchange Project by adding the following as a new section 5.

Section 5.  Expansion of analysis of section 3.c, West Station.

a. General [section 1 of South Station analysis, Synopsis, minus the second paragraph].

The plans for South Station Expansion are deficient because they do not allow any room for any expansion beyond South Coast rail.  There seems to be exactly zero room after that.  Alternatives are proposed by me which should be considered.

With the current plans, new commuter train service which should go to South Station will have NO CHOICE but to go over the Grand Junction with major environmental destruction in Cambridge, starting with commuter rail traffic generated by West Station.

Failure to include analysis this totally new passenger route which is forced by the inadequate planning at South Station constitutes segmentation, both for interference with traffic on major Cambridge arteries and for environmental harm and increase of existing heartless animal abuse on the banks of the Charles River.  Cambridge and the Department of Conservation are already practicing heartless animal abuse on the banks of the Charles River targeted at long term, valuable and popular resident animals.

Analysis should include the DCR’s policy in its “Charles River Master Plan” of killing off or driving away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.

b. It is segmentation if the analysis does not include passenger traffic in East Cambridge.  Highway Conflict. [section 4 of the South Station analysis].

Below is MassDOT’s map of the Grand Junction railroad in Cambridge taken from an MIT submittal.  I have added thick markings of intersection conflict with existing road traffic.

As stated in my I90 Allston analysis, where will West Station trains go?  Why guarantee an environmental nightmare in the eastern part of Cambridge for trains which sensibly should go to South Station?

And the reality is that, given the obvious forcing of use of East Cambridge for future expansion, it looks like failure to include impact of future expansion on East Cambridge would not only be segmentation, but would be dishonest.



There was great hostility to expanding commuter rail to East Cambridge the last time it was proposed.  MassDOT’s analysis indicated that Grand Junction commuter rail use would have no value except for Kendall Square.  There has been no communication of what looks like a certain proposal to put West Station commuter trains on the Grand Junction.  Such lack of communication is dishonest.

Especially since creating underground facilities at South Station are obvious alternatives now, and there is no mention that the South Station expansion project as proposed will prevent future expansion and mandate use of the Grand Junction for West Station and other future expansion.

c. It is segmentation if the analysis does not include passenger traffic in East Cambridge.  Increase of existing heartless animal abuse. [section 5 of the South Station] analysis.

In addition to the highway conflicts, there would be very real environmental conflicts and the ramping up of existing deliberate heartless animal abuse on the Charles River:

The portion of the banks of the Charles River abutting the Grand Junction on both sides of the Grand Junction  is animal habitat.  It includes animals of long term residence on the Charles River.  In spite of a decade of outrageous misbehavior by Cambridge, the DCR and their friends, many resident animals continue to exist.

Of particular importance is the valuable popular gaggle of the Charles River White Geese who have resided on the Charles River for 34 years and have established a strong community readily admired by all familiar with them.  The vibrancy of this free community is an ideal subject for scholastic study.

Their biggest problem of the Charles River White Geese is vile treatment and abuse by Cambridge and the DCR.  The Charles River White Geese are, once again without mentioning it, being heartlessly and deliberately starved by Cambridge and the DCR taking their long term food at the Magazine Beach playing fields from them.

Cambridge’s map of the area is attached.  This is yet another environmental attack on the animal habitat.  Cambridge is considering building in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese and placing a fence following the railroad tracks blocking access between the two animal habitat areas.

The area which is animal habitat is bounded by the BU Boathouse on the north and the BU Bridge on the south, and by the hashed line to the left and the Charles River to the right.



This outrage has been achieved through flat out lying.

a. The DCR manager has repeatedly promised “no harm” to the Charles River White Geese while deliberately starving them.

b. Their food at the Magazine Beach playing fields has been taken from them with bizarre introduced bushes walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River.  This outrage has been achieved through multiple lies and lies of omission.:

(1) Never mentioned is the goal in the sanctified Charles River Master Plan to kill of or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.  This vile goal in itself should be addressed in any environmental analysis.

(2) The key DCR manager has spent ten years or more lying of no intent to harm them.  This flat out lie was included in the Boston Globe article on the start of deliberate starvation by a quotation next to a photo of a massive earth mover next to a tiny confused resident.

(3) The promise at the Magazine beach playing fields was a lawn to the river.  So the DCR and Cambridge simply ignored the promise, and rewrote the supposedly sacrosanct Master Plan to comport to their lies of omission.

(4) The DCR has contempt for bordering vegetation.  They, twice a year, destroyed all bordering vegetation on the Charles River basin, and claim incompetence for the bizarre wall.

(5) As many other projects as is conceivable includes heartless attacks on the residential animals supposedly incidental to the other projects.

(6) The DCR repeatedly and loudly has proclaimed an intent to restrict the banks of the Charles River to river related activities.  The starvation wall makes the Magazine Beach playing fields totally separated from the Charles River.  They might as well be five miles inland.

(7) Multiple other projects are in the works attacking resident animals while keeping the attacks secret.

(8) Fake groups associated with the City of Cambridge function as company unions to achieve Cambridge and the DCR’s destruction by keeping concerned folk busy chasing their tails.  And, in reality, too many supposedly transportation groups / protective groups are similarly influenced.

(9) Cambridge commonly lies about supposed sainthood through loud initiatives which have no relation or minimal relation to their community which, in reality, serve no purpose other than to convince the voters that heartless animal abusers are the opposite.  Excellent examples of this hypocrisy is

(a) The repeated yelling at Circus owners for their abuse of animals while

(b) Keeping Cambridge deliberate starving of the Charles River White Geese and other heartless abuse (Alewife in particular) as secret as they can get away with, and

( c ) Flat out lies that a government which is heavily involved in Charles River destruction and international relations has no business concerning itself with Charles River destruction.

The situation on the Charles River is an outrage.  Sneaking through more destruction through secret aspects to the South Station Expansion and the I90 Allston Interchange project fits a reprehensible pattern.

MassDOT has rejected more obvious attacks on the Charles River by rejecting proposals for highway construction over the Grand Junction bridge.

MassDOT is a responsible agency.  The same cannot be said for Cambridge, the DCR and their friends.  These dishonest entities should not be rewarded with destruction unavoidable after their maneuvering, but very real if you realize what is really involved in the South Station Expansion and I90 Allston Interchange project.


Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille

Saturday, December 06, 2014

Cambridge, MA, USA — heartless animal abuse, s. 10, leader of fake group not seeking reelection.

1. Introduction.
2. Leader of fake group not seeking reelection to his office.
3. Prior segments of this analysis.

1. Introduction.

This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex.  I did not dignify the main show with my presence.

A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplish.

This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.

And in it, the fake protective group goes public with the following plaque.



How dare you call these people decent human beings.

2.      Leader of fake group not seeking reelection to his office.

The leader of the fake group which claims to be a neighborhood association is not seeking reelection.

It is always impossible to say with any accuracy why any person in the Cambridge Machine does anything.  It is only possible to guess, educated guess, but guess.

Cambridge / The Cambridge Machine apparently controls all the supposedly protective organizations in Cambridge.  There may be some who are meaningful to some extent or other.  I cannot speak with certainty for all of them.

The entity which claims to be a neighborhood association in Cambridgeport has a terrible record.

This fake group has aggressively fought for all destruction on the Charles River sought by Cambridge and its friends through the standard Company Union con of claiming to be THE CONCERNED organization and then telling folks to do nothing.  Translation: it is anti Charles River to defend the Charles River.

By this fraud, and among other things, the fake group has helped Cambridge and the DCR get $20 million from the State House for destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

Even the most determinedly stupid member / victim will be unable to deny the destruction, and will be very disturbed at “somebody” doing this to them.  The obvious target for contempt will be the head of the fake group.  Looks like an excellent time to get out.

Notwithstanding this, the fake group’s outrage in the City Hall Annex art room clearly goes public in its contempt for the environment and for resident animals.  Please see prior posts in this series listed below for details.

Looks like time for rats to desert the ship.

3. Prior segments of this analysis.

Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood.  This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.

Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.”  Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.

Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.

That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand.  The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard.  Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html

Segment 3. “The DCR did it.”  This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior,  Standard con game, pass the buck.  The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems.  One very big one is reality.  Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html

Segment 4. “DCR did not do it either’.  This segment analyzes Cambridge’s claim that the DCR has some sort of right to claim no duty to protect the animals in the care of the DCR.  It includes the graduation of copycats of the DCR / Cambridge outrages to rape and murder in the same location.  And analyzes the bizarre claim.  It defers until later the reality that Cambridge and the DCR really are responsible for the outrages they claim to be neutral on.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless.html

Segment 5. “World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization” presented the above photo, the normal position of decent human beings, in striking contrast to the outrages posted in the propaganda being passed of as an art show.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_15.html.

Segment 6. Photos: place of rape, murder, environment, and mass tree destruction.  This segment went into the Cambridge City Council hiding their vileness after a copy cat graduated to rape and murder after mass killing of nesting geese, and the Cambridge City Council blessing his vileness with silence, a wink and a nod.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_17.html

Segment 7. Cambridge / fake group brag of their vileness.  The following plaque has been added to the propaganda package right next to the lies about the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_24.html.



Segment 8. s. 8, summary at Magazine Beach..  This is a short form analysis of the outrage at the Magazine Beach playing fields in the face of the increase in the depravity of the fake group / Cambridge. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-on-its-animal-abuse-s.html

Segment 9. s. 9.  The unthinkable has happened.  Our cofounder is part of this outrage.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_28.html

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Cambridge, MA, USA,.Environmental “:Leader” has problems with the environment.

Cambridge, MA, USA,.Environmental “:Leader” has problems with the environment.

Exchange and analysis.

1. Self proclaimed Cambridge, MA, USA. Environmental “Leader” Proclaims again.

From: [name of the guilty omitted to protect the guilty.]
To: cportneighbors@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 4:16 PM

Subject: [cportneighbors] Video of talk by Cambridgeport scientist on reversing climate change

Cambridgeport resident and world-class scientist [let him / her tell you] gave an amazing talk at the recent Tufts conference, "Restoring Ecosystems to reverse Global Warming," about how carbon in the atmosphere can be safely and effectively stored in healthy soils. The video is at [let him / her tell you] 

Links to videos of numerous other dynamic presentations from the conference are at [let him/her tell you.  The machine and their friends always sound so good.].

2. Unanswered Question.

From: Bob La Trémouille
To: [omitted to protect the guilty]
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 5:19 PM

Subject: Re: [cportneighbors] Video of talk by Cambridgeport scientist on reversing climate change

Thanks for the lovely information. 

As I recall, you are very happy with the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive. Approved in Ch. 286, of the Massachusetts Acts of 2014, "Historic Parkways" 

How do you associate these two so noble positions? 

Have you decided to be concerned about man's killing of our world when it comes to destruction by Cambridge, the DCR, and you and the other cheerleaders? 

Or are you still fighting for destruction by Cambridge through yelling at everybody else? 

Robert J. La Trémouille
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139-3070
617-283-7649

[ed: couple of photos each of targeted excellent trees.






No answer was received.  Reality is so inconvenient for these folks.  I passed on the self praise, the question, and my analysis to many Cambridgeport residents.]

3. Analysis.

No answer. 

Looks like this leader of a supposed environmental group which just cannot notice Cambridge and the DCR creating climate change with massive environmental destruction has real problems with environmentalism, as it is defined in the real world. 

Robert J. La Trémouille
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139-3070
617-283-7649

4. Caveat.

One of the more brilliant examples of the achievements of his fake group was a lecture by the leader of the fake environmental group fighting for destruction of the Alewife reservation.

This was after her friends in the City of Cambridge destroyed 3.4 acres of the irreplaceable Alewife reservation, behind 165 CambridgePark Drive.

This fake environmentalist bragged to this fake group about the destruction.

Here are some photos of mine of the Cambridge owned area after the destruction that this fake protector achieved lying of her love of Alewife.  The trees in the background are identical to the trees which used to occupy this entire area.

I have previously distributed photos distributed by Cambridge bragging of the destruction.  The only “media” outlet I am aware of which printed the puff piece is managed by yet another of the guilty.

These photos were published by me before the puff pieces.

And, as I said, this self proclaimed environmental leader presented the woman who destroyed this area as an environmental leader.




Tuesday, December 02, 2014

South Station Expansion Project Threatens Charles River, Cambridge, MA, and threatens future commuter rail expansion.

I have today submitted environmental comments for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ MEPA environmental review of the South Station expansion project.  Below is my letter.  Immediately below this paragraph is the synopsis from the letter.

***********

The plans for South Station Expansion are deficient because they do not allow any room for any expansion beyond South Coast rail.  There seems to be exactly zero room after that.  Alternatives are proposed by me which should be considered.

Similar problems exist at the Beacon Yard layover proposal.  My suggestion for improvement should be considered in the analysis..

With the current plans, new commuter train service which should go to South Station will have NO CHOICE but to go over the Grand Junction with major environmental destruction in Cambridge, starting with commuter rail traffic generated by West Station.

Failure to include analysis this totally new passenger route which is forced by the inadequate planning at South Station constitutes segmentation, both for interference with traffic on major Cambridge arteries and for environmental harm and increase of existing heartless animal abuse on the banks of the Charles River.  Cambridge and the Department of Conservation are already practicing heartless animal abuse on the banks of the Charles River targeted at long term, valuable and popular resident animals.

Analysis should include the DCR’s policy in its “Charles River Master Plan” of killing off or driving away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.

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

December 2, 2014



Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office, Attn: Holly Johnson, EEA #15028
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA  02114
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us

RE: South Station Expanion Project, EEA No. 15028
Draft Environmental Impact Report

1. Synopsis.
2. Introduction.
3. Limits of the DEIR Analysis.
a. Introductory.
b. Beacon Yards Layover.
c. Project facing Dorchester Avenue.
d. Expansion to include a lower level or levels of track space for future expansion.
4. It is segmentation if the analysis does not include passenger traffic in East Cambridge.  Highway Conflict.
5. It is segmentation if the analysis does not include passenger traffic in East Cambridge.    Increase of existing heartless animal abuse.
6. Summary.

Madame Secretary:

1. Synopsis.

[Printed above, at the beginning of this blog post.]

2. Introduction.

I am writing individually and as chair of Friends of the White Geese, a Massachusetts Non Profit Organization organized in 2001 with the purpose of protecting the environment and animals of the Charles River and related matters.

I myself have two years of on the ground experience in railroad operations.  I have, as part of my railroad position, observed freight and passenger railroad operations first hand from Boston almost to Washington, DC.  I have major experience in working on transit planning matters in the Boston / Cambridge area over a period of nearly 40 years.

I proposed the Kenmore Crossing on the Urban Ring subway concept five years before it was officially adopted by the MBTA as a recognized alternative route in 1991.

I have major environmental experience.  In the last 15 years, this has been on Charles River and related matters.  I rather clearly have prevented a mass animal killing in that location.

In the last 40 years I have used my legal training for the benefit of the environment in Cambridge.

I obtained a preliminary injunction on appeal, next to impossible, in a temporarily successful effort to protect from needless destruction one of the best parks in the middle of Cambridge, including more than 20 one hundred year old trees.

I have written more successful zoning changes in Cambridge than any other person not employed by the City of Cambridge, and, in sharp contrast to many changes drafted by the Cambridge Development Department my changes do what I said they would do.

I have used zoning as a tool to force environmental protection on very major parts of the City of Cambridge.  My zoning changes have required ground floor open space and more housing on about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue in the area between Harvard and Central Squares and portions of adjacent side streets.  My zoning changes allowed fairly large buildings on Mass. Ave. while maintaining environmental protections and protections for neighbors.

The building at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Harvard Street in east Harvard Square, formerly known as the Inn at Harvard was one of my big victories.  Harvard wanted that building to be 72% larger and built to the sidewalk.  The City Council disagreed.

About a block away, I saved the 19th Century building at 10 Mt. Auburn Street, on the corner of Banks and Mt. Auburn Streets from destruction by Harvard.  I used fine print in the Cambridge Rent Control Ordinance, and the Cambridge Rent Control Board agreed with me.  Saving that building probably was key in the retention of the historical character in this, the Kerry Corner neighborhood with Harvard’s expansion in this area since 2000.

The first two blocks north of Harvard Law School were downzoned as a result of the very first  petition written by me.

There is a former parking lot between Alewife Station and Route 2 which is being returned to nature as a result of another zoning change I wrote.  This is the only meaningful environmental victory in the Alewife area in spite of a Cambridge related group which claims to be protecting Alewife.

And this does not include the non explosive changes.

3. Limits of the DEIR Analysis.

a. Introductory.

I was fully in favor of the South Station Expansion Project until it sunk in that there is no thought whatsoever as to what flexibility exists for future expansion.

In fact, my understanding is that there is no thought of any capability of future expansion of South Station or its holding facilities whatsoever after this project.

It looks to me like the proposal traps our Commonwealth in the same sort of shortsighted thinking which brought railroad transportation into the fifty to sixty year mess which we are now attempting to undo.  But after this go round, there may not be an opportunity to undo this mess.

b. Beacon Yards Layover.

My analysis at South Station is another approach to my analysis in EEA #15278, the I90 Allston Interchange Project.  The most serious problem in both plans is failure to allow for future expansion.

We do not have the luxury of being unconcerned about future expansion.  We have the possibility now to leave room to allow our railroad system to thrive.  If we do not take needed action now, we are boxing ourselves into a death of strangulation.

Correction of the artificially created limits on the layovers at Beacon Park can NOW be readily corrected by building layover tracks on both sides of the relocated Mass. Pike, not just on the side away from Cambridge Street, as is proposed in the I90 Allston Interchange Plan and blessed in the South Station Expansion Plan.

This shortsightedness can easily be corrected by inserting a switch in the access track from South Station to the proposed layover yard as that track approaches the proposed layover yard.  The track approaches the layover yard under the reconstructed Mass. Pike Viaduct before the Mass. Pike returns to ground level.  A switch can readily be inserted before the Mass. Pike returns to ground level so that the switch would give the option  that layover trains can go on either side of the relocated ground level Mass. Pike.  There is no plan for any public transportation use between the relocated Mass. Pike and Cambridge Street.  There is plenty of room to set aside adequate area to allow for future transportation needs.

Please note that my analysis of the I90 Mass. Pike Allston project also proposes a layover yard between this added commuter rail layover area and Cambridge Street.  This layover yard would be for a street car Green Line A spur from the existing Green Line B to Harvard Square as described in greater detail in my I90 analysis.

c. Project facing Dorchester Avenue.

The same problem of total lack of future expansion applies to the main project.

I repeatedly hear reasons why greater expansion cannot be done, but it is clear that the limits being artificially imposed on the expansion project are the greatest problem for future South Station expansion.

Part of the unthinking limits problem, as it was 50 or 60 years ago, is the application of non railroad priorities ahead of railroad priorities in spite of the very great reality that the places where railroad expansion can be placed is under very severe limits, whereas the alternate uses do not have that very real limit.

This defective thinking applies strongly to that portion of the project facing Dorchester Avenue.

Certainly Boston needs housing, and certainly it is a lovely location for housing, BUT there are other locations for housing.  There are pretty much no other locations to expand South Station capacity.

Addition of one or more tracks in the area facing Dorchester Avenue should be seriously considered.  Perhaps the housing could be placed above the added tracks.  A higher location for housing certainly would be inferior for housing, but this is a matter of life or death for future South Station expansion.

I am told there is a choke point problem in the entrance to South Station with regard to adding tracks next to Dorchester Avenue.  I not aware of any meaningful analysis of the choke point.  Have I missed something?  At minimum, such an analysis should be presented.

d. Expansion to include a lower level or levels of track space for future expansion.

A lower level or levels of track space is being proposed by the North-South rail people.  Their idea could be a solution to the limits being imposed on South Station Expansion, with or without North-South rail.

Definitely, building 7 tracks at the same level as the current facility, plus building room under the 7 tracks for an additional expansion in the future sounds like an excellent way to get around the crunch point problem, if the crunch point at the entrance to the current South Station facility is a true and absolute limit on expansion at the current level.

Of course, the construction for access to the lower level IN THE FUTURE would be a lot more expensive than the current access cost for new tracks into the 7 proposed tracks.

But we are talking about a station which currently has 13 tracks being expanded to 20 tracks with no future expansion, as opposed to expanding to 20 or 22 tracks now with the possibility of 27 to 31 tracks in the future.

Creating a lower level could include expansion under Dorchester Avenue for the lower level.  2 tracks under Dorchester Avenue could combine with such larger lower and main levels as can be constructed at this time.

With the mail facility moved and Dorchester Avenue not yet reconnected to South Boston / Dorchester, construction under Dorchester Avenue would be readily feasible.  Could that bring a possible lower level to 11 tracks with 9 tracks on the current level?

Can the expansion project build under tracks 11, 12 and 13 and others for future expansion?  Why not include that in the analysis as well?  Perhaps doing it in phases.  Build toward Dorchester Avenue first, and let those new tracks temporarily replace 11, 12, and 13.  Could a lower level be created under all the existing tracks, working in stages?  There is no such analysis in the submittal.

An excellent example in the South Station complex of such planning for the future is the parking garage on top of the bus facility.  That is obviously intended as a location of future expansion of bus service.

Why not use underground expansion in the future for parking in the short run as in the bus facility?

Why restrict underground expansion possibilities to one level, with parking until need and money exists?  Can more underground levels be constructed with corresponding future track expansion, and interim use for parking..

This is not being studied and it should be.

Is it necessary or even sensible to create an artificial limit on future expansion of South Station?

4. It is segmentation if the analysis does not include passenger traffic in East Cambridge.  Highway Conflict.

Below is MassDOT’s map of the Grand Junction railroad in Cambridge taken from an MIT submittal.  I have added thick markings of intersection conflict with existing road traffic.

As stated in my I90 Allston analysis, where will West Station trains go?  Why guarantee an environmental nightmare in the eastern part of Cambridge for trains which sensibly should go to South Station?

And the reality is that, given the obvious forcing of use of East Cambridge for future expansion, it looks like failure to include impact of future expansion on East Cambridge would not only be segmentation, but would be dishonest.


There was great hostility to expanding commuter rail to East Cambridge the last time it was proposed.  MassDOT’s analysis indicated that Grand Junction commuter rail use would have no value except for Kendall Square.  There has been no communication of what looks like a certain proposal to put West Station commuter trains on the Grand Junction.  Such lack of communication is dishonest.

Especially since creating underground facilities at South Station are obvious alternatives now, and there is no mention that the South Station expansion project as proposed will prevent future expansion and mandate use of the Grand Junction for West Station and other future expansion.

5. It is segmentation if the analysis does not include passenger traffic in East Cambridge.  Increase of existing heartless animal abuse.

In addition to the highway conflicts, there would be very real environmental conflicts and the ramping up of existing deliberate heartless animal abuse on the Charles River:

The portion of the banks of the Charles River abutting the Grand Junction on both sides of the Grand Junction  is animal habitat.  It includes animals of long term residence on the Charles River.  In spite of a decade of outrageous misbehavior by Cambridge, the DCR and their friends, many resident animals continue to exist.

Of particular importance is the valuable popular gaggle of the Charles River White Geese who have resided on the Charles River for 34 years and have established a strong community readily admired by all familiar with them.  The vibrancy of this free community is an ideal subject for scholastic study.


Their biggest problem of the Charles River White Geese is vile treatment and abuse by Cambridge and the DCR.  The Charles River White Geese are, once again without mentioning it, being heartlessly and deliberately starved by Cambridge and the DCR taking their long term food at the Magazine Beach playing fields from them.

Cambridge’s map of the area is attached.  This is yet another environmental attack on the animal habitat.  Cambridge is considering building in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese and placing a fence following the railroad tracks blocking access between the two animal habitat areas.

The area which is animal habitat is bounded by the BU Boathouse on the north and the BU Bridge on the south, and by the hashed line to the left and the Charles River to the right.

This outrage has been achieved through flat out lying.

a. The DCR manager has repeatedly promised “no harm” to the Charles River White Geese while deliberately starving them.

b. Their food at the Magazine Beach playing fields has been taken from them with bizarre introduced bushes walling off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River.  This outrage has been achieved through multiple lies and lies of omission.:

(1) Never mentioned is the goal in the sanctified Charles River Master Plan to kill of or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.  This vile goal in itself should be addressed in any environmental analysis.

(2) The key DCR manager has spent ten years or more lying of no intent to harm them.  This flat out lie was included in the Boston Globe article on the start of deliberate starvation by a quotation next to a photo of a massive earth mover next to a tiny confused resident.

(3) The promise at the Magazine beach playing fields was a lawn to the river.  So the DCR and Cambridge simply ignored the promise, and rewrote the supposedly sacrosanct Master Plan to comport to their lies of omission.

(4) The DCR has contempt for bordering vegetation.  They, twice a year, destroyed all bordering vegetation on the Charles River basin, and claim incompetence for the bizarre wall.

(5) As many other projects as is conceivable includes heartless attacks on the residential animals supposedly incidental to the other projects.

(6) The DCR repeatedly and loudly has proclaimed an intent to restrict the banks of the Charles River to river related activities.  The starvation wall makes the Magazine Beach playing fields totally separated from the Charles River.  They might as well be five miles inland.

(7) Multiple other projects are in the works attacking resident animals while keeping the attacks secret.

(8) Fake groups associated with the City of Cambridge function as company unions to achieve Cambridge and the DCR’s destruction by keeping concerned folk busy chasing their tails.  And, in reality, too many supposedly transportation groups / protective groups are similarly influenced.

(9) Cambridge commonly lies about supposed sainthood through loud initiatives which have no relation or minimal relation to their community which, in reality, serve no purpose other than to convince the voters that heartless animal abusers are the opposite.  Excellent examples of this hypocrisy is

(a) The repeated yelling at Circus owners for their abuse of animals while

(b) Keeping Cambridge deliberate starving of the Charles River White Geese and other heartless abuse (Alewife in particular) as secret as they can get away with, and

( c ) Flat out lies that a government which is heavily involved in Charles River destruction and international relations has no business concerning itself with Charles River destruction.

The situation on the Charles River is an outrage.  Sneaking through more destruction through secret aspects to the South Station Expansion and the I90 Allston Interchange project fits a reprehensible pattern.

MassDOT has rejected more obvious attacks on the Charles River by rejecting proposals for highway construction over the Grand Junction bridge.

MassDOT is a responsible agency.  The same cannot be said for Cambridge, the DCR and their friends.  These dishonest entities should not be rewarded with destruction unavoidable after their maneuvering, but very real if you realize what is really involved in the South Station Expansion and I90 Allston Interchange project.

6. Summary.

The proposal is generally excellent.

It strikes me as silly to artificially restrict future South Station expansion when we have seen the railroads destroyed 50 to 60 years ago as a result of devaluing these excellent source of transportation.

Review should be made of allowing for further expansion using South Station after the South Coast project is in operation.

Why prevent further expansion of South Station after the currently planned expansion of trains into South Station?

And why allow unavoidable “side effects” to be rammed through in secret?

Thank you for your kind consideration.

In particular, I am strongly impressed with the professionalism of both MassDOT teams, here and in the I90 Allston Interchange project.  I have seen praiseworthy examples of MassDOT standing up to environmental outrages stemming from the City of Cambridge and the DCR, especially through unidentified but very truly influenced “private” individuals.

My favorable impression of MassDOT is strikingly different from my impression of Cambridge and the DCR.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille

Monday, December 01, 2014

Update on Cambridge, MA, USA Common Destruction

Update on Cambridge, MA, USA Common Destruction.

I have reported a number of times with regard to the destruction on the Cambridge Common funded by the environmentally destructive Cambridge City Council and Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

My most recent report, with links, was posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/ma-lt-gov-candidate-cheung-ready-go.html.
I just went by the Cambridge Common yesterday.  I was distressed and temporarily happy by what I saw.

The distressing aspect was that the place is very clearly a construction zone.  The pleasant aspect is that a lot of trees slated for destruction appear to still be there.  Trees spared the destructiveness of the environmentally destructive Cambridge City Council are protected by slats wrapped around them.  Too many are not protected.

Here is a photograph of the threatened entrance facing Harvard Square.  The vile city government is destroying trees because they “block” views of a monument, and because the planners think that the existing path would look better moved to where excellent trees currently are.



Looking at the Environmental Notification Form again, it reads that 22 trees will be destroyed as part of this part of the outrage.

That is the good part.  The bad part is that my recollection is that the project includes destruction of trees on Waterhouse Street which are not apparently counted in the report.  I have provided photos of those threatened trees as well.  I did not go by this part of the Cambridge Common so I cannot comment on whether or not they have been destroyed yet.

Then, there are so many trees not protected by those slats of wood which do not fall into either category.

And Cambridge commonly lies through omission.

And the biggest mistake you can make on environmental destruction when it comes to the reprehensible (to quote that civil rights judge) City of Cambridge is to assume: “They would never stoop so low.”

Friday, November 28, 2014

Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 9, The unthinkable has happened

Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 9, The unthinkable has happened.


1. Introduction.

This is the latest in a series of reports responding to the lying attack put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex.  The fake group claims responsibility.  I did not dignify the main show with my presence.

A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplish.

This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.

2. The unthinkable has happened.

Here, once again, is the plaque added to the outrageous statements about the Charles River White Geese in the propaganda collection called an art show.



Now the unthinkable.

What do you call an animal defender who switches to the other side?

I am talking about the cofounder of this organization.

She ran around wearing a Mother Goose outfit defending the Charles River White Geese when these outrages started.

She, among other things, destroyed about 90 to 95% plus of our website, and saw no reason to undo the damage.

Now she is one of the group which is running that outrageous propaganda pit with snide comment and its encouragement of support for heartless animal abuse.  These are the guys who have been fighting for destruction by  company union tactics.

They have now going public with the outrages in that show.

What do you call such a person?

I am ashamed and I have been ashamed.

This latest outrage is one instance too many.

3. Prior segments of this analysis.

Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood.  This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.

Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.”  Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.

Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.

That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand.  The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard.  Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html

Segment 3. “The DCR did it.”  This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior,  Standard con game, pass the buck.  The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems.  One very big one is reality.  Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html

Segment 4. “DCR did not do it either’.  This segment analyzes Cambridge’s claim that the DCR has some sort of right to claim no duty to protect the animals in the care of the DCR.  It includes the graduation of copycats of the DCR / Cambridge outrages to rape and murder in the same location.  And analyzes the bizarre claim.  It defers until later the reality that Cambridge and the DCR really are responsible for the outrages they claim to be neutral on.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless.html

Segment 5. “World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization” presented the above photo, the normal position of decent human beings, in striking contrast to the outrages posted in the propaganda being passed of as an art show.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_15.html.

Segment 6. Photos: place of rape, murder, environment, and mass tree destruction.  This segment went into the Cambridge City Council hiding their vileness after a copy cat graduated to rape and murder after mass killing of nesting geese, and the Cambridge City Council blessing his vileness with silence, a wink and a nod.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_17.html

Segment 7. Cambridge / fake group brag of their vileness.  The following plaque has been added to the propaganda package right next to the lies about the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_24.html.



Segment 8. s. 8, summary at Magazine Beach..  This is a short form analysis of the outrage at the Magazine Beach playing fields in the face of the increase in the depravity of the fake group / Cambridge. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-on-its-animal-abuse-s.html

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Cambridge, MA, USA, on its animal abuse, s. 8, summary at Magazine Beach

Cambridge, MA, USA, on its animal abuse, s. 8, summary at Magazine Beach.

1. Introduction.
2. Fraud, Fraud, Fraud, and the Legislature’s Contempt for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
a. Company unions and the legislature’s contempt for the DCR.
b. Magazine Beach.
(1) The starvation wall.
(2) Destruction of responsible grass.
(3) Destruction of playing fields.
(4) The little guys’ parking lot..
(5) The Charles River White Geese.
(6) Construction of part of the highway which is the big excuse for the destruction of those hundreds of trees.
(7) Interim summary.
3. Prior segments of this analysis.

1. Introduction.

This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex.  I did not dignify the main show with my presence.

A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplice.

This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.

Additionally, however the fake group has gotten aggressive in its support for heartless animal abuse.

This is the plaque added by the fake group to its outrageous lies about the Charles River White Geese.







They are proud they are fighting to destroy our world and of their heartless animal abuse.  And they have the nerve to yell at Circus shows for animal abuse.  Those Circus shows are less vile than they are.

I have done a lot of general reporting in the prior segments, as summarized in the last section.

2. Fraud, Fraud, Fraud, and the Legislature’s Contempt for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

a. Company unions and the legislature’s contempt for the DCR.

A significant portion of the Legislature has contempt for the DCR.  Because of their contempt for the DCR, they have stripped the DCR of significant responsibilities, and given those responsibilities to the Department of Transportation.

Cambridge and the DCR are fellow travelers.  They are both very destructive and wasteful in their expenses.

MassDOT, by contrast has been a responsible entity in its relations to Cambridge, much to the distress of Cambridge and its fake groups.

Cambridge adds to the vileness of its policies a well established and powerful system of company unions.  Company unions are fake protective groups which lie of concerns in a particular field, occupy the field and then prevent responsible people from “causing trouble.”

One excellent example is the acres of destruction created at Alewife by one fake group.

Another example is the hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge and next to the Charles River.  Those trees and related animal habitat are slated for destruction as a result of $20 million in Ch. 286 of the Acts of 2014 of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Historic Parkways”

Another example is the fight for massive destruction along the Grand Junction railroad being sought by the Cambridge City Council.  MassDOT has stood up to this outrage, but Cambridge is still going forward with the outrage.  An excellent example is a puff piece distributed by Councilor Mazen in which he praised this outrage without mentioning the heartless animal abuse and environmental destruction.

These area are the major targets of the fake group working with Cambridge and the DCR.  They told people it is politically incorrect to defend the Charles River if you love the Charles River.  So they have achieved moneys for massive tree destruction and the city council is still pushing on their outrage on the Grand Junction.  There are many more.

Every destructive goal of the DCR and Cambridge is being fought for by this fake group by telling people it is politically incorrect to defent the Charles River if you love the Charles River.  But Company Unions, in addition to killing initiatives, work to actively destroy when they get a chance.

Now, they are moving from the prevention to the next step what company unions feel aggressive.

b. Magazine Beach.

The local fake group has shown its corruption in the one meeting it had on extending the outrage at the Magazine Beach playing fields to the hill to its west.

It looked like they could lose.  So they postponed the meeting and simply stole a strikingly irresponsible “vote.”  They have deferred Charles River discussion since then to the ends of meetings to prevent reality from being discussed.  They one time they conducted such a discussion in the middle of the meeting, they simply shouted down responsible discussion.

There are three outrages put in place by Cambridge and the DCR through flat out lying by commission or omission.

(1) The starvation wall.

Before


After





The DCR has contempt for ground vegetation.  So it destroys ground vegetation abutting the Charles River twice a year, except at the Magazine Beach playing fields.

That vegetation has value.  It starves the Charles River White Geese by walling off access to their food of most of the past 34 years.

The explanation?

(a) They promised a “lawn to the river” in their sanctified Charles River Master Plan.  After building this outrage, they rewrote the Charles River Master Plan.

(b) They promised for years to “do not harm” to the Charles River White Geese in response to their great value and popularity.  The explanation?  The fake group tells people it is anti-Charles River to look at the heartless animal abuse.

‘( c ) The DCR spent years bullying people with the argument they wanted nothing on the Charles River except water related uses.  The playing fields might as well be miles from the Charles River with the starvation wall there.

(d) Oh, yeah, don’t look at anything other than that old, unused building.

(2) Destruction of responsible grass.

The DCR destroyed excellent grass which survived the better part of a Century and replaced it with sickly stuff that requires poisons to survive.

Explanation: Now they, with the help of the fake group want to expand the poison requiring grass to the top of the hill to the west of the playing fields and to the wetlands behind the swimming pool to the west.

Besides, the fake group calls it anti-Charles River to be concerned with anything other than a building that has not been used for 80 years, although they, now, are expanding their field of outrage.

(3) Destruction of playing fields.

One of the big lies claimed as the reason for the DCR / Cambridge destruction was improvement of playing fields.  The playing fields have been decreased in size to drain off the poisons which should not be there in the first place.

(4) The little guys’ parking lot..

The DCR, with the assistance of the fake group, wants to destroy the little guys’ parking lot used by the historical building and adjacent picnic area.  It is at the foot of Magazine Street.



Explanation:

They are improving the picnic area, no mention of destroying its parking.

The are replacing a water play area next to the parking lot, but find the existing area unacceptable.  Golly gee, look at that parking lot.

(5) The Charles River White Geese.

They put flat out lies in their show about the Charles River White Geese and added the following plaque.  The DCR has ramped up their abuse of these beautiful, popular beings with every excuse available.

Besides, it is anti-Charles River to look at anything except that old building, unless the fake group tells you to look at other things.

Political correctness is the game, especially when you are fighting for destruction which is reprehensible and in direct violations of normal standards of decency.

(6) Construction of part of the highway which is the big excuse for the destruction of those hundreds of trees.

It is there in the plans for expansion of the playing fields outrage, and was included in the playing fields outrage.

Explanation: Same as their explanation of the destruction of those hundreds of trees: How dare you look at threats to the Charles River.  You have no business looking at anything but that unused building unless the company union tells you to do so.

Some of the trees they are fighting to destroy:




(7) Interim summary.

The vileness to which that propaganda show has sunk has rushed my schedule.  I will follow up with a better job on this presentation.

3. Prior segments of this analysis.

Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood.  This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.

Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.”  Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.

Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.

That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand.  The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard.  Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html

Segment 3. “The DCR did it.”  This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior,  Standard con game, pass the buck.  The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems.  One very big one is reality.  Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html

Segment 4. “DCR did not do it either’.  This segment analyzes Cambridge’s claim that the DCR has some sort of right to claim no duty to protect the animals in the care of the DCR.  It includes the graduation of copycats of the DCR / Cambridge outrages to rape and murder in the same location.  And analyzes the bizarre claim.  It defers until later the reality that Cambridge and the DCR really are responsible for the outrages they claim to be neutral on.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless.html

Segment 5. “World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization” presented the above photo, the normal position of decent human beings, in striking contrast to the outrages posted in the propaganda being passed of as an art show.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_15.html.

Segment 6. Photos: place of rape, murder, environment, and mass tree destruction.  This segment went into the Cambridge City Council hiding their vileness after a copy cat graduated to rape and murder after mass killing of nesting geese, and the Cambridge City Council blessing his vileness with silence, a wink and a nod.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_17.html

Segment 7. Cambridge / fake group brag of their vileness.  The following plaque has been added to the propaganda package right next to the lies about the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_24.html.