Friday, October 13, 2017

Charles River: Magazine Beach, Boat Dock proposal, Cambridge City Council reality, with recommendations.

Charles River: Magazine Beach, Boat Dock proposal, Cambridge City Council reality, with recommendations.

Our last three posts addressed three aspects of the outrage on the Charles River in response to separate reports from the Cambridge City Manager.

In thinking matters over, we have expanded on that portion of the response concerning a supposed boat dock proposal.  The response included a list of proposed actions.  Regrettably, the list, while appearing massive, had omissions.

Following is our letter to the Cambridge City Manager and City Council delivered on October 12, 2017 to the City Manager and to the City Clerk for the City Council at its October 16, 2017 meeting.  Internal reference language which makes sense in the hard copy has been modified to make sense in this format.

A short summation as to our reaction to the various parties is: 
pleasure at the performance of the Cambridge City Manager,
displeasure as to the performance of the Cambridge City Council, and
destructive hostility to the Department of Conservation and Recreation,
with comparable negative feelings toward the Cambridge Development Department.

* * * *

RE: Supposed docking improvement at Magazine Beach, in context.

Gentlemen/Ladies:

1. Introduction.
2. Supposed Dock Improvements.
A. But the obstacles created in the 2000's are what destroyed use of the boat dock.
B. And the project would destroy a segment of the admittedly hated Starvation Wall which wall the DCR says physically cannot be destroyed.
3. Solution.
4. Documentation.

1. Introduction.

This letter responds to September 25, 2017, Agenda Item 15, and ours of September 28, 2017, posted as Communication  3 on October 2,2017, concerning these supposed docking improvement.

On thinking things over, the third portion of our September 28 letter could use elaboration.  First of all, these multiple environmental outrages must be placed in perspective.

The keys here are the same keys involved in the outrageous destruction of hundreds of excellent trees east of the BU Bridge: fraud in government; fraud in robots controlled by government; a city council whose members bragged of environmental sainthood on the stairs of Cambridge City Hall on April 24, 2017, and then, as ITS FIRST ORDER PASSED, voted to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees on Magazine Beach, based on fraudulent “dead or dying” claims.  The city council has sat on its hands since the “dead or dying” fraud was debunked by our 51 page report with more than 100 graphics on June 6, 2017.  Through the City Council’s failure to correct its fraud induced outrages of April 24, 2017, the City Council has created a very clear impression  that self-proclaimed declarations of environmental sainthood on April 24, 2017 were not true.

Key in the ongoing outrage are a tiny number of robots who lie that they are defending Cambridge, when in reality their strings are rather clearly pulled by the Cambridge Development Department (CDD), directly or otherwise.

City Manager DePasquale, for the first time since this outrage of company union “protective” groups started in 1974, has stood above this continuing outrage.

The City Manager has explicitly informed the City Council that he will implement the City Council’s decision for destruction of those 56 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach, but the City Manager has made it very clear that the responsibility for that outrageous decision will be that of the Cambridge City Council.

The City Council can no longer hide behind the City Manager.

2. Supposed dock improvement.

A. But the obstacles created in the 2000's are what destroyed use of the boat dock.

Here is the CDD / Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) depiction of a supposed docking improvement at Magazine Beach next to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority sewerage treatment plant.



The Cambridge City Manager proposed to the City Council analyses coming from the CDD concerning Charles River.  This looks like a common dirty trick was played by the CDD in which public (and City Manager?) input was obtained with the usual lack of meaningful communication about what was really being voted on.

This project is a supposed boat docking improvement on Magazine Beach.  This “improvement,” if real, would reverse the destruction of free boat docking at this location in the 2000's.  That free docking existed in that very location for most of the 20th Century.  Both the destruction of the free boat docking and the “improvement” are joint projects of the CDD and the DCR (destruction by the latter’s predecessor).  The 2000's project was directly managed by Mr. Rossi before assuming the City Manager position.

The depiction on page 1 is strikingly different from the situation at the proposed project.  It seems strikingly different from prior depictions which implied vegetation on both sides of the project.  Prior depictions showed the existing vestigial boat dock opening having added to its west the structure shown in the depiction, which was, most definitely, not as large above ground.  The previous communications gave the impression that this would be a small structure replacing a segment of the Starvation Wall and that the new structure would be installed west of the opening.

This supposed new boat dock on the Magazine Beach playing fields near the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority plant is an excellent example of why the DCR should receive the same summary disposition on the Charles River as the Metropolitan District Commission from which the DCR’s “planners” came.  Irresponsible  plans have already been massively implemented with the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees east of the BU Bridge, and with “replacements” inferior to that destroyed.  Coordination, of course, with the CDD.

The 20th Century boat dock was destroyed by the installation of the Starvation Wall, plus fabricated wetlands, plus a flimsy bridge.  The 20th Century Boat Dock, itself, was not really harmed.  What was destroyed was access.

Here is the Starvation Wall viewed from Boston.  The most important current difference is that the Starvation Wall has grown larger because of the DCR’s routine failure to maintain its properties.



The Starvation Wall is the MDC / CDD implementation of promises of a “lawn to the river” in the Charles River Master Plan  Not unusual fraud from the MDC / DCR and the CDD.  The “plan” was amended to reflect reality after the fraud had served its purpose.

The brown opening is the vestigial remnants of the boat dock of the 20th Century.  Directly north of the boat dock is the bridge over introduced wetlands which, combined with the Starvation Wall, prevent access to the boat dock.  Directly north of the bridge is the parking lot of Magazine Beach.

Below is a photo of an adult woman standing in that opening.



Plans which have been presented elsewhere show the proposed structure to the right of the woman on top of part of the Starvation Wall.

Below is a view of the bridge leading to the opening.


The plans previously shown by the DCR show the dock structure to the right of the opening, on top of Starvation Wall.

Here is the end of the bridge toward the parking lot.



That is Starvation Wall to the right / west of the far end of the silly but very effectively obstructive bridge.



Moving further back from this opening, above is a view of the vegetation which has been installed in this area.  The reality is that this mess was created in two stages.  The Charles River White Geese loved the water structure over which the bridge was originally placed, and walked through the area to get food.  Below is a shot from the parking lot.


So, inasmuch as heartless animal abuse is the overwhelming purpose of the Starvation Wall as part of the DCR’s goal of killing off or driving away all resident animals, and the Charles River White Geese were getting food through there even after the first stages of the 2000's outrage, Cambridge and the DCR installed this massive introduced vegetation.

In the process of starving the Charles River White Geese, Cambridge and the DCR rendered the 20th Century boat dock unusable.

But the depiction of the supposed boat dock shows no vegetation.

Here is a photo of the artificially created wetlands at the flimsy bridge created in the 2000's which, together with the vegetation introductions, prevents use of the 20th Century Boat Dock.



Previously shown depictions show the boat dock opening with the structure to the right on top of existing vegetation.

Is this supposed boat dock just an additional obstacle to boats and to the Charles River White Geese?  If the obstacles are still there, the DCR and CDD are just lying, as usual, about a boat dock.

The nicest thing that can be said about the boat dock depiction, with all that destroyed vegetation showing, is that it is looks like the usual fraud.

Links to citations are in the final section of this report.

We have provided photos of all the excellent trees the Cambridge City Council wants to destroy at Magazine Beach.  We have effectively belied the claim of “dead or dying” included in order 1 of April 24, 2017, apparently written by the CDD.

B. And the project would destroy a segment of the admittedly hated Starvation Wall which wall the DCR says cannot physically be destroyed.

This latest item in the destruction at Magazine Beach is described as a “canoe and kayak launch.”  It is stated to be near the Mass. Water Resources Authority sewerage treatment plant east of the Magazine Beach recreation area.  Tree destruction was tossed into the description several levels down in the analysis.  In striking contrast to the 56 tree destruction, we are aware of no meaningful explanation of what trees are being destroyed.  And the photo like depiction provided has no known relationship to the area where this item has been proposed to go.

Is it the intent to destroy all this crap?  Destroy all this crap, and you do not need that structure, whatever it is.  Destroy all this crap, and the situation before the 2000's outrages would be restored.

Here are photos of the starvation wall from the Magazine Beach side.





The Starvation Wall was introduced in the 2000's by Cambridge and the DCR with the promise of a “lawn to the river.”  Just the usual fraud.  The falsely named “Charles River Conservancy” even conducted a swim-in to brag about the improvement to swimming off the Playing Fields.

The Starvation Wall runs from the MWRA property almost to the excellent Willow which the City Council voted to destroy in the April 24, Order 1 vote.

Here is a photo of the excellent tree at the western end of the wall, which excellent tree is now doomed, as one of the so many excellent trees the Cambridge City Council wants destroyed.



The DCR admits that the Starvation Wall is held in contempt by the public visiting the Magazine Beach playing fields.  The DCR refuses to get rid of the Starvation Wall.  The closest the DCR comes to praising this outrage is a claim that the DCR is not physically capable of tearing the Starvation Wall down.  This project proves this DCR statement to be yet another lie coming from an entity which is not fit to be trusted.

The dock proposal would tear down and remove what appears to be a vast amount of vegetation including that portion of the Starvation Wall to the right of the woman in the picture.  Destruction would include not particularly specified trees.


The boat dock proposal is just another admission of flat out fraud since it would destroy part of the supposedly not destroyable Starvation Wall.


Frauds of omission are a normal problem when dealing with the DCR and the CDD.  Would the boat dock entrance be rendered a new obstacle to the Charles River White Geese?  Would that massive structure or some other secret part of the package achieve this latest outrage.  Right now, this opening is the only accessible part for them at the shore, even though they can go no further.

The real obstacle to resident animals AND TO BOATS is the bizarre bridge inside of the opening, the  artificially created wetlands, the Starvation Wall, and all that other introduced vegetation.  The CDD photo / diagram gives the impression that a massive amount of nonsense in this area is being destroyed.  Is this depiction just another lie?

This Starvation Wall has value to these heartless animal abusers whose goal is to kill off or drive away all resident animals in this part of the Charles River.

Which trees are to be destroyed by the dock project appears to be totally secret, along with any claim of “dead or dying.”

Or rather, the real claim of the DCR’s fraudulent word game fighting for tree destruction at Magazine Beach was that there are trees there in “decline.”  “Decline” was skillfully fraudulent on its own.  In Order 1 of April 24, 2107, the CDD apparently reworded that fraudulent word game to the flat out fraud, “dead or dying,” lying that all 56 targeted trees are “dead or dying.”

And the 36 year residence at Magazine Beach of the beloved Charles River White Geese, the obvious target of these outrages, is a lot better established than this bizarre wall.

The DCR admits that their supposedly untouchable Starvation Wall is hated by thoughtful human beings.  By contrast, the 36 year resident Charles River White Geese have PROVEN value as targets for visitors, and they are genuinely loved by those familiar with them.


3. Solution.

The DCR is simply no more fit to manage the environment of the Charles River than was its predecessor, and the reality of this proposal is yet another reason to trash the DCR in favor of the responsible alternative, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  The terrible planners of the MDC simply moved to the DCR with their irresponsible plans and are destroying, destroying and destroying, with those plans, and with the irresponsible CDD.

The Cambridge City Council should have the legislature get rid of the DCR and replace it with a body which, while not perfect, is clearly worthy of respect, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

The outrages of the 2000's must be reversed, not made worse by the fraud induced Order 1 of April 1, 2017.

Poisoning of the banks of the Charles River must end.

The playing fields must be returned to the banks of the Charles River by the well deserved destruction of the generally hated Starvation Wall.  Restoration of the Playing Fields should occur along with restoration of access to their 36 year home by the Charles River White Geese who should be treated as the tourist attraction they very truly are..

The irresponsible project supported by the fraud induced Order 1 of April 24, 2017, must be terminated along with the dock proposal, unless it turns out to have some sort of responsible value.

Cambridge’s Company Union “protective” groups outrage must be ended.

Free animals must be treated with love and respect due members of our so heavily threatened world.

Addressing the City Manager, this is a situation of fraudulent word games by the DCR becoming flat out fraud when translated by the CDD.  This fraud is yet another reason to prune the CDD.  As noted, however, we appreciate the difference acknowledged by the City Manager in his signatures of the three documents.

3. Documentation.

A. Report at the June 6, 2017, demonstrating fraud in the “dead or dying” claim in April 24, 2017 Order 1:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249.  This file is part of a 500 page or so file containing all of the documentation of the June 6, 2017 meeting.  As a result, it is a painfully slow download.  The author would be pleased to provide 5 PDF, email sized, copies.  Request to boblat@yahoo.com.

B. The 2016 outrages between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.  Please note that the City Manager negatively referred to is Mr. Rossi, the predecessor of Mr. DePasquale, but also note the deafening silence of the Cambridge City Council when it was simultaneously yelling at circuses traveling on the public highway, and had been receiving multiple email notices per week about that ongoing outrage.

Video on destruction, “The Destruction of Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA, USA, January - February 2016, Final Cut”:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  A physical DVD copy of this report has been formally provided to each and every incumbent City Councilor.

Video on “improvements,” “Nature and beauty ripped out along the Charles River”:  https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA.  Official record copy provided to the City Council.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille,
Individually, and as Chair,
Friends of the White Geese

Friday, October 06, 2017

Charles River: Cambridge City Manager on Magazine Beach - Dock Proposal Analysis

Charles River:   Cambridge City Manager on Magazine Beach - Dock Proposal Analysis

1. Prelude.
2. Magazine Beach, More Dirty Tricks, CPA funds.  Solution for continuing outrages.
3. What You Can Do.
A. Introductory.
B. General.
C. The Institutions.
D. FRIEND THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE ON FACEBOOK.


1. Prelude.

This is the third blog report forwarding our analysis to the Cambridge City Council on October 2, 2017 of three communications to them by the Cambridge City Manager the prior Monday.

We have praised the Cambridge City Manager for his response to the unanimous vote of NINE city councilors in favor of destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach, and of providing funding for destruction.
The City Manager’s response was that, if the Cambridge City Council wants these outrages, he will do as he is directed.  The City Manager pointed out that moneys devoted to destruction of those 56 excellent trees and toward heartless animal abuse.  His statement is not directly in those words, but in reality, as is the City Council’s support of poisons on the banks of the Charles], he would take the money from other project which are responsible (again, not his words, but obvious reality).

We have analyzed the City Manager’s comments on the outrages proposed for the Grand Junction railroad tracks, including the reality that the stalking horse bike highway proposal is certain to make possible a personal exit for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from the Mass. Pike (I90) over a stalking horse widened Grand Junction Railroad Bridge with connection to Memorial Drive.  We provided an expanded MIT photo of a responsible alternative for the Bike Highway without creating this updated version of the Cambridge detested Inner Belt proposal of the 60's.

Our original letter was made part of the public record by the Cambridge City Clerk at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1846&Inline=True, , pages 153 to 158.

The blog reports presenting our analysis are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/10/charles-river-cambridge-city-manager.html, and http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/10/charles-river-cambridge-city-manager_3.html.

The official copy is part of a file containing hundreds of pages of documents, and is time consuming to download.  We would be pleased to provide a PDF as an email attachment, should you wish to ask at boblat@yahoo.com.

2. Magazine Beach, More Dirty Tricks, CPA funds.  Solution for continuing outrages.

The City Manager gave the City Council an allocation of Community Preservation Act funds.  I will not give the statutory details which spends money on the Magazine Beach playing fields.  A common dirty trick procedural game was played in which public input was obtained with the usual lack of meaningful communication to the public about what was REALLY voting on.

Here is a the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s general map of Magazine Beach destruction with my blue marking of entrances being rearranged to smooth out traffic from the Inner Belt off the Mass. Pike (I90).  .


The area being targeted by this outrage is the area to the far right with a soling line perpendicular to the river and two lines to the right of the line.  The convergence of the two lines in the Metropolitan District Commission sewerage treatment plant.  The location apparently being developed is the area between the solid line and the Charles River.

This is the photo like description provided to the voters WITHOUT MEANINGFUL COMMUNICATION and my analysis in the third part of my letter to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager.



* * *


On page 192 of the September 25, package calls for moneys to be spent on Magazine Beach:

Request Open Space funds to complete the building of an ADA-accessible canoe/kayak launch at Magazine Beach and tree cutting and pruning work as part of the park infrastructure.

In its photo like description, this item is described as a “canoe and kayak launch at the end of the Cottage Farm Plant at Magazine Beach.”  Here is the supposed photo like presentation.

As is usual with Cambridge Development Department projects, the dirty tricks are buried in the fine print.

Tree destruction is simply tossed in several levels down from reality with no more detailed explanation.

And the photo provided bears no known relationship to the area where this item has been proposed to go.

Following are photos of this location.  (Unless there has also been a secret change in the specific location).



The opening where the dock is proposed is directly south of the main parking lot at the Magazine Beach playing fields.  It is the only opening in the Starvation Wall which was introduced with the promise of a “lawn to the river.”  The Starvation Wall runs from the MWRA property almost to the excellent Willow which the City Council voted to destroy in the April 24, Order 1 vote.

Here is a several years old photo of an adult woman standing in the opening.  It is my understanding that the structure is intended to go to her right, replacing a small amount of Starvation Wall with a structure.  The entire Starvation Wall should be chopped down.



The DCR admits that the starvation wall is held in contempt by public visiting the playing fields.  The DCR refuses to get rid of it.  The DCR has defiantly said that what it has created is impossible to tear down.  But the proposal, according to that photo / diagram, would do exactly that.  It would tear down and remove what appears to be a vast amount of vegetation.  Including Starvation Wall, and INCLUDING “TREES” WITHOUT THE TREE DESTRUCTION SPECIFIED, just more added destruction kept secret except for quick mentions in the fine print.

Key is always in the frauds of omission.  Would this entrance be rendered a new obstacle to the Charles River White Geese?  Right now, it is the only accessible part for them at the shore.

The real obstacle to resident animals AND TO BOATS is the bizarre bridge over artificially created wetlands.  The photo / diagram gives the impression that this nonsense is being destroyed.  Is it just another lie?


The artificial wetlands are a deliberate obstacle to boat and animal access, as is the weak bridge over them.  The massive amount of introduced vegetation between the wetlands / bridge and the parking lot is just another deliberate barrier to the Charles River White Geese.  These destructive people have gone to very major efforts to kill and abuse as long as it is deniable, especially by the Development Department’s Robots.





The weak bridge which works with the artificial wetlands to block boat and animal access shows in the middle of this last photo, the trash receptacle



The known proposal promises to lower part of the Starvation Wall.  It does not mention that it created the current outrage with the DCR’s traditional refusal to maintain, and continues to prevent animal access by the continued deliberate separation of Charles and playing fields.  Non maintenance will continue, of course, another key omission, and will let this outrage, promised as a “lawn to the river,” grow and grow.

This Starvation Wall has value to these heartless animal abusers whose goal is to kill off or drive away all resident animals in this part of the Charles River.  The goal is part of the “Charles River Master Plan” whose nonsensical status is demonstrated by the promise of the “Lawn to the River” which wound up as this outrage.  Very clearly, this policy of heartless animal abuse is a goal which disqualifies the DCR planners from fitness to manage the environment.

Which trees are to be destroyed appears to be totally secret, along with any claim of “dead or dying.”  Or rather, the real claim before the CDD’s rewording, beyond peak beauty, a claim deliberately obscured by the word games in which the bureaucratic con game, “decline” became the blatantly fraudulent “dead or dying.”

And the 36 year residence of the most obvious targets with great love from decent human beings is a lot better established than this bizarre wall which is admitted by the DCR to be hated by thoughtful human beings.  Plus the 36 year resident Charles River White Geese have true value as targets for visitors.

The City Council should get rid of the DCR and replace it with MassDOT, acting through the legislature.  To the City Manager, this is situation is pointed out as yet another reason to prune the Cambridge Development Department, but, as noted, we appreciate the difference in document signatures.

3. What You Can Do.

A. Introductory.

What we need is:

End the accelerating Charles River destruction by the DCR and by Cambridge.
Give DCR duties, powers & funds on the Charles River to MassDOT.  Trash the bizarre bush wall walling off Charles.  End poison use on the Charles’ banks.
Tell the Cambridge City Council and new City Manager Louis DePasquale to end the destruction, the fake groups and the 42 year long 3 City Manager Machine.
There are two general categories of possible assistance.


B. General.

There are two entities who are a waste of time, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Cambridge Development Department.

These entities as they have existed for the last 42 years (counting the prior entity which was replaced by the DCR) need to be destroyed, not talked to.

The Cambridge City Manager needs to clean house, plus he has been helpful.  A much more detailed analysis is in my letter of welcome to him, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/charles-river-trust-cambridge-ma-usas.html.

Here are the key contacts.  I hope you can make them.  I apologize that a lot of contacts are given through yet another link.  The reason for the additional link for legislators is that that gives me only one place to change rather than trying to change every document.

Governor Charles Baker (Department of Conservation and Recreation / CR): 617-725-4005,   email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office



Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale,  617-349-4300, ldepasquale@cambridgema.gov


Legislators: 617-722-2000, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/201304/emails-for-all-massachusetts.html


Cambridge City Council.  Call them at 617-349-4280, or  

Email your comments care of the Cambridge City Clerk. Request that the City Clerk present your entire message to the Cambridge City Council at their next meeting. The Email address is: dlopez@cambridgema.gov

C. The Institutions.

Since 2011, these reports have been read in 106 countries, at last count.  It is reasonable to assume that such vast a variety of reading may be by people with contacts in the three key institutions.

The three key institutions involved are:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  MIT is fighting for its personal exit from I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in a situation where meaningful activists previously defeated a super highway going through pretty much the same area.  So fraud is normal.  Similarly, most of Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge has been and is being turned into an area which is effectively the personal enclave of MIT.

Boston University.  This is turf which BU has started to claim for itself.  BU did the first destruction as part of its seeking to make this more clearly its turf.  A lot of the fine print makes the key areas more hospital to BU.  Boston University has conducted graduation activities in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

Harvard University.  Harvard is turning the Boston side of the Charles River even more into its private domain with its impending relocation of Harvard Medical School and other facilities into an area in Boston visible from the Cambridge side of the Charles River.

Anybody with contacts with MIT, BU and Harvard knows the contacts better than we do.

Please contact.

D. FRIEND THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE ON FACEBOOK.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River since 1981.  They are beautiful and loved, a very real tourist attraction.  Having lived so long so close to densely populated cities, they well deserved to be studied and praised, not destroyed piece by piece.  Their habitat can and should be returned.  The barriers to their long time home and food should be removed.

Where they live, other much less visible but very real free animals also live.

Cambridge and the DCR are heartlessly abusing free animals on the Charles River.  The DCR PUBLICLY states a desire to kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.  Cambridge and the DCR are unfit to manage the environment.  They, particularly the Cambridge City Council, combine their lack of fitness with non stop lies of environmental sainthood.

In the fine print is that proposed off ramp from I90 to MIT in a location where Cambridge brags a super highway was killed by MEANINGFUL PROTECTIVE GROUPS 50 years ago, as opposed to highly visible but fake protective groups with connections to the Cambridge government which have been carefully created and nurtured in the decades since that victory.  The replacement highway is having its grounds set through stalking horses, deception and multiple outrages.  Naturally, the replacement highway would destroy areas most valuable to free animals.

Here is a plaque which was included in a propaganda show about the Charles River conducted over an extended period in the Cambridge City Hall Annex.



Animals should not be driven off the face of our earth.  It is outrageous that these reprehensible government entities, lying about themselves, want to destroy what little sanctuaries free animals have left.  Their sanctuaries should be cherished and returned to the status quo of the beginning of this Millennium.

It is reprehensible that, lurking behind the government destructions, are institutions which proclaim themselves throughout the world as enlightened.

The Charles River White Geese are a very visible and beloved symbol of what should be cherished, not destroyed.

The list of friends on Facebook is a very visible show of decency standing up to truly vile government entities and their related “non profit” institutions.

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

Charles River: Cambridge City Manager: Grand Junction Destruction

Charles River: Cambridge City Manager: Grand Junction Destruction

1. Introduction.
2. Grand Junction.
3. On line master.
4. What You Can Do.
A. Introductory.
B. General.
C. The Institutions.
D. FRIEND THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE ON FACEBOOK.


1. Introduction.

On September 11, 2017, the Cambridge City Council returned to work after their summer break, with one meeting in the middle.  Councilor / former Representative Timothy Toomey proposed and got passed a motion in the mid summer meeting to which we responded by a letter received on September 11, 2017.

This initiative concerned bike highway “improvements” on the Grand Junction railroad running from the Goose Meadow through the eastern part of the city and then to Somerville and eventually North Station.

The initiative has been innocuous, concentrating on the Somerville end of the path.  The Toomey motion was ambiguous as to whether it concerned the Charles River end.

The constant language from the city council has given the false impression that the innocuous part of this package was the entire package, lying by omission that the Charles River end was responsible.

We responded to the Toomey initiative  in a detailed analysis presented at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/09/charles-river-cambridge-grand-junction.html.

The City Manager replied to Councilor Toomey in the second of the three comments on which we responded as posted by the City Clerk at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1846&Inline=True, pages 153 to 158.

The response made it clear that the route was targeted to the Grand Junction railroad bridge although expenditures would end halfway between Memorial Drive and Mass. Ave.

2. Grand Junction.

Our response to the Grand Junction portion in part two of our letter received October 2 read:

* * *

This write up is from the Cambridge Development Department.

The record of MassDOT is of great value. 

The last time the Cambridge Development Department and its influenced “activists” fought for commuter rail on the Grand Junction, influenced “activists” announced yet another lovely sounding entity which based its grounds for creation on the usual “You can’t win” mantra.  Followed by the totally predictable “But have we got a deal for you.”

Fortunately, responsible residents of Cambridge scorned the creation of that particular fake group. 

MassDOT listened to responsible people and studied. 

MassDOT found Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction to lack any redeeming value except for Kendall Square (/MIT).  MassDOT rejected the nonsense coming from friends of the Cambridge Development Department including its influenced “activists.”

Here are the MassDOT areal photo of the area, and MIT’s alternate AND MUCH MORE DIRECT bike highway, with our proposed connection.  The more direct bike highway alternatives clearly are much more convenient for bicyclists, cost less money and much less destructive.  Such considerations should be overwhelming, IF THE REAL PURPOSE IS BIKE HIGHWAY.




The City of Cambridge has also recently received a letter from MassDOT in which MassDOT expressed willingness to work with the City of Cambridge.  Included in that letter was MassDOT’s affirmation of support for the findings of a joint committee which studied transportation possibilities on the Charles River.

That report flatly and simply rejected the stalking horse “bike” highway over the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.  The stalking horse, of course, would widen the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge by adding one lane, supposedly for the stalking horse bike highway. 

The bike highway would, of course, disappear the minute MIT could get away with converting the widened Grand Junction Bridge to make it a very crucial part of their beloved private exit ramp from the Mass. Pike.

The history of the MBTA study which found that private highway exit to MIT viable might be of interest.  The MBTA studied the possibility of running an express bus from Newton to MIT (referred to as Cambridgeport). 

The cost of the project made the finding obviously way out of wack with the supposed purpose of the study, a bus running two or three times a day each way.  But the exorbitant cost of the project was obvious from the beginning.  The MBTA noticed the funding absurdity as part of the report, after the study.


3. On line master.

The Cambridge City Clerk has published, unedited, our letter at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1846&Inline=True, pages 153 to 158.

This is a 6 page document in a combined city document running hundreds of pages.  It is a long download.  We would be pleased to provide an email sized PDF copy of our portion in response to your request to boblat@yahoo.com.

4. What You Can Do.

A. Introductory.

What we need is:

End the accelerating Charles River destruction by the DCR and by Cambridge.
Give DCR duties, powers & funds on the Charles River to MassDOT.  Trash the bizarre bush wall walling off Charles.  End poison use on the Charles’ banks.
Tell the Cambridge City Council and new City Manager Louis DePasquale to end the destruction, the fake groups and the 42 year long 3 City Manager Machine.
There are two general categories of possible assistance.


B. General.

There are two entities who are a waste of time, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Cambridge Development Department.

These entities as they have existed for the last 42 years (counting the prior entity which was replaced by the DCR) need to be destroyed, not talked to. 

The Cambridge City Manager needs to clean house.  A much more detailed analysis is in my letter of welcome to him, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/charles-river-trust-cambridge-ma-usas.html.

Here are the key contacts.  I hope you can make them.  I apologize that a lot of contacts are given through yet another link.  The reason for the additional link for legislators is that that gives me only one place to change rather than trying to change every document.

Governor Charles Baker (DCR): 617-725-4005,   email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office



Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale,  617-349-4300, ldepasquale@cambridgema.gov


Legislators: 617-722-2000, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/201304/emails-for-all massachusetts.html


Cambridge City Council.  Call them at 617-349-4280, or  

Email your comments care of the Cambridge City Clerk. Request that the City Clerk present your entire message to the Cambridge City Council at their next meeting. The Email address is: dlopez@cambridgema.gov

Talk to the City Council Challengers.  


C. The Institutions.


Since 2011, these reports have been read in 107 countries, at last count.  It is reasonable to assume that such vast a variety of reading may be by people with contacts in the three key institutions.

The three key institutions involved are: 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  MIT is fighting for its personal exit from I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in a situation where meaningful activists previously defeated a super highway going through pretty much the same area.  So fraud is normal.  Similarly, most of Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge has been and is being turned into an area which is effectively the personal enclave of MIT.

Boston University.  This is turf which BU has started to claim for itself.  BU did the first destruction as part of its seeking to make this more clearly its turf.  A lot of the fine print makes the key areas more hospital to BU.  Boston University has conducted graduation activities in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

Harvard University.  Harvard is turning the Boston side of the Charles River even more into its private domain with its impending relocation of Harvard Medical School and other facilities into an area in Boston visible from the Cambridge side of the Charles River.

Anybody with contacts with MIT, BU and Harvard knows the contacts better than we do.

Please contact.

D. FRIEND THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE ON FACEBOOK.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River since 1981.  They are beautiful and loved, a very real tourist attraction.  Having lived so long so close to densely populated cities, they well deserved to be studied and praised, not destroyed piece by piece.  Their habitat can and should be returned.  The barriers to their long time home and food should be removed.

Where they live, other much less visible but very real free animals also live.

Cambridge and the DCR are heartlessly abusing free animals on the Charles River.  The DCR PUBLICLY states a desire to kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.  Cambridge and the DCR are unfit to manage the environment.  They, particularly the Cambridge City Council, combine their lack of fitness with non stop lies of environmental sainthood.

In the fine print is that proposed off ramp from I90 to MIT in a location where Cambridge brags a super highway was killed by MEANINGFUL PROTECTIVE GROUPS 50 years ago, as opposed to highly visible but fake protective groups with connections to the Cambridge government which have been carefully created and nurtured in the decades since that victory.  The replacement highway is having its grounds set through stalking horses, deception and multiple outrages.  Naturally, the replacement highway would destroy areas most valuable to free animals.

Here is a plaque which was included in a propaganda show about the Charles River conducted over an extended period in the Cambridge City Hall Annex.


Animals should not be driven off the face of our earth.  It is outrageous that these reprehensible government entities, lying about themselves, want to destroy what little sanctuaries free animals have left.  Their sanctuaries should be cherished and returned to the status quo of the beginning of this Millennium.

It is reprehensible that, lurking behind the government destructions, are institutions which proclaim themselves throughout the world as enlightened.

The Charles River White Geese are a very visible and beloved symbol of what should be cherished, not destroyed.

The list of friends on Facebook is a very visible show of decency standing up to truly vile government entities and their related “non profit” institutions.

Monday, October 02, 2017

Charles River: Cambridge City Manager: Magazine Beach Destruction responsibility of NINE Cambridge City Councilors

Charles River: Cambridge City Manager:  Magazine Beach Destruction responsibility of NINE Cambridge City Councilors

1. Introduction.
2. City Managers response.
3. MassDOT.
4. On line master.
5. What You Can Do.
A. Introductory.
B. General.
C. The Institutions.
D. FRIEND THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE ON FACEBOOK.


1. Introduction.

On April 24, 2017, a bunch of Cambridge City Councilors led a rally at the Cambridge City Hall entrance praising themselves for their environmental saintliness.

They proceeded to go to work and, as their first order initiated by the Cambridge City Council, voted to support the destruction by the state Department of Conservation and Recreation of 56 MOSTLY EXCELLENT trees at the Magazine Beach recreation area on the Charles River, and to seek money from the Cambridge City Manager to help the destruction.

Key in the order was the fraudulent claim of “Dead or Dying.”

We debunked that blatant fraud in our 51 page letter with more than 100 graphics submitted to the Cambridge City Council on June 6, 2017.  Our response to the blatant fraud is posted by the Cambridge City Clerk on line at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249.  This is a massive document which, in turn, is part a massive document ten times its size on line.  It is a very long down load.  I would be pleased to provide the document by providing a series of emails with 5 PDF files which make up the report.  Please contact me at: boblat@yahoo.com.

The City Council asked the City Manager for a report.

2. City Managers response.

At the Cambridge City Council meeting of September 25, 2017, Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale gave his report.  Key in the report was a comment that he would help the DCR in the outrage with Cambridge money, but that the money would have to come from funds for other parts of the City.

On October 2, 2017, the Cambridge City Council received a response from us which hit three points.  The following is the response to the Cambridge City Manager:   The response ran two pages with the following four photos of doomed trees dominating the response, occupying the right half of the two pages, two per page.






* * * *

We strongly appreciate the City Manager individually signing this report.  The contents reflect an action of a responsible City Manager.

The City Manager is not directing the City Council.  The City Manager is presenting options and awaits decision of the Cambridge City Council at such times as may be deemed appropriate by the Cambridge City Council.

The City Manager agrees to work with the “activists” influenced by the Cambridge Development Department.

He also points out that there are competing needs in the City of Cambridge other than massive destruction and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach. [not loudly mentioned by us is the outrageous goal of continuing with poisons on the banks of the Charles River, but support for that goal is also included in Order 1 of April 24, 2017].

Outside the purview of this responsible City Manager is the very great reality that, in the plans at Magazine Beach, the DCR and its influenced “activists” are presenting items of massive destruction highly inconsistent with the lovely environmental self praise given to City Councilors by themselves on the stairs of City Hall before voting for this outrage.  See our 51 page letter of June 6, 2017, and the elaborations thereof, posted at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249, and our follow on reports.

Over the years these friends of the Development Department have been fighting for these various outrages, the “activists” have prevented meaningful public discussion of the outrages they have been fighting for with multiple corrupt tactics.  With the latest organizational change, the “activists” influenced by the Cambridge Development Department have established a situation where the reality behind the “activists’” belligerent praise for the unpraiseasable will be even further hidden from voter scrutiny.

The legislature has destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission, in part because it was so irresponsible.  Its planners, now with the DCR, with Cambridge government support, have implemented massive destruction in accordance with irresponsible Cambridge/MDC plans, as stated in my videos at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o (before and after report on the outrage) and https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA (debunking of the “improvements” lie after the fact).

The City of Cambridge is dealing with an agency whose bureaucrats have long worked with the Cambridge Development Department for irresponsible destruction in Cambridge.  The legislature showed its contempt for what is going on on the Charles River when it destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission.

Please comply with the lovely proclamations from the front steps of City Hall on April 24, 2017, and replace this terrible agency with MassDOT.

And kill currently planned outrages.  And kill as much as possible the outrages of the 2000s and of 2016.

3. MassDOT.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation received half the former holdings of the MDC when the legislature destroyed the MDC, in part because it was such a belligerently irresponsible agency.

MassDOT got the bridges.  DCR got the banks AND THE PLANNERS.


The Planners went to DCR with the MDC’s irresponsible plans and have implemented those irresponsible plans along with Cambridge and the fake groups which look like robots of the Cambridge Development Department.

MassDOT has stood up to Cambridge and the DCR on at least two key outrage proposals.  MassDOT is not perfect, but the DCR, Cambridge and the robotic “activists” approach being perfect from the wrong direction.

4. On line master.

The Cambridge City Clerk has published, unedited, our letter at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1846&Inline=True, pages 153 to 158.

This is a 51 page document in a combined city document running hundreds of pages.  It is a long download.  We would be pleased to provide an email sized PDF copy of our portion in response to your request to boblat@yahoo.com.

5. What You Can Do.

A. Introductory.

What we need is:

End the accelerating Charles River destruction by the DCR and by Cambridge.

Give DCR duties, powers & funds on the Charles River to MassDOT.  Trash the bizarre bush wall walling off Charles.  End poison use on the Charles’ banks.

Tell the Cambridge City Council and new City Manager Louis DePasquale to end the destruction, the fake groups and the 42 year long 3 City Manager Machine.
There are two general categories of possible assistance.

B. General.

There are two entities who are a waste of time, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Cambridge Development Department.

These entities as they have existed for the last 42 years (counting the prior entity which was replaced by the DCR) need to be destroyed, not talked to.

The Cambridge City Manager needs to clean house.  A much more detailed analysis is in my letter of welcome to him, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/charles-river-trust-cambridge-ma-usas.html.

Here are the key contacts.  I hope you can make them.  I apologize that a lot of contacts are given through yet another link.  The reason for the additional link for legislators is that that gives me only one place to change rather than trying to change every document.

Governor Charles Baker (DCR): 617-725-4005,   email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office

Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale,  617-349-4300, ldepasquale@cambridgema.gov

Legislators: 617-722-2000, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/201304/emails-for-all massachusetts.html

Cambridge City Council.  Call them at 617-349-4280, or  

Email your comments care of the Cambridge City Clerk. Request that the City Clerk present your entire message to the Cambridge City Council at their next meeting. The Email address is: dlopez@cambridgema.gov 


C. The Institutions.

Since 2011, these reports have been read in 106 countries, at last count.  It is reasonable to assume that such vast a variety of reading may be by people with contacts in the three key institutions.

The three key institutions involved are:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  MIT is fighting for its personal exit from I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in a situation where meaningful activists previously defeated a super highway going through pretty much the same area.  So fraud is normal.  Similarly, most of Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge has been and is being turned into an area which is effectively the personal enclave of MIT.

Boston University.  This is turf which BU has started to claim for itself.  BU did the first destruction as part of its seeking to make this more clearly its turf.  A lot of the fine print makes the key areas more hospital to BU.  Boston University has conducted graduation activities in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

Harvard University.  Harvard is turning the Boston side of the Charles River even more into its private domain with its impending relocation of Harvard Medical School and other facilities into an area in Boston visible from the Cambridge side of the Charles River.

Anybody with contacts with MIT, BU and Harvard knows the contacts better than we do.

Please contact.

D. FRIEND THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE ON FACEBOOK.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River since 1981.  They are beautiful and loved, a very real tourist attraction.  Having lived so long so close to densely populated cities, they well deserved to be studied and praised, not destroyed piece by piece.  Their habitat can and should be returned.  The barriers to their long time home and food should be removed.

Where they live, other much less visible but very real free animals also live.

Cambridge and the DCR are heartlessly abusing free animals on the Charles River.  The DCR PUBLICLY states a desire to kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.  Cambridge and the DCR are unfit to manage the environment.  They, particularly the Cambridge City Council, combine their lack of fitness with non stop lies of environmental sainthood.

In the fine print is that proposed off ramp from I90 to MIT in a location where Cambridge brags a super highway was killed by MEANINGFUL PROTECTIVE GROUPS 50 years ago, as opposed to highly visible but fake protective groups with connections to the Cambridge government which have been carefully created and nurtured in the decades since that victory.  The replacement highway is having its grounds set through stalking horses, deception and multiple outrages.  Naturally, the replacement highway would destroy areas most valuable to free animals.

Here is a plaque which was included in a propaganda show about the Charles River conducted over an extended period in the Cambridge City Hall Annex.


Animals should not be driven off the face of our earth.  It is outrageous that these reprehensible government entities, lying about themselves, want to destroy what little sanctuaries free animals have left.  Their sanctuaries should be cherished and returned to the status quo of the beginning of this Millennium.

It is reprehensible that, lurking behind the government destructions, are institutions which proclaim themselves throughout the world as enlightened.

The Charles River White Geese are a very visible and beloved symbol of what should be cherished, not destroyed.

The list of friends on Facebook is a very visible show of decency standing up to truly vile government entities and their related “non profit” institutions.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Charles River: Trees, Bees, etc.

Charles River:   Trees, Bees, etc.


1. Phil Barber reports.
2. Analysis.


1. Phil Barber reports.

Hi Bob hope this finds you well. I notice a new thing about Magazine Beach called “Nature Notes” online. Got an email about it the other day.

What I don’t see in it and probably not surprisingly is the large number of sick bees I’ve been noticing there all summer and especially now at the end of the season. I have seen many bumblebees who appear to be suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder
(Monsanto’s infamous Roundup herbicide has been linked to this disaster and is banned by the
EU I think because of it). They are lethargic and disoriented, even on warm days, and you can find dead ones in the AM who perished overnight unable to find their way back to the hive. There are a fair number of honeybees there as well, who seem to be less affected.

It feels like the world is dying all around us and no one is noticing.

Everywhere I see sick maples and even white pines, as the climate warms and can no longer sustain them. A mature ash died in Dana Park this year as did a fine sugar maple in front of the Morse School. I went to Rockport in August and was horrified to see mile after mile of dead and dying trees along the highway.

Well on a happier note the Alewife swans did produce one cygnet. I saw him/her I think in mid-August when newly hatched and the next time I came the family had moved on, as I haven’t seen them there since. Wouldn't you know it, one of the rare times I didn't have a camera with me!

Best,

Phil

2. Analysis.

As accurately noted by Phil, the upbeat publication comes from the folks who have been fighting for so much destruction while lying about “concern.”

Phil is getting into a continuing problem on the Charles which is overwhelmed by the bizarre situation which passes for politics in Cambridge, MA.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation loves poisons.  They introduced poisons to Magazine Beach as part of the outrages of the 2000's and rather clearly intend to expand use now with the support of the Cambridge City Council (City Council Order 1, April 24, 2017)..

No surprise that bees are being hurt.

“Roundup” does not come as a surprise either.  We have an annual infestation of the Charles River which dates back to DCR being disappointed about the impact of its poison use at Ebersol Fields near Massachusetts General Hospital on the Boston Side of the Charles River.  So, because the existing poisons were not pleasing them, they dumped poisons marked “Do not use near water,” on Ebersol Fields.  The next day, the Charles was dead with Algae infestation from Boston Harbor to the next bridge east of the BU Bridge.  The infestation comes back every year since then.  “Roundup” could have been the name..

And the fake Neighborhood Association is running around destroying ground vegetation, and putting out lovely puff pieces, and lying through omission about all the destruction they are working for and supporting with loud silence about the destruction they are achieving.

Reality is that, with responsible government, the DCR would be dumped as unceremonously as was its predecessor organization.  The predecessor was the Metropolitan District Commission.  That is where the DCR’s “planners” and their terrible “plans” come from.

We have an obvious choice.  The other agency which replaced the MDC is the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  They are not perfect but they have stood up MEANINGFULLY to the DCR and to Cambridge’s “planners.”  The latter two approach perfection, but from the wrong direction.

A responsible government would not be supporting the DCR’s outrages.  It would be getting rid of the DCR in favor of MassDOT by acting through the legislature.

Here is a file photo from Phil about his Swan friends at Alewife, another environmental beauty subjected to destruction by the City of Cambridge and by the DCR.


Sunday, September 17, 2017

Charles River: Cambridge Grand Junction Plans Summarized and Placed in Context.

Charles River:  Cambridge Grand Junction Plans Summarized and Placed in Context.

This is another in the series of communications which we have been presenting concerning destruction plans.  The trouble is that the letters we have been passing on are so long that they cannot be posted in one blog post.

So we have developed a series of standard terms in our posts and split our letters.  This response to the Cambridge City Council, however, is borderline in length and really should be read all at one time to get the full impact of the communication.

On September 11, 2017, the Cambridge City Council returned to work after their summer break, with one meeting in the middle.  Councilor / former Representative Timothy Toomey proposed and got passed a motion in the mid summer meeting to which we responded by a letter received on September 11, 2017.

Our standard terms are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/09/charles-river-ma-magazine-beach.html.  That report becomes number 17 on that list.

There is a lot of important stuff in there.

The Davis letter is analyzed at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/charles-river-con-game-fights-for.html.

We will resume the standard package in the next blog report.

The Grand Junction bicycle package is communicated in the standard terms, in detail.  It is Section VI.  I am communicating by reference because if I go into it again, this post will be really unreasonable in size.  Please go to Section VI in the standard terms of our last posting.

Here is the communication received on September 11, in total.

As is customary in this series, it is addressed to the Cambridge City Manager and the Cambridge City Council.  We feel strongly about showing our respect for the City Manager by including him as primary addressee, although the content does tend to slip to addressing the City Council.

* * * *

RE: City Council Order 16, August 7, 2017 meeting.  Grand Junction path concept

Ladies and Gentlemen:

1. General.
2. Bike Highway Options
3. The REAL Plans.
4. Overview.

1. General.

Reviewing the on line record of order 16 of August 7, 2107, we are confused as to whether the whereas’s were part of the adopted order.

Even so, the open ended concept of a Grand Junction Overlay District and the outrageous behavior of the City of Cambridge under the prior City Managers and of too many actions of the Cambridge City Council creates value in responding to the concept of a Grand Junction Overlay District.

The bicycle highway proposal, and thus the Overlay District itself,  would be responsible if it fed traffic to Memorial Drive and not beyond Memorial Drive.  Beyond Memorial Drive would further exacerbate the already accomplished environmental and animal abuse outrages.

MIT, in a recent report suggested that the path end at Fort Washington and connect from there to Memorial Drive by way of Vassar Street and Amesbury Street.  We think the bicycle highway could reasonably connect by a narrow taking to the corner where Vassar Street approaches the Grand Junction most closely, then run the very short block to Memorial Drive.

The proposal as stated in the 2006 Grand Junction plan is irresponsible insofar as it goes further south than these points.  Equally irresponsible is the secret fine print in the Davis letter whose secret fine print was incorporated but “not” incorporated into the City Manager and City Council transmittals to MassDOT, typical tomfoolery of Cambridge Development Department documents.  At minimum, the transmittal documents were designed to mislead the people signing them.

The plans for the area south of Memorial Drive at the Grand Junction were communicated BUT BURIED in the relevant part of the 2006 proposal and in the DCR plans which Cambridge and the DCR implemented in the outrages of January 2016.

What really is at stake south of Memorial Drive, in addition to further environmental and animal abuse outrages, is an updated Inner Belt connecting I90 (the Mass. Pike) in Boston to MIT with ramps to Memorial Drive.

We went into this concept in detail in section I of our August 3 letter delivered to the City Council at its August 7, 2017 meeting.  In that section, we provided a whole bunch of plans explaining reality.  This initiative is the Inner Belt moved half a block west with destruction on the river and heartless animal abuse.
The entire government package south of Memorial Drive is in direct conflict with the self deification as environmental saints of members of the Cambridge City Council on the steps of City Hall on April 24, 2017.

To go into detail:

2. Bike Highway Options

Here from City Council records are the MIT plans for a responsible Southern end of the Grand Junction bike highway.  MIT combines with this responsible option a plan  similar to what former Councilor Davis proposed for destruction in the Goose Meadow in the secret fine print of her letter to MassDOT.  Her letter was blessed with misleading of the Cambridge City Council and City Manager by transmittal documents clearly drafted by the Cambridge Development Department.  It is to be assumed that the Davis / MIT Goose Meadow proposal (#4) would remove the starvation wall at the entrance to the Goose Meadow.


At the far right, MIT (item 1, plus brownish crossing) proposes the bike highway to run from the Grand Junction  to Vassar Street by the existing pedestrian right of way at Fort Washington Park, then proceed west on Vassar Street, and then proceed south on Amesbury Street to Memorial Drive.

Our proposal is that the bike highway and Vassar Street be connected by a narrow land taking between the Grand Junction and the bend of Vassar Street where Vassar Street is closest to the Grand Junction (added in pen and ink), and then proceed to Memorial Drive.  This would provide about two more blocks of fairly exclusive bike highway than the MIT concept.  [Ed.  From the bend in the middle blue line to the Grand Junction.]

Item 4 on the map is MIT’s suggestion for the Davis destruction in the Goose Meadow, hidden BY REFERENCE in the paper given to MassDOT via the City Council and City Manager.  This would devastate the animal habitat in the Goose Meadow.

The proposal would remove the starvation fence at the entrance to the Goose Meadow.  The starvation fence should be removed anyway.  The only purpose of the starvation fence is to exacerbate the deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese.  This outrage is analyzed in greater detail below.

3. The REAL Plans.

Following is an MIT plan provided by them to the Cambridge City Council, edited to the key part of the area.



In our August 3, 2017 letter received on August 7, we went into detail on the new Inner Belt from I90 (Mass. Pike) on the left to the Grand Junction Bridge in the middle, and then to MIT on the right.  Bicycle “improvements” widening the Grand Junction Bridge would last only so long as convenient to MIT.

We detailed the connections to Memorial Drive east and west, and provided the following marked up map from the DCR’s destruction plans.



The marked driveways would be used in a rearrangement of entrances to speed up traffic coming off the Mass. Pike, with massive tree destruction in the process.  “Dead or dying” is so much fraudulent nonsense attempting to justify unjustifiable logging as proven in our June 6, 2017, 51 page letter.  The more than 100 graphics did an excellent job of debunking this irresponsible nonsense.


4. Overview.

Our video on the 2016 destruction outrage on the Charles River has been provided to each of you individually.  It is posted on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  Our video on the fraud which was the “improvements” associated with this outrage has also been provided to you.  It is posted at https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA.

Here are the plans of the DCR for the Grand Junction area south of Memorial Drive which is known to normal human beings as animal habitat.  These plans are the portion of the 2016 destruction plans which have not YET been implemented.



The diagonal lines in the middle, top to bottom, reflect the Grand Junction.

The area to the right of the Grand Junction is currently a thick woods, the Wild Area.

This plan shows exactly one tree.  The rest are clearly intended to be destroyed, with the destruction communicated by yet more fraud, lie of omission.

Here is a photo of the thick woods in the Wild Area being destroying THIS TIME.  The white figures are part of the valuable 36 year resident Charles River White Geese looking for food after their food and habitat have taken from them by multiple tactics.



Here are Cambridge Development Department plans of Grand Junction / BU Bridge area (the ghetto which is the only part of their habitat you have not YET destroyed) and for the Wild Area.

To the right is the Wild Area which you also would destroy.

To the left is the foodless ghetto to which Cambridge and the DCR have confined the Charles River White Geese.  Along with the Wild Area, this is the only part of their mile long habitat which you have not destroyed for them.

Here are the specific plans for habitat destruction from the 2006 package.

The Grand Junction runs diagonally from upper left to lower right.  The Charles River is on the right.  The J shaped highway is the tree and habitat destroying bicycle highway you are considering in the Goose Meadow.  The proposal talks of putting a fence between the Goose Meadow below the Grand Junction and the Wild Area, above the Grand Junction.

That fence would further destroy this tiny area which remains for free animals on Cambridge’s Charles River.

Below are  photos of where the Development Department would put the final portion of the J construction.  This is the left hand portion of the J below the Grand Junction.  The supposed bike highway would go up this steep incline.

Your proposal is clearly nonsense.



Here is the area which would be entered from the Grand Junction.  Note that thick trees shown below would be destroyed by the 2006 plan’s bicycle highway before destroying a core part of the remaining goose habitat before going to the stairs.



Since Cambridge and the DCR confined the Charles River White Geese to their formerly lush Nesting Area in this location without food, the DCR has destroyed all ground vegetation.

The crushed stone was initially dropped there by railroad workers with the rather clear blessing after the fact of the DCR.




When the railroad workers left, more crushed stone was dumped.

A similar situation occurs in the plans of the City Council and the DCR to destroy 56 MOSTLY EXCELLENT TREES at Magazine Beach.

Here is a photo of a tree at the Magazine Beach hill / park next to the bathhouse that the Cambridge City Council and the DCR now want to destroy, as part of the April 24, 2017, order 1 vote.



This is one of many trees which the DCR admits they cannot justify destroying.

So they abuse it until they can create a “justification” for destroying it.

And the Cambridge City Council claims that the DCR is fit to manage the environment.

Here is another example of the DCR’s deliberate destruction, this time the starvation of the 36 year resident and highly valuable Charles River White Geese.  All part of the same mentality.  There is food on the far side of the on ramp to Memorial Drive next to the entrance to their forced ghetto, the grass shown below Memorial Drive to the right.



To get to their food, the Charles River White Geese have to cross the on ramp.

The Charles River White Geese are extremely careful on crossing, looking both ways to ensure traffic is clear.  However, being geese, some do dawdle.  Smiling commuters happily sit and wait for them to finish crossing admiring their beauty as they seek food.

The DCR has responded to their search for food by installing a wall at the entrance to the Goose Meadow, belying their claim that this is a public park and further destroying this wild habitat.

The photo shows the on ramp to the left and the BLOCKED Goose Meadow entrance straight ahead.



Starvation is the only goal of this blockade, which is part of the Charles River Master Plan, to kill off or drive away all resident animals.  The irresponsibility of the Charles River Master Plan is yet more proof of the DCR to manage the environment of the Charles River.

This starvation wall, viewed from Boston, was installed by Cambridge and the DCR under Rossi’s direct management when he was Number 2 to Robert Healy.  Blocking off the Charles River from Magazine Beach, it has no value except to starve the Charles River White Geese.


Creation of this starvation wall DIRECTLY VIOLATED the Charles River Master Plan’s “lawn to the river” and by constant “water related activities” nonsense at the time.  Walling off the Charles is apparently claimed to be “water related activities” in contrast to it continuing to be the residence of the 36 year highly popular  resident Charles River White Geese.

The DCR showed the lack of value of the sanctified Charles River Master Plan by amending the Charles River Master Plan after they had already planted this bizarre wall.  And they now admit that visitors avoid the introduced wall in a location where they should be admiring the Charles River.

During the 2016 outrage, Cambridge and the DCR added similar walling across from the Hyatt, a former very popular feeding place.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o for an admiring third party video by Ernie Sarno showing the Charles River White Geese feeding there.  The video has had thousands of hits.

The walling / denying the Charles River White Geese their food is more subtle, but just as effective.  They cannot get over the installed stone structure.



Here are photos of displaced wild turkeys and of an individual wild turkey, both in residential parts of Cambridge last winter, courtesy of Phil Barber.








Here is a black squirrel in a doomed cottonwood, courtesy of Phil Barber.



The outrages on the Charles River viciously attack all forms of wild life.  The 36 year resident Charles River White Geese are only the most visible and most beloved.



The fake group which fights for all this destruction lying that it is a “neighborhood association”  has put on a propaganda show in City Hall Annex lying that the activities on the Charles River are responsible actions.

They have bragged about the heartless animal abuse in a plaque in the show, copied to the right.

But the fake groups and their Cambridge Development Department controllers keep destruction as secret as they can, while telling people to look at everything but the destruction,.   They praise irresponsible projects by keeping the bad stuff secret and oozing about how beneficial their destructive projects are.

They aggressively work to get support for irresponsible projects by very major lies of omission..

This lying by omission has been a standard technique of the three past City Managers. “Lack of transparency” is very much too mild to describe major environmental destruction simply kept secret in glowing presentations which conflict in reality with outrageously irresponsible goals.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation is not as commendable as the CDD and its robots, and the CDD and its robots are worthy of censure and very major pruning.

The City Manager needs to create responsible behavior and honesty in the government of the City of Cambridge, both in his employees and in the influenced “activists” who go to the Cambridge Development Department, directly or indirectly, to find out what they think.

Dishonesty has been too normal for too long on development matters in the City of Cambridge.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair, Friends of the White Geese,
and Individually

P.S. The official city record of our debunking of the “dead or dying” fraud is posted at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249.  The official record of the letter which presents the Inner Belt revived analysis is at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1825&Inline=True, pages 176 to 192.