Saturday, August 18, 2018

Charles River Destroyer now consulting on I90 Rebuild Project impacting the Charles

Charles River Destroyer now consulting on I90 Rebuild Project impacting the Charles

1. Introduction.

Our reports have included a great deal of detail about the planned rebuild of Interstate 90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in Boston on the south side of the Charles River from Magazine Beach.

Thi project is being conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) which owns the highways and the bridges abutting the Charles River, including I90.  The parklands are owned by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR.)

MassDOT has a new consultant added to the team which has been assisting MassDOT in the planning for this project. 

People who fought for outrages already achieved on the Cambridge side of the Charles are fighting for many changes which would damage in Cambridge and for a change WHICH WOULD DESTROY ABOUT HALF A MILE OF CHARLES RIVER RIVERFRONT in the project area.

The new member of the consulting team LED the predecessor of the DCR, the Metropolitan District Commission when the MDC created the terrible plans which have now been implemented by the DCR.

Here is a state created satellite photo showing the relationship between I90 and the Magazine Beach playing fields. 

The Magazine Beach Recreation Area WHICH UNDER IMMINENT THREAT OF OUTRAGEOUS DESTRUCTION includes the playing fields and extends way up that side of the Charles River as far as the green trees can be seen.

I90 is on the left.  This highway area is the area which is the current focus of the I90 planning study, as near as I can gather.  This latest study is based on orders of the Massachusetts Environmental Secretary.

The principal part of the area in the I90 planning is much larger area than the area in the picture.  It is to the left of the curve on the left.  That area is not relevant to the current study.

In the area of study, running between the two bends on the Boston side is an area which would be destroyed by one of the alternatives under consideration.  People who supported the accomplished outrages on the Cambridge side support the destruction of those trees and the riverbank on which they stand.

And the guy who approved the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Cambridge side is now a consultant on the I90 project.


To the right of and not showing in the photo is the BU Bridge and the Destroyed Nesting Area, the ghetto which is all that is left of the formerly mile long habitat of the Charles River White Geese, which, in turn, was centered on the BU Bridge.

To the right (east) of this photo, including the DNA, is the area which was the target of the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees by the entity which currently owns the parkland on the Cambridge side of the Charles, the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Here is MassDOT’s overall map of the area:


The area at the bottom left is part of the area shown in the satellite photo.  The BU Bridge can be seen crossing the river.

January 2016 destruction of hundreds of trees, APPROVED BY THE NEW CONSULTANT, ran on the upper (Cambridge) side of the Charles River almost from the BU Bridge, crossing the Charles at the bottom left, past the Mass. Ave. Bridge (officially the “Harvard Bridge”) and almost to the Longfellow Bridge, the next bridge up.

The Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese is on the Cambridge side of the river, to the right of the BU bridge and under Memorial Drive which follows the river.

We have recorded the destruction of the hundreds of excellent trees destroyed in January 2016 in our video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

The  Cambridge City Council and the DCR are currently working to destroy 56 more excellent trees starting at the playing fields and running west, plus other destruction.  This is the next stage of the destruction approved by the new consultant.  Our analysis of those plans with photos is posted at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html

Here is an on the ground photo showing only part (to the right) of the area which could be destroyed should the I90 changes be implemented.



It is our opinion that the Department of Conservation and Recreation and its predecessor are / were unfit to manage the environment, especially the environment of the Charles River. 

The new consultant who led the meeting of the advisory committee discussing changes to the area in the above pictures APPROVED THE DESTRUCTION ALREADY ACHIEVED.   I certainly do not think less unfavorably of him than I do of his destructive, incompetent agency..

2. Formal Objection.

[We have XXXX'd out one individual's name.  While his name has significance to the addressees of the letter, this blog has been viewed in more than 100 countries, and the identity of this person is of no relevance to such a broadly read publication.  The reference is so peripheral, it is not of value herein.]

A. Body of objection.

The following letter is being sent by me, individually and on behalf of Friends of the White Geese to the state environmental secretary, the state secretary of MassDOT, the Cambridge City Manager, and the Cambridge City Council objecting to the presence of this person as a consultant on the I90 study.

* * *

Gentlemen / Ladies:
On August 15, 2018, representing Friends of the White Geese, I attended a presentation to the I90 Advisory Committee primarily by a consultant from, I presume, Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.  I have attended as many meetings of this committee as I have been aware of and have been able to attend.  I have repeatedly asked that I receive notification of the meetings.  In spite of the repeated requests, I have received no such notification.

You will recall that the most important change to date in the plans for the I90 rebuild were based on our recommendations, the creation of a direct connection from the main project area to Soldiers Field Road inbound east of the hotel complex.  In spite of this, and in direct violation of my request, I do not believe I have ever received notification of any meeting of the advisory committee.

Additionally, I have a dramatic record of achievements in the City of Cambridge.  I have previously provided you with an abbreviated communication of my record.  It is attached again so that there is no confusion.  When I previously provided the secretaries this document, it was printed back to back.  That resulted in problems with the copy received by members of the Cambridge City Council.  That copy lost the meaning of my record document because only one side got copied internally in the City of Cambridge..  So the attachment is now on separate sheets to reduce difficulties in Cambridge, and to allow my record to be meaningful communicated to people reading official records of the next Cambridge City Council meeting.

At the August 15, 2018, meeting, I was surprised to observe that Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis, the usual meeting coordinator, was absent, and that the meeting was run by an older gentleman whom I did not recall having seen at any prior meetings.  I was sitting next to XXXXXXXXXX who had many exchanges with the coordinating gentleman in my presence. 

In response to my questions, XXXXXXXXXXX informed me that the gentleman running the meeting was formerly the head of the Metropolitan District Commission, and that he was now acting as a consultant.

In the past, except for my difficulties getting notice of meetings, I have been highly impressed with the performance and apparent independence of the consultants.

There has been severe harm inflicted on the Cambridge side of the Charles River.  The harm was done by the Department of Conservation and Recreation based on plans which it inherited from the MDC on the Charles River.  The plans were very clearly inherited by way of planners who had moved to the MDC when the MDC was disbanded.  The plans were quite consistent with my understanding that at least some legislators voted to destroy the MDC because the MDC was so destructive of public property. 

The harm to the Charles River was based on plans which date back to this consultant’s tenure with the MDC, with regulatory approvals that date back to his tenure.  Thus the plans approved by him were beyond any reasonable period of value because of expiration dates under the relevant statutes.  The time situation with regard to the age of destruction approvals was extreme.  Nevertheless the legislature voted to exempt these outrages from normal re-initiation of reviews which would be required based on the extreme amount of time which had passed.  Thus the destruction approved by the consultant went ahead without updating of reviews.

Very clearly those outrageously destructive plans say a lot as to the proclivities of this consultant.

My video reporting the outrages inflicted based on these MDC plans approved by this consultant as MDC Commissioner is posted on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  An analysis of the “improvements” by an international expert may be viewed at https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA.

To make the situation worse, the DCR is now implementing plans which are very clearly related to these outrages east of the BU Bridge.  The DCR now appears to be very close to more massive destruction, this time at Magazine Beach, as spelled out in my communication of June 6, 2017, and published on the website of the Friends of the White Geese at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html.  Possibly imminent destruction is targeted at another 56 mostly excellent trees.

I have objected to the apparent intention to have the DCR permanently manage properties created by the I90 rebuild based on the extreme incompetence and destructiveness of the DCR managing these plans created under the responsibility of this person who is now acting as a consultant.  Additional grounds for objection include a large number of other instance of destructive behavior and heartless animal abuse, both during his leadership, and since his departure.

Based on the strikingly bad record of this consultant with regard to the Cambridge side of the Charles River, it is highly clear that (1) this consultant has a severe conflict of interest on matters concerning the Charles River, and (2) he has a terrible environmental record on the Charles River

We have gone from a situation of professional, independent behavior by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. to a situation where a key member of their team has strikingly filthy hands ON THE CHARLES RIVER.

It is no longer still appropriate for Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. to be trusted as the consultant under the circumstances.

B. Attachment.

Page 1.

Robert J. La Trémouille

Selected Activist Experience, Central Cambridge


[Ed.: Document is two pages.  One page is the zoning map.  The other page is this explanation of notes on the zoning map.  In the original, this is a columnar table.  That does not directly convert to blog format.  So here is a less pretty translation without changing the content otherwise.]

 I                Maple Avenue Downzoning, C-1 to B

II               Marie Avenue Park.  First neighborhood Open Space zoning.

III               Cambridge St, N Side  C-2 districts btwn Hospitals changed to C-1.  C2B buffer created around Youville.

IV               Mellen Street Downzoning.  The C-2A area and the C-1 which it surrounds were previously zoned C-3. 

V               Cambridge Common.  Opposed the destruction of the excellent thick park in Harvard Square corner .

VI              I90 study I proposed Green Line A spur from Comm. Avenue / BU Bridge to Harvard Medical to Harvard Station.

             Originated idea of connection of Harvard Medical Area to Soldiers Field Road east of BU Bridge.

VII             JFK Park was laid out so that cut and cover construction of a subway tunnel.

VIII             Harvard Houses district.  C-3 Ward changed to C-1.

IX            Area in Harvard Square deleted by Ward petitioners from Ward petition as result of flat out lie.

X           Ward Petition.  C-2B and O-2 areas, previously C3 / O3, plus the Harvard Houses area, south side of Mt. Auburn Street.

XI           Saved the historical building at 10 Mt. Auburn at the Rent Control Board. 
Block changed from Business B to Res C-1 by Ward

XII           Personally saved Guffey Park at Arrow Street and Mass. Ave., in front of 2 Arrow Street..

XIII          Kerry Corner. Zoning created here, the balance of the C-1, and the SD14 district were probably GREATLY influenced by my saving historical 10 Mt. Auburn.

XIV          Corporal Burns Playground.  Helped save from Harvard expansion.

XV          La Trémouille Petition as warped by rogue steering committee.  Business B became BB-1, BB-2.

La Trémouille petition downzoned most of Green Street between Hancock and Sellers from Mass. Ave. zoning to neighborhood zoning.  There were a number of related clean ups on the boundaries on Green Street. 

XVI         Anderson Petition.  O-3 to C-2B.  Clean ups of Green Street as noted in XV.

XVII Office to Office 1.  Created less dense Office Districts than Office 3.

XVIII Palmer Street.  Objected to destruction of every tree on the street because the trees “blocked the sunlight.” Page 2

[Ed: This is a cropping of the Cambridge Zoning Map.  The location of “VI” is Harvard Square proper.  Most of the organge areas marked “C-3" are the core of Harvard University.  The biggest area, middle left, is the world reknown Harvard Yard.  Running from “VI” to the right to the Red BB / BB-2 / BB-1 areas, then Orange C-2B, follow by O-3 in blue is Massachusetts Avenue, the main street of Harvard University.  The O-3 district to the right is Cambridge City Hall which, in turn, is the western end of Central Square, Cambridge.  Central and Harvard Squares are the two principal business districts (Squares) of Cambridge. 

[The Harvard Square shopping district runs from the red and blue areas at the right through the blue O-3 and orange C-2B areas.  The bottom of the O-3 district is Mt. Auburn Street, another major boundary of the Harvard Square business district.  At the very bottom of the map is the Charles River, with the Boston / Cambridge boundary marked in the middle.  The whitish diagonal line toward the upper left corner indicates a break in the area depicted.  Above and below the break are portions of Harvard’s Law School and science / engineering facilities.]




Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Reality and the Cambridge City Council’s Specification of an Absolute Dictator on Charles River matters.

Reality and the Cambridge City Council’s Specification of an Absolute Dictator on Charles River matters.

I. Introduction.
II. Letter responding to the Cambridge City Council’s Specification of an Absolute Dictator on Charles River Matters.
III. Republication of my abridged summary of my record as an activist in the City of Cambridge, MA.

I. Introduction.

At its most recent meeting, on July 25, 2018, the Cambridge City Council took the second SECRET vote on development on Magazine Beach in recent weeks.

Published below is our letter to Cambridge City Council which places on record the record of the woman the Cambridge City Council is praising like mad in the process of passing the blame for Magazine Beach on to her.

They are, very clearly, claiming that they are only obeying her orders, in their efforts for destruction on Magazine Beach.  The City Council is running away from responsibility.  In the process, they are massively praising this woman in place of explaining their vote.  The votes have always been unanimous.

Very much standard.  The electorate in Cambridge demands a responsible government.  The electorate gets a bunch of lies and an environmentally destructive city government on things most relevant to the City Council’s responsibilities to the City of Cambridge.

The City Council has one meeting during the summer.  That will be next Monday, July 25, 2018.  The letter in Section II was filed with the City Manager on July 23, 2018, and with the City Clerk for the City Council’s next meeting on the same day.  This will be the third communication from us at that meeting.

Acronyms deliberately dominate the letter.  The acronyms used are sarcastic.  Additionally, however, it does get monotonous to use nasty terms all the time.  So we have sarcastic acronyms in their place.

Part of the con by which Cambridge retains an environmentally destructive City Council in a city which demands a responsible government are lovely people running around claiming to protect.  We are referring to as the SAD the currently most visible person in this outrage.  She is the subject of the Cambridge City Council’s imminent “SHE MADE ME DO IT” con. 

The game is that they Specified her as their Absolute Dictator on Charles River matters during the June 25, 2018 vote, thus SAD.

The longer acronym, DDDPG, emphasizes the con of too many fake groups running around sounding so good, all designated as “credible” by the Cambridge Development Department.  Fake DDDPGs have significant inbreeding.  They are controlled by a tiny number of people who are very friendly with each other and mutually supportive in whatever the latest con is.

Rather than constantly saying this fake but lovely sounding “protective” group and that fake but lovely sounding “protective” group, Development Department Designated “Protective” Group / DDDPG sounds cleaner and faster.

The most important difference between the bad DDDPG’s and entities directly appointed by the Cambridge Development Department is that it can be possible to win in one of the DDDPG’s because there can be people able to vote who are not controlled.  That makes the tiny number of people who control the bad DDDPG very unhappy, and, as stated below, there is a definite reality of corrupt behavior to get around responsible votes.  Note that there are references to such corrupt behavior in very major parts of my minimized presentation of my record.

I reference one of the other communications at the coming meeting repeatedly.

The other communication is a direct copy of the document at the very end of the following post:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/charles-river-i90-rebuild-response-to.html.

I have not separately reposted this filing.  The key part of the document is being refiled with the city council.  The refiling with the City Council is because a key page was lost in printing by the City Clerk, The key page is clearly presented in the post on the blog of the document, as part of the final attachment. 

This refiled document is a partial presentation of my extremely impressive record as an activist in the City of Cambridge.  I offer it as comparison to the, until this post, secret record of the SAD whom the City Council is setting up for “SHE MADE ME DO IT.”  I include mention of relevant activities of her less secret DDDPG and of other bad DDDPG’s.

To simplify things for the reader, the refiled document follows below after the City Council letter.

The records of the SAD, and of her DDDPG are quite sad.

But City Councilors have been praising her like mad.

Our analysis of the record the SAD and the record of her DDDPG are spelled out in detail in the letter, below.  The differences between her record and mine are striking.  That is the reason the Cambridge City Council is praising her and not me.


II. Letter responding to the Cambridge City Council’s Specification of an Absolute Dictator on Charles River Matters.

RE: City Council’s Specification of an Absolute Dictator on Charles River Matters

1. City Council Vote for Destruction, Affirmation of a Specified Absolute Dictator.
2. General Aspects of the record of the SAD.
3. Key outrages which discredit the supposed sainthood of the SAD and her Development Department Designated Protective Groups.
A. Abuse of Agenda - Key Designation Vote in Particular.
B. Abuse of Agenda - Destruction in BU - Longfellow Bridge area “not in jurisdiction” to discuss protecting, but it was “in jurisdiction” to seek payoff for helping destruction.
4. The City Council has designated this person as SAD on the Charles River for no other apparent reason than that because the City Council “think[s] she's great.”
5. Similar outrages, similar DDDPG’s.
A. My Record.
B. Alewife.
(1) Government Destruction / “Protection.”
(2) Privately initiated protection.
C. Destruction of the Cambridge Common.
D. More Examples of my Record.
6. Summary.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

1. City Council Vote for Destruction, Affirmation of a Specified Absolute Dictator.

At the City Council’s last meeting, on June 25, 2018, in Order 13, the City Council passed its second straight SECRET vote on Magazine Beach.

The big difference from the prior one was that this time the City Council asked the City Manager to create a committee controlled by entities who dominated the fight for Charles River destruction achieved by Cambridge and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation in January 2016.  The City Council used the same code words that the less secret of these entities used when they were, successfully, fighting for the needless and outrageous destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges on Memorial Drive.

It would be silly to consider this vote other than a directive for more outrageous destruction, carefully worded to keep that destruction secret from responsible members of the electorate.  Thus the City Council voted to lie to its voters as to the destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council at the same time as directing yet more outrageous destruction.

Key in the debate was the specification of an Absolute Dictator to the Cambridge City Council on Charles River matters.  Mayor McGovern has recently repeated this designation as: “I am not distancing myself from her. I think she's great.”  He came pretty close to the position espoused by Councilor Devereux as she communicated why the City Council was CLAIMING TO ACT as the unthinking implementor of this person, recognizing her as their Specified Absolute Dictator (hereafter “SAD”).

The City Council has made the record of the SAD an appropriate matter for public discussion.  In what should be one of the first communications  received by the City Council on July 30, 2018, I have given an impressive, but PARTIAL summary of my record as an activist.

2. General Aspects of the record of the SAD.

The SAD has fought for this massive destruction for many years.  While bragging about the excellence of her plans, she has uniformly kept secret:

● The destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees; part already done, the rest perhaps imminent.
● The rerouting into the Charles River of poisons dumped on Magazine Beach by the DCR and Cambridge.
● Continuation and exacerbating of heartless animal abuse.

The SAD has never publicly acknowledged any of these outrages in the plans she and nine members of the City Council are fighting for at Magazine Beach.

She loudly brags of minor items and keeps secret very terrible goals which vastly outweigh in importance the items she brags about.  This most definitely looks like fraud.  The appearance of fraud is particularly persuasive since she has so favorably and so constantly portrayed herself and her lovely named groups as “protective” entities, protecting in particular Magazine Beach, Memorial Drive and the Charles River.

By the non stop claims of protection, she very clearly has fooled people to think that she and her organizations are doing the protecting she claims to be doing, and that it is unthinkable that she / her lovely named organizations could possibly be practicing and working for:

● The destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees; part already done, the rest perhaps imminent.
● The rerouting into the Charles River of poisons dumped on Magazine Beach by the DCR and Cambridge.
● Continuation and exacerbating of heartless animal abuse.

People have the distressing tendency to think that people and entities which present themselves as protectors are actually protecting.

That very much sounds like fraud.

3. Key outrages which discredit the supposed sainthood of the SAD and her Development
Department Designated Protective Groups.

A. Abuse of Agenda - Key Designation Vote in Particular.

The SAD is currently the head of a Development Department Designated Protective Group (hereafter DDDPG) which falsely claims to be protecting the Cambridgeport neighborhood and the Charles River.  Two leaders rapidly resigned their posts, leaving her as the leader.
In January 2013, her DDDPG conducted a public discussion on the SAD’s plans for Magazine Beach.
At no time during that public presentation did the SAD, the DDDPG, or anybody else announce:

● The destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees; part already done, the rest perhaps imminent.
● The rerouting of poisons dumped on Magazine Beach by the DCR and Cambridge into the Charles River.
● Continuation and exacerbating of heartless animal abuse.

There were people present who objected to the watered down version that was presented.

So the DDDPG core group and friends resorted to belligerently unethical practices to steal the “support” of the DDDPG in support of an outrageously general list of destructive actions, with delegation to another DDDPG which the SAD claims actual leadership of.

The opposition to the SAD’s WATERED DOWN plans were so major that the discussion took up the entire meeting.  Toward the end of the meeting there was some sort of motion to continue discussion at the next monthly meeting, in February 2013. 

UNTIL THIS TIME, all meetings of that DDDPG were monthly except during the summer. 

The February 2013 meeting was not conducted in February 2013.  The February 2013 meeting was not conducted in March 2013.  The February 2013 meeting was finally conducted in April 2013 without the sort of general publicity of actions to be taken concerning plans for Magazine Beach which had been very visibly announced for the January 2013 meeting, and with much less publicity in general.

The opponents were driven away by the two month delay in the conducting of the February 2013 meeting which was supposedly to occur one month after the public meeting about the WATERED DOWN plans.

At the February 2013 meeting conducted in April 2013, the Agenda was set to limit Charles River discussion to the last 10 minutes of the meeting. 

At the beginning of the final 10 minutes, the SAD distributed a horribly complicated motion which could not possibly be understood by the people present in the 10 minutes given by the DDDPG.  The DDDPG then took a vote on this horribly complicated motion in a meeting containing very few people except for core supporters of the DDDPG and the SAD.

After the January 2013 meeting was conducted in April 2013, the DDDPG went from monthly meetings to bimonthly meetings with Charles River discussions almost always restricted by the agenda to the last ten minutes, leading with self praise from the SAD and her friends. 

Comments  disagreeing with the nonsense from the SAD or attempting to communicate the pending destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges were routinely shouted down: NO TIME, NO TIME.

Discussion was always prevented on both the plans for destruction on Magazine Beach, and discussion was always prevented of plans for destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

B. Abuse of Agenda - Destruction in BU - Longfellow Bridge area “not in jurisdiction” to discuss protecting, but it was “in jurisdiction” to seek payoff for helping destruction.

At the last meeting before the January 2016 outrage, I was shouted by the chair who prevented discussion of the then imminent destruction on grounds that the area between the BU and Longfellow Bridges was outside the jurisdiction of the DDDPG.

At the very next meeting, the one following the destruction, the agenda setters had no problem scheduling a discussion of whether the DDDPG should seek a reward from the DCR in the form of helping identify trees to be selected to replace the trees the DDDPG had helped destroy.

4. The City Council has designated this person as SAD on the Charles River for no other apparent reason than that because the City Council “think[s] she's great.”

Once again, the SAD has repeatedly fought for the destruction supported by the City Council while bragging about the small stuff and keeping secret:

● The destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees; part already done, the rest perhaps imminent.
● The rerouting into the Charles River of poisons dumped on Magazine Beach by the DCR and Cambridge.
● Continuation and exacerbating of heartless animal abuse.

The City Council is clearly lying with regard to its responsibilities on the Charles River.

The City Council by those last two SECRET votes in particular has stated it does not want to know what it is doing but has voted for potentially very terrible things.

The City Council is running away from its duties.

The City Council is passing the buck.  The City Council claims it has a duty to rubber stamp the SAD because it “think[s] she's great.”  The City Council looks like rats deserting a sinking ship.
SHE MADE ME DO IT is the explanation.  SHE MADE ME DO IT is unacceptable.

5. Similar outrages, similar DDDPG’s.

A. My record.

Pretty close to the top of this list of July 28, 2013, communications is an abridged communication of my record in the City of Cambridge, with a lot of very major victories.

The big problem which I have faced has been people who look like the SAD, but who have different faces.

And behavior from controllers of DDDPG’s whose groups, as with the January 2013 meeting of this DDDPG, look like they are deviating from orders.

Corrupt practices are normal.  And the reality is that the DDDPG’s too often look like rubber stamps of the CCD.

B. Alewife.

(1) Government Destruction / “Protection.”

The Cambridge City Council passed many orders objecting to behavior of developers destroying portions of the “irreplaceable” Silver Maple Forest at Alewife (quote from repeated City Council orders).  The City Council, consistently FAILED TO NOTICE that the developers were obeying zoning.  The City Council consistently FAILED TO NOTICE that the Cambridge City Council controls the zoning that the developers were obeying by the actions the City Council was objecting to.

Clearly more hypocrisy.

This DDDPG at Alewife, like many DDDPG actionss, was kept in line with the wishes of the CDD by its controller.  The controller told well intended volunteers to yell at developers obeying municipally controlled zoning, and to ignore threats in areas the Silver Maple Forest controlled by the City of Cambridge and the DCR.

The City of Cambridge and the DCR destroyed 3.4 acres of the Silver Maple Forest with the DDDPG SILENT on the destruction.

The creator of the DDDPG publicly praised the destruction in the Cambridge Chronicle and in at least one meeting of a group connected to the Cambridgeport DDDPG.  The Creator of that DDDPG is still a member of that DDDPG. 

It is very clear that the members of that DDDPG can not imagine throwing out this woman who bragged about government destruction of 3.4 acres plus of the Silver Maple Forest which they claim to be defending.

(2) Privately initiated protection.

In, I believe, 2000, the Sheila Cook Zoning Petition for Alewife was initiated by Sheila Cook.  I did the legal drafting on the petition.

This initiative caused the parking lot located between Alewife Station and Route 2 to be returned to nature.

The DDDPG treated Sheila Cook like crap.

The DDDPG conducted a party to celebrate return of the parking lot to the environment.

The developer, Richard MacKinnon, clearly agrees that he returned the parking lot to nature because of the zoning created by the Cook Petition.  The DDDPG did a lot of praising of DDDPG core members in the celebration.  The DDDPG, however, but made exactly zero comment about the very crucial Sheila Cook Zoning Petition and the two key people in it.

C. Cambridge Common.

The City Council destroyed the excellent grove next to Harvard Square because the CDD thought it blocked the view of a monument. 

The CDD worked for this destruction for years and very clearly got the support / non comment of every DDDPG activist I was aware of.

I repeatedly objected to the Cambridge City Council.

The City of Cambridge has quietly “replaced” with saplings the excellent trees that should not have been destroyed. 

The CDD got the support / non comment about the Cambridge Common destruction by DDDPG activists who are friends of the CDD.

The City Council listened to the CDD and the DDDPG types.

AFTER this inexcusable outrage, obviously A LOT OF RESPONSIBLE people rarther claearly objected..  So the City of Cambridge did what it could do to undo WHAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

D. More examples of my Record.

You have a table in my partial communication of my record going into greater and still limited details of my record. 

It is possible to beat the DDDPG’s / their string pullers.  But corrupt tactics get pulled.

I have had far more victories than I have had losses because I am working for what responsible people want.  I am working for what the voters THINK THEY ARE VOTING FOR.

The CDD has destructive employees who are very happy to find fellow destroyers / persuadable people and recognize them as DDDPG’s.

There are also decent people at work.  I have worked with decent people and kept them as far away as possible from the DDDPG’s.  At key points, I have defeated the string pullers in their own DDDPG’s.  But corrupt practices keep coming, INCLUDING THE OUTRAGEOUS APRIL 2013 “vote” and the non stop praise for the imminent outrages on Magazine Beach, while keeping secret:

● The destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees; part already done, the rest perhaps imminent.
● The rerouting into the Charles River of poisons dumped on Magazine Beach by the DCR and Cambridge.
● Continuation and exacerbating of heartless animal abuse.

6. Summary.

The outrages supported on the Charles River by nine members of the City Council because their SAD told them to do it stinks, both by the terrible nature of the outrages and by the very terrible nonsense given by the City Council to “justify” those very terrible actions. 

SHE MADE ME DO IT is nonsense.  The actions are reprehensible.

Sincerely,

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

III. Republication of my abridged summary of my record as an activist in the City of Cambridge, MA.

[It is not possible to exactly reproduce this two sided presentation which was back to back.  The typewritten portion was a table in two columns. ]

[Ed.  This is a two sided résumé in the original.  One side is a marked up zoning map of the Central Park of Cambridge.  The other side is a table which explains the markings.  I will start with the table, then follow with the map.  After the map, I will provide a bit of an explanation to, hopefully, bring things into focus.]

Robert J. La Trémouille
Selected Activist Experience, Central Cambridge

I, Maple Avenue Downzoning, C-1 to B
II, Marie Avenue Park.  First neighborhood Open Space zoning.
III, Cambridge St, N Side  C-2 districts btwn Hospitals changed to C-1.  C2B buffer created around Youville.
IV, Mellen Street Downzoning.  The C-2A area and the C-1 which it surrounds were previously zoned C-3. 
V, Cambridge Common.  Opposed the destruction of the excellent thick park in Harvard Square corner .
VI, I90 study I proposed Green Line A spur from Comm. Avenue / BU Bridge to Harvard Medical to Harvard Station.

       Originated idea of connection of Harvard Medical Area to Soldiers Field Road east of BU Bridge.
VII, JFK Park was laid out so that cut and cover construction of a subway tunnel.
VIII, Harvard Houses district.  C-3 Ward changed to C-1.
IX, Area in Harvard Square deleted by Ward petitioners from Ward petition as result of flat out lie.
X, Ward Petition.  C-2B and O-2 areas, previously C3 / O3, plus the Harvard Houses area, south side of Mt. Auburn Street.
XI, Saved the historical building at 10 Mt. Auburn at the Rent Control Board. 
 Block changed from Business B to Res C-1 by Ward
XII, Personally saved Guffey Park at Arrow Street and Mass. Ave., in front of 2 Arrow Street..
XIII, Kerry Corner. Zoning created here, the balance of the C-1, and the SD14 district were probably GREATLY influenced by my saving historical 10 Mt. Auburn.
XIV, Corporal Burns Playground.  Helped save from Harvard expansion.
XV, La Trémouille Petition as warped by rogue steering committee.  Business B became BB-1, BB-2.,
 La Trémouille petition downzoned most of Green Street between Hancock and Sellers from Mass. Ave. zoning to neighborhood zoning.  There were a number of related clean ups on the boundaries on Green Street. 
XVI, Anderson Petition.  O-3 to C-2B.  Clean ups of Green Street as noted in XV.
XVII, Office to Office 1.  Created less dense Office Districts than Office 3.
XVIII, Palmer Street.  Objected to destruction of every tree on the street because the trees “blocked the sunlight.”














[Residence C-3 is one of the most generous zoning districts in the City of Cambridge.  The orange areas marked C-3 are for the most part Harvard University.  Harvard Square proper is the location of the VI marking.  Harvard Yard is above it and to the right.  The rest of the red marked streets under and to the left of Harvard Square proper are streets in the Harvard Square business district. 

[At the right middle marked O-3 is Cambridge City Hall, which is at the western end of the Central Square business district. 

[I have previously reported on Inman Square.  It is above the right top corner of the map. 

[In section 4 of my letter, I mention a park for which I obtained a Preliminary Injunction ON APPEAL to temporarily prevent destruction. Toward the top middle, you will see two “OS” districts with “C-3" above them and to the left.  That is where the formerly best park in the central part of Cambridge was located.]

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Charles River: I90 history and relation to current reality.

Charles River: I90 history and relation to current reality.

1. Introduction.
2. Phil Barber Analysis.
3. Historical Supplement.
4. What is going on now.
5. The Inner Belt Updated.
A. Hypocrisy at Micro Center.
(1) Destroyers bragging about the last time destroyers were defeated.
(2) Reality, helping the updated Inner Belt.
6. The bigger reality.
7. Disclosure.

1. Introduction.

Phil Barber reports on history of I90 inbound from the area we are reporting on.  He is responding to our recent report on a delay in the project.  That report is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/charles-river-i90-rebuild-technical.html.

2. Phil Barber Analysis.

Interesting. This follows the tradition of the Pike, unfortunately. When it was built 300 homes were taken in Newton by eminent domain, with homeowners given just 30-day notice to go. At the other end, Pike construction was the excuse to level the part of the South End where I grew up. Everyone’s heard of the West End but the damn BRA began in my neighborhood, clear cutting blocks of apartment buildings but of course leaving untouched the several large commercial buildings there. They also carved away a big chunk of Chinatown on the other side of the railroad tracks.

Here’s a photo of it. They had already demolished all the housing on the “New York streets” (named after NY towns on land filled in by the NYNH&H RR) and built the Boston Herald building there. That’s where my mom grew up and my folks had their first apartment. All the empty lots seen here had been filled with apartment buildings and homes.


3. Historical Supplement.

We have done a number of reports on the planning for the rebuild of I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) on the Boston side of the Charles River across from Magazine Beach, the main habitat of the Charles River White Geese for the past 37 years, until heartless animal abuse became a normal part of government operations in Cambridge, MA, USA, along with the reprehensible Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The photographed portion of the construction of I90 to which Phil is referring is inbound (east) from the current work area.  It is really only about a mile or so to the South End which was destroyed as Phil describes.

Some terms which should be explained.

NYNH&H RR is the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad which owned the railroad until about the time Phil mentions.  It was bought by the Penn Central Transportation Company which then went bankrupt.  The railroad is now part of Amtrak.  All railroads relevant to our reports are now owned either by Amtrak or by the state’s Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

The West End was located between Massachusetts General Hospital (in turn, on the Charles River) and North Station, the Boston terminal for the other main railroad servicing Boston.  The West End was destroyed for “urban renewal” and laid mostly bare for years.

BRA is Boston Redevelopment Authority, until recently the semi-independent planning agency of the City of Boston.

Newton is westbound from the site currently in question, a few miles.

The Boston Herald Building, mentioned by Phil, was located near Boston’s Chinatown, also mentioned by Phil.  Each entity wound up on opposite sides of I90 before I90 connected with Boston’s Southeast Expressway.  The southeast expressway is now part of I93, and abutted the Boston Herald Building on the east.  The Boston Herald building was recently torn down by the private sector and medium height luxury housing is replacing it.

Perhaps the Boston Herald Building’s last use was for working offices for the Melissa McCarthy / Saundra Bullock movie, The Heat.  The bar scene was shot on a set built in the Boston Herald building (and I was very visible in that shoot).

4. What is going on now.

Here is the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)’s Figure 4.8-01 from the Draft Environmental Impact Report, cropped to remove less relevant portions to the north and south.


Much of our discussion concerns train stops. The T’s indicate existing stops.

I90 followed the Worcester - Boston train tracks in this area through Newton and train stops in Newton, before entering Boston’s Brighton and Allston neighborhoods.

The train tracks are marked in purple.  Newton is off the map to the left.  In the middle, in the Allston neighborhood of Boston, is the study site (the future Harvard Medical School, former Beacon Park Rail Yards, I90 with exits ramps to Cambridge (top part of the map), to the Brighton neighborhood of Boston, and to the Town of Brookline).  The destroyed South End, plus Chinatown and the former Boston Herald building are to the right of the map.

The three T markings are for the “Boston Landing” station, better known as the New Balance station; Yawkey Station, adjacent to Fenway Park and Kenmore Square; and the Copley Station, which is about a block from a not destroyed portion of the South End.  I90 is specifically marked to the right of Yawkey Station.

After Allston, I90 goes through narrow segments of the Back Bay / Fenway neighborhood and of the Town of Brookline.  I90 then goes through the destroyed South End.    This former South End area is a mile or so by I90 / the railroad.

Current I90 construction proposes a new stop in the work area which is a stalking horse for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction Railroad (MBTA owned) in Cambridge with significant harm to Cambridge auto traffic, and with harm to the animal habitat on the Charles River

Here is a MassDOT map marked with the intersections harmed in Cambridge.


The Orange Line at the bottom left is I90.  The purple line running off it is the Grand Junction Railroad.  I90 goes under Commonwealth Avenue, in Boston, runs along the Boston / Brookline Town Line and then goes past Yawkey Station.  Yawkey Station is very near to Kenmore Square, Boston and to the Boston Red Sox’ Fenway Park

Commuter rail on the Grand Junction in Cambridge was defeated by organized people in Cambridge because of the very real interference with traffic on five busy Cambridge streets.  So the movers and shakers are fighting for Commuter Rail in Cambridge as secretly as they can get away with.

The new station, West Station WAS ADDED TO THE I90 REBUILD PROJECT, after the Massachusetts Department of Transportation started planning without it.  The addition was apparently by gubernatorial direction (Gov. Patrick, I believe).  The current proposal by MassDOT would defer work on West Station for several years.

By sneaking Commuter Rail into the I90 project, the Cambridge machine prevented meaningful opposition to gel by hiding the project.  When Commuter Rail was studied in the past, there was that very significant Cambridge opposition.

Favorable comments on West Station have been very significantly from interests in Cambridge’s Kendall Square area of Cambridge, THE ONLY location to benefit from Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction according to the prior MassDOT study which rejected Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction because of its very minimal value in the transportation system.

Strangely, there has been a comment from Harvard / Longwood Medical Area management that West Station would be useful to it for commuter transportation to / from the Longfellow Medical Area.  Their suggested shuttle route has the adjoining Town of Brookline highly distressed since many shuttle buses would be used and they would very heavily use Brookline streets.

Of major interest, however, is that the next station toward Boston from the proposed West Station is the Yawkey Station, near Fenway Park and Kenmore Square, showing pretty much in the middle of the MassDOT area map as T.

Yawkey Station is about half a mile from the Harvard / Longwood Medical area.  West Station is perhaps three miles from the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area on the winding route suggested through Brookline.

So the pitch is that LMA transportation people would ignore Yawkey Station half a mile from LMA and transport its commuters three miles through Brookline to West Station.  Thus LMA claimed to be getting value from West Station.

The bizarreness of this route is difficult to explain other than from gross incompetence until you realize that the major actor both in the project area and in the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area is Harvard University.  Stupid arguments are highly common when dealing with Cambridge entities.

Yawkey is the only station between the proposed West Station and the South End area which Phil reports on.  Yawkey Station’s projected commuter load is a VERY LARGE MULTIPLE of the projected commuter load at West Station.

The tiny projected commuter load at West Station is almost identical to the nearby existing new commuter station built primarily for the New Balance company.  The Boston Landing / New Balance station is just as impossible to justify based on commuter projected use as is West Station.  The Cambridge / Kendall folks are fighting for a second nearly useless train station IN CLOSE PROXIMITY to the nearly useless Boston Landing / New Balance station.

5. The Inner Belt Updated.

A. Hypocrisy at Micro Center.

(1) Destroyers bragging about the last time destroyers were defeated.


The Cambridge City Council stays in power by doing a lot of lying.

This is part of a mural on the back side of the MicroCenter building.  It was impossible to get a good shot which showed the entire mural.  At the right is a bulldozer marked “Inner Belt.”

This was originally painted on the back of the building decades ago.  The City Council paid to have it restored, and bragged about the expenditure.  They do a lot of bragging, even about extreme hypocrisy, neglecting to mention the hypocrisy, of course.

(2) Reality, helping the updated Inner Belt.

Here are the remnants of two excellent trees the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation destroyed on the Memorial Drive side of the MicroCenter building, next to its parking lot.

The owner had lovingly cared for these trees.

On April 24, 2017, in Order 1, the Cambridge City Council voted unanimously to support DCR destruction as part of the Magazine Beach outrages.  In June 2017, the DCR, on behalf of the Cambridge City Council destroyed these trees.



The destruction of 56 trees, including these, by the Cambridge City Council will do an excellent job of speeding up on Memorial Drive to handle traffic from the updated Inner Belt.  This destruction was just the first destruction.  Apologists for the Cambridge City Council say they will be replaced with “better” trees.  So what.  They should not have been destroyed in the first place.
ly
The DCR and Cambridge are speeding up Memorial Drive by minimizing driveways.  The driveway straight ahead is one that will survive.

Across the street are seven admittedly excellent trees the Cambridge City Council voted to destroy.


The “explanation” of the Cambridge City Council’s agent, the DCR is that the agent is moving the parking lot on the other side of the doomed trees on top of the trees.

That will move the driveway to the right / west of the trees directly across from that driveway to MicroCenter.

Here is the relevant destruction plan marked up to show the driveways.


The pair of driveways above Memorial Drive are the two driveways on either side of the destroyed trees.

Below the pair is the driveway to the west of the seven excellent and doomed trees shown above.  The green space east of that driveway and across from the eastern MicroCenter driveway is the seven admittedly excellent and doomed trees which will be destroyed and the new parking lot entrance.

The two dots to the right are two entrances to the little guys parking lot which is used by non rich people to park for barbeques.  That parking lot is being destroyed, along with all but one of the trees in it, with destruction of  perhaps 30 mostly excellent trees around it, including truly magnificent trees at the right / east end of the park, facing the playing fields which are to the right.  The two driveways are promised to be replaced with one.  So four driveways become two.  And traffic from I90, by way of the rotary to the right top of this photo, will move that much faster.




6. The bigger reality.

I can only extend this report so long.

My formal analysis in the environmental review of the I90 rebuilt includes in detail the games that Cambridge entities are playing in the I90 project.  This analysis presents goes into the rest of this current analysis very nicely.  As far as this analysis goes, really, enough is enough.

Please see http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, pages 96 to 125 for the full analysis with emphasis on the I90 rebuild, going into the very terrible things that are being fought for as secretly as possible.

7. Disclosure.

I was employed by the Penn Central Management Company in Baltimore and Philadelphia in th elate sixties during the planning period for the initial I90 construction between the current site area and Boston’s Southeast Expressway (now part of I93).  The closest I came to the studies which would up building I90 was as a labor relations management trainee observing Penn Central’s Food Service on the Boston - Washington route.

I attended Boston University in the early 70's in a graduate program while this phase of I90 construction took place.  My first semester, Fall 1970, I commuted to Boston University by bicycle from an apartment perhaps half a mile west of the main part of the current I90 rebuild / train yard site.  My commute went through the Magazine Beach area, including the Goose Meadow before the Charles River White Geese established habitat.

I was employed as an intern in the Massachusetts governor’s office in Summer 1972.  While I was given credit for a totally separate and rather spectacular legislative occurrence, I had nothing to do with the governor’s, at that time, putting the death knell on the Inner Belt proposal through Cambridge and Brookline.

For what it is worth, long after the period in question, I was probably one of the last people employed in the Boston Herald Building, working very visibly in the bar scene in Melissa McCarthy / Saundra Bullock’s The Heat.  I made it into a teaser, the bar scene, and the closing credits.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

On the Ground Analysis at Magazine Beach on the Charles River.

On the Ground Analysis at Magazine Beach on the Charles River.

1. Analysis on the Ground ‒ Introduction.
2. July 3, 2018
3. July 5, 2018
4. July 10, 2018.
5. My observations, July 7, 2018.
6. Phil’s History, 7/13/18.
7. Summary.
A. Four more photos.
(1) The most visible victims of so many of the pretty much nonstop outrages.
(2) More recent photos of the poison drainage ditch under attack.
(3) Results - pool of algae.
B. The latest con.
8. What the Cambridge City Council should do.


1. Analysis on the Ground ‒ Introduction.

On July 3, 2018, Phil reported to me on further, SECRET, destruction on Magazine Beach.  The Cambridge City Council sought appointment of a committee dominated by proven environmental destroyers and told them to go to work.  The Cambridge City Council used code words which were used by the more visible destroyers when they fought for the successful destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.  The woman designated as the City Council’s Absolute Dictator on Charles River matters is included in the stacked committee.  She fought for that destruction, with others working with her, using Company Union techniques.

The City Council kept SECRET this outrage, totally empowering these destroyers to destroy at will.

In Cambridge, MA, the Cambridge City Council constantly brags about its actions and stretches them out with magnificent language and “meetings.”  When they are ashamed of what they are doing, they do it as secretly as possible.  The language used by Councilor Devereux, with no council objection, named a proven enviromental destroyer as the City Council’s absolute dictator on environmental matters.

So we are getting behavior with a true stench, especially when dealing with the very real hypocrisy on the Cambridge City Council.

“SHE MADE ME DO IT!” is the usual fraudulent explanation.

The motion for secret action mentioned a bike path which, horrors, had sections 4 feet wide between Pleasant Street (west of the planned tree destruction zone) to the BU Bridge.

After Phil’s report, I checked on the ground in the total tree destruction area.  ALL of the bike way / pedestrian path looks like four feet to me.

The Absolute Dictator of the Cambridge City Council seems to have been separated (abandoned?) from a lot of her more visible accomplices during her fight for the outrageous destruction in January 2016.  Our video on that destruction may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Here are Phil’s July 3, 2018 report and two others, along with photos showing the history of the poison drainage areas.

I have done some editing.  The “Young Mormons” Phil refers to are a religious group which apparently volunteered for responsible work, and like so many people in Cambridge who want to be responsible, got roped into destructive behavior instead.

I will comment in brackets as appropriate.

2. July 3, 2018

They propose something inside the fence, was it.  That is where there are many fine trees indeed.  There may be 4 feet between them and the fence in places.  Bikers just “share” the present sidewalk with walkers, runners and joggers along Mem Drive.  It is a pain to navigate on foot, haveing to be constantly on the alert for fast-moving [bicyclists].

The sand path along the starvation wall turns into a barely negotiable muddy track after a rain, worse since there are no reeds to absorb the water.  It was better when it was paved, before things got “improved”.  No present practical bike access there, tho I did see a fellow take a moped down it the other week.

I made one false start toward the river and turned back in the heat.  I feel restless enough to take another crack at it in a while.  Always a nice breeze along the river, if I make it that far.

P.S.  I see on the MB website that they recruited 120 Mormon teenagers to tear out the reeds last week.

[Phil noted a photo of City Councilor Devereux and other on the fake protectors website.  The photo was bragging about the sign for the secret work which is being performed in the only opening in the Starvation Wall ‒ the boat dock of the 20th Century destroyed by being blocked in the outrages of the late 2000's.]

3. July 5, 2018

I finally got to MB on the 4th.  The Young Mormons accomplished surprisingly little for their strength of numbers.  Two very small areas near the path that had already been denuded of the naturally occurring reeds were planted with grasses and other plants, and that was about all.

There are a number of new signs scattered about bearing the DCR logo advertising the wonderful results to follow their efforts to make the bad plants go away.

Some of the natural flowering plants have been coming back nicely around the hacked over areas.  The greenery has just exploded in the week or so since I’ve had time to get down there.  The saplings they cut down earlier in the season are densely regenerating from the stumps.

Is there any concrete proposal for where this bike path might be sited?  It occurs to me that I have seen a new one along the river in Watertown that was installed in the past few years.  It runs along the road while the pedestrian path is along the riverbank.  I have a good friend there so have walked that stretch of the river often over almost twenty years.  The naturally wooded area there was unfortunately stripped of its understory, but dividing the path so you don’t have to dodge speedy idiots on bikes is working.

4. July 10, 2018.

Hope U R well.  I noted the other day on one of the new signs they set up claim that the recessed areas were seeded with wildflowers back in 2009 when they were finally ready.  I’m combing through my photo archives as I don’t recall this to be true.  There was never anything but grass in both originally, save for the shrubs they planted on the embankment of the one nearest the cottonwoods [western of the two poisons drainage ditches] and some hardy plants that self-seeded on the slopes of them.  I will have more on this as I find the visual documentation.

I did notice in 2008 photos that both areas were literally ponds during the construction phase.  The one drains into the other, so no reeds ever colonized it, but in the wetter one the cattails first appeared near the connecting culvert, then moved through the whole area.  The “bad” reeds began at that corner too and eventually displaced the others in the original area, back furthest from the pathway.

5. My observations, July 7, 2018.

I leafleted a DCR / Absolute Dictator / Cambridge City Council celebration on July 7, trying to communicate reality in place of nonsense.

We how have our presentation of destruction plans to the Cambridge City Council in our letter of June 6, 2018 on our website at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.pdf.

I was thus able to connect the tree and destruction reports on the flier with the detailed reports received by and ignored by the destructive Cambridge City Council.

The flier worked extremely well with the event because one of the signs Phil reports being put up at the poison rerouting location is truly stupid, and very much false in its absence of the very terrible things the DCR and the City Council’s Absolute Dictator are doing.

It was a bunch of pleasant discussions.

Included in the discussions were people under the magnificent willow the Cambridge City Council and the DCR want to destroy.

The doomed and excellent willow is close to the location of the fake celebrations, and between that location and the poison drainage area work which is rerouting poisons into the Charles.

It is impossible to fully communicate the horror of the massive tree destruction on a flier.

It is possible to communicate the poison rerouting.

6. Phil’s History, 7/13/18.

[Ed: I have added the photos, most of which are Phil’s.  To place things in context, I start with my crop and edit of the MassDOT photo which shows the playing fields and I90, with marking.  This is my caption.  I will otherwise bracket my additions to Phil’s comments on the following photos.]

* * * * *


I - The poison drainage ditch (swail) which is the most destroyed in the latest outrages.

II - The boat dock of the 20th Century, made useless by the bridge Phil mentions.  Currently the target of $69,000 of Cambridge City Council development which is SECRET.  Since it is secret, it is almost certainly more heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese who had the playing fields as the major part of their habitat commencing in 1981.  The fields have, increasingly and deliberately, been blocked off to them by the bizarre, and publicly hated starvation wall.  This introduced 16+ foot greenery along the river makes the playing fields the equivalent of facilities ten miles from the Charles River.  People cannot see the Charles River from the banks of the Charles River.

III - The other poison drainage ditch, "near the cottonwoods."

* * * *

I’ve been further researching the claim that the recessed areas were “seeded” with meadow-flowers in 2009 that is made on one of the new signs, I think the one closest to the path and the three benches. It seems somewhat of an important point as “restoring” these flowers is alleged (by the liars: you are absolutely correct in so characterizing their efforts) to be the reason that lush area has been transformed into a black-tarped eyesore.

I’ve looked in my photo archives and see the flowers coming in spontaneously in the area of the starvation wall when it was planted in 2006. The showy Shasta daisies and several sorts of wild sunflowers make their appearance then, along with the also-striking wild Bergamot, plus the more humble plants later found in all areas as they recovered from human intervention. These include both common and uncommon varieties, such as tansy, ragweed, various clovers, vetch, milkweed, goosefoot, several dock varieties, evening primrose, mallows, Scottish thistle, Joe Pye weed, bindweed, many kinds of grasses, asters, and rushes, and so on. The “invasive” purple loosestrife has made an occasional appearance but has never taken over the areas.

Years ago I made an amateur study of the wildflower populations on the empty Simplex lots, so most of these species were familiar to me. I also noted how, over the years of walking my dog on the vacant lots, the hardiest “weeds” first colonize newly bulldozed lands, then as they enrich the soil, many others take root as well until a natural biodiversity has built up.

[ed: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology destroyed the viability of Central Square, Cambridge, by purchasing industrial properties east of Central Square on the river side, and then leaving those properties to rot.  MIT created a 40 acre wasteland for decades in what had been a thriving business area.  That was known as the “Simplex” area after a major business which became part of this artificially created land bank / wasteland.]

The recessed areas [ed: the poison drainage ditches] were not created until 2009 and received no plantings other than trees and shrubs. Many were poorly cared for or inappropriate for conditions there and have since died. There was a stand of Phragmites at the river’s edge between the boathouse and the River Street Bridge as far back as I can recall. It is likely that windblown seeds from these reeds found their way within four years to the new recessed areas.

[The boat house is immediately to the west of the area in which the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Cambridge City Council are about to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees and animal habitat, and which have already been conformed to allow drainage of poisons into the Charles River.  Destruction, I think, includes one tree west of the boathouse.  Changes between the two DCR plans removed from destruction major trees abutting the PRIVATELY OWNED boat house.]

* * * * *


Here's an image from 2009 of the newly created denuded area being grassed in (after being inaccessible for two years)

* * * * *

A large growth of cattails began next to the bridge/dock area, which was when created (2006) a pond, until the reeds and wildflowers transformed it into a wetland. These, which seem more moisture loving than the Phrags, began to colonize the swale in 2011 that is the subject of this year’s destruction. The upper swale near the cottonwoods is drier and has never had a reed population. [The BU Bridge and, in Boston, Boston University buildings are visible at the top.  The building below them is the environmentally sensitive Massachusetts Water Resources Authority water treatment plant.]



* * * * *


[Still from a file video, marked as 2006, of the pond created by the Cambridge City Council and the DCR.  The bridge Phil mentions is at the top of the photo.  It blocks use of the 20th Century boat dock.  The Charles River White Geese had the nerve to love the pond.  They went through it to their feeding grounds of most of the last 36 years.  So naturally, the DCR and Cambridge filled in the pond and created further barriers, working for their goal of starving the Charles River White Geese.  To the right is the parking lot for the playing fields.]

* * * * *


This is from 2010 showing nothing but grasses growing in the recently vandalized area, few volunteer plants around the edges.  [The brick structure is the Memorial Drive overpass which runs over the Rotary which is the Cambridge End of the BU Bridge.  On the near side of Memorial Drive is a ramp to the BU Bridge.  A comparable ramp is the northern boundary of the ghetto which has been stripped of its food by the DCR and Friends and which has been increasingly the area to which their lives have been restricted.  A stereotypical example of humans destroying habitat.]

* * * * *


* * * * *

This is when the cattails arrive and become established in 2011.

* * * * *


2013 phragmites become established and thrive [Some of the trees at the top are slated to be destroyed.]

* * * * *

There is a native species of Phrag, which is also botanically named “the common reed”. The more aggressive species is a European import which has been here for some two hundred years and is ubiquitous in North America, according to https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/commonreed.shtml The objection there is that it “crowds out native species” but again the argument that there can be such a thing as native plants on artificially created land seems untenable. Interestingly https://www.fws.gov/GOMCP/pdfs/phragmitesQA_factsheet.pdf states that Phragmites growth actually transforms marshland into meadowland, creating rich soil by the accumulation of the large amount of stalks they produce each season.

I fear that when the physical removal of the rhizomes is seen for the impossibility it is, our nature lovers might then resort to herbicides to eliminate the problem they imagine exists there. Artificially created land in the middle of an intensively populated human settlement – this is not a “natural” environment “to be protected” by humans who do not even fully understand how ecosystems operate. Take any handful of mud from the swale and you will be holding tens of millions of bacteria, over 99% of which have not yet been described by science.

In 2017 for the first time homeless people begin utilizing the reed cover for storage of their belongings and occasional campsites. Initially they had used the habitat provided by the ill-advised shrubbery barrier along the riverbank for this purpose. I do not see it as coincidental that this is when the anti-reed campaign began.

I quote from the article “Other Order: Sound Walk for an Urban Wild,” in the Spring 2017 issue of Arnoldia, the magazine of the Arnold Arboretum, regarding an often-observed reaction to the natural colonization of ravaged lands:

* * * * *

How city dwellers respond to the presence of spontaneous vegetation in their midst is influenced by personal preferences as well as by cultural norms… The aesthetics of spontaneous vegetation are usually considered negative given that much of it is perceived as ugly or messy (i.e., lacking ornamental characteristics or possessing an unkempt appearance)… many people see spontaneous vegetation as providing habitat for animals that are vectors for a number of human pathogens and infectious diseases such as rats, mosquitoes, and ticks. Similarly, the large size that spontaneous urban vegetation can reach in the absence of maintenance is viewed as providing cover for potential criminal activity and thus a threat to public safety. To the extent that urban landscapes dominated by spontaneous urban vegetation are perceived as threatening, they fit within a concept of a “wilderness” that is defined as land that exists outside the bounds of human control. [Emphasis added].

* * * * *

7. Summary.

A.    Four more photos.

(1) The most visible victims of so many of the pretty much nonstop outrages.



(2) More recent photos of the poison drainage ditch under attack.

December 2017:


July 2018:


(3) Results - pool of algae.

* * * *


May 2018, Phil Barber

* * * *

B.  The latest con.

A truly vile pair of entities doing truly vile things.  The difference is that the Cambridge City Council has started a “SHE MADE ME DO IT” fraud.

They realize the great evil they are doing and the very real fact that they do not want to stop.

Blaming the destruction on an Absolute Dictator with filthy hands is an improvement over the previous claim that I am responsible because I failed to keep them from doing these terrible things.

It does not change the truth of what a highly destructive City Council is doing, or the fact that they have constituents who expect meaningful environmentalism rather than outrageous destruction backed by whatever con game works.

The constant AND INCREASING secrecy says everything in a city where the City Council loudly brags of things which they can get benefit from bragging about.

8. What the Cambridge City Council should do.

The Cambridge City Council should give us honesty in government.

Stop lying that the City Council is pro environment, or change sides to the side it claims to be on.

To be specific, we request that, consistent with repeated expression of environmental concerns by THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL, the following actions be taken:

A Retract and rescind the City Council’s action on April 24, 2017, in order 1, supporting the destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and related outrages in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

B. Trash the Department of Conservation and Recreation as manager of all properties under its jurisdiction in Cambridge in favor of replacement by the Department of Transportation.

C. End the environmental outrages planned by the DCR and Cambridge and reverse, insofar as feasible, the many outrages accomplished by the DCR, Cambridge and related entities from November 1, 1999, to the current date.


Friday, July 13, 2018

Charles River: I90 rebuild technical study announced.

Charles River: I90 rebuild technical study announced.

1. Our Report.
2. The MassDOT Announcement.


1. Our Report.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) has announced in its weekly email report out today that it is expanding the technical review of two major aspects of the I90 rebuild project on the Boston side of the Charles River across from Magazine Beach.

Their announcement is posted at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-i-90-allston-intermodal-project-update.

The two aspects are the narrow portion of I90 between Boston University and the Charles River, and “West Station.”

Both are typically Cambridge bizarre behavior in which initiatives being secretly fought for because they would lose exposed to the light of day are being sneaked into the I90 package.

Business as usual with CITY OF Cambridge operatives involved.

Below is a MassDOT photo showing the relationship of I90 and Magazine Beach.  The massive highway is the “throat,” the small part of project.  To the right is the Magazine Beach playing fields.


2. The MassDOT Announcement.

This is verbatim:

* * * *

On Wednesday, June 27, at a meeting of the Allston I-90 Intermodal Project Task Force, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) announced that it is reviewing two key aspects of the project: the design of the “throat” section of the highway along the Charles River and when to construct a new regional transit hub at West Station.

Transportation Secretary and CEO Stephanie Pollack committed to deferring a decision on a preferred alternative design of the throat section until after completion of the 90-day review by an independent consultant team. “We will take a hard look at the benefits and challenges of building the highway on the ground or on an elevated viaduct,” Secretary Pollack explained.

The review team is fully independent of the project team, and consists of engineers, designers, and permitting experts that will analyze improved versions of viaduct and at-grade options for the throat. Members include individuals who helped to successfully redesign the MBTA Green Line Extension Project.

At the same time, MassDOT is undertaking two collaborative studies of transit and mobility needs now and in the future throughout the Allston/Beacon Park Yards area: a study of long-term potential land use and public transit outcomes to be developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, and a sixth-month study of immediate transit needs in the Allston area.

The additional transit analysis will help inform a decision on when to build West Station and make future transit investments.  Secretary Pollack explained that, “The proposed West Station is the staging area for reconstructing the Massachusetts Turnpike, meaning that the station cannot physically be built prior to 2025 when construction activities are expected to be completed.”   She added, “MassDOT will re-phase this project to start construction of West Station as soon as it is both possible and sensible.”

As the independent review is carried out, MassDOT project team members will continue to advance other aspects of the project including environmental review work and technical tasks such as field surveying and geotechnical investigations. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Allston I-90 Intermodal Project is currently expected to be filed in spring 2019. MassDOT would then carry out the process to procure a design-build construction contractor in 2020.

The independent review, which was launched on June 27, is expected to be completed in 90 days and will analyze areas of each potential throat section design such as constructability, environmental impacts, resiliency, geometry, risk, and cost. The independent team will receive feedback from key stakeholders and members of the project Task Force in order to best understand the benefits and challenges of the different design concepts.

The current viaduct structure carries 150,000 vehicles each day into and out of downtown Boston. The viaduct is the primary route of vehicular travel from Western Massachusetts and Central Massachusetts into the city.  The viaduct is outmoded and structurally deficient, and MassDOT annually spends approximately $800,000 to maintain the viaduct in usable condition.  The viaduct currently is safe for travel.

For several years, MassDOT has hosted regular meetings of a public Task Force in order to vet all aspects of the project elements with neighborhood residents, representatives of local organizations, and regional transportation stakeholders.  Since the inception of the project, MassDOT has held over 30 Task Force and public meetings.

For more information, please visit the project website.