Sunday, September 25, 2016

Charles River: Clarification on Cambridge City Manager Candidates.

Charles River: Clarification on Cambridge City Manager Candidates.

1. Introduction.
2. DePasquale.
3. Ash and Fetherston.
4. Summary.


1. Introduction.

In my analysis of September 22, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-city-of-cambridge.html, I attempted to evaluate the candidates for Cambridge City Manager from an environmental point of view.

2. DePasquale.

My first and foremost evaluation is that the terrible 42 year reign of the Cambridge City Manager Machine must end.  That is DePasquale.  He is brilliantly qualified from a financial point of view.  The financial point of view using a skillfully influenced Machine has done severe damage to the environment of the City of Cambridge and the Charles River over the 42 years of its existence..

The Cambridge City Manager machine must end.

Both Ash and Fetherston are significantly better than anybody who has been part of this terrible entity.

3. Ash and Fetherston.

The reality is that the environmental destruction lobby in Cambridge is well organized, highly dishonest and very persuasive.  Key in the lobby is too many “groups” which too often achieve the opposite of what they claim to stand for.  They rope well meaning people into fighting against their own goals.

Either candidate could have trouble with them.  It is the nature of stepping into a very terrible situation.

Ash has a step up on Fetherston in that a new City Manager would be expected to put in his own team in the key spots.  Fetherston has clearly rejected the option of replacing existing management.  He has said he would keep the status quo.  That is a real negative for Fetherston because the Development Department is the core of the environmental problem.  Then again, Fetherston has been in more city management organizations that Ash, but no other organization can be imagined as destructive / well organized as the organization one will step into.

As far as Ash goes, Ash is probably an ideal candidate for a strong City Manager for Cambridge.  Period.

The big problem with Ash is that, after 42 years of the Strong, and deceptive and destructive, Cambridge City Manager Machine, Cambridge really does not need another strong City Manager.

Fetherston fits in with the Cambridge City Council in the mold of an excellent city administrator who would consider himself exactly that, the top administrator with the City Council setting policy.  His presentation was perfect in that mold.  He did a great job of presenting both sides of issues and saying he would go with City Council Direction.

Very much not to knock Ash.  Ash is top notch as a strong City Manager candidate.  The difference is the word “strong.”

Then again, the organizational situation cannot be ignored.  Fetherston keeping the Development Department in place is a negative.  The Development Department and their cheerleaders have been deceptive.  The Development Department and their cheerleaders have been destructive.  The Development Department and their cheerleaders are very skilled at giving false impressions.

So you go back to Ash.  But, I should hope that Fetherston has sufficient skill to stand up to the Cambridge outrage, I would hope.

My analysis of the 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine gets worse when I add Civil Rights issues to the table.

The REAL environmental record and the REAL civil rights record of the 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine are both far beneath normalcy in people who believe in progressive principles.  Add to that the very real influence the City Government has over supposedly independent “protective groups” in Cambridge.  That influence includes influence over at least one entity which has been instrumental in the Charles River destruction.

The vileness of the influenced groups stands out with this victoriously destructive entity’s claim to be representing the neighborhood and bragging of their supposed duty to censor comments negative to the City Government and its friends on its Listserv, plus their continuing fight to make things worse on the Charles River.  If you are defending the Charles River, you are not neutral on its destruction.

Fresh blood from either person could clean things up, or the fresh blood could be fooled.  And the possibility of being fooled REALLY is the rub.

Both persons have a lot of experience, whether that experience includes the outrages which are normal in Cambridge, MA, USA, is, of necessity, unknown, and unlikely.

Going further at this time would have no value to this analysis.

Either Ash or Fetherston would be one Heck of an improvement over the 42 year Cambridge City Manager machine.  Normal humans do not stoop as low as the situation in the City of Cambridge.

4. Summary.

So I say “maybe” to both Ash and Fetherston, and “no” to DePasquale.

At the same time, I realize that this analysis has been evolving in my attempts to communicate.  I apologize to my readers and to Messrs. Ash and Fetherston for any confusion I have communicated in my attempts to be prompt and to be properly communicative.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Charles River: City of Cambridge Replacing City Manager

Charles River:  City of Cambridge Replacing City Manager


1. Introduction.
2. Finalists.
3. Analysis.
A. General.
B. DePasquale.
C. Ash.
D. Fetherston.
E. Summary.
4. Conclusion.

This report has been clarified / expanded by the next posting, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-clarification-on.html.

* * * * *

1. Introduction.

I have, as much as possible, avoided internal Cambridge, MA, USA politics.  Unfortunately, the City of Cambridge, along with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation are the two most destructive entities on the Charles River.

Cambridge adds to the mix a massive organization of “protective groups” with very clear connections to the City Manager’s people, especially the Development Department.  The "protective groups" look like a Company Union operation.

The Cambridge City Council has scheduled three key meetings in their search for a replacement for the current Cambridge City Manager.

I have attended the two which have been conducted so far, a meeting emphasizing public questions and a meeting in front of the Cambridge City Council answering written questions, but with opportunity for follow up by the councilors.

The only remaining scheduled meeting is an anticipated final vote of the Cambridge City Council at Cambridge City Hall, September 29, 2016, at 5:30 pm

2. Finalists.

The three finalists, taken from the announcement of the City Council related entity organizing the recruitment process.  They are:

Robert “Jay” Ash Jr. - Mr. Ash is currently the Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Previously, he served in a variety of roles in the City of Chelsea, including fourteen years as City Manager. Mr. Ash also served as a legislative aide to Representative Richard Voke. He is a graduate of Clark University.

Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at:  http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/ash%20resume.pdf


Louis A. DePasquale - Mr. DePasquale is the City’s Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs in Cambridge. Prior to taking on that assignment, he was the City’s Budget Director, and also worked in other capacities in the City’s Budget and Treasury Departments. Mr. DePasquale is a graduate of Boston State College and received his MPA from Northeastern University.

Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at:  http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/depasquale%20resume.pdf.


Paul J. Fetherston - Mr. Fetherston is currently the Assistant City Manager in Asheville, NC. He has previously served as Deputy City Manager in Boulder, CO, and has held a variety municipal management positions in Connecticut. He is a graduate of Trinity College, CT, and received his J.D. from Western New England School of Law.

Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/fetherston%20resume.pdf.


3. Analysis.

A. General.

Two candidates, Ash and DePasquale, communicated the intent to be strong City Managers.  Fetherston clearly communicated that it is his goal to function as the implementer of the policy decisions of the City Council.

B. DePasquale.

The 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine has emphasized finance to the detriment of the environment, among other things.  DePasquale’s employment by the City of Cambridge slightly predates the 1974 commencement of the City Manager Machine.

DePasquale has had a key part in the financial brilliance of the Cambridge City Manager Machine.  He has excellent knowledge of the City of Cambridge, and made a magnificent presentation at the first, public presentation.  I did not stay for his presentation to the Cambridge City Council.  I would hope that he would remain in his current valuable function under Ash or Fetherston.

The reality is that the 42 year Cambridge City Manager machine has been very destructive to the environment, and has amassed a massive organization influenced by its wishes.  The destruction is outrageous and is likely to continue under DePasquale.  A video of the outrage on the Charles this year is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

It is inconceivable that he can be meaningfully considered separate from the outrages of the Cambridge City Manager Machine of which he has been a high level part.  That him unacceptable from my point of view.

C. Ash.

Mr. Ash is a Leading Man type with more than a decade experience as the City Manager of the City of Chelsea, MA.  Chelsea is about 40,000 in population in contrast to about 110,000 in Cambridge.  Chelsea is heavily blue collar with major heavy industry.  This is clearly associated with its direct access to the port of Boston and to Boston’s Logan Airport.

During the past year, Ash has served as one of the Cabinet Members, Secretary, Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development  to Governor Baker.

He has major State House experience in addition to the current Secretariat position.

Ash is the one candidate whom I recall making a substantive comment on open space achievements.  He reported that he had created a number of small parks in Chelsea during his regime.

He is personally impressive, significantly taller than 6 feet, very well proportioned.  He looks like a Leading Man and has the demeanor of a Leading Man.

He looked the part and communicated a very great ability to make an excellent impression on behalf of the City of Cambridge.

D. Fetherston.

Mr. Fetherston’s relevant experience is completely in municipal government, four positions in Connecticut municipalities, one in Boulder, CO, one in North Carolina.  He has functioned, clearly, as top level management under the latter two City Managers.

Ash likely has some more experience.  The time difference, off the top of my head, could be his legislative years.  "Cambridge Day" reports Ash as 53 and Fetherston as 50.

Fetherston is medium height and weight.  The personal impression he gave at the public gathering was wonkish.

Fetherston SHONE AT THE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION.

He was extremely comfortable surrounded by the members of the Cambridge City Council in their official chambers.  He was business like and communicative.  He spoke in an appropriately forceful but not excessive manner, while maintaining a normal tone of voice.  He consistently communicated as a person intending to step in, do the job well while deferring FULLY to the City Council on policy matters.

Ash responded in detail as to his intentions on a string of policy matters.

Fetherston responded to the same questions by clearly communicating understanding of all sides of the issues.  He gave no specific intentions as to resolution of the issues.  His position was that it is his job to fully gather and present information for the City Council to allow the City Council to make significant decisions on policy matters.

Fetherston made it clear that it would be his intent to learn the city and its government without any intent to disrupt a well functioning entity.

E. Summary.

One of the many real horrors of the Cambridge City Manager Machine is repeated lies of omission on stuff of which they have reason to be ashamed.  The really terrible stuff has to be dragged out of the City Manager, AND OUT OF THE WHOLE BUNCH of cheerleading groups which clearly look to his machine for direction, directly or indirectly.

This lying by omission constitutes lack of fitness for office, as far as I am concerned, another reason to end the Machine now.

Normal competent managers would not behave that way.  It is likely that Mr. Ash behaves in an open manner.  I do not personally know.  It is likely that Mr. Fetherston behaves in an open manner.  He most definitely made it very clear, in his business like, reporting, manner, that such is his stock in trade.

At one point, a member of the City Council unsuccessfully inquired into Mr. Ashe’s salary expectations, citing a possibly high number.  Fetherston made himself one of the group.  To Ashe it was a question directed to a Leading Man making a solid presentation.  To Fetherston, the question was unthinkable.  He was part of the group.

I have a lot of victories on major issues in the City of Cambridge.  My victories almost universally came as victories in which the Cambridge City Council chose my side over that of the City Manager and / or his friends.

I have had at least one victory on a zoning matter in Harvard Square in which the City Manager, after the City Council vote, destroyed a tiny city owned park to use it for the expansion of an adjoining business which could not expand under the zoning vote the City Manager had just lost to me.

I raised Hell.  The City Manager rebuilt that tiny park magnificently, clearly communicating by his actions an apology to the City Council.

It is comforting that Mr. Ash clearly spoke good words on open space.  That definitely is a plus.

I was in an excellent position to hear all of Mr. Fetherston’s comments in front of the Cambridge City Council.  I was not in as good a position in the public meeting, nor was I as able to catch all of Mr. Ash’s comments to the City Council.  There were no open space questions by the Cambridge City Council.

The reality is that normal human beings do not behave like the Cambridge City Manager Machine.  The reality is that normal human beings do not behave as do the Cambridge City Manager Machine and their friends.

I would certainly prefer words on topic from Mr. Fetherston.  I could have missed them.  The reality is that, in accordance with his so many answers, the key part of the question probably would be answered as one of policy for the City Council.

Fetherston is a professional.  He is not a Leading Man.  He is a skillfully communicative manager who would be one Heck of an improvement over the terrible situation of the last 42 years.

My very big fear is that the environmental vileness is very well established, both in the Development Department and in its influenced “activists.”  The dominant nature of the organization is overwhelming to an average human being who does not understand reality.  It is possible that Featherston or Ash could be conned from lack of REAL knowledge of the situation.  The organization really is not large, but it is well located and it claims it is large.


4. Conclusion.

One no, two impressive maybes.

Comments?  Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com.

My video on the first stage of the latest Charles River outrage may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Thank you.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Charles River: Update on Cambridge, MA, City Hall Area Destruction.

Charles River: Update on Cambridge, MA, City Hall Area Destruction.

Here are updates of the photos I posted yesterday, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-cambridge-extends-tree.html.

Today, the sun was better for shots.

The photos run in the same direction.  I just started with a better shot of the surviving tree and then, on the sidewalk by the surviving tree, turned to my right to photograph City Hall.








Thursday, September 15, 2016

Charles River: Cambridge Extends Tree Destruction to City Hall

Charles River: Cambridge Extends Tree Destruction to City Hall

* * * * *

Supplement: Better photos are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-update-on-cambridge-ma.html.

* * * * *


When talking about the City of Cambridge or the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, or their Cheerleaders, it is always a mistake to think “They cannot get lower.”

I have reported on the outrageous destruction on the Cambridge Common and at Alewife.  The recent outrage on the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, with brief comment on Magazine Beach  is summarized in the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

I have reported on plans to make the Charles River worse.

I have reported on the 50 trees destroyed in Kendall Square, and on needless destruction associated with the Longfellow Bridge repairs.

I have refrained from discussing the repeated wasting of entire blocks of street trees by the City of Cambridge simply because this aspect of Cambridge’s vileness really is not relevant to the Charles River, whereas truly major destruction fits in the pattern..

I have refrained until now.

The City of Cambridge has extended its destructiveness to the lap of City Hall, again.  Cambridge, not that long ago destroyed significant, excellent vegetation on the front of City Hall and in its lawn, converting the front of city hall from a beautiful, magnificently adorned building to a relative wasteland.

This time, the destruction is on the side street adjacent to the Central Square Post Office, a magnificent building across from City Hall.

The destruction is on the east side of the Post Office building on Pleasant Street.  They have destroyed every tree but one in the block between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street.  The first photo is taken with my back to Mass. Ave. and City Hall in sight to my right.






These trees were excellent trees, approaching maturity, planted perhaps 20 years ago.

The only tree not destroyed in this block is the one nearest to Massachusetts Avenue.  I can think of two possible explanations for it being saved:

1. They did not get around to destroying it yet.

2. They were perpetuating the lie that the City of Cambridge is environmentally responsible.  Since this tree is the closest to Mass. Ave., it is the one most visible to folks on this main city street.  Refraining from destroying it drastically reduces the impact of Cambridge’s destructiveness that the average person is aware of.

Cambridge has an electorate which wishes to be enlightened.  Cambridge and its cheerleaders go through a lot of bother fooling the electorate as much as is practical.

I repeat.

The destruction must stop.

The City Manager Machine which has perpetuated itself, its destructiveness and its cheerleader tactics since 1974, must be ended with the end of the employment of Richard Rossi.  Rossi must not be allowed to designate his principal assistant as his successor which has been done by every City Manager since the City Manager Machine was created in 1974.

The vile Department of Conservation and Recreation must be replaced on the Charles with the adult in the room, the Department of Transportation.  MassDOT is not perfect.  Cambridge and the DCR approach being perfect in the wrong direction.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Charles River: Environmentally Destructive State Rep Fired by the Voters

Charles River: Environmentally Destructive State Rep Fired by the Voters


1. The Cambridge Chronicle on line report.
2. Charles River Outrage Key?
3. The use of the Grand Junction railroad for Commuter Rail.
4. Further destruction proposed on the Charles River.


1. The Cambridge Chronicle on line report.

The Cambridge Chronicle report, on line, Posted 9/8/16 at 11:28 pm, updated 9/9/16 at 1:55 pm.

* * * * *

Cambridge activist and attorney Mike Connolly unseated longtime state representative and Cambridge city Councilor Tim Toomey by just 400 votes Thursday night in the 26th Middlesex District democratic race, according to unofficial results provided by the Cambridge and Somerville election commissions.

Connolly pulled in 2042 votes, or 52 percent, in Cambridge to Toomey’s 1828. While Somerville cast 704 ballots for Toomey and 884 for Connolly.

Toomey conceded shortly after 9:30 p.m. with a Facebook post congratulating his opponent.

* * * * *

Ed:  This was the Democratic primary.  However, in this part of the world, the Democratic primary is the only election which counts.

2. Charles River Outrage Key?

Connolly’s victory, according to the Chronicle, was by 400 votes in a State Representative District which is includes adjacent parts of Cambridge and Somerville.  Connolly won by 214 votes in Cambridge, and by 180 in Somerville.  My calculation of their numbers puts the victory margin at 394.

Toomey has filthy hands on the destruction of Memorial Drive both as a State Representative and as a City Councilor.  For a view of Toomey’s reminder to the voters of Toomey’s bad record, please see our video on the destruction of Memorial Drive, posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

There is way too much in the video to repeat once again the many photos in the YouTube report, almost all of which were also published in this blog.

It would greatly understate the outrage on the Charles for me to pick out one or two photos from this report.  Please view the report.

This view presented in this report faced the voters constantly from the time of destruction to the time of election.

My sum of the Chronicle numbers indicates a total of 5,458 votes cast for one candidate or the other.

Obtaining 394 votes against Toomey, given the very major outrage that Toomey is a part of, is nothing.

I very strongly hope that Representative Elect Connolly will respect the decision of the voters and get rid of the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s responsibilities with regard to the Charles River.

3. The use of the Grand Junction railroad for Commuter Rail.

Toomey has been a shining light in the environmentally reprehensible Cambridge political machine.

Toomey stands out from the rest of the Cambridge City Council because of his leadership in fighting against the environmental outrage associated with the Grand Junction commuter rail proposal in which commuter trains would inflict damage on the Charles River and on city pollution counts by blocking traffic on at least six Cambridge streets, four of the six MAJOR city streets.  I do not know how much destruction it would inflict on the Somerville part of his State Representative district.

Toomey was the light in the middle of darkness, forcing responsible behavior out of the Cambridge City Council on this matter.

The trouble is that the massive destruction of the environment which centers on the Cambridge City Council is so major that while Toomey’s excellence on the Grand Junction is commendable, the destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council simply overwhelms the decency of Toomey’s great behavior on the Grand Junction.

The fine print in the expansion project at South Station, however, appears to force future commuter traffic from the West to Boston onto the Grand Junction.

I strongly hope that Representative Elect Mike Connolly corrects the situation.  Toomey has, to the best of my knowledge, been silent on the impact of the South Station expansion project on the Grand Junction commuter rail plans.

4. Further destruction proposed on the Charles River.

Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and the Cheerleaders are by no means done destroying on the Charles River.  The number of trees to be destroyed by this outrage which were admitted by Cambridge and the DCR are at least 100 below the destruction clear from the DCR destruction plans on the work which is ongoing.
 
The video goes into this secret destruction in detail.

Further massive destruction and heartless animal abuse are planned by the Cambridge City Council as secret parts of the Cambridge City Council Grand Junction Proposal.

I strongly hope the entire bunch learns from the firing of State Representative Toomey.

Furthermore, Cambridge, the DCR and the cheerleaders are fighting for the following at Magazine Beach.  They want to:

Destroy even more Street Trees.
Destroy trees around the hill parking lot west of the playing fields.
Prohibit parking in the hill parking lot and reduce the number of spaces there.
Continue the failed dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach.  They want to destroy the proven failed poison drinking grass introduced in the 2000s and replace the failures with more poison drinkers.
Destroy the responsible grasses on the top of the hill and behind the swimming pool.  EXPAND Poison usage to the top of the Hill and to behind the pool by introducing MORE poison drinking grass in place of the responsible grass there.
Continue the failed 16 ft high wall of introduced bushes blocking off the Charles from Magazine Beach introduced in the 2000s.  They refuse to provide the LAWN TO THE RIVER they promised.  They built that outrageous wall instead.
Continue prohibiting private boat docking by continuing the blocking of the boats by the 16 foot high wall of bushes.
Continue starving the 35 year resident Charles River White Geese with the 16 foot high introduced wall.
Increase destruction of the last remaining home of the Charles River White Geese east of the BU Bridge.
Continue the Poisoning of FREE ANIMALS if they eat the poison drinking introduced grasses.
Charge people to use boats off Magazine Beach INSTEAD OF FREE BOAT DOCKING.  Introduce other retail.

I hope that Connolly and the Cambridge City Council learn from the voters and end this outrage.

Tuesday, September 06, 2016

Charles River: More Reports on the Charles River White Geese


1. Introduction and Correction.
2. White Geese of Cambridge by Ernest Sarno.
3. Historic Pages: The Charles River White Geese.
4. The destruction of Memorial Drive . . . 2016, Final Cut.


1. Introduction and Correction.

Yesterday, I posted a couple of links to appreciations on line of the Charles River White Geese.

I just discovered I posted the same link twice for different reports.  I have corrected the link in the post, but, for the record, here is the correct link for Charles River Geese by Maud Dillingham:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM.

And here are a couple of others.  There are MANY posts on the Charles River White Geese.

2. White Geese of Cambridge by Ernest Sarno.

This report was created in November 2009.  It is a loving job.

It commences with an evening video of the Charles River White Geese feeding across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, in an area which has since been destroyed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation supported by Cambridge, along with EVERY TREE.

The film may include an area slightly east of the Hyatt, apparently showing a portion destroyed by Cambridge on behalf of the DCR in the name of sewer work.

The middle of the film shows the construction zone created by the DCR in the Destroyed Nesting Area for BU Bridge work.  Part of the destruction was necessary.  The portion shown by the film was not necessary, just part of the destructiveness of this terrible agency.

The latter part shows the Charles River White Geese in Destroyed Nesting Area, in the area where the ground vegetation was destroyed by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” acting as agent for the DCR.  This was before the situation was made even worse by railroad workers with DCR blessing.

This good report may be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM.

They put in a good word for Friends of the White Geese, as well.

3. Historic Pages: The Charles River White Geese.

These are beautiful photographs created and well displayed by Phil Barber, a Cambridgeport resident who has for many years recorded the Charles River.

http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.

4. The destruction of Memorial Drive . . . 2016, Final Cut.

The pits so far by the state bureaucrats with the support of the City of Cambridge, with Cambridge, the DCR and Cheerleaders fighting to make things even worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Destruction of the Charles River, Cambridge, MA: Records of the past.

RE: Destruction of the Charles River, Cambridge, MA:  Records of the past.

1. Introduction.
2. 2007, Maude Dillingham.
3. 2010 video of a young gaggle, Kathy Podgers.


1. Introduction.

Here are some older films of the Charles River White Geese in their Nesting Area.

2. 2007, Maude Dillingham.

A 2007 shoot shows them feeding, shudder, across the on ramp to Memorial Drive.  The Department of Conservation and Recreation, in their fight to drive away or kill all resident animals, has now added to their starvation wall a wall blocking the entrance / exit to the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Vegetation, shudder, can actually be seen in the Destroyed Nesting Area.  This is before the really bad destruction other than from the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM

Starvation is the goal.  This food has been since been taken away from them.

This was long before the most recent outrage / destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat, as seen in our report posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.


3. 2010 video of a young gaggle, Kathy Podgers.

The destruction of ground vegetation by the falsely named Charles River "Conservancy" is distressingly clear.

But the parents are showing their babies the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDAdqpKqzv8

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Fraud and the fight of friends of the City of Cambridge for Charles River destruction.

Fraud and the fight of friends of the City of Cambridge for Charles River destruction.

1. The bad guys on the attack.
2. Reality which MUST be kept from the eyes of well meaning people, in this system of fraud.
a. General.
b. The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” and ITS record.
c. The terrible record of the writer and her Cheerleading group.
3. Summary.


1. The bad guys on the attack.

It is silly to call the tactics by which friends of the City of Cambridge fight for environmental destruction as other than fraud.

I recently got a broad based email from the “community” woman with the dirtiest hands in the destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat on the Charles River in Cambridge between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.

Now she is fighting for destruction at Magazine Beach, plus further destruction between those bridges.  And she is fighting to lie that she does not have horribly filthy hands in the massive destruction she has achieved.

Her pitch commenced with:

“At the turn of the 19th century, Magazine Beach was the favorite river swimming destination on the Charles River. The Charles River Conservancy is now working to re-establish swimming in the river.”

She then sought money to assist her fight for further destruction.  It was summarized with:

* * * *

DCR [ed: Department of Conservation and Recreation], the City and the community, together, are funding improvements at the park. We need to do our part to make things happen. To a spray feature, play features, new benches and picnic tables and more!

Take a walk at the park and check out the freshly painted Powder Magazine! It’s looking fabulous….

* * * *

"and more" at the end of the first quoted paragraph is what really counts, along with the saccharine in the second quoted paragraph.  Look at what we tell you to look at.  Do not look at the terrible things we are fighting to do, and which we have achieved.

Key in the fight of these people for destruction is to sound oh so sweet, and to censor the reality of what they are doing.

They run a listserve which they spent years lying was not censored.  This pitch, more recently, under direct pressure, was modified with a claim that they have a duty to censor any and all statements negative to the City of Cambridge and its friends.

Reality is not allowed. Cheerleading is all that is allowed.  Her latest fight for destruction is going way too far, as was the three plus year fight for the terrible things she and her friends just did on the Charles River.

And after this lead attacker achieves all that ADDITIONAL destruction, she will ONCE AGAIN lie and claim she and her fellow cheerleaders lack responsibility for the terrible things she fought for and continues to fight for.

2. Reality which MUST be kept from the eyes of well meaning people, in this system of fraud.

a. General.

One of the key things these terrible people do is to praise each other for saintliness.  Mutual praise gives the impression to well meaning people that both the praiser and the praisee are deserving of commendation.  Both, altogether too commonly, are lies.

This destructive person praises the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”

The falsely named Charles River "Conservancy" aggressively supported the destruction of hundreds of trees which was achieved earlier this year.  The speaker is trying to run away from her, and their, very real responsibility for the destruction.

Our Final Cut of the Destruction of Memorial Drive may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o

b. The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” and ITS record.

The falsely named Charles River "Conservancy" conducted a "swim in" to celebrate the outrages which were inflicted on the Magazine Beach playing fields in the 2000s.

The things they celebrated in the name of swimming included the introduction of poisons into the environment of the riverfront to keep alive sickly grass introduced into the environment in place of the responsible, non toxic grass which had grown there the better part of a Century.

They and the writer have never explained how WALLING OFF THE CHARLES RIVER FROM THE MAGAZINE BEACH PLAYING FIELDS helped swimming, but they support the walling off and claim it helped swimming.

They supported destroying the free access for private boats to the water off Magazine Beach by that 16 foot high starvation wall. Now the writer supports charging people to use boats off Magazine Beach.

They supported the heartless starving of the Charles River White Geese by this combination of outrages, and the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese by the latest outrages.

The falsely named Charles River "Conservancy" destroyed most of the ground vegetation at the Destroyed Nesting Area to replace it with dirt, clearly part of the DCR's goal of killing off or driving away resident animals.

One big question in my mind is why do they keep calling themselves a "Conservancy?" That strikes me as deliberate fraud.

Even more importantly, why does the writer call them a "Conservancy?" But then again, the writer has her own very destructive record.

c. The terrible record of the writer and her Cheerleading group.

The Magazine Beach "Improvements" SUPPORTED by the writer include

a. destruction of street trees,

b. Destruction of trees at the top of the hill west of the playing fields and at the bottom of Magazine Street,

c. Destruction of little guys’ parking at the top of the hill.

d. Rendering the remnants illegal for parking.

e. Continuation and making worse of the outrages done in the 2000s.

f. Expanding the failed use of poisons on the playing fields INSTEAD OF RETURN TO RESPONSIBLE NON POISON MAINTENANCE which existed for the better part of a Century.

They want to replace the failed poison drinking grass in the Magazine Beach
playing fields with more poison drinking grass. They want to expand the
use of poisons to the top of the hill and behind the swimming pool.

g. They want to keep the starvation wall of introduced bushes which blocks access between the Charles River and the Magazine Beach playing fields, including

(1) the prevention of the free docking of boats which was allowed for the better part of a century.

INSTEAD OF RETURNING FREE DOCKING OF PRIVATELY OWN BOATS which is blocked by the 16 foot wall, they want to charge people to use boats.

(2) The deliberate starving of the 35 year resident Charles River White Geese by preventing their access to the playing fields which have been their main habitat for most of the past 35 years.

h. Continued heartless abuse and deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese.

i. Further outrages following up on the destruction of those hundreds of trees.

j. Destruction at the Destroyed Nesting Area under consideration by the Cambridge City Council.

One of the false pieces of Pablum there is praise for a Grand Junction bike highway while censoring the destructiveness at the Charles River.  Interestingly, the fight for destruction of those hundreds of trees included lovely words about replacing the previously existing bike highway with a gold plated bike highway.  Now that the destruction is obvious, the Pablum of the Bike Highway is no longer mentioned.

k. I think that is enough.


3. Summary.

In addition to objecting to the false name of the "Conservancy," I clearly see as a falsehood this group's calling itself a "Neighborhood Association."  When pushed, they brag of censoring all negative and true comments about the Cambridge City Manager / City Council / Department of Conservation and Recreation.

That is not a neighborhood association, that is a cheerleading group lying about its real basis for existence, a truly destructive reason for existence.

But the words sound so lovely, and the claims of innocence after achieving massive destruction sound so sweet, but, yet again, are proven nonsense in part by their unlimited praise of and fighting for further outrages being planned on the Charles River.

They are still doing the same terrible things they did to achieve all this destruction.  Now they are just lying about their record in addition to sweetly fighting for more destruction.

Friday, August 26, 2016

Destruction of Memorial Drive Final Cut to receive further distribution.

Destruction of Memorial Drive Final Cut to receive further distribution.

“The Destruction of Memorial Drive . . . Final Cut” has been posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

We have been informed that Cambridge Community Television will present our video on their sites, which includes viewing on the internet.

This follows on very meaningful and important inputs by CCTV in producing this report, acknowledged in the video.  The video singles out one staff member, Natalie Minik, who provided / initiated very helpful and key input with regard to content in the actual creation of the Final Cut.  Her input resulted in my adding a significant part of the video.

The video provides a general expression of appreciation which is intended to include assistance by Programming Coordinator Lily Bouvier and by Susan Fleischmann, Executive Director, both of whom have been very helpful.  The Final Cut is the fourth edition.  I keep finding improvements to make.  The improvements have to stop with the Final Cut, but thanks very much to Lily and to Susan as well.

The communication from Programming Coordinator Lily Bouvier for CCTV reads as follows:

* * * *

Hi Bob,

I am writing to let you know that your new cut is scheduled to begin broadcasting on the channels this coming week. It will play on Channel 8, Tues. 8/30, Thurs. 9/1, and Sun. 9/4 at 7:30pm and Weds. 8/31 and Fri. 9/2 at 11:30am.

Folks can tune in via Cambridge cable TV or on live webstream, at cctvcambridge.org/channel08. Hope you get to watch, and let others know as well!

Take care.

Lily

* * * *

Please note that anyone with Internet access can view the CCTV presentation on the Internet at cctvcambridge.org/channel08 at these times, in addition to viewing the YouTube presentation.  The Channels Lily mentions

It is the hope of Friends of the White Geese that this Video will be submitted next year by CCTV as part of CCTV’s annual submissions for awards on community reporting, awards which have been frequently earned by CCTV.  Submission would be for community reporting in 2016.

Thanks to CCTV, individually and through the staff who have been of such great assistance.


Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Should the Mass. Governor’s Economic Development Chief take over as the Cambridge, MA City Manager?

Should the Mass. Governor’s Economic Development Chief take over as the Cambridge, MA City Manager?


The following communication was censored from the listserve of one cheerleading group which claims to be defending the Charles River in Cambridge.

This proposed communication was part of a series of communications concerning the impending replacement of Richard Rossi as Cambridge, MA, USA City Manager. Rossi is the third in a series of City Managers which amounts to one City Manager with three faces.

The Cambridge City Manager machine dates back to 1974 when James Leo Sullivan was hired as City Manager with Robert Healy as his Assistant City Manager. Sullivan was replaced by Robert Healy with Richard Rossi as his Assistant City Manager. Rossi is now retiring and proposes, dah dah, that his Assistant City Manager replace him.

Apparently the Economic Development Chief to the sitting Massachusetts governor looks like a candidate for the next City Manager of Cambridge, MA. Clearly there have been a series of communications on the issue. This one was censored as part of the continuing control of thoughts by Cambridge "protective" groups influenced by the City Manager Machine..

* * * *




Reality is that the 42 year Cambridge City Manager machine and its influenced and falsely named "protective" groups have done an outrageous amount of harm to Cambridge. These terrible people plan much more serious harm to the Charles River with the lie of "improvement."





The City Manager machine needs to be ENDED, and the DCR replaced with MassDOT which has acted as the adult in the house in key actions associated with Cambridge and the DCR.



As far as Baker's Economic Development Chief goes, I do not know the individual's record. I do know the record of the Baker administration in fighting to destroy the formerly expanding movie industry in the state.





I am a professional movie actor.





This year, as of tomorrow, 80% of my paid work days will have been IN RHODE ISLAND. ALL of my Massachusetts work has been on movies stuck in Massachusetts because they were presenting the marathon bombing, Stronger and Patriot's Day. The only pending studio work in Massachusetts that I am aware of is also stuck in Massachusetts because of subject matter, Chappaquiddick.





For the Governor to be claiming quality in economic development is as silly as ANY ONE of ELEVEN incumbent / recently fired Cambridge City Councillors lying that they are pro-environment.

Baker's games are sending strong communication to the movie industry that movies are not wanted in Massachusetts. And the industry is very clearly listening, given its flight from Massachusetts.





A quick sample of the recent outrage on the Charles River, OMITTING MOST OF THE IMPENDING OUTRAGES at Magazine Beach, the Destroyed Nesting Area and the area which was just destroyed, may be viewed at The Destruction of Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA, USA, January - February 2016, Final Cut ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o




Lies to the contrary are exactly that, lies designed to further vile goals from destructive bad people.


Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Cambridge, MA, USA, “Defends” Trees, Still Silent on ITS destruction of Memorial Drive

Cambridge, MA, USA, “Defends” Trees, Still Silent on ITS destruction of Memorial Drive

On the Afternoon of August 10, 2016, I walked past Cambridge City Hall and saw a sign telling folks how to defend trees.

Here is the photo.



The City of Cambridge / Cambridge City Council is still silent on the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive and on its and its friends' plans to expand the destruction.

Our video on the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive by the City of Cambridge, with very slight comment on plans for further destruction may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

This sign is yet another example of the hypocrisy which keeps a vile city government in power.

Deafening silence on true outrages by a vile government combined with lovely words telling the other guy to be responsible.

Flat out hypocrisy.

But they brag about yelling at the other guy.  And, by yelling at the other guy, lie that they are responsible.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Boston South Station Expansion forces Harm to Charles River, Objections to State Environmental Report

Boston South Station Expansion forces Harm to Charles River, Objections to State Environmental Report

1. Introduction.
2. Letter to Secretary.
3. Photos of Grand Junction in habitat of Charles River White Geese and other free animals.

1. Introduction.

On July 22, 2016, I snail mailed the following comments to the State Environmental Secretary concerning impact on the Grand Junction and the Charles River of inadequate expansion presently being proposed for South Station in Boston.

To put it concisely, South Station expansion as proposed forces future expansion of train service to the west of Boston onto the Grand Junction Railroad, which runs through the goose habitat, with the associated environmental harm to the Charles River and its animals.  This expansion is being fought for by the City of Cambridge with the sort of irresponsible tactics which are common by Cambridge and its friends, as was so brutally demonstrated in outrageous destruction on the Charles River.

The PS very briefly objects to the ongoing efforts of the Massachusetts governor to destroy the Massachusetts movie industry.  It was no accident that I mentioned I was working on a significant movie IN RHODE ISLAND on the day of the presentation which I missed.

The concluding bracketed comment is in that form in the original.

Comments are due by snail mail, email or fax not later than August 5, 2016.  Snail mail goes to the below address.  Email comments go to holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us.  Faxed comments go to Holly Johnson at 617-626-1181.  Copies may also be sent to Steve Woelfel, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, 10 Park Plaza, Room 4150,Boston, MA   02116, or steve.woelfel@state.ma.us.  I will notify Mr. Woelfel by transmitting a link to this blog post.

Photos of the Grand Junction in the habitat of the Charles River White Geese and other animals are presented in section 3, below.

2. Letter to Environmental Secretary.

Secretary Matthew Beaton
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
MEPA Office, Attn: Holly Johnson, MEPA Analyst
EEA #15028
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA   02114

Mr. Secretary:

I am writing individually and as Chair of Friends of the White Geese, a Massachusetts Non Profit registered with the Attorney General since 2001.

First of all, I object to the listing of my comments in the report as made individually (pages 186 to 194 of the DVD, pages 184 to 192 of chapter 5, as near as I can understand it) .  Clearly, as stated at the top of page 2 of the principal comments (page 188 of the DVD, page 186 of chapter 5), I am commenting individually and as Chair of Friends of the White Geese.  Failure to recognize the environmental concerns of this organization fit very well into the outrages going on on the Charles River which, commonly have been achieved by sweeping under the rug the very extreme irresponsibility inherent in these outrages.

I have provided great detail with more than a hundred photos on these related outrages in my YouTube video, “The Destruction of Memorial Drive, Charles River, Cambridge, MA, January - February 2016,” posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o, and incorporated herein by reference.  A DVD of this video is attached to my hard copy submission.

My comments (pages 186 to 194 of the DVD, pages 184 to 192 of chapter 5) include my own very great experience and success in standing up to the irresponsible government of the City of Cambridge.

The FEIR hides the fact that mandating passenger service on the Grand Junction is forced by this project and omits any and all impacts of forced use of the Grand Junction.  The report hides the fact that this omission and action MAKES WORSE the outrage started by the City of Cambridge and the DCR already.

The FEIR is deficient in that it only evaluates the South Station Expansion in terms of fulfilling needs for “south side expansion.”

The problem with the plan is that it does not recognize that South Station expansion should not only support expansion on the south side, but also MUST support expansion to the west.

There are significant plans for west side expansion.

Failure to allow for expansion to the west puts the railroad system in a situation where west side expansion must be supported through use of the Grand Junction, and there is no environmental analysis of use of the Grand Junction which is mandated by this inadequate expansion of South Station.

Responsible expansion of South Station would be comparable to the construction of the South Station Bus Terminal.  The Bus Terminal has an addition floor currently used for parking but which can be used to expand bus service in the Bus Terminal when and if it is necessary.

The key failure is failure to analyze expansion by creating lower levels for track expansion below the proposed track expansion.  This lack of adequate expansion foregoes west side expansion except by the UNSTUDIED Grand Junction Expansion.

Construction now of lower levels under the new tracks and / or under Dorchester Avenue would provide a responsible alternative to use of the Grand Junction, and use, in the interim, of the added levels for parking until they are needed.  This is stated in great detail in my analysis with graphics (pages 186 to 194 of the DVD, pages 184 to 192 of chapter 5).

The FEIR fails to either include Grand Junction use forced by inadequate expansion of South Station and fails to evaluate expansion of South Station which includes those lower levels.  The failure omits the responsible two alternative way to go.

Failure to include either renders the FEIR fatally deficient.

This glaring failure is distressingly common with regard to irresponsible projects in Cambridge which would generate, and have generated, massive opposition if done other than in secret.

Cambridge voter opposition to the Grand Junction use for passenger service with its environmental destruction has been widely communicated in spite of attempts by Cambridge to stifle the Cambridge population and to manipulate its population in destructive ways.

The Cambridge population has stood up to the outrages of its government and its attempt to manipulate its population with regard to the Grand Junction.

MassDOT has behaved exemplarily in standing up to the irresponsible Cambridge government and the Cambridge government’s contempt for the well founded objections of its own population.

The destructiveness of Grand Junction usage is being sneaked into the South Station expansion project by refusal to admit the destruction of west side service to South Station while loudly proclaiming full support OF SOUTHSIDE EXPANSION, AND ONLY SOUTHSIDE EXPANSION.

Creation of room to expand South Station by constructing lower floors in the new project is the only way to responsibly allow for westside expansion without use of the UNEVALUATED Grand Junction passenger service relocation.

The lower floors, as in the responsibly constructed Bus Terminal’s top floor, can be used for parking until expansion of South Station is needed to support westside expansion of service.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Individually, and as
Chair, Friends of the White Geese
PS: I regret missing the July 20 presentation.  I am a professional movie actor.  At the time of the presentation, I was working in Rhode Island on The Polka King.

Attachment:

DVD of The Destruction of Memorial Drive, Charles River, Cambridge, MA, January - February 2016, Final Cut [URL to online publication provided in text.]

3. Photos of Grand Junction in habitat of Charles River White Geese and other free animals.

First of all, the video on the Destruction of Memorial Drive . . ., at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o, includes the two best photos I have of the Grand Junction and the Charles River White Geese patrolling it.  I have not been able to find those photos again, so here are a few less beautiful.

The first photo, from the BU Bridge, shows the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge on the right, and the Destroyed Nesting Area on the left.  The small white figures are the Charles River White Geese.

ALL GROUND VEGETATION  in this area was destroyed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation acting through the falsely named Charles River "Conservancy."



Here are two Charles River White Geese just off the shore of the Destroyed Nesting Area.  The photo was probably taken from the brown area next to the white figures, above.  The structure in the rear is the same support for the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge shown above.


This is a photo of the Charles River White Geese desperately looking for food near the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.  The desperation is based on the deliberate starvation of them by Cambridge and the DCR, once again, analyzed in much greater detail in the video.

City of Cambridge plans would build a fence parallel to the tracks preventing free animals from crossing the tracks from the Destroyed Nesting Area to the Wild Area which Cambridge and the DCR want to destroy, as analyzed in detail in the video.



This is the same location taken from the Memorial Drive overpass, which is straight ahead, above.  The various materials seen were there as part of the railroad work whose workers did so much totally unnecessary harm, WITH DCR CONSENT, to the Destroyed Nesting Area.


4. Supplement to Photos of Grand Junction, supplement posted July 24, 2006

I still cannot find the two photos in the video.  Here is another good shot from the BU Bridge looking down the length of the Grand Junction Bridge.

On the right is the doomed wild area, the subject of yet another lie from the DCR and friends.

The destruction plans which the DCR and Cambridge just implemented show exactly ONE TREE to the right of the Grand Junction, and say that they are not destroying that one tree.

Very clearly, the only reason such a plan would be in the package is to lie that they are not destroying this thick woods.

The clear communication, recognizing the kind of people we are dealing with, is that Cambridge and the DCR intend to destroy every tree BUT ONE between the Grand Junction and Boston University’s Cambridge Boathouse on the right


Sunday, July 10, 2016

Charles River: Visit to Destroyed Nesting Area, 7/10/16

Charles River:   Visit to Destroyed Nesting Area, 7/10/16


1. Introduction.
2. Photos on Sunday, July 10, 2016.
A. The gaggle.
B. The entrance.
C. Near Entrance and BU Bridge.
D. Core Area.
E. Toward Memorial Drive Ramp.
3. Context.
A. Destruction plans PARTIALLY implemented in January.
B. Wild Area.
C. Near Entrance and BU Bridge.
D. Core Area.
E. General Summary Flier.


1. Introduction.

I was at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese pretty early, 7 am, on the morning of Sunday, July 10, 2016.

To place this report in perspective, please review my video, The Destruction of Memorial Drive, Charles River, Cambridge, MA, USA, January - February 2016, Final Cut, posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  This report is a clear improvement over the prior posting, ed. 3 in content and in presentation.  So, if you viewed ed. 3, there is value in looking at the Final Cut.

The video includes a number of views of the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area, plus photos of massive destruction not that far from them

2. Photos on Sunday, July 10, 2016.

Here are a few pictures from Sunday.

A. The gaggle.

The gaggle in the Destroyed Nesting Area could have been all together in one group.  If so, it is clearly smaller than they were before the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Cambridge and their cheerleaders started starving them.

I saw both the vestigially marked brown gander and the now elderly Toulouse goose still there.  The families tend to stick together.  Seeing both of them there means at least those two families were still at the DNA.  I saw no smaller geese.  That, most likely, means that all the babies have reached their adult size or close to it.

Here are three photos of the gaggle.  They are in the area most cherished by the Charles River White Geese, under the big tree.  The DCR and its vile agents have destroyed all ground vegetation so nothing remains for them to rest on but dirt and crushed stone dumped by the irresponsible railroad workers whose destructiveness was, for the most part, blessed by the DCR in spite of the objections of the Cambridge Conservation Commission to irresponsible parking.





B. The entrance.

Here is the entrance.  It has been made “more secure”.  There was a point that the DCR was lying that they wanted a park here for use by human beings, but the human beings thought that use by human beings did not make much sense.

More recently, the DCR discovered that the Charles River White Geese were using the entrance to get food.  The DCR cannot allow the Charles River White Geese any more food than the DCR can help.  So the entrance has been closed with varying obstacles.  Human wear and tear appears to be bad for the obstacles.

There is a small opening through the obstacles that the Charles River White Geese could possibly use.  It has two problems from their point of view.  First, the plastic could conceivably hurt them by getting their feet tangled.  Secondly the opening is narrower than they prefer and could be dangerous because of its narrowness.  They could be vulnerable to attacks by animals outside.  So they are probably just being starved.

After all, heartless animal abuse is one of the claimed rights of the DCR.  Just listen to its cheerleaders.



C. Near Entrance and BU Bridge.

Here are a few photos of the area near the entrance and next to the BU Bridge.

There is a lot of dirt.  The DCR likes dirt.  The last thing the DCR wants is responsible ground vegetation like, shudder, grass.






The birds in the Charles River in the last photo are Canadas.

The grey wall straight ahead in the second photo, and on the left in the third and fourth is the BU Bridge.

The structure running from left to right in the last picture is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

D. Core Area.

Here are some photos of the area which is the core area of the Charles River White Geese.

Cambridge’s irresponsible city council is considering plans which would destroy most if not all of these trees.  This is in the part of the “Grand Junction” plan that is kept as secret as possible.  The irresponsible parts of Cambridge plans are always kept as secret as possible.  The City Council members, loudly brag, WITHOUT MENTION OF THE DESTRUCTIVE PART, about their plans for the Grand Junction.

This is the usual lying of omission.  Brag about the good stuff.  Lie about the vile stuff, and get responsible people supporting the entire package under the false impression they are dealing with a responsible city government.

To be exact, too many members of the Cambridge City Council loudly declare no right to discuss the Charles River, LYING THROUGH OMISSION about their current destructive plans and about past and planned destructive City of Cambridge behavior.





E. Toward Memorial Drive Ramp.

And is a photo of the area with, on the right, the hillside toward the ramp to Memorial Drive.  At the top of the crushed stone highway can be see the orange blockage at the entrance.  This prevents public use of the supposed public highway, but the blockade serves a purpose.  It further starves the Charles River White Geese in accordance with the DCR's rights as Heartless Animal Abusers.

The brown area to the left has been shown in detail in the first photo in section 1.C of this report.  Bushes died.  Not even grass planted in their place.

No grass in the brown area.  No responsible ground vegetation.  Any green spots in the ever present dirt look like moss.  Although some of the native vegetation is expanding a little bit, as is some of the introduced stuff.

There have been some small trees planted.  The contractors like money.



3. Context.

A. Destruction plans PARTIALLY implemented in January..

Here are the DCR destruction plans for the DNA and the Wild Area.  This is the part of the January 2016 destruction which has been the least implemented SO FAR.



At the top of the map is Memorial Drive and the on ramp from the BU Bridge.  At the bottom right is the Charles River.

One of the biggest makes when dealing with the DCR or Cambridge is to assume “they would never stoop so low.”

It is entirely possible that I have made that error in interpreting this map.

B. Wild Area.

The middle right side of the map, above the Charles River. is the Wild Area.

Here is photo of it from last year.  It is right in the middle of the photo.  On the left is the railroad bridge.  On the right is Boston University’s BU Boathouse.



The map shows EXACTLY ONE TREE in this area.  The only reasonable interpretation is that they are destroying everything and simply lying.  They do a lot of lying.

If you look to the left in the map, you will see one blackened in circle.  That is the magnificent tree overlooking the Destroyed Nesting Area which the DCR brags it wants to destroy.

C. Magnificent, doomed tree.

Here is a photo of that magnificent tree also from before this year.



This particular doomed tree dominates the photo and for what it is worth, towers over the red light in addition to everything else.

Under the doomed tree to the left is the ramp to Memorial Drive.  The entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area is directly above the middle of the three highway lines.  The food the Charles River White Geese have the nerve to want is the grass on the left side of the on ramp.

I do not see the blockade to the entrance in this photo.  It must have been before the DCR learned the Charles River White Geese were actually having the nerve to eat.

The plans show other, not destroyed trees next to the on ramp to Memorial Drive.

But the plans show nothing else in the nesting area.  I have been making the mistake of assuming that they omissions were for lack of relevance.  But there is the problem that it is always a mistake to assume “they would never stoop so low.”

First of all, they plan to destroyed the Wild Area.  The easiest way to destroy the Wild Area is by trucks through the Destroyed Nesting Area.  Those trucks would destroy much of the pittance of responsible or vaguely responsible vegetation which has been planted.  They would also destroy trees which have not been show.

D. City Council Destruction Plans.

Additionally, here is the plan the Cambridge City Council is considering and lying about by omission.  One of the plans show a fence between the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.  The Charles River White Geese have used the Wild Area for nesting because of the massive destruction of ground vegetation.  That fence would destroy access.



In this photo, the Charles River is at the top right, with the BU Bridge at the bottom and, apparently, the on ramp parallel to Memorial Drive.

The Cambridge City Council is considering highway construction here, the J shape in the middle of the Destroyed Nesting Area.  This is the major stuff they are lying about by omission.  It is clearly visible in the map.

What is not visible is the number of trees which would be destroyed.  This part of Cambridge plans is pretty much ALWAYS omitted through Cambridge’s very strong policy of lying by omission.

Additionally, none of the trees toward the Charles River are shown.  The DCR has show its loving for destroying trees next to the Charles River in the January 2016 destruction.

There is no reasonable to assume “they would never stoop so low.”

E. General Summary Flier.

On general principles, here is the main flier being distributed, for your information.  It gives contact possibilities, plus proposals for response, and gives my explanation for the outrage.  It does not go into the plans for destruction at Magazine Beach, on the other side of the BU Bridge.  I really much limit the content of each report.



Charles River: Visit to Destroyed Nesting Area, 7/10/16

Charles River:   Visit to Destroyed Nesting Area, 7/10/16


1. Introduction.
2. Photos on Sunday, July 10, 2016.
A. The gaggle.
B. The entrance.
C. Near Entrance and BU Bridge.
D. Core Area.
E. Toward Memorial Drive Ramp.
3. Context.
A. Destruction plans PARTIALLY implemented in January.
B. Wild Area.
C. Near Entrance and BU Bridge.
D. Core Area.
E. General Summary Flier.


1. Introduction.

I was at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese pretty early, 7 am, on the morning of Sunday, July 10, 2016.

To place this report in perspective, please review my video, The Destruction of Memorial Drive, Charles River, Cambridge, MA, USA, January - February 2016, Final Cut, posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  This reort is a clear improvement over the prior posting, ed. 3 in content and in presentation.  So, if you viewed ed. 3, there is value in looking at the Final Cut.

The video includes a number of views of the Destroyed Nesting Area and theWild Area, plus photos of massive destruction not that far from them

2. Photos on Sunday, July 10, 2016.

Here are a few pictures from Sunday.

A. The gaggle.

The gaggle in the Destroyed Nesting Area could have been all together in one group.  If so, it is clearly smaller than they were before the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Cambridge and their cheerleaders started starving them.

I saw both the vestigially marked brown gander and the now elderly Toulouse goose still there.  The families tend to stick together.  Seeing both of them there means at least those two families were still at the DNA.  I saw no smaller geese.  That, most likely, means that all the babies have reached their adult size or close to it.

Here are three photos of the gaggle.  They are in the area most cherished by the Charles River White Geese, under the big tree.  The DCR and its vile agents have destroyed all ground vegetation so nothing remains for them to rest on but dirt and crushed stone dumped by the irresponsible railroad workers whose destructiveness was, for the most part, blessed by the DCR in spite of the objections of the Cambridge Conservation Commission to irresponsible parking.





B. The entrance.

Here is the entrance.  It has been made “more secure”.  There was a point that the DCR was lying that they wanted a park here for use by human beings, but the human beings thought that use by human beings did not make much sense.

More recently, the DCR discovered that the Charles River White Geese were using the entrance to get food.  The DCR cannot allow the Charles River White Geese any more food than the DCR can help.  So the entrance has been closed with varying obstacles.  Human wear and tear appears to be bad for the obstacles.

There is a small opening through the obstacles that the Charles River White Geese could possibly use.  It has two problems from their point of view.  First, the plastic could conceivably hurt them by getting their feet tangled.  Secondly the opening is narrower than they prefer and could be dangerous because of its narrowness.  They could be vulnerable to attacks by animals outside.  So they are probably just being starved.

After all, heartless animal abuse is one of the claimed rights of the DCR.  Just listen to its cheerleaders.



C. Near Entrance and BU Bridge.

Here are a few photos of the area near the entrance and next to the BU Bridge.

There is a lot of dirt.  The DCR likes dirt.  The last thing the DCR wants is responsible ground vegetation like, shudder, grass.






The birds in the Charles River in the last photo are Canadas.

The grey wall straight ahead in the second photo, and on the left in the third and fourth is the BU Bridge.

The structure running from left to right in the last picture is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

D. Core Area.

Here are some photos of the area which is the core area of the Charles River White Geese.

Cambridge’s irresponsible city council is considering plans which would destroy most if not all of these trees.  This is in the part of the “Grand Junction” plan that is kept as secret as possible.  The irresponsible parts of Cambridge plans are always kept as secret as possible.  The City Council members, loudly brag, WITHOUT MENTION OF THE DESTRUCTIVE PART, about their plans for the Grand Junction.

This is the usual lying of omission.  Brag about the good stuff.  Lie about the vile stuff, and get responsible people supporting the entire package under the false impression they are dealing with a responsible city government.

To be exact, too many members of the Cambridge City Council loudly declare no right to discuss the Charles River, LYING THROUGH OMISSION about their current destructive plans and about past and planned destructive City of Cambridge behavior.





E. Toward Memorial Drive Ramp.

And is a photo of the area with, on the right, the hillside toward the ramp to Memorial Drive.  At the top of the crushed stone highway can be see the orange blockage at the entrance.  This prevents public use of the supposed public highway, but the blockade serves a purpose.  It further starves the Charles River White Geese in accordance with the DCR's rights as Heartless Animal Abusers.

The brown area to the left has been shown in detail in the first photo in section 1.C of this report.  Bushes died.  Not even grass planted in their place.

No grass in the brown area.  No responsible ground vegetation.  Any green spots in the ever present dirt look like moss.  Although some of the native vegetation is expanding a little bit, as is some of the introduced stuff.

There have been some small trees planted.  The contractors like money.



3. Context.

A. Destruction plans PARTIALLY implemented in January..

Here are the DCR destruction plans for the DNA and the Wild Area.  This is the part of the January 2016 destruction which has been the least implemented SO FAR.



At the top of the map is Memorial Drive and the on ramp from the BU Bridge.  At the bottom right is the Charles River.

One of the biggest makes when dealing with the DCR or Cambridge is to assume “they would never stoop so low.”

It is entirely possible that I have made that error in interpreting this map.

B. Wild Area.

The middle right side of the map, above the Charles River. is the Wild Area.

Here is photo of it from last year.  It is right in the middle of the photo.  On the left is the railroad bridge.  On the right is Boston University’s BU Boathouse.



The map shows EXACTLY ONE TREE in this area.  The only reasonable interpretation is that they are destroying everything and simply lying.  They do a lot of lying.

If you look to the left in the map, you will see one blackened in circle.  That is the magnificent tree overlooking the Destroyed Nesting Area which the DCR brags it wants to destroy.

C. Magnificent, doomed tree.

Here is a photo of that magnificent tree also from before this year.



This particular doomed tree dominates the photo and for what it is worth, towers over the red light in addition to everything else.

Under the doomed tree to the left is the ramp to Memorial Drive.  The entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area is directly above the middle of the three highway lines.  The food the Charles River White Geese have the nerve to want is the grass on the left side of the on ramp.

I do not see the blockade to the entrance in this photo.  It must have been before the DCR learned the Charles River White Geese were actually having the nerve to eat.

The plans show other, not destroyed trees next to the on ramp to Memorial Drive.

But the plans show nothing else in the nesting area.  I have been making the mistake of assuming that they omissions were for lack of relevance.  But there is the problem that it is always a mistake to assume “they would never stoop so low.”

First of all, they plan to destroyed the Wild Area.  The easiest way to destroy the Wild Area is by trucks through the Destroyed Nesting Area.  Those trucks would destroy much of the pittance of responsible or vaguely responsible vegetation which has been planted.  They would also destroy trees which have not been show.

D. City Council Destruction Plans.

Additionally, here is the plan the Cambridge City Council is considering and lying about by omission.  One of the plans show a fence between the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.  The Charles River White Geese have used the Wild Area for nesting because of the massive destruction of ground vegetation.  That fence would destroy access.



In this photo, the Charles River is at the top right, with the BU Bridge at the bottom and, apparently, the on ramp parallel to Memorial Drive.

The Cambridge City Council is considering highway construction here, the J shape in the middle of the Destroyed Nesting Area.  This is the major stuff they are lying about by omission.  It is clearly visible in the map.

What is not visible is the number of trees which would be destroyed.  This part of Cambridge plans is pretty much ALWAYS omitted through Cambridge’s very strong policy of lying by omission.

Additionally, none of the trees toward the Charles River are shown.  The DCR has show its loving for destroying trees next to the Charles River in the January 2016 destruction.

There is no reasonable to assume “they would never stoop so low.”

E. General Summary Flier.

On general principles, here is the main flier being distributed, for your information.  It gives contact possibilities, plus proposals for response, and gives my explanation for the outrage.  It does not go into the plans for destruction at Magazine Beach, on the other side of the BU Bridge.  I really much limit the content of each report.