Monday, February 13, 2017

Charles River Outrage - Photos of Some of Cambridge, MA, USA’s Abused Wild Turkeys

Charles River Outrage - Photos of Some of Cambridge, MA, USA’s Abused Wild Turkeys

1. Introduction.
2. Phil Barber Reports.
3. Analysis.


1. Introduction.

A few weeks ago, I reported on wild turkeys running around Cambridge, MA, USA, one of the most densely populated cities in the USA.  Their home has been destroyed by Cambridge and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

2. Phil Barber Reports.

Hi Bob, hope this finds you well. I encountered the Cport turkey flock the other day at last. Six of them, relaxing on Franklin st. Here's some pix. They're low resolution so they won't clog your mail, have higher res versions if you can use them for anything.





3. Analysis.

The photos look excellent to me.  Not the meaning behind the content, but the photos.  Thanks, Phil.

Franklin Street, where the photos were taken, is the second street south of Massachusetts Avenue.  Massachusetts Avenue, in turn, is the main street in Cambridge, MA, USA.

One of the goals of the Charles River Master Plan (which plan was ignored when it could be treated as a convenient lie) is to drive away or kill as many resident animals as they can get away with.

Then again Cambridge’s machine does do a non stop job of lying about the environmental sainthood of Cambridge, MA, USA, and its friends.

For my video on the latest real “achievement by Cambridge and its friends,” please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

This area is where these heartlessly abused animals used to live.  Phil’s photos are just more pieces of evidence of the non stop lying about environmental sainthood coming out of the Cambridge Machine.

The Cambridge Machine tactics are a sample of the “Big Lie” Technique.  As I recall, the technique was popular in some very destructive countries about two thirds of a century or so ago.

Friday, February 03, 2017

Charles River, and Charles River White Geese, Brief Update.

Charles River, and Charles River White Geese, Brief Update.

I have pretty much been forced to look at the situation on the Blog, and I do not like my extended absence.

I have been suffering from, hospitalized for and am recovering from pneumonia.  That has put me in a position where I have not been able to do any reporting.  To make it worse, I really should not be making this post.

I have produced a number of posts in recent months going into the rot which is politics in Cambridge, MA.  Over the years, I have preferred to concentrate on the really terrible governments in the City of Cambridge and in the regional government which attacks the Charles River, but the situation degenerated to such an extent that I just could not ignore the corrupt political situation in Cambridge by which these terrible things are accomplished.

Most recently, I have gone into the attacks on commuting access to Cambridge over the Charles River as they have evolved in the State planning for the rearrangement of I90 (Mass. Pike) on the Boston side of the Charles River.

It is my understanding, insofar as my physical condition has allowed my understanding of what is going on, that the machine which dominates Cambridge politics is ramping its attacks up with apparent intent to do real harm, as usual, claiming the opposite.

The Machine has suddenly gotten interested in and “opposed to” the closing of access to Cambridge by that off ramp from Soldiers Field Road to the River Street Bridge, the next bridge west of the BU Bridge.

When the Machine suddenly makes responsible noises, look out.  It has a dramatic record of achieving the opposite of what it claims to stand for.  It sounds great and ropes well meaning people into stabbing themselves in the back.

So, suddenly, I see people, responsible and otherwise, opposing the killing of that off ramp.

The fine print is the same destructiveness by which these terrible people who destroyed hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive and are fighting to expand the outrage to the area which extends from the unspoiled wood between the BU Boathouse and the Grand Junction railroad, on the east (core goose habitat) and on the west the (no surprise) the River Street Bridge.

The spiel appears to sound oh so saintly, as usual.  The reality is fine print which fights to destroy the Boston bank of the Charles River in the area, combined with making things even worse on the Cambridge side.

This is Standard pitch.  This is how a fraud has done so much environmental harm to the City of Cambridge over the past 42 years.  They always mean so well, and they have been distressingly consistent at achieving the opposite of what they claim to stand for.

My video on the destruction just achieved may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

My printing of the initial (and understated, including fraud) destruction plans at Magazine Beach is posted at:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-latest-magazine-beach.html.

My details on the off ramp destruction are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/further-attacks-on-north-side-of.html.

My environmental analysis of the off ramp destruction is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/charles-river-why-is-destruction-of.html.

My analysis of the fake group system is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/charles-river-why-is-destruction-of.html.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Charles River: 35 year resident Charles River White Geese under attack, doing their best.

Charles River:   35 year resident Charles River White Geese under attack, doing their best.


1. Introduction.
2. Photos of the Charles River White Geese.
3. Photos of heartless animal abuse.


1. Introduction.

I have a number of photos from a few days ago.

The photos provide excellent documentation of the total lack of fitness of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to manage the environment.

I realize that Cambridge, MA, USA has a new City Manager for whom I have high hopes, but I can only refer to Cambridge by its record, and not by my high hopes for the new City Manager.  Cambridge is very clearly part of the rot on the Charles River.

Cambridge and the DCR are excellent demonstrations of man destroying our world.

This presentation will be in two parts.

Today’s report is on heartless animal abuse.  The next report will be on outrageous destruction of trees.  Both are excellent examples of the lack of fitness of Cambridge and the DCR for management of the environment, and clearly place them on the wrong side of man’s destruction of our world.

The last Cambridge City Manager publicly bragged about all the “improvements” Cambridge was bringing to the Charles River.  His Development Department is clearly hand in glove with the DCR.  Their use of a fake “protective’ group” to smooth the way to destruction just makes the entire situation that much more vile.  Their ongoing work to expand the destruction just makes the entire thing that much worse.

In spite of Cambridge’s non stop pious prattle to the contrary, directly and through their influenced fake groups, it is silly to interpret the prattle as anything other than fraud on the voters.

Their environmental prattle is comparable to Cambridge’s loud proclamations about support for women’s rights a demonstrated by

Three levels of court condemned City Manager Robert Healy (the longest serving of the 3 member Cambridge City Manager Machine) for destroying the life of department head Malvina Monteiro because she worked for Women’s Rights in the Cambridge City Government.

         Those very strong judicial condemnations  give the Cambridge City Council full power to fire Robert Healy for Malfeasance In Office with NO MEANINGFUL LEGAL CASE BY ROBERT HEALY.  The condemnations in Monteiro legally decided that he was unfit for office.

Key words, from the Trial Judge are “reprehensible” with regard to Healy’s behavior.  Key words from the Appeals Court panel are “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”  The Appeals Court panel’s words came in an opinion which the panel REFUSED TO CALL AN OPINION as part of their very clear contempt for the City of Cambridge’s even bringing this matter before them on appeal.  Opinions are presented in full at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html, respectively.

The jury put their contempt in money: more than 1 million in real damages PLUS $3.5 million in PENAL damages to communicate the sick situation in Cambridge as clearly as possible.

The Cambridge City Council clearly showed their opinion by naming their police station after Robert Healy, in spite of the Monteiro outrage, and allowing him to retire with honor and praise.  This shows exactly which side the Cambridge City Council is REALLY on with regard to nonstop pious words.

Five of the nine current Cambridge City Councilors served during Monteiro decisions.

2. Photos of the Charles River White Geese.

Here is a photo of a flotilla of the Charles River White Geese off hunting for food, with the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge over their heads



Here is a photo of a separate flotilla of the Charles River White Geese in the bay off the Wild Area, separated from the Destroyed Nesting Area by the Grand Junction Railroad.  The photo is taken through the Wild Area, off the Grand Unction.

The Charles River White Geese spend the worst days of the winter in this bay.  So far it is well protected from the elements.  But the plans show ONE tree left in the thick woods which make up the Wild Area.  Devastating the adjacent land of more than a hundred trees will clearly make the bay much less hospital.



Here are photos of remaining Charles River White Geese eeking out survival in their Destroyed Nesting Area which has been ravaged of ground vegetation by DCR orders with clear connivance by Cambridge and with plans by Cambridge to make it worse.





3. Photos of heartless animal abuse.

Above is have photographed two separate groups of the Charles River White Geese.  One is a flotilla looking for food which the DCR and Cambridge deny to them and thus are deliberately starving them.  That is the photo with the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge overhead.

I will start off an old photo, the starvation wall of introduced bushes which keep the Charles River White Geese from their food of most of the last 35 years, the grasses at the Magazine Beach playing fields, with poisons introduced by Cambridge and the DCR.



Current plans are to make the wall worse with puffery.

The wall was installed based on the DCR’s promise of a “Lawn to the River.”  It is now non negotiable and exactly the opposite of a “lawn to the river”, although the DCR and its friends, including CAMBRIDGE are working to make things worse.  Flat out lying is irrelevant to the lack of ethics so obvious in these outrageous government entities.

Poisons were introduced and will, by rather clear plan, be expanded, probably nearly two miles to the east of the Destroyed Nesting Area to the Longfellow Bridge, and next to the area west of the Playing Fields, where 52 mostly excellent trees are slated to be destroyed, poisoning expansion extending toward the River Street Bridge.

Here is a video of the Charles River White Geese feeding across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, maybe a quarter of a mile east of the Charles River White Geese’ ghetto to which they are confined without food and with constant ramping up on the attacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.

I reported at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/charles-river-herds-of-wild-turkeys.html, of herds of wild turkeys roaming the streets of Cambridge, MA, USA looking for food.  One of the most densely populated cities in the United States of America and WILD TURKEYS are roaming its streets looking for food.

The wild turkeys are among the many LESS VISIBLE wild animals being heartlessly abused by Cambridge, the DCR and their cheerleaders.

Here is a placard included in a puff piece in the Cambridge City Hall Annex in which Cambridge also bragged about its outrages on the Charles River.  The nominal entity "responsible" was one of the too common fake "protective" groups.  This particular fake group brags that it censors any and all negative comment about the City of Cambridge on its Listserv.



It should be noted that Cambridge’s bragging normally has been notable for lies of omission.  They brag about what the voters will consider acceptable in their plans.  They keep secret the vile parts of their plans.  And this particular part of their plans being bragged about in that puffery WITH ONLY THE “GOOD STUFF” PUBLICIZED would have been defeated in a public meeting without corrupt tactics by the Cheerleaders putting on the puffery show.

This placard went very far in their bragging about their heartless animal abuse on the Charles River being part of humanity’s attacks on our world in this placard.

Here is the waterfront across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel now.  The animal habitat was so strong in this area that the DCR had up a sign warning drivers on Memorial Drive of “Goose Crossing.”




The stones at the river line have been added.  Those stones make it impossible for the Charles River White Geese to access the riverfront.  As for the turkeys and other less visible victims?  What do you think?  Especially in line with the starvation wall which was created by fraud and kept as “non negotiable.”

Once again, the video taken in 2009 of the Charles River White Geese feeding in this location is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.

Like a very large number of works of art and posts on the Internet cherishing the Charles River White Geese, the creator of this video is personally unknown to Friends of the White Geese.

The destroyers of our world who are doing their part of the world's destruction by destroying the Charles River are very clearly known:  The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the City of Cambridge, and a very sick political situation used by the City of Cambridge to fool its legions of concerned voters into thinking that they have a responsible city government.

4.  Summary.

This report is only part of a very large accumulation of proof of the unfitness of these entities to manage the environment.

Our video on the destruction before and after may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Brief synopses of these reports may be seen on facebook, the page dedicated to the Charles River White Geese.  Clearly a lot of pols need to be contacted.  Links to the much greater detail on this blog are included with each synopsis.

Like all those beautiful reports on the Charles River White Geese throughout the Internet, this page was created by a person whom has never been personally met by activists in the Friends of the White Geese organization.  He made it and gave it to us.  We cherish it.

One posting summarizing possible contacts is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-can-we-do-to-help-on-charles-river.html.

At the same time, please feel free to friend the Charles River White Geese on Facebook.

Your support, and the rather striking number of hits we are receiving is helpful and encouraging.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Charles River: Herds of Wild Turkeys Walk the Streets of Cambridge, MA, USA

Charles River:   Herds of Wild Turkeys Walk the Streets of Cambridge, MA, USA


1. Turkey Sightings.
2. The problem.
A. BU Bridge to Longfellow Bridge.
B. BU Bridge to the River Street Bridge.
3. How to correct.


1. Turkey Sightings.

The Listserv censored by the fake group which has helped achieve so much destruction on the Charles River and is fighting for more destruction has reported an obvious result of their outrages, and, naturally, censored all comments concerning the reason for the result.

People on the Listserv in this, one of the most densely populated cities in the United States of America, have reported being faced with never before seen herds of wild turkeys on streets and sidewalks.  The folks reporting wondered how to respond to them.

The first and most important response is to end the plans to make things worse for resident animals.

The vile Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation which is the major actor in the destruction has a policy of killing off or driving away ALL RESIDENT ANIMALS on the Charles River, insofar as it is politically possible.

Secondly, replacement of a terrible governmental situation MIGHT bring responsible people into control.

The problem is totally governmental, with terrible governmental behavior having its way smoothed by Totalitarian tactics from the government of the City of Cambridge.

2. The problem.

A. BU Bridge to Longfellow Bridge.

The state DCR, the City of Cambridge and fake groups influenced by Cambridge, which claim to be “defending” the neighborhood, have destroyed hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge  both crossing the Charles River, and destroyed massive amounts of ground in which those trees stood.  These same people are now fighting to destroy another 52 trees.  Most trees involved are / were excellent.

My video on destruction achieved this year is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  The video contains something like 130 component parts, including destruction plans and before and after pictures of excellent trees being ruthlessly destroyed.

The video shows a thick woods which has not yet been destroyed but which is on the plans for destruction, with the usual easily debunked lies.  The video shows other trees which have yet to be destroyed and are endangered.

Here is the area destroyed THIS YEAR.  The BU Bridge is barely visible on the left.  Two bridges to its right is the Longfellow Bridge.  Above the river is Memorial Drive.  The former location of hundreds of mostly excellent trees which were destroyed is on the median of Memorial Drive and between Memorial Drive and the Charles River.



Here is my analysis of Cambridge’s 42 year existing fake group system:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/charles-river-why-is-destruction-of.html.

Habitat being destroyed includes the majority of land between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.  Habitat threatened includes that thick woods and the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese where these terrible people have inflicted repeated heartless abuse on the Charles River White Geese, in addition to their deliberate starvation with increasing attacks in that field.

The video goes into the massive destruction proposed between the BU and River Street Bridges insofar as it relates to the accomplished destruction:   the continued dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles River with obvious intent to expand everywhere, and the deliberate starving of the 35 year resident Charles River White Geese with a bizarre introduced wall of bushes at the Magazine Beach playing fields WHERE THE BUREAUCRATS PROMISED A “LAWN TO THE RIVER.”

B. BU Bridge to the River Street Bridge.

Understated plans, including fraudulent omissions, for tree destruction between the BU Bridge and the River Street Bridge are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-latest-magazine-beach.html.  Later publication admits to even more tree destruction, ON BOTH SIDES OF MEMORIAL DRIVE, the boulevard which follows the Charles River to the north.

Unfortunately, lying through fake definition dominates the latter, more complete plans, so it is a waste of time passing this particular piece of fraud on to you.

Here is the area targeted next.  The first map is the state's plan of the area.  Targeted for destruction is the green area above the Charles River:



Here is the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s satellite photo of the future home of Harvard Medical School and related, currently a former rail yard and I90 (Mass. Pike) with off ramps to Cambridge, the Allston - Brighton neighborhoods of Boston, and environs.

At the top of the photo, above the Charles River, is the area being attacked.  At the left is the River Street Bridge where local access to Cambridge is proposed to be made severely worse.



Allowing for obvious fraud and the increases subsequently admitted to, the added destruction runs to 52 mostly excellent trees, including 30 surrounding a historical building, abandoned for 80 years which is the focal point of the fake group.

The Cambridge influenced fake group, in established Company Union fashion, tells people not to look at the destruction they are fighting for.  They tell people only to look at that one abandoned building.

The impression communicated by the fake group for years has been that it is anti-Charles River to defend the Charles River.  Their pitch has been: you have a duty to only look at that abandoned building.

This mantra is being continued IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOW FIGHTING TO DESTROY THE GROUNDS OF THE ABANDONED BUILDING, those 30 trees, and censor any and all comments to the contrary of their propaganda.

I have, to my distress, reported on the fake group system in place in Cambridge, MA, which is at the core of the problems of the beautiful Charles River.  The link is above.

It is a shame to have to mention the Totalitarian system in Cambridge which is inflicting regional and world destruction like so many other irresponsible governments, but thought control through this established system was dominant in the achieved destruction and is dominant in their plans to make things worse.

3. How to correct.

The legislature tried to protect the Charles River from destructive bureaucrats by destroying the Metropolitan District Commission which controlled the Charles River and dividing the MDC’s responsibilities between the DCR and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  The MDC “planners” moved to the DCR and are destroying unabated in the name of the DCR using their MDC plans.

The other problem has been a reprehensible city government in the City of Cambridge focused on a three City Manager regency which, for 42 years, has practiced as close to a Totalitarian dictatorship in Cambridge as they can get away with.  That City Manager Machine has been very strongly condemned by three levels of Court when it destroyed a female manager’s life because she had the nerve to fight for Women’s Rights in the management of the City of Cambridge.

The City Council has hired a new City Manager who is not directly in the line of Machine / Regency succession and who has sounded normal, i.e. responsible.

Hopefully, Cambridge and its state delegation will get rid of the terrible DCR in favor of MassDOT.  MassDOT is not perfect and, as I recently reported, can get bullied by Cambridge and the DCR, but they have stood up to Cambridge and the DCR on key outrages.

MassDOT is not perfect but the DCR and Cambridge approach being perfect in the wrong direction.

At the same time, outrages must be ended and reversed.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Charles River: Why is destruction of a Highway Off Ramp relevant to heartless animal abuse and mass destruction of trees?

Charles River:   Why is destruction of a Highway Off Ramp relevant to heartless animal abuse and mass destruction of trees?


1. Introduction.
2. Fraud in Cambridge creates destruction on the Charles River.
3. The contrast between normal politics and fraud as usual in Cambridge is personified in the destruction of that off ramp.
4. Summary.
5. But there is hope.
(1) Toomey.
(2) Your Editor.
(3) YES.


1. Introduction.

On December 13, 2016, I just posted a report, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/further-attacks-on-north-side-of.html.

In the fine print, I tried to tie this report into the mass destruction which has been going on on the Charles River.  However, the connection really deserves more detail.

When I first started these reports, I hinted that the outrage on the Charles River is a spinoff of the sick political situation in Cambridge, MA, I did not go into detail.

Destruction of this ramp goes into that vile distinction.

Here is the key, and tiny detail on the destruction of that off ramp.



In the middle is the Charles River.  Cambridge is to the right.  Boston is to the left.

The dot with the connected line to the right center is where the ramp is proposed to be destroyed.

I emphasized what the Massachusetts Department of Transportation emphasized in my report:   The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation along with the usual robots controlled by the City of Cambridge supported the destruction.

The reality, however, is that the numbers of folks fighting for that destruction communicates the sickness in the City of Cambridge compared to a relatively normal situation in Boston.

In Boston, normal people defend Boston.

2. Fraud in Cambridge creates destruction on the Charles River.

In Cambridge, normal people ARE KEPT FROM DEFENDING CAMBRIDGE by a massive, fraudulent organization of “protective groups” which subtly but very really look to the Development Department of the City of Cambridge for orders.

And everything that the Development Department wants destroyed, or the friends of the Development Department want destroyed gets destroyed.

How?  There you are getting into the very real fraud which is so many of the supposed “protective groups” in the City of Cambridge.

The fraud goes back to 1974 when James Leo Sullivant was returned to the position of City Manager.  Sullivan was fired in the 60s.  My guess is that he was fired as the result of activities by truly independent organizations.

Sullivan proclaimed that he would create a system of “neighborhood associations” in the City of Cambridge, and the 42 years since his return has seen a massive system of interlocked “protective groups” which bear the very clear mark of Company Unions.

Key, nowadays, in the fight for destruction of the Charles River is a fake neighborhood association which, among other things, censors ALL COMMENTS NEGATIVE TO THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE and Cambridge’s friends on its Listserv.

This fake group fought for the destruction of those hundreds of trees in true Company Union fashion.  It lied that it loved the Charles River and told folks that it was anti Charles River to look at anything else but one historical building.  As the DCR was preparing for mass destruction, the fake group went public with its fight for destruction of those hundreds of trees.

A key action came in January 2013 to April 23, 2013.  In January 2013, the fake group put on a public meeting concerning its plans for destruction at Magazine Beach.  There was a very real probability that its destruction plans would be defeated by a fair vote.  So the people who pulled the strings conducted corrupt tactics.

The vote was postponed to the February 2013 meeting which was held on April 23, 2013.  They, by that time, had driven away the concerned folks who would have voted them down in January, but that was not enough.  They had a stacked house.  They deferred action to the last ten minutes, then they dropped a horribly complicated motion which they kept secret before then, and put it to a vote.

The monthly meetings suddenly became every other month, and discussion of the Charles River was postponed EVERY MEETING to the last ten minutes, combined with the predictable prohibition against meaningful discussion of the destruction the core group was fighting for, THOSE HUNDREDS OF TREES WHICH THEY DESTROYED IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY.

Standard company union fraud.

Now the core group has announced, and cosigned a destruction plan which would destroy 52, MOSTLY EXCELLENT, trees, never mentioned in the years before.

They spent three to six years fighting for the destruction that occurred in January - February yelling that people should look at that one building, and that it was anti Charles River to look at the hundreds of trees they were fighting to destroy.

Now the plans which WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFEATED IN 2013 except for corrupt tactics are clearer.  The core group is back to yelling, look at our historical building.  Do not look at what we are destroying.

But what they are destroying include 30 trees surrounding that historical building, and a total of 52 trees to be destroyed.

And once again, they are telling people not to look at what they are destroying.

3. The contrast between normal politics and fraud as usual in Cambridge is personified in the destruction of that off ramp.

A significant portion of the people yelling to “maximize open space” in Boston FOUGHT TO DESTROY THOSE HUNDRED OF TREES in Cambridge.

They were very visible in all the public sessions crying for the benefit they saw to themselves in destroying those trees.  They kept DEAFENINGLY silent about the fact that they lived in Boston.

Now, after achieving this outrage on the Cambridge side, they are seeking to line their pockets at the disadvantage to Cambridge interests.

These are people behaving in a normal manner.

BUT THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT in Cambridge fights to prevent defending the City of Cambridge against such attacks.

The Charles River got caught in the crossfire between normal, and irresponsible, behavior by Boston residents by the outrage of the fake group situation in Cambridge.

Cambridge could not defend the Cambridge side of the Charles River because the fake group system which dominates politics in Cambridge turns so many “protective” groups into FRAUDULENT grounds fighting against the causes for which they claim to stand.

4. Summary.

The off ramp being destroyed would normally be protected by concerned citizens in Cambridge, activism which apparently got James Leo Sullivan fired in the 60s.  But the fake group system which has evolved about Sullivan and his three successors prevents the sort of activism which got Sullivan fired.

And pretty much all of the visible people in Cambridge politics are tainted by this outrage.

Activists in Cambridge politics very quickly learn that they must accept the lie that fighting to destroy Cambridge is defending Cambridge, and it gets a lot worse.

5. But there is hope.

A. White Knight?

The hope visibly lies in one person, newly hired City Manager Louis A. DePasquale, although all the new City Manager needs to do is look at the vast majority of folks in the City of Cambridge, as opposed to the fraudulent entity which lies that it is the world in the City of Cambridge.

DePasquale, in contrast to his two preceding City Managers was not the number one assistant to his predecessor.  DePasquale is a lifetime Cambridge resident who has expressed interest in doing what “the people” want.  He has professed a goal to talk to the “the people” to set his priorities.

B. The Good Guys can Win.

(1) Toomey.

A recent victory organized by City Councilor and nearly former State Representative Toomey over the Development Department domination of Cambridge politics shows there is hope.

This was the City of Cambridge’s fight for passenger traffic on the Grand Junction, a fight which was defeated by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation in response to very real activism in Cambridge.

The Development Department related folks were trying to create a “protective organization” under the usual mantra, “You can’t win, you can’t win, but have we got a deal for you.”

Toomey ignored them.  He just won at the forefront of normal human beings outside the control of the fake group system.

(2) Your Editor.

Similarly, for environmental purposes, I have had a hand in writing  more of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge.

My victory pattern was very clear: keep the robots influenced by the Development Department as far away as possible.  The further away I kept the robots, the greater my successes.

And
(a) I have won more than I lost, plus
(b) my proposals do what I said they do.

Both are in sharp contrast to the zoning activities of the fake groups.

(3) YES.

It is possible for decency to win in Cambridge.  But it does take the nerve to stand up to the fraud influenced by a very rotten situation.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Further attacks on the north side of the Charles River.

Further attacks on the north side of the Charles River.

0. Severe Harm Proposed to River Street Bridge Access over the Charles River for Cambridge Residents.
1. Letter Introduction.
2. Key parts of the proposal.
A. Current Situation.
B. Overview of the proposal.
C. Off Ramp being Destroyed.
3. A reasonable alternative.
4. The Context.
5. Manager and City Council must evaluate their Development Department.


0. Severe Harm Proposed to River Street Bridge Access over the Charles River for Cambridge Residents.

The following is a letter hand carried to the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council on December 12, 2016.

I would moderate it slightly by commenting that the real attackers of the City of Cambridge seem to be the Cambridge Development Department through its robotic appointees and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

MassDOT has been the adult in the room, defending the Charles River between these two destructive children.  It looks like MassDOT simply got overwhelmed by the kiddies on this one.

It should be noted that the Cambridge City Manager was just appointed and he, probably, was not aware of just how irresponsible his Development Department is.

I consider this attack just another step on the environmental destruction being fought for by the kiddies.  The difference is that the Cambridge Development Department, itself, is going along with its fellow in destruction at the expense of the City which it claims to be working for.

The letter to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager is modified to convert it to the more restrictive web format by addition of sectioning which did not appear in the original letter and by location of graphics (and references) to work better on line.

The area in question is the south side of the Charles River across from Magazine Beach which in turn is being subjected to outrageous attacks.

This area formerly held a railroad yard and is dominated by exits from I90 (Mass. Pike) to Cambridge, Brookline, and the Allston and Brighton Neighborhoods of Boston.

Harvard University now owns it, subject to transportation rights held by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Harvard is maneuvering to move its Medical School and other uses to the location.

The state is straightening out the highway in such a manner as to make the area more useful to Harvard and to abutting areas.

1. Letter Introduction.

[Addressed to Cambridge City Council and Cambridge City Manager]

The Department of Transportation, SUPPORTED BY CAMBRIDGE APPOINTEES, is proposing to severely harm Cambridge access to the River Street Bridge from the Boston side.

To my great shock, the plans of the Development Department for the Charles River got even worse in a bombshell dropped at last Thursday’s Public Meeting in Union Square, Allston by the Department of Transportation working group on the Massachusetts Turnpike.  When I objected, I was informed that all of the robots appointed by the Cambridge Development Department approved of this outrage, and, of course, rubber stamp “opinions” are to be expected from people appointed by the Cambridge Development Department.

Here is the plan announced last Thursday.  It is split in half because of limits on my scanner.




[Ed:  For a few days, I had the wrong version of the plans posted here.  The more detailed edits of the plans below were correct.  Sorry about that.]

2. Key parts of the proposal.

I have cropped out the relevant part of the new plan and the plan describing the existing conditions.  Here are the access to the River Street Bridge from Memorial Drive and the Mass. Pike (I90) before and after the change, from the MassDOT working group’s plans.

A. Current Situation.

The current situation has the Charles River at the top.

Here is the cropped out portion from the plan describing the existing conditions.  [The brown line is the area covered by the study.]



The current situation has local traffic on Soldiers Field Road westbound feeding directly to the River Street Bridge in a pattern which provides less than perfect access for Cambridge folks on Soldiers Field Road, but it works.  It is a lot better than crossing by the Harvard (Mass. Ave.) Bridge or the Anderson Bridge (to Harvard Square).

Much more massive Interstate traffic off the Mass. Pike constitutes a very massive influx from a ramp which connects into Cambridge Street, Allston and then to the River Street Bridge.  But the Interstate Mass. Pike traffic is separated from the local traffic on Soldiers Field Road westbound, to the great advantage of local traffic.

B. Overview of the proposal.

The proposed plan has the Charles River at the right.

The Mass Pike working group, apparently with UNANIMOUS support of the [Cambridge] Development Department’s robots, proposes to destroy the direct connection from Soldiers Field Road westbound and to merge that traffic into the very heavy traffic from the Mass. Pike.  That will have obvious severely harmful impact on the Cambridge commuters who rely on the River Street Bridge to get to Cambridge.

Here is the overview.




C. Off Ramp being Destroyed.

To show the proposal more closely, here is my crop out from the plan showing in detail the proposed new situation at Soldiers Field Road and the River Street Bridge.



The line and dot coming from the bottom right emphasizes that there will be NO OFF RAMP directly to the River Street Bridge.

D. How it works.

Working from the map in section B.

The proposed new traffic pattern is shown as follows.  Traffic from Soldiers Field Road westbound [on the right] would be forced to go through INTERSTATE traffic from the Mass. Pike to get to the River Street Bridge.  Everybody who tries to get off the Mass. Pike to get to Cambridge is well aware of the mess that is that off ramp, and the local traffic would be added to Interstate traffic.

The connection, in yellow, is toward the bottom right of the map.  It connects Cambridge local traffic to Interstate Mass. Pike exiting traffic.  The Interstate traffic from the Mass. Pike runs on a proposed road parallel to Soldiers Field Road.  The connection to the Mass. Pike can be seen in blue and orange below the proposed connecting road.  There is a separate road for traffic to the left to and from Brighton, Allston and Brookline.  Should you wish to review that road, it may be seen on the attachment.

3. A reasonable alternative.

Please note, however, that this connection would be a great improvement WITHOUT THE DELETION OF THE DIRECT RAMP FOR CAMBRIDGE LOCAL TRAFFIC TO THE RIVER STREET BRIDGE.

The westbound ramp to the River Street Bridge is currently overloaded by traffic turning left at the top of the ramp and going to Allston and to the Mass. Pike.  Closing the left turn at the top of the ramp [as a result of] moving that traffic by the proposed connection would greatly reduce traffic on the off ramp and make the left turn off the off ramp unnecessary, removing one cycle from the traffic lights leading to the River Street Bridge, and greatly improving access to Cambridge for Cambridge local traffic.

The proposal with destruction of the direct ramp to Cambridge is nuts, but the proposal exactly fits in with the long standing outrages from the Cambridge Development Department.

4. The Context.

I have submitted a number of communications to the City Council on the various outrages going on on the Charles River, and more recently, have included transmittal to City Manager DePasquale in my continuing series on the destruction proposed for Magazine Beach.

Now retired City Manager Richard Rossi bragged to a public meeting at the Main Branch of the Cambridge Public Library about all the “improvements” Cambridge was bringing to the Charles River.  In the tradition of Manager DePasquale’s three predecessors, the important, really bad stuff was always omitted in such presentations, lying through omission.

Hundreds of trees have been wantonly destroyed between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.  I have provided you individually and collectively with my video documenting this outrage, or you may view it on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

I am in the middle of my detailed analysis to you of the outrages proposed for Magazine Beach.

5. Manager and City Council must evaluate their Development Department.

Clearly these pending outrages must be stopped, but more importantly, the City Council and City Manager DePasquale must really evaluate the belligerent lack of responsibility of the Cambridge Development Department as demonstrated not just through these latest outrages, but also through the first phase at Magazine Beach in the 2000s, the recent destruction on the Cambridge Common, the destruction of 3.4 acres of irreplaceable woodlands at Alewife, the destruction of 50 street trees in Kendall Square, the destruction of those hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, and the pending destruction of 54 trees at Magazine Beach.  The latest outrage is made significantly worse by a very clear and falsification of the plans which I have mentioned in my letters to you.  The falsification is the DCR and fake neighborhood association submittal of a plans which lied that 10 trees being destroyed were in fact three trees being destroyed.  And this is just a partial list of outrages.

Another major problem is that, over a period of 42 years, Manager DePasquale’s three predecessors steadily learned who can be “trusted” and pretty much only people they trust have tended to be appointed to key positions.  The destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro as so roundly condemned by three levels of Court clearly communicated what could happen to appointees and other  people who deviate from the thoughts ordered by Mr. DePasquale’s predecessors.  Monteiro’s life, of course, was destroyed because she stood up for women’s rights.  Some key evaluations of Mr. Healy’s behavior toward Ms. Monteiro from Trial Judge and Appeals Court panel, respectively, include “reprehensible” and “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”  The jury spoke by awarding more than triple PENAL damages in addition to over a million dollars real damages.

The Development Department needs reorganization.  The nicest thing that can be said about this series of destructive outrages is that you clearly have too many “planners.”  It looks like your “planners” are making work for themselves to justify their existence and, in the process Making Work for the Contractors of the City of Cambridge.

On the broader problem, Manager DePasquale clearly wants to implement the wishes of the residents of the City of Cambridge.  He clearly seems like a normal human being who would be offended by the Totalitarian tactics of his predecessors.  Control of the voters through the massive organization created during the regimes of his three interlocked predecessors and control of appointees AND NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS through stunts / warnings such as the Monteiro outrage are things Manager DePasquale will hopefully dismantle.

You can save the City of Cambridge money and resources by ending the repeated outrages of the Development Department and friends and by reducing the size of the Development Department.  In the process, you can IMPROVE services to the City of Cambridge by reducing outrageous destruction.

You must protect Cambridge residents NOW by killing the MassDOT Mass. Pike working group  proposal to kill Cambridge’s use of the westbound Soldiers Field Road off ramp to the River Street Bridge.

Sincerely,


Robert J. La Trémouille
Enclosures:   As Stated.

Addendum:  Copies of the Court Opinions in Monteiro v Cambridge may be reviewed at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-latest-magazine-beach.html.

Thursday, December 08, 2016

Charles River Walk by a friend: Historical Observations

Charles River Walk by a friend: Historical Observations

1. Historical Observations by a Friend.
2. Editor’s Comment.


1. Historical Observations by a Friend.

Phil Barber follows up on his report of a few days ago with the following:

* * * *

I also found little traces of history in the soil disturbed by the work along the river. It was my ambition many years ago to work in archaeology, which I studied at college way back when. So I am very much drawn to any and all freshly turned earth as well as the study of history. The workers struck a shell midden; there’s an area where many fragmented oyster shells are scattered on the surface. Oysters were an enormous popular food in colonial and 19th century times but because there are no worked artifacts among the shells I saw, their origin is almost certainly pre-European. The native people summered in this area, harvesting the abundant shellfish and waterfowl, retreating to the sheltered highlands further inland during the winter. It’s easy to forget they lived here in harmony with the ecosystem for upwards of eighty centuries. The river was immensely wider too, from (more or less) where Brookline Street is now, all the way to Washington Street in Boston’s South End. (I grew up not far from Dover Street there, which was the narrow neck of land by which the peninsula of Boston was attached to the mainland before all the landfills.)

I also found late nineteenth century landfill along the river. This is first spotted by the abundance of coal ash, and on closer inspection you'll see broken glassware and crockery and the odd bit of organic material if it is from below the water table. The original plan for the filled in area of our city was like Boston’s Back Bay, but the economic collapse of 1893 ended that project, just as the fall-off in trade in the War of 1812 sabotaged the original Cambridge port scheme.

I notice a lot of local street signs commemorating events of that war, which was very much like our more recent imperial wars, and one that most people don’t realize the U.S. lost. New southern and western Congressmen, called the "War Hawks," carried the midterm election of 1810 by campaigning for the use of federal military power to drive Indians off the land their constituents desired for expansion of their slave labor plantations. They also sought to conquer and annex British Canada, Spanish Florida, and Mexican Texas. The navy scored some unprecedented successes against the Royal navy but the ground war was a fiasco. The failure of American arms was reflected in the Treaty of Ghent that ended the war. It addressed none of the grievances that had allegedly caused America to declare war. Britain, weary of her two decade-long war with France, agreed only to restore the pre-war status quo, and promised to abandon her Indian allies in return for a U.S. agreement never to invade Canada again. The real losers were Native Americans, who lost their most powerful international ally and from 1815 onward would fight on alone in a doomed bid for survival on the land they had cared for so long.

Phil

2. Editor’s Comment.

On the Charles River, the best friend of the Charles River White Geese back in 1999 to 2000 when I started to get really involved was Native American, LittleBrook, who, for a number of years, had been providing them with nourishment supplemental to the environmentally responsible grass which was their primary food source.  The responsibly maintained grass had been there for the better part of a Century, until it was destroyed for poison drinking grasses by Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation in the 2000s.

LittleBrook treated the ills of the Charles River White Geese with Native American remedies.

LittleBrook was with the Charles River White Geese pretty much whenever I visited, until he got a bicycle to commute from his home in the Allston neighborhood of Boston.

Two days after LittleBrook got the bicycle, he was hit by a car.  Last I spoke with him, he had been out of formal hospital / nursing home care for years, but he was not strong enough to return to his beloved friends.

Here are photos from the last time I saw Little Brook at the Destroyed Nesting Area, with his beloved friends during a session in which I showed around representatives of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation:



I invited him, and he brought munchies.

Friday, December 02, 2016

Charles River: A Knowledgeable Visit.

Charles River: A Knowledgeable Visit.

1. Phil Barber sees and reports:
2. Analysis.
3. Documentation of Part of the Record.


1. Phil Barber sees and reports:

I took a walk along the river this afternoon where they’re “improved” things. Looking at the new trees I wondered if any would survive – and if they do, will there still be the likes of a dcr to try to cut them down when they reach maturity. Then it occurred to me that there may not be automobiles or Memorial Drive when those young oaks reach their peak; maybe the whole area will be a tidal marsh again.

There were unusual visitors today on the river, a pair of swans and their two young. I see swans often at Watertown and sometimes in Boston harbor but not so often down here. Here’s a pretty good photo of two of them



2. Analysis.

As usual, Phil is very astute.

Since the outrageous destruction, WITH MORE PLANNED, saplings have been planted.

Most of the saplings, in fact almost all of them, are in locations which should have been planted a decade ago.  To the extent some saplings have been planted in the areas of greatest outrage, the “replacement” is a horror show and nothing less.

I have not examined the plantings close enough to be certain exactly where they were planted.  What is clear is that the plantings are far inferior to what was destroyed.  If they were provided as "replacements," they only benefit the Contractors, Make Work for Contractors when destroyed.  Make Work for Contractors when replaced.

Phil’s comment about how long will the saplings last before THEY are destroyed is exactly on point.  The hypocrites from Cambridge and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation brag about numbers.  They neglect to mention that a very clear part of the plan is to yell “TOO THICK” a few years out.

So the Make Work for Contractors has built in Make Work for Contractors in the out years.

At the same time, his reference to Global Warming is exactly on point.  The outrage on the Charles River is just part of the interlocking destruction of our world by mankind.  The big difference is the level of hypocrisy which is practiced in the key community, Cambridge, with its fake protective groups piously and hypocritically praising their destructive bureaucratic friends.

Correction of the irresponsible behavior should be two fold.

Hopefully, the Cambridge City Council has taken the first step.  The Cambridge City Council has hired a new Cambridge City Manager who does not look like part of the 42 year long Cambridge City Manager Machine outrage.  The new City Manager looks like a normal human being, in sharp contrast to his three inbred predecessors.

Next, the DCR must go.  The legislature tried to protect the Charles River and other sensitive locations from the reprehensible Metropolitan District Commission.  The legislature did part of the job.  The bridges went to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  The trouble is that the shores went to the DCR.  The destructive “planners” from the MDC moved to the DCR with their irresponsible plans and even exempted their irresponsible plans from normal reviews through another underhanded maneuver.

Dumping the DCR in favor of MassDOT will be a team effort that includes the legislature and the governor.

MassDOT is not perfect, but the DCR and the Cambridge City Manager Machine have approached being perfect in the wrong direction.

In this part of the Charles River, MassDOT has looked like the adult in the room with the DCR and the Cambridge City Manager Machine on either side as destructive brats.

But, thank you Phil.  Hopefully, the next outrage can be prevented, and hopefully we will get rid of the other part of the destructive bureaucrats who do so much harm to the Charles River, and do so much harm as part of mankind’s destruction of our world.

3. Documentation of Part of the Record.

My video of the outrageous destruction this time, with only a hint of what is scheduled to come next, is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Charles River, Magazine Beach: SECRET Destruction Plan Discovered.

Charles River, Magazine Beach: SECRET Destruction Plan Discovered.

I was in the process of preparing a formal letter to the new Cambridge City Manager and the Cambridge City Council, describing that portion of the proposed outrage on Magazine Beach which surrounds the Magazine Beach Swimming Pool.

I have been working from the formal plans submitted to the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  I knew, however, from the walk through that the Department of Conservation and Recreation had increased, allowing for fraud, the planned destruction to 54 from the previously announced 42.

At the walk through which the DCR conducted of its project, the DCR announced new and fancier plans.  I asked for a copy.  They did not want to provide me the new plans in hard copy, but the CCC prevailed.

It turns out that, WITHOUT MEANINGFULLY COMMUNICATING IT, the new plans include destruction of trees OUTSIDE THE ANNOUNCED DESTRUCTION AREA.  I call that Lying Through Omission.  Lying Through Omission was a standard tactic of the three past Cambridge City Managers when keeping secret environmental destruction.  The DCR does not, in my experience, live up to the level of the Cambridge City Manager Machine.

The new destruction is of trees which do not even show on the original plans as in the destruction area.

Here is the relevant part of the ORIGINALLY announced plan of the Swimming Pool area destruction.



Here is the relevant part of the new destruction announcement.



The secret destruction is ACROSS MEMORIAL DRIVE from the Swimming Pool.  You will note that on the original plan, you see a large, almost rectangle in the middle of the slide.  That is the support building for the swimming pool.  Above it, you will see a broken line.  That line is defined at the bottom of the plan as “LIMIT OF WORK.”  The upper portion of the line is the southern boundary of Memorial Drive. .

Here is a closer view of that part of the new plan:



Across from the Magazine Beach Reservation at this point is a small shopping center which does have a good Memorial Drive frontage.  Part of the good frontage was a recent improvement by a new owner.  A very important important part of the frontage is the Memorial Drive Reservation, owned by the DCR.

The building next to the added destruction area houses a MicroCenter store.  In the new plans, the LIMIT OF WORK line continues to be the south side of Memorial Drive.  But the newer plan shows TWO of FIVE trees next to MicroCenter being destroyed.  They are shown in the upper right corner of this last map.

Destruction outside the LIMIT OF WORK area has been kept totally secret, but it was added in this fancy map very casually dropped at the Walk Around, and, of course, the expansion of the work zone was kept secret, unless you check out what amounts to fine print.  They most definitely did not divulge that the lovely new map included work outside the LIMIT OF WORK line.

Here is a photo showing the trees in front of MicroCenter.  It is a crop from a photo of the destruction not being kept secret.  I made the mistake of assuming a minimal level of honesty.  So, this is a crop of a side view of the Swimming Pool building.  I had the nerve to only do photographs of the area within the LIMIT OF WORK.

The red line around the doomed trees is yet another lie, this time a Lie of Fake Definition.

They use a very official sounding word which sounds so good, but which escapes me.  This lovely, official sounding word gives the DCR’s sales pitch the  LIE of apparent credibility.

As near as I understand the fancy word, according to the DCR, using this lovely official sounding word, the DCR has a right to destroy any tree which has passed its peak beauty, NO MATTER HOW EXCELLENT THE TREE IS..

For a tree that would live 100 years, that means that the DCR claims a right to destroy it if it has “ONLY” 50 years left to live.  NO MATTER HOW EXCELLENT THE TREE IS.

As a DCR example of this outrageous claim of right, the DCR shows trees which are clearly dead which were among the trees planted in the irresponsible work in the 2000s.  Trees possibly died because the DCR is so irresponsible, so the DCR brags that this gives the DCR the right to destroy trees which have “ONLY” fifty years left to live, no matter how magnificent.

Oh year, the name of the fake protective group appears on the amended plan.

The DCR should be replaced on the Charles River with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  MassDOT has been the adult in the room when faced with outrages on the Charles River from Cambridge and / or from the DCR.  Both MassDOT and the DCR were given their current responsibilities on the Charles River when the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission, in part because the MDC was so irresponsible.

The planners from the MDC went to the DCR with their plans and, so far have destroyed hundreds of trees east of the BU Bridge based on those irresponsible plans.  Now they and their friendswant to destroy 54 trees west of the BU Bridge.

The DCR’s most important friends, the contractors, want money.  The DCR is feeding them with Make Work for Contractors.

That is the name of the game, and that is what the legislature tried to kill when it killed the MDC.

As far as Cambridge goes, first of all, the Cambridge Development Department is fully consulted by the DCR. Secondly, a bit over a year ago the last City Manager of the City Manager Machine conducted a public meeting at which the last Machine City Manager bragged about the great things the CITY OF CAMBRIDGE is providing on the Charles River.  Not by coincidence, that City Manager managed the destruction which was inflicted on Magazine Beach in the 2000s.

Cambridge now has a City Manager who may be a new beginning after the three interrelated City Manager who were so outrageously destructive.  The Cambridge City Manager Machine thrived in the spirit of the destructive bureaucrats now with the DCR.

Hopefully, the new City Manager will have the spirit of a normal human being.  He seems impressive, and normal.

And, for the record, my video of the destruction already achieved is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Charles River: Contractors Make more Make Work Money Near Cambridge City Hall or new City Manager stepped in?

Charles River:  Contractors Make more Make Work Money Near Cambridge City Hall or new City Manager stepped in?

1. The Record.
2. The Update.
3. Explanation.
A. Bad.
B. Good.


1. The Record.

On September 15, 2016, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-cambridge-extends-tree.html, I reported the City of Cambridge extending the destruction of trees to within sight of Cambridge City Hall.

Here are a couple of the photos.  The second was taken next to the undestroyed tree after the row of destruction in the first photo.




I find this outrage just a further step of a very destructive mentality which, in much larger scale, destroyed hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive next to the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.  That situation was analyzed in my video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

2. The Update.

Now we have saplings where were destroyed trees which were planted about 20 years ago.

The first photo shows the only tree in the block not destroyed, with City Hall the white tower with the clock and the building to its right.  The building to the left is the Central Square Post Office.  This photo shows one of the new saplings.  The second photo pretty much corresponds to the wasteland in the photo above.





3. Explanation.

A. Bad.

There are two ready explanations, one typically bad, the other perhaps good.

The bad explanation comes from the fact that a copy of the condensed version of the report, with two photos, was sent to every City Councilor.

To the best of my knowledge, although all of the city councilors were given notice with photographs, no action was taken.  And that is for an entire row of trees which extends almost within vision of Cambridge City Hall.  The following photo shows only undestroyed tree in that block with City Hall rising behind it.  This photo was included in my blog report and was in the condensed report which was emailed to all eight of the current city councilors who were in office then.
They simply cannot claim lack of knowledge.

There are markings on the sidewalk which give the impression of planned work, or, more likely, of some sort of construction under the sidewalk between the trees and the edge of the Post Office property.

It looks like, given that reality, that we are seeing just another aspect of the outrage on the Charles River: Contractors are given Make Work destroying perfectly good trees, and contractors are being given Make Work planting “replacements” for trees which should not have been destroyed in the first place.

PLUS the City of Cambridge benefits from another lie that Cambridge is environmentally saintly.  The replacements are that many trees they can claim in a lie that Cambridge deserves to be called a Tree City because the criterion for Tree City USA only counts trees planted.  It does not count which should not have been destroyed in the first place.

In addition, I am aware of at least one incident in which an entire residential block of perfectly good trees was destroyed to “improve” the neighborhood with saplings, and I have the definite impression that this was not the only such outrage..

The sales pitch is perfectly predictable: “How dare you object to our destroying that block full of healthy trees.  We put in saplings.”

English translation:  To Hell with the environment.  We have pleased our happy contractors, and we have a very active machine in place lying to the voters.

The situation on Cambridge streets and the outrage achieved and coming on the Charles River fits, demonstrating a decidedly reprehensible record.

And, oh yeah, this block adjoins an area where major work has just been completed.  Need I say more?

B. Good.

The other possible explanation could be that Cambridge has a new City Manager, and that the new City Manager noticed the outrage across the street from City Hall and ordered responsible behavior, to the extent anything related to the situation could be considered responsible.  I.e., City Manager DePasquale could have ordered the destruction be repaired, fast.

If this is the case, City Manage DePasquale is to be complimented.

Now how about firing the people who should not have done the destruction in the first place?  Particularly considering the fact that this outrage is not isolated.

Charles River:  Contractors Make more Money Near Cambridge City Hall or new City Manager earned praise

1. The Record.
2. The Update.
3. Explanation.
A. Bad.
B. Good.


1. The Record.

On September 15, 2016, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-cambridge-extends-tree.html, I reported the City of Cambridge extending the destruction of trees to within sight of Cambridge City Hall.

Here are a couple of the photos.  The second was taken next to the undestroyed tree after the row of destruction in the first photo.




I find this outrage just a further step of a very destructive mentality which, in much larger scale, destroyed hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive next to the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.  That situation was analyzed in my video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

2. The Update.

Now we have saplings where were destroyed trees which were planted about 20 years ago.

The first photo shows the only tree in the block not destroyed, with City Hall the white tower with the clock and the building to its right.  The building to the left is the Central Square Post Office.  This photo shows one of the new saplings.  The second photo pretty much corresponds to the wasteland in the photo above.





3. Explanation.

A. Bad.

There are two ready explanations, one typically bad, the other perhaps good.

The bad explanation comes from the fact that a copy of the condensed version of the report, with two photos, was sent to every City Councilor.

To the best of my knowledge, although all of the city councilors were given notice with photographs, no action was taken.  And that is for an entire row of trees which extends almost within vision of Cambridge City Hall.  The following photo shows only undestroyed tree in that block with City Hall rising behind it.  This photo was included in my blog report and was in the condensed report which was emailed to all eight of the current city councilors who were in office then.
They simply cannot claim lack of knowledge.

There are markings on the sidewalk which give the impression of planned work, or, more likely, of some sort of construction under the sidewalk between the trees and the edge of the Post Office property.

It looks like, given that reality, that we are seeing just another aspect of the outrage on the Charles River: Contractors are given Make Work destroying perfectly good trees, and contractors are being given Make Work planting “replacements” for trees which should not have been destroyed in the first place.

PLUS the City of Cambridge benefits from another lie that Cambridge is environmentally saintly.  The replacements are that many trees they can claim in a lie that Cambridge deserves to be called a Tree City because the criterion for Tree City USA only counts trees planted.  It does not count which should not have been destroyed in the first place.

In addition, I am aware of at least one incident in which an entire residential block of perfectly good trees was destroyed to “improve” the neighborhood with saplings, and I have the definite impression that this was not the only such outrage..

The sales pitch is perfectly predictable: “How dare you object to our destroying that block full of healthy trees.  We put in saplings.”

English translation:  To Hell with the environment.  We have pleased our happy contractors, and we have a very active machine in place lying to the voters.

The situation on Cambridge streets and the outrage achieved and coming on the Charles River fits, demonstrating a decidedly reprehensible record.

And, oh yeah, this block adjoins an area where major work has just been completed.  Need I say more?

B. Good.

The other possible explanation could be that Cambridge has a new City Manager, and that the new City Manager noticed the outrage across the street from City Hall and ordered responsible behavior, to the extent anything related to the situation could be considered responsible.  I.e., City Manager DePasquale could have ordered the destruction be repaired, fast.

If this is the case, City Manage DePasquale is to be complimented.

Now how about firing the people who should not have done the destruction in the first place?  Particularly considering the fact that this outrage is not isolated.

Saturday, November 05, 2016

Cambridge, MA, USA City Manager DePasquale to Take Office on November 14, 2016? Proposed Contract.

Cambridge, MA, USA City Manager DePasquale to Take Office on November 14, 2016? Proposed Contract.

The Agenda for the Cambridge City Council meeting on November 7, 2016, includes a proposed contract of employment for Louis A. DePasquale, following up on the selection by the Cambridge City Council several weeks ago.

Congratulations and thanks are due to the City Manager Designate.

I assume that the contract would not be being offered to the Cambridge City Council if there were doubt that the Cambridge City Council would accept it.

Termination date is January 8, 2021.  The City Council must give Mr. DePaquale notice by September 14, 2021 should it wish to extend the period of employment.

The proposed contract is copied below from the City of Cambridge on line record.  It is in jpeg format and is readily readable by double clicking on each page.

I have delivered three letters to the Cambridge City Council as part of a series on the existing and pending outrages on the Charles River, as reported on this blog at

1. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/charles-river-magazine-beach.html
2. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/to-cambridge-ma-usa-government.html
3. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/to-cambridge-ma-usa-do-not-destroy.html.

Report 1 includes a DVD of our video on the Destruction of the Charles River to each the City Council and City Manager.  Report 3 gives the City Council individual copies.

That video may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

More letters are anticipated.  The current proposed outrage is massive by any normal standard.  I wish to ensure that the Cambridge City Council is clearly on record as having been made aware of the real situation.

The situation is outrageously irresponsible, with plans to make things much worse.

I have been awaiting the entry into service as City Manager of Mr. DePasquale, corecipient of these letters, so that he may receive these comments on the situation on the Charles River, with hopes that he can straighten things out.