Friday, October 24, 2014

Charles River: Toomey order on Grand Junction destructiveness Gutted

Charles River:  Toomey order on Grand Junction destructiveness Gutted


1. Prior report.
2. Area in question.
3. Motion as amended and passed.
4. Analysis.
5. Summary.


1. Prior report.

In my recent report at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/grand-junction-railroad-charles-river.html, I commended and analyzed Councilor Toomey’s concerning the Cambridge goal of environmental destruction along the Grand Junction Railroad Track.

Toomey’s motion read:

**********

WHEREAS: MIT's Property Feasibility Study for the Grand Junction Community Path has been completed; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on possible next steps to advance the creation of the Grand Junction Multi Use Path on City and CRA controlled property identified as Phase 1 in the Grand Junction Feasibility Study and report back to the City Council.

**********

2. Area in question.

Here is the relevant map.



The Toomey motion impacted SOLELY the area between Massachusetts Avenue and Binney Street, the second and fourth arrows from the bottom.


3. Motion as amended and passed.

Here is the motion as amended and passed:

***********

Order number 8, October 20, 2014

Toomey motion amended to read:

That the City Manager is requested to report back on possible next steps to advance the creation of the Grand Junction Multi Use Path on City and CRA controlled property identified as Phase 1 in the Grand Junction Feasibility Study and where possible to reach out to the Cities of Boston and Somerville to initiate coordination and to reach out and coordinate with MIT to delineate on the timeline on their portion of the Grand Junction.

Councillor Toomey. POR 2014 #306


***********

The language inserted reads:

***********

and where possible to reach out to the Cities of Boston and Somerville to initiate coordination and to reach out and coordinate with MIT to delineate on the timeline on their portion of the Grand Junction.

***********

Confusingly, this language replace a requirement to report back to the City Council.

Since the Development Department is aggressively fighting for this environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse, the report back requirement is not necessary.

4. Analysis.

Here is the map of the Grand Junction again.



The area at the top of the map is Somerville.  Beyond Somerville, the Grand Junction goes through Boston.  Much more importantly, however, is the bottom of the map which shows the Grand Junction going through Boston’s Allston neighborhood.

This is the area MassDOT has protected from Cambridge’s destructiveness.

So the motion went from an innocuous motion to a motion providing direction to gang up on MassDOT if possible.

5. Summary.

Cambridge, rotten Cambridge.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Grand Junction Railroad / Charles River: Good Order from Cambridge City Councilor Councillor Toomey

Grand Junction Railroad / Charles River: Good Order from Cambridge City Councilor Councillor Toomey

1. Introductory.
2. Councillor / State Representative Toomey’s Motion.
3. Context.
a. General.
b. Specific.
4. Evaluation.


1. Introductory.

In my report at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/charles-river-destruction-mit-goes.html, I transmitted key pages of a document published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

MIT is extremely destructive of the environment of the Charles River.  They are in support of the outrageous “Historic Parkways” destruction supported by Chapter 286 of the Acts of 2014 by the Massachusetts legislature.  MIT houses at least two groups fighting for destruction on the Charles River.

In my report, I passed on pages of the MIT document I consider of interest so that folks could have those subordinate documents in a usable form.

2. Councillor / State Representative Toomey’s Motion.

Order number 8 on the agenda for the October 20, 2014 meeting of the Cambridge City Council reads as follows:

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

COUNCILOR TOOMEY

WHEREAS: MIT's Property Feasibility Study for the Grand Junction Community Path has been completed; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on possible next steps to advance the creation of the Grand Junction Multi Use Path on City and CRA controlled property identified as Phase 1 in the Grand Junction Feasibility Study and report back to the City Council.


3. Context.

a. General.

Oddly, the MIT document which I reported on does not seem to have been formally submitted to the Cambridge City Council, as far as I can see.

I am tempted to toss a lot of maps and all other sort of documents into this analysis.  That is impractical because the MIT document is loaded with beautiful subdocuments which I would love to crop and use.  That cropping is a major effort.  That adds to a whole lot of beautiful documents I already have.  I will package these items in a report which I will publish in the very near future.

Councilor / Representative Toomey was one of the key people if not the key non MassDOT person in MassDOT’s defeat of passenger service on the same Grand Junction railroad tracks in Cambridge when that was proposed a few years ago.

b. Specific.

Working with these things really requires a good library.

Councilor Toomey refers to the “Grand Junction Feasibility Study” refers to a document of the Cambridge Development Department issued in 2006.  On page 79, it identifies three suggested “stages” for the bicycle highway.  Councilor Toomey quite certainly wrote his motion off the top of his head.  I have the advantage of having the document readily available, and he seems to be referring to this table, so I am correcting his terminology accordingly.

I am providing two items only.  Here is the map of the Grand Junction prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on which I have marked the intersections which would be impacted by initiatives on the Grand Junction.



Stage 1 of the bike highway proposal would be in the area between Massachusetts Avenue and Binney Street.  Counting from the bottom, these are identified by the second and fourth arrows.

Stage 2 is Toomey’s area of key interest.  It is the area above the fourth arrow.

Stage 3 includes the area of environmental concern with regard to the Charles River.  The area of environmental concern has been expanded by the MIT document.  Stage 3 is the area below the second arrow.  Stage 3 is larger than the environmentally sensitive area but includes it.

Secondly, I am providing, uncropped, one relevant page from the MIT package.  For usability purposes, I intend to crop this page into three separate documents.



4. Evaluation.

Excellent motion.

The basic concept of the bike highway is fine.  If the portion of the bike highway north of the point where the Grand Junction runs next to the bend of Vassar Street were connected to Vassar Street and then to Memorial Drive, the concept would be of great value.

On the MIT page, the relevant map is top left.   The Grand Junction Railroad is the diagonal brown, broken line running from the bottom of the map near the letters 4 and 5 up and to the right.  Vassar Street, in the area relevant is depicted in blue.  Vassar Street is between the Grand Junction Railroad and the Charles River which is at the bottom of the map.  Memorial Drive parallels the Charles River.  Vassar Street strikes Memorial Drive at a right angle.  Just above the point where Vassar Street strikes Memorial Drive, Vassar Street bends.  That bend is where the Grand Junction bike highway should connect to Vassar Street from the Grand Junction Railroad and then run to Memorial Drive.

The MIT document moves the area of concern back to Waverly Street by proposing a branch of the bike highway to Waverly Street.  That branching is just above the point where the bike highway should connect to Vassar Street and then to Memorial Drive.

Additionally, while I have no knowledge of problems in Stage 2, Toomey’s turf, I certainly defer, as reasonable, to him and to his constituents on problems in that area.

A further point of importance is that Councilor Toomey is limiting the interest of the City of Cambridge to its property and the property of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority.  Highly appropriate.

Thank you, Councilor Toomey.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Charles River Destruction: MIT Goes Public

Trying to achieve responsible goals in Cambridge, MA, USA, is made extremely difficult by all those “well-meaning” “activists” who claim to be on the side of the angels but who have a strong tendency to destroy the cause they claim to stand for.

With the rejection by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation of highway construction to the south side of the Charles River, a major purpose for fake “independence” has disappeared.

Additionally the local fake “protective” group is aggressively succeeding in its fight for whatever destruction is blessed by the City of Cambridge / its friends.

Thus, it comes as no surprise to see the Massachusetts Institute of Technology come out publicly in favor of yet more environmental destruction on the Charles River.  And their report lacks the deception of omission which has been normal in the City of Cambridge’s fight and the fight by the various fake groups.

This initiative comes in the form of a lovely booklet being submitted to the Cambridge City Council.

In the form which is generally available, the document is rather useless for communication on the Internet.  I anticipate that I will be using this belligerent confession of destructiveness in upcoming reports.  It does so happen, however, that, since I have converted key pages to make them useful, other responsible people might want to be able to use the converted documents.

Here are the key pages.  I will analyze this latest outrage in the future.



Page 2 of the file, page ii of the hard copy.





Page 4 of the file, page 2 of the hard copy.




Page 12 of the file, page 10 of the hard copy.




Page 14 of the file, page 12 of the hard copy.




Page 15 of the file, page 13 of the hard copy.




Page 18 of the file, page 16 (rear cover) of the hard copy

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

DCR starts new destruction on the Charles. Cambridge Machine activist sheds tears.

0. Introduction.
0.0 Reality and a destructive government.
1. Distressed report.
2. Kathy Podgers.
3. My response, 10/14/14 at 11:23 am.
4. Summary.

FLASH, VERY PRELIMINARY REPORT.

0. Introduction.

The first bad report of new destruction on the Charles River follows.

I would be pleased to work with HONORABLE people to protect the Charles River, individually and as chair of Friends of the White Geese.

The most important factor is to keep activists in the Cambridge Machine out of any and all efforts.

Past experience has shown the folly of trusting destructive people and fools.

The game of the Cambridge Machine is to control concerned people and to destroy their goals from within.  This is the standard tactic of the Cambridge Machine to achieve the opposite of what they claim to stand for.

And the person with the pious report is part of the package.

It most definitely is not too late.

But the con will be the contents of the last sentence in the tear jerking.

The most important thing is to recognize that every member of the Cambridge City Council is a proven enemy, to hold their feet to the fires of reality, and see if real exposure of their vileness converts them to the position they claim to stand for.

Discussion with members of the Cambridge delegation and communication to the Governor would be of value.

Decker, who received a copy of initial report, was one of the two most destructive members of the Cambridge City Council when she sat on it.

As far as contact with various people appointed by the Cambridge City Manager with lovely titles goes, Malvina Monteiro v City of Cambridge says everything that needs to be said.

Her life was destroyed because she stood up to what she considered destructive behavior of the City of Cambridge.

Judge, jury and appeals court panel gave the Cambridge City Council full power to fire Healy.  The Cambridge City Council saw nothing wrong with his behavior.

Judicial communications of “Reprehensible”, “Ample evidence of . . .outrageous misbehavior” and triple penal damages says everything that need be said of the dangers which exist for people who stand up for decency who have been appointed by the City of Cambridge.

0.0 Reality and a destructive government.

These are some of the trees Cambridge and its friends are fighting to destroy on the Charles River.

The first two pictures are in and out of season shots of the excellent and doomed grove at the Memorial Drive split.  The third photo is of the magnificent and doomed tree overwhelming the ghetto without food to which the 33 year resident Charles River White Geese are confined.

The individual tree is much more like the normal size of the doomed trees than are the trees in the grove.  The excellence of the grove clearly makes the grouping stand out.  The larger, normal sized, doomed trees are otherwise impossible to meaningfully photo because of inability to get proper angles.



1. Distressed report.

[I censored this person’s comment assisting in the destruction at Alewife while making pious noises of concern.]

Today running by the Charles, I encountered DCR trucks out cutting large limbs and even trunks of trees.. I asked why? And the man said it was for the regatta to have better views!!

Surely the life of trees and their contribution to our well being should trump some views.

Anything to do?

Too late??

Mourn and stop it for the future??

2. Kathy Podgers.

Indeed, I am sad at continued destruction of habitat along Memorial Drive. Although Bob La Tremoulle has been raising this issue for years, and [censoring favorable reference to bad guy who turned coat], and in spite of my videos about this and appeal to Gov Patrick, few here in Cambridgeport seem to care. It appears that those environmentalists who choose bikes over cars, prefer a view of the river as they ride to treas, and the wildlife that seek safe harbour within.
We have tried to raise consciousness with the Cambridge City Council, The Conservation Commission and even the Historic Preservation folks, all to no avail.
Take care, your neighbour, Kathy

3. My response, 10/14/14 at 11:23 am.

This is no surprise.

The main purpose of the fake neighborhood association with its fake protection of the Charles River is to achieve ALL destruction that Cambridge and the DCR want.

This is the reason behind the censorship of reality in the meetings, the corrupt vote of April 23, 2013, and the stacked agendas.

The "Cambridge Neighborhood Association" and its related frauds are a big, destructive lies.

4. Summary.

It is entirely possible that there are a lot of people associated with the fake groups who have been fooled.  The trouble is that it is impossible to tell the difference in these groups.

The fight to destroy Alewife could include no visible member who has been other than conned.  The recent fights to restore Rent Control almost certainly include no visible member who has been other than conned because their petitions included one key provision which stabbed their cause in the back.

This Cambridge, MA, USA, a really rotten political structure..

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Cambridge, MA, Charles River, Alewife, Common, and General Motors

Cambridge, MA, Charles River, Alewife, Common, and General Motors

1. Time Magazine and a reprehensible city government.
2. A responsible state agency, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT).
a. Underpasses.
b. Passenger service on the Grand Junction.
c. A new highway on the Grand Junction railroad bridge.
d. MassDOT behaves responsibly with regard to Cambridge type destruction on Cape Cod.
3. Contrast to the propaganda of the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge Machine.
a. Environmental.
b. Heartless Animal Abuse.
4. Time Magazine and a reprehensible city government - revisited.


1. Time Magazine and a reprehensible city government.

Time Magazine, October 6, 2014, page 34, in its report on General Motors reads as follows:

********

The 325-page Valukas report confirmed the worst: GM had known about the switch problem since 2001, but because of a culture of silence, obfuscation and buck passing, no one had taken steps to fix the problem.

********

General Motors’ problem with its cars carries the stench of Cambridge, MA with its environmental destruction, heartless animal abuse, and court condemned contempt for civil rights.

The big difference is that General Motors is taking steps to correct its world.  The Cambridge City Council is working to make its environmental outrages and heartless animal abuse worse, directly and through fellow travelers.

At least the voters of the City of Cambridge have taken action on the Cambridge City government’s contempt for civil rights.

A very major part of Cambridge’s culture of silence, obfuscation and buck passing comes from a system of a  massive organization of fake “protective” groups the Cambridge City Council hides behind.

The Cambridge Council has not been able to hide the Court Decisions in the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge.  Then fake protective groups and Cambridge’s accomplices in the state bureaucracy have not been able to hide the civil rights outrage which has been and could still be the reality in the City of Cambridge, MA.

Given the belligerent lack of action of the government of the City of Cambridge and action in the wrong direction,, Cambridge certainly looks like the General Motors of the past which Time magazine condemns.

The outrages of the past are outrages which the Cambridge City Council certainly looks like it has taken no action to clean up.

On environmental and animal abuse matters, the Cambridge City Council and its fellow travelers are clearly working to make things worse.

And the Massachusetts state legislature and governor have voted $20 million for destruction on hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive / the Charles River, in addition to the outrages at Alewife and on the Cambridge Common

2. A responsible state agency, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT).

a. Underpasses.

By contrast, a major thorn in the side of the Cambridge City Council is MassDOT.

Cambridge and its allies at the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation want a new highway for small vehicles on the banks of the Charles River.  The latest explanation for the $20 million in tree destruction is that highway.

MassDOT, as near as I understand the situation, has apparently killed part of that destructive highway, a bizarre and very destructive proposal to put underpasses in the Charles River under the next two bridges west of the BU Bridge over the Charles River, the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges.

b. Passenger service on the Grand Junction.

Individual Cambridge City Councilors and the Cambridge pols fought for very destructive passenger service on the Grand Junction Railroad through Cambridge.  This would be highly destructive to the animals who have lived on the Charles River but Cambridge reprehensible state bureaucrats have a goal for animals living on the Charles River.  They want to kill them all or drive them away.

Here is a map of the Grand Junction in Cambridge, MA.  Note at the bottom left, the access under the Massachusetts Turnpike.  This is the area the “activists” are fighting to connect to the Mass. Pike as an off ramp using whatever stalking horse works.



In addition to be highly destructive to the resident animals including the Charles River White Geese, the passenger service would tie up major city streets, going in exactly the opposite direction of placement of railroads in congested areas.  The new service would mess up the extremely busy roads of Massachusetts Avenue, Main Street, Broadway, Binney Street, Cambridge Street and Medford Street / Gore Street.

The fight for passenger service took a cynical method normal in Cambridge.  The pitch translates as: “I am your friend, I am your friend.  You can trust me,  you can’t win, but have I got a deal for you..”

One trouble with the Cambridge operation was that the fake groups are not as powerful in some parts of the City of Cambridge as they are in other parts of the City of Cambridge.

Furthermore, neither the City of Cambridge nor its fake groups control MassDOT.

MassDOT studied the idea and proved it stupid.  Their studies show the Cambridge proposal of no value to anybody except Cambridge’s Kendall Square.

So MassDOT vetoed it, at least for the time being.

c. A new highway on the Grand Junction railroad bridge.

Harvard bought massive railroad yards and the Massachusetts Turnpike exit to Allston, across the Charles River from Magazine Beach, an area larger than Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood.



They bought that area a few months after the state transit agency, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, demonstrated that an off ramp could be built to Cambridge over the Grand Junction railroad bridge under the BU Bridge through the goose and small animal habitat.

The MBTA’s connection was over the area in the lower left corner in the map in the preceding section.

A lot of environment destruction “independently” fought for can be explained as related to this off ramp, including the destruction of those hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive. The tree destruction straightens out Memorial Drive and makes it more fit to accept traffic from Harvard’s off ramp.

The tree destruction plans are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.

MassDOT is rearranging the Massachusetts Turnpike on the Boston side of the Charles River.  “Independent” individuals are fighting for Harvard’s off ramp claiming the latest stalking horse for widening the Grand Junction railroad bridge.

Here is the current appearance of the area where is proposed the stalking horse highway for Harvard’s off ramp to Cambridge.  This is the same area I pointed out on the official map.



MassDOT has rejected that stalking horse.

MassDOT has refused to include Harvard / Cambridge’s off ramp stalking horse in its plans for the Massachusetts Turnpike rearrangement.

d. MassDOT behaves responsibly with regard to Cambridge type destruction on Cape Cod.

I reported on a major outrage on Cape Cod in my last report, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/irresponsible-tree-clearing-on-cape-cod.html.

It appears that a contractor way overdestroyed what was intended to be a minor cleanup.

My analysis compares this screw up to Cambridge / its friends deliberate destruction at Alewife, on the Cambridge Common and on the Charles River.

3. Contrast to the propaganda of the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge Machine.

a. Environmental.

Cambridge and its stand ins lie that Cambridge is protecting the environment through word games.  They redefine environment as that part of the environment Cambridge is not destroying this week.  They then loudly proclaim the government of the City of Cambridge as a bunch of saints.

As part of the ongoing lie, the Cambridge City Council yells at private developers proposing to obey Cambridge and Belmont’s zoning in the irreplaceable Alewife woods.

Cambridge has destroyed more than 3.4 acres of the Alewife woods.  Here is a puff piece photograph of Cambridge bragging of the destruction.  The trees on the edge used to fit the entire area of the photo.



The Cambridge City Council does not mentioned the destruction by the Cambridge City Council in the Alewife woodlands nor do they mention that total destruction of public [ed: misstated as “private” until 11 am, 10/14/14, sorry] properties is highly likely given current policies.

The Cambridge City Council does not mention the fact that the crucial threat to the privately owned parts of the Alewife woods is irresponsible zoning by the governments in question.

But they do love to lie about themselves and call themselves saints by yelling at the other guy.

b. Heartless Animal Abuse.

Cambridge / their state bureaucrats have been deliberately starving the 33 year resident Charles River White Geese by walling them off from their food at the Magazine Beach playing fields by a massive introduced wall of vegetation.

These are before and after pictures.  The after is taken from the Boston Side.




That wall of vegetation has never been explained except for a guarantee in the Bible of the bureaucrats that their goal for the Magazine Beach playing fields is a lawn to the river, and non stop lies by the key bureaucrat that he has no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.  He, apparently, has redefined “harm” as other than deliberate starvation.

Cambridge is considering a highway for bikes in the middle of the tiny foodless area to which they have been confined.  Cambridge is considering a fence splitting the wild area in this part of the Charles River in two.

Cambridge and its irresponsible bureaucrats are following standard procedure in heartless animal abuse: destroy, destroy, destroy habitat.

At Alewife, they were more blunt.  They simply destroyed acres of virgin woods killing animals whose families lived there for centuries if they could not get out of the way.

Cambridge has an explanation:

YELL AT THE OTHER GUY.

Cambridge is mouthing pious about circus animals occasionally traveling through Cambridge.

Cambridge lies that Cambridge is something other than heartless animal abusers by yelling that its fellow heartless animal abusers occasionally run through Cambridge.

4. Time Magazine and a reprehensible city government - revisited.

The most important difference between General Motors and the reprehensible City of Cambridge is that General Motors now seems to have responsible management.

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

Irresponsible Tree Clearing on Cape Cod, MA — difference from the outrage which is Cambridge, MA, the Charles River, the Cambridge Common and Alewife.

1. Introduction and link: irresponsible tree clearing on Cape Cod.
2. Update.
3. Big Difference — Alewife.
4. Big Difference — Charles River.
5. Big Difference — Cambridge Common.
6. Big Difference — Standard Sickness.
7. Summary.


1. Introduction and link: irresponsible tree clearing on Cape Cod.

Dale Appel provided input on tree destruction on Cape Cod which I published on October 1 at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/cambridge-ma-input-on-tree-destruction.html.

She has since followed up with the following link on irresponsible underbrush clearing on Cape Cod:  http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/10/01/route-6-tree-clearing-project-outrages-cape-cod-residents/.

She has also provided me with the following photo from the Cape Cod Times.



The more barren half is the after picture.

2. Update.

Reports I have heard on WBZ indicate that the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) has apologized for excessive tree cutting and promised to plant new trees where the old were irresponsibly destroyed.

The position of MassDOT is that their instructions were to clean up vegetation within 25 feet of the highway.  If you will look at the before and after pictures, you can see an unplanted area to the right of the highway view in both shots.  This is what I anticipate they were talking about.

This 25 foot strip seems to be required on superhighways.  I have seen Massachusetts super highways in which signs were obscured because of failure to prevent blockage because on non maintenance of the side of the road.

Folks have demonstrated and spoken out concerning the irresponsible destruction.  MassDOT has stated that its contractor violated their contract and destroyed far more than was expected.

This sounds like a victory, albeit too late but a victory, and I congratulate both the residents and MassDOT.

I would anticipate that MassDOT intends to collect from the contractor both for any excessive billing to MassDOT for work and for MassDOT’s cost of cleaning up the situation.

3. Big Difference — Alewife.

Here is a photo of what Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation did to the Alewife woodlands, an area of great value not only for its intrinsic value, but also because it is so rare in the area.  The trees which can be seen way in the distance used to fill the entire area of the photograph.



Instead of apologizing for the destruction, Cambridge is bragging about it.  This is a photo attached to a puff piece from them printed on the internet.  The Cambridge City Council explanation is to hypocritically yell at neighboring private developers and keep its own vileness as secret as possible.

4. Big Difference — Charles River.

Chapter 286 of the Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways” includes $20 million for the destruction of hundreds of uniformly excellent trees at on Memorial Drive next to the Charles River.

The destruction plans have been posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.

The explanations for destruction have varied with regard to what any particular audience would sucker for.

The initial explanation translated as “Won’t it look great in 40 years.”

The explanation to the Boston Globe was a typical, and not at all unusual lie.  This lie was that all the trees being destroyed were diseased.  The diseased trees were destroyed in phase 1.  This is phase 2.  The bureaucrats' plan at the link very clearly indicates no diseased trees.

The explanation then started as fraud by misrepresentation.  The falsely named Charles River Conservancy ran around getting signatures approving an irresponsible underpass project under the next three bridge over the Charles.  This project was condemned by MassDOT, a responsible state agency.

CRC, when it announced the predecessor to Chapter 286 stated that the destruction of hundreds trees is incidental to the irresponsible underpasses.  This, thus, is the lie they used to get the destruction of those hundreds of trees into Chapter 286 of the Acts of 2014.

Ever since, the explanation has been deafening silence.

Most importantly in the silence has been a fake neighborhood association which has been lying of its concern for the Charles River and fighting for massive destruction by calling it anti Charles River to defend the Charles River.  Their big lie has been emphasis on an old building they yell about, combined with multiple examples of corrupt tactics to prevent and VETO, as necessary, any meaningful discussion.

This outrage is normal in Cambridge, MA.  It is a system by which a reprehensible government lies to its voters of its own sainthood while achieving exactly the opposite of what it claims to stand for.

One standard con game from the Cambridge City Council is a sudden concern about animal abuse in traveling circuses, while keeping their own heartless animal abuse as secret as possible.

Here are four relevant photos.

Two photos (in and out of season) are presented of the excellent grove at the Memorial Drive split which the destroyers are fighting to destroy.



Two photos are presented as well of the excellent tree east of the BU Bridge.  It proudly stands above the Destroyed Nesting Area.  This tree at the BU Bridge is normal size among the hundreds slated for destruction.  The others are impossible to meaningfully photograph.  They are so large.  You cannot get the angle.

The key woman fighting for all the destruction in the fake neighborhood association has flat out lied about her position on this destruction.  She had the nerve to say that she is not fighting to destroy this tree.



This tree appears on the first plan page of the destruction plan (link above).  It immediately follows the cover page.  The grove slated for destruction is a few pages in.  Trees slated for destruction are greyed.

5. Big Difference — Cambridge Common.

Cambridge’s irresponsible planning department has fought for this destruction for perhaps ten years or so.

There, I believe, is also state money involved.

The Cambridge City Council is belligerently destroying the excellent grove of trees at the Harvard Square entrance to the Cambridge Common. As usual, they are destroying while lying about their own sainthood.

Here is a photo of the excellent grove leading into the Cambridge Common from Harvard Square.  It is about to be devastated by the vile Cambridge City Council.



One of my reports on this outrage was the topic of one of my weekly Cable Shows.  That clip is posted at http://youtu.be/ FgQ9ojVuMxM.  The clip includes a number of photos of excellent, condemned trees.

I published a report on the less visible planned destruction on the Cambridge Common at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/cambridge-ma-usa-common-other-trees.html.

6. Big Difference — Standard Sickness.

On the Charles River, the sickos brag about planting saplings in place of mature trees needlessly being destroyed.

These vile people deliberately confuse the situation on the Cape with the outrage on Memorial Drive.

On the Cape, MassDOT seems to be ordering its contractor to plant saplings to replace mature, excellent trees which should not have destroyed.

On Memorial Drive, the sickos are fighting for DELIBERATE, NEEDLESS destruction, then planting saplings.  They lie that this is the same as what MassDOT correction of unintended destruction which MassDOT is proposing on the cape.

It is not the same.  MassDOT is doing what little it can to correct irresponsible, unauthorized destruction.  The sickos acting as Fronts for the City of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation are lying that DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION is saintly if “CORRECTED” in the manner of accidental, untended destruction.

At Alewife, Cambridge brags of destruction and has no intention to provide any “replacement”.

On the Cambridge Common, there may be saplings involved.  I am not aware of it.  If saplings are planted, those sapling plantings would be no less vile than the outrage on the Charles River.

7. Summary.

I think MassDOT seems to be doing the best it can with an unintended outrage.

The government of the City of Cambridge, particularly its City Council, is simply grossly irresponsible, with help in irresponsible destruction by Governor Patrick and the legislature.

Additionally, and this is by no means minor, the government of the City of Cambridge, and their accomplices, hide behind fake "protective" groups fighting for destruction while lying that they are doing the opposite.  Those fake groups have horribly filthy hands with the corrupt tactics they use to prevent the sort of organizing which has been so successful, albeit late, on Cape Cod.

Sunday, October 05, 2014

Letters, Destroyed Street Trees, Heartless Animal Abuse, Mass. Pike (I90)

1. Introduction.
2. George Despotes, following up on the Dana Street destruction.
a. Comment
b. Response.
3. Shelley Patterson.
a. Fencing off the Destroyed Nesting Area from the adjacent wild area.
(1) Comment.
(2) Response.
(a) General, to Shelly.
(b) Supplement.  General.
(c) Specific.
b. Dana Street tree destruction.
(1) Comment.
(2) Response.
c. Mass. Pike (I90) Changes.
(1)  Introduction.
(2) Comment.
(3) Response.
(a) Mostly short term, connections to Soldiers Field Road east bound.
(b) Long Term.  The off ramp to Cambridge from I90 (Mass. Pike).




1. Introduction.

A few days ago, I published photos of the remnants of destroyed street trees in Cambridge, which fits a distressing pattern.

I have gotten a number of responses, and published one from Dale Appel already.

Dale has given a constructive response.

In the meantime, I have several other good inputs which I have not yet passed on.  I have spent a lot of time responding and little time posting.

I am going to try to pass on good ones in the order I received them, and then come back to Dale’s second comment.

I am swamped personally, and I do not want to swamp the folks who are receiving these communications, so I am doing what I can do.  It is rather frustrating spending a lot of time responding to good points and then not having the time to post the good points.

My responses may or may not have been previously transmitted to the contributor either in whole or in part.

Additionally, my apologies to folks tuning in for the first time, my responses are fairly long without going into the real details of the issues.  I regret that I just cannot fully explain each issue.

And really, the size of this report shows the reason why this entire package is delayed.

2. George Despotes, following up on the Dana Street destruction.

a. Comment

Clearly the trees reduce the temperature on hot summer days; there are costs to air conditioning!:

Trees certainly create a sense of relaxation which I think is important for all of us.

b. Response.

One of the greatest horror in Cambridge, MA, USA, is the nonstop lying of sainthood on environmental and animal abuse matters.  Both are defined as standing up to the other guy and how dare you object to the reprehensible record of the Cambridge City Council.

If it were not for the lying and the massive organization backing up the lies, the incumbents lying the loudest about sainthood would be replaced by responsible people, and the multiplying nightmare would not exist.

The same outrage exists for folks concerned about civil rights and women’s rights (Monteiro v. Cambridge and the total lack of even considering firing a city manager condemned by judge, jury, and appeals court panel for destroying the life of a black Cape Verdean woman heading the Police Review department).

The councilor who almost certainly was fired by the voters over Monteiro failed again last time.  The second councilor who could have been fired over Monteiro has a FOR SALE sign up.  He was fired in the next election.  It is quite certain, I would think, that the Monteiro outrage was part of the reason for firing.

3. Shelley Patterson.

Shelley had four good comments.  Unfortunately, I can only find three.  The horror is the amount of time I have spent responding to the three.

a. Fencing off the Destroyed Nesting Area from the adjacent wild area.

This concerns the highway construction on the Grand Junction.  Here is the map from the key plans.  The J is in the middle of the destroyed nesting area.  The plans call for a fence to divide animal areas on the Charles River next to the Charles River.  The fence would parallel the new highway.



This excellent tree towers over the Destroyed Nesting Area and its highway.  It would be destroyed by the $20 million from the Governor and the legislature for massive tree destruction with fake “neutrality” from the reprehensible Cambridge City Council.



(1) Comment.

This is probably too much to ask of the city, but if the city wins and cannot be stopped from implementing their plan, perhaps they would agree to build a little bridge in the bike route, with a passage under it for the geese, so that the geese could still at least reach the wild area?

(2) Response.

(a) General, to Shelly.

This is a political matter with the focal points a whole bunch of fake groups, which run in lock step with the City Manager and his friends.

The city council would not dream of a humane exemption to that fence and the geese would not use it anyway. The city council gets what credit for "decency" it wants simply by lying. The geese would be horrified by the confinement of an exemption to the fence.

Plus that highway in the Destroyed Nesting Area is just one more step at total destruction of all resident animals, which the goal of the DCR as spelled out in their beloved document.

Expecting decency out of these reprehensible people is demonstrated at a silly expectation because the corrections needed at the playing fields are so minor. The starvation wall is the only place on the Charles River where the bank is deliberately blocked off from the river. The poisons they are sewing can readily be corrected by sewing responsible grass seed instead.

So the Cambridge Machine is using corrupt tactics to expand the outrage after a public meeting in which they should have lost, except for belligerent corruption on their part.

MassDOT is helping the cause as far as responsible behavior goes.

(b) Supplement.  General.

The reality is that running the highway south of Memorial Drive is inexcuseable.

Here, once again, is the location where the bike highway should be connected to Vassar Street at the Vassar Street turn, and then to Memorial Drive which is on the other side of the building south of the sensible connection.




The only building between the responsible connection and Memorial Drive can be seen on the left of the second photo.

The state bureaucrats, with the aggressive assistance of the Cambridge City Council have a goal of killing off or driving away all animals on the Charles River basin.

The outrage follows a normal tactic: first destroy this part of the habitat, then destroy another part, and finally you kill all the animals off.

The outrage is that much more vile because the destruction of the food and primary residence of the Charles River White Geese at the Magazine Beach playing fields for most of the last 33 years is so easy to fix.

They are walled off from their food and home by an introduced wall of bushes which do not exist anywhere else on the Charles River Basin.  Everywhere else, the bureaucrats and their agents destroying bordering vegetation twice a year.  This has simply been allowed to grow.

The poisoning of the grass at Magazine Beach is just an excellent example of belligerent incompetence destructive of the Charles River, and demonstrating total lack of fitness for managing the environment.  A responsible agency would stop spending money on poisons to keep alive sickly grass they introduced.  A responsible agency would spend the money on seed for the excellent grass they destroyed.

The sickness get worse because the bureaucrats are fighting to expand the outrage, assisted by constant corruption of the fake neighborhood association.  The fake neighborhood association conducted on real meeting on the Charles River nearly two years ago.

They could not win, so it has been nonstop corruption, abuse of power and abuse of agenda, with the clear intent of suppressing reality and lying of a false reality while expanding an outrage that was created in secret.

And, by the usual Company union corrutption, fighting for all destruction supported by their friends by lying of concern and preventing discussion of their outrages they are fighting for.

MassDOT has vetoed a highway on the Grand Junction railroad bridge.  The bad guys swear they will fight again in three years.  And, as usual, sound so sweet.

The fence in the plans without a crossing looks like it would go up to the bridge anyway.

(c) Specific.

The latest report of the city council committee on this matter included a gorgeous portfolio by the Cambridge Development Department.

The portfolio has a page of samples of bikes next to railroad tracks.  There are six pictures.  Four of the pictures clearly lack the fence the Development Department is fighting for.  One looks like it has a fence and the last one is uncertain.

b. Dana Street tree destruction.

(1) Comment.

Are there any lawyers in your group? Violation of a city ordinance should be punishable?

(2) Response.

First of all, the Cambridge Machine loves lawsuits. They keep trouble makers out of trouble.

The ordinances are tools by which a municipality protects the municipality. They are not written as tools to protect the world from a municipality.

The most "protection" that exists for street trees is a decision of a bureaucrat which is unreviewable. This is in a city where a department head, black, Cape Verdean, woman bureaucrat had her life destroyed for filing a civil rights / women's rights complaint. Judge, jury and appeals court panel gave the Cambridge City Council full power to fire the preceding city manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension because of the Court outrage over his behavior. The Cambridge City Council saw nothing wrong with the behavior of the city manager and "did not notice" the very strong Court condemnations. One and possibly two city councilors have been fired by the voters over this outrage.

That sends a very strong message to all persons subject to the whim of the Cambridge City Manager. The City Council's stench has not changed in the slightest.

The City of Cambridge has a massive organization lying that the Cambridge City Council is holier than thou, and the Cambridge City Council supports their non stop outrages by yelling at the other guy, usually on matters not within the jurisdiction of the Cambridge City Council. That major hypocrisy is business as usual.

c. Mass. Pike (I90) Changes.

(1)  Introduction.

Here is the MassDOT map of the area they are working on, outlined in orange.

At the top is the Charles River.

My comments on new connections being built by MassDOT to Soldiers Field Road are in the top left.
The new connecting roads are two.

The traffic coming traveling east to the Mass. Pike would, generally, follow the near vertical line in the far left and the near horizontal line below it.  The new east bound ramp would connect to Soldiers Field Road at some point in the curve of the Orange Line at the top.

The intersection whose traffic would no longer see the relocated traffic is at the intersection of the Orange Line at the top and the River Street Bridge, which crosses the Charles River at the far left.

At the very top on the right is the BU Bridge.  Running under it to the top corner of the Orange Line is the Grand Junction railroad bridge.



(2) Comment.

Re Harvard: Might voters speak out if they are made aware of the potential increase in traffic which this plan would bring to Allston, Cambridge, etc.?

(3) Response.

There are two aspects to the Mass. Pike Changes, Short Term and Long Term.

(a) Mostly short term, connections to Soldiers Field Road east bound.

This is MassDOT. MassDOT are the good guys.

By killing the highway over the Grand Junction bridge, they have at least delayed major destruction, and harm to the animal population.

The changes MassDOT are doing are very competent, very effective good work, and will likely improve the Mass. Pike impact.

The traffic problems come in two parts, neither from the MassDOT actions in this project.

First, Harvard bought the Mass. Pike exit / railroad yard area several months after the MBTA proved a Mass. Pike off ramp to Cambridge was feasible over the Grand Junction, and a whole bunch of destructive things, including the $20 million project to destroy hundreds of trees are part of it.

Secondly, there will be major traffic impact but the impact is from Harvard's project.

The construction now going up at North Harvard and Western is Harvard Square density plus.
The Mass. Pike area owned by Harvard exceeds the size of the Back Bay. It very clearly is intended to be a relocation of the Harvard Medical Area's scholastic facilities, including but very much not limited to Harvard Medical School. Build at the same density as at North Harvard and Western, and you have major traffic impact.

The MassDOT plans would include a good rearrangment of traffic currently feeding to the intersection which includes the River Street Bridge (next to the west from the BU Bridge).

Currently all traffic coming from the west to the Mass. Pike and coming from the Mass. Pike to go to the east go through that intersection.

The plans call for traffic coming from the west to be relocated to a new intersection south of this intersection, spreading out traffic impact.

The plans call from traffic coming from the Mass. Pike and going east to be funneled to the local boulevard (Soldiers Field Road) by a new on ramp east of that intersection, keeping that traffic out of the intersection.

Regretfully, the improvements can only impact traffic on the eastbound side of Soldiers Field Road.  There is simply not enough room to make significant improvement to the westbound traffic.

(b) Long Term.  The off ramp to Cambridge from I90 (Mass. Pike).

This is the off ramp to Cambridge over the Grand Junction bridge.  The bad guys are sworn to get their con games in order.  Their fight is for various tools to put the off ramp in place through one subterfuge or another.

MassDOT has stood up to them, but Harvard thinks in centuries.  Harvard gets one thing this decade and another thing next decade.

The destruction of those hundreds of trees in the $20 million supported by Governor Patrick and the legislature is designed to straighten out Memorial Drive, the boulevard north of the Charles River, to receive the traffic from that off ramp.

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Cambridge, MA: Input on tree destruction from a Cape Cod community.

1. Introduction.
2. Report.
3. Editor’s Response
4. Prior report.


1. Introduction.

I have been pleased with some excellent responses to my report on street tree destruction in Cambridge.  More reports will follow.  A number of other responses are not available to me as I write this report because of website malfunction.  My response has been edited.

2. Report.

A similar thing just happened in Sandwich, MA.

3. Editor’s Response

It is my understanding and my hope that irresponsible tree destruction is much less common elsewhere.

I very strongly appreciate the report.

Then again, I would be very interested to get more such reports and find out if the vileness in Cambridge exists elsewhere.

I do not want to understate the impact of irresponsible tree destruction elsewhere.  I could be wrong, to my horror.  However, it seems to me that the destructiveness of Cambridge, MA, is very much not normal in other communities.

Many communities have difficulty planting trees.

Cambridge, MA destroys trees.

Cambridge's apologists casually brag that destroying excellent mature trees does not count.  They imply to people that concerned people should be ashamed of their concern.

Cambridge's apologists brag to people that they are planting saplings to replace trees they should not have destroyed in the first place.  This is supposed to be some sort of thing to be proud of?

In Cambridge, MA, USA tree destruction of excellent, healthy trees by the government is normal.

The massive destruction at Alewife, on the Charles River and on the Cambridge Common raises the destruction to the level that the destruction is downright sick.

The destruction of the street trees I reported appears to be a tiny fraction of Cambridge's destructiveness, but it is visible.  Cambridge destructiveness is commonly understated to the victims giving the impression that it is something unusual.

This is not to say that there was not a valid reason to destroy these street trees.  I do not know and the apparent failure to post fits the destruction into the normal, vile situation in the City of Cambridge.

There commonly is no valid reason for Cambridge’s tree destruction.  Cambridge just destroys.

$20 million in state funds is coming to destroy hundred of trees on Memorial Drive on the Charles River, primarily because Cambridge has such an irresponsible city government hand in glove with irresponsible state bureaucrats.

But the contractors love it. These are the guys who get the class patronage of big bucks to destroy trees and to "replace" trees which should never have been destroyed in the first place.

I am forced to seriously consider voting for third party candidates for governor. At least they / the Republicans will be less hand in glove with these irresponsible people than is Patrick who blessed that $20 million in tree destruction.

Basically, Cambridge has money to throw at the contractors and an overstuffed Development Department which needs to justify high paying jobs with destructive projects. And that outrageous machine doing so much lying

4. Prior report.

My prior report with photos is at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/cambridge-ma-usa-destroys-more-trees.html

Monday, September 29, 2014

Cambridge, MA, USA Destroys More Trees, Missed Show

1. Introduction.
2. Context.
3. These Destroyed Trees.
a. 36 Dana Street, Chatham Side, Tree Number 1.
b. 36 Dana Street, Chatham Side, Tree Number 2.
c. 38 Dana Street, Dana Side.
d. 40 Dana Street.
4. Missed show shortly after photos.


1. Introduction.

George Despotes has been kind enough to report apparently wanton tree destruction by the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, about five block or so from the impending outrage on the Cambridge Common.

He says no notices were posted, in violation of one of Cambridge's supposed ordinances.

2. Context.

The key to environmental destruction in Cambridge is fake protections under which folks are given a chance to object, then Cambridge frequently goes ahead with the irresponsible destruction Cambridge wanted to do in the first place.

But they were “heard”.

Destruction of street trees has been highly controversial but excessively common.

This fits the outrage on the Cambridge Common.

This fits the outrage at Alewife.

This fits the outrage on the Charles River.

The position of the City Councilors is always well meaning, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE YELLING AT THE OTHER GUY.

This fits the outrage on the Cambridge Common.

This fits the outrage at Alewife.

This fits the outrage on the Charles River.

And then, of course, you have all those fake groups falsely praising an envirionmentally destructive City Council with its constant pious noises and not wanting to know about what it is doing.

This fits the outrage on the Cambridge Common.

This fits the outrage at Alewife.

This fits the outrage on the Charles River.

It will be interesting to see if there is any input from the Cambridge City Council.

All members of the Cambridge City Council receive abbreviated, email, versions of these posts, with links unless the email contains the total content of the blog report.

And the Cambridge City Council, along with its fake groups constantly tells us about its sainthood.

It does differ from one fake group fighting for destruction on the Charles River.  They use whatever corrupt tactics work to prevent meaningful discussion of reality while lying of sainthood.  And fighting for whatever destruction they keep secret through their corrupt tactics.

3. These Destroyed Trees.

On September 28, at about 5:30 pm, I went to the area George reported and took multiple photos of tree stumps.

Three out of four destroyed trees looked like recent destruction.

I saw no signs of any explanation for destruction or notice of intent to destroy.

a. 36 Dana Street, Chatham Side, Tree Number 1.






b. 36 Dana Street, Chatham Side, Tree Number 2.







c. 38 Dana Street, Dana Side.





d. 40 Dana Street.





4. Missed show shortly after photos.

This shoot was about an hour before my scheduled Cable Show on Channel 9, Cambridge, MA at 6:30 pm on Sundays.  If you were watching for me, I hope the folks apologized for me.

What happened was that, at about 6:10 pm, I hit the wall.

A gentleman was working in the studio on, I believe, matters related to his show.

I asked if he would be willing to take my show.  He was kind enough to do so and CCTV management assisted, given my problem.

I had worked on a movie gig the prior day, from 4:40 am to 8 pm.  I did not get a great deal of advanced notice and got much less sleep than I would have liked before the gig.  After the gig, I tried to get enough sleep to compensate.  It did not work.  I was sleeped out, and I found myself in a bad position when I would have liked to do my show.

I am sorry I was not able to do the show.

If he had not been around, I would have gone forward with my show, but I have seen those symptoms before.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Mass. Pike over Charles River: The Cambridge side. Plus Update of Series.

Mass. Pike over Charles River: The Cambridge side.  Plus Update of Series.


1. Introductory.
2. The Cambridge Side of the Charles River.
3. The position of the Cambridge City Council on their heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
4. Update, September 25, 2014.
a. Green Line A Spur.
b. Highway over the Charles.


1. Introductory.

This is the fourth in a series of reports on presentation of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) concerning MassDOT’s ongoing work on rearranging the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) on the Allston (Boston) side of the Charles River.

Prior reports were printed as follows:

a. General Summary.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/mass.html

b. Possible Green Line A spur to service Harvard’s new Harvard Medical School area.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/mass-pike-over-charles-river-possible.html.

c. Rejection of Cambridge’s initiative to run a highway over the Grand Junction railroad bridge. over the Charles River.  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/mass-pike-over-charles-river-massdot.html.

2. The Cambridge Side of the Charles River.

Here are a few photos of the area which is the foodless prison of the Charles River White Geese.  It used to be their nesting area.  Their home and food for most of the last 33 years at Magazine Beach has been blocked to them by the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields.

The state (with the obvious general support of key planning staff in Cambridge) has destroyed as much ground vegetation in their prison / former nesting area as it can get away with.  The Cambridge Conservation Commission has been helpful within the severe limits of its jurisdiction.









There are photos of beauty.  There are photos of devastation care of the reprehensible state bureaucrats with help from the City of Cambridge.  There are photos of nature working to heal itself.  Nature could possibly heal itself if allowed to so, but the food of the Charles River White Geese will not come back without an end to the deliberate starvation of them by the Cambridge City Council and the state bureaucrats.

This is the area targeted for a bicycle highway by the plans under consideration by the Cambridge City Council.  Their highway will include a fence blocking access by them to the other part of the wild area.  I went into details on this fence in the last report, on the highway to Boston.

This report overlaps a lot of photos provided in that report.  I will not go over them again. (1.c, above).

The area on the far side of the Grand Junction railroad bridge is further animal habitat to which the Charles River White Geese have been forced to go to get protection for their nests after the Machine destroyed their ground vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Cambridge and the DCR are starving the Charles River White Geese.

Cambridge’s plans would build a fence separating the Destroyed Nesting Area for the balance of the animal habitat.

If you follow the Grand Junction away from the Charles River, you will come to a white building on your right, with a parking lot closer to the Charles.  This parking lot is all that separates the Grand Junction from Vassar Street.  It turns at its nearest point to the Grand Junction and proceeds to Memorial Drive.

Here are two photos of the building between the Grand Junction and Vassar Street.




The first photo shows the back of the building facing the Grand Junction railroad.  The second photo, from Vassar Street, shows the side of the building perpendicular to the Grand Junction railroad.  Putting in a bike highway next to that building connecting the Grand Junction to Vassar Street would be simple, and could be done with relatively little land taking from the property owner.

They go to Memorial Drive by this route and they have achieved their goals without increasing the heartless animal abuse they have inflicted on the Charles River White Geese, with a lot less expense, and with a much shorter route for the bicyclists and pedestrians.

Here is a photo of the excellent tree looming above the Destroyed Nesting Area which would be destroyed under Chapter 286 of the Acts of 2014.  The photo is taken from the Bike Highway route proposed in the Destroyed Nesting Area.



The woman leading the con game to keep people from protecting the Charles River was flat out shocked when I pointed out that she was destroying this excellent tree.  She has persisted in her con game without abate.

Then again, her con game is so without merit that the only question which exists with regard to her presentations in very controlled Cambridge Machine meetings is the nature of the excuse or other maneuver the Machine will use to prevent any and all response to her nonsense.

The tree destruction plans are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.  The very first page is a cover sheet.  The next page is destruction at the Destroyed Nesting Area.  This tree is shown at the top of the plan and is clearly marked for destruction.

The Cambridge City Council was “neutral” on the destruction of this excellent tree and hundreds of its fellows.  Two members of the Cambridge City Council, Cheung and McGovern publicly support this highway route.

3. The position of the Cambridge City Council on their heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.

Here is a copy of an order seeking legal advice on the Cambridge City Council’s defending Cambridge from heartless animal abusers in traveling shows.



The Cambridge City Council through tactics of this sort, with minimal relevance to the City of Cambridge, routinely lies to the voters that the Cambridge City Council is holier than thou.

The reality is the ongoing heartless starvation of the 33 year resident Charles River White Geese by the Cambridge City Council and by the state bureaucrats who want to kill off all animal residence of the Charles River Basin or drive them away.

The reality is the destruction of 3.4 acres or more of the Alewife Reservation along with the same state bureaucrats along with an “unavoidable” pogrom of animals whose families lived in that area for centuries.  The reality at Alewife is that the current policies of the Cambridge City Council will likely lead to the total destruction of the Alewife woodlands and a further animal pogrom.

But the Cambridge City Council does a lot of lying about itself through self proclamations of sainthood by yelling at the other guy and keeping the vileness of the Cambridge City Council as secret as possible.

4. Update, September 25, 2014.

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014, the fake neighborhood association conducted a meeting which included presentations concerning the Massachusetts Turnpike project.  I will go into greater detail on that meeting in a later report.

However, there were two points made which impact this series of reports.

a. Green Line A Spur.

My understanding was that the state plans concerning the Mass. Pike viaduct’s rebuilding was that the rebuilding would not bring the viaduct closer to Boston University buildings south of the viaduct.

There was a comment that the existing viaduct in, at least in part, above Boston University property.

The comments of the speaker left me uncertain if the original announcement that the viaduct would not be moving closer to the BU buildings still applies.  I questioned the representative and was left uncertain on this issue.

Clearly, it is not the intent of MassDOT to do any land takings in the current project, and it seems that the existing viaduct is not only at the BU property line, it is at least partially over the property line.

This does not seem to change my idea that a Green Line spur could be placed between the two.  It would simply require the use of eminent domain, which is not unusual for transportation projects.

The possibility, however, of a stop for Boston University’s high rise dormitories and the neighboring arena could possibly bring BU’s support of the idea without a major fight.

Additionally, however, new direct subway transportation for BU to Harvard Square and the Red Line would clearly be in BU’s best interests, along with the improved service for this complex to downtown Boston in the other direction.

My report with photos on the possible Green Line spur is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-green-line-streetcar-light-rail.html.

The two key maps are in the second report of this series concerning the possible Green Line A spur, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/mass-pike-over-charles-river-possible.html.

b. Highway over the Charles.

Along with the MassDOT representative also appeared a representative of a Machine related group in Allston.  I have gone into an extended analysis of the machinations of these various maneuvered groups.  She fits the exact pattern.  As ever, it is impossible to comment on whether she is a true core person or just one of the many folks the Machine drags into its initiatives.

She confirms my understanding that MassDOT has killed the highway plans.

She, speaking from the usual sales pitch mentality, foresees resuming the fight in, I believe, three years.

So, from the Machine point of view, they are hoping to get around MassDOT.

Thank God for MassDOT.