Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Charles River: Sample of how bad the Cambridge, MA, USA, City Government is / has been, “conserving” Harvard Square.

Charles River:  Sample of how bad the Cambridge, MA, USA,  City Government is / has been, “conserving” Harvard Square.

The ongoing and increasing outrage on the Charles River is impossible to distinguish from the outrage which is the city council and key bureaucrats of the City of Cambridge.  The prior three City Managers were leaders of the outrage.  The outrage has continued after the departure of the last of the three bad City Managers.

A good feel for the outrage which is the government of the City of Cambridge, as stated, can be noted through the first two sections of a letter which was submitted to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager on November 14.  It has not yet been presented to the City Council.  I anticipate they will receive it at their next regular Monday meeting.

The Subsequent Section is directly relevant to the Charles River and will follow.  I can only make these reports so long.

* * * *

0. Introduction.

In what is normal behavior from the Cambridge Machine, situations which should be professionally handled have substituted personal attack, and the personal attacks have become extreme.  This letter and subsequent letters will include response to the personal attacks.  Trying to distinguish between response to personal attacks and normal business issues is impractical.  So these responses will be solely in my name, as opposed to as Chair, Friends of the White Geese.

1. Harvard Square “Conservation” District.

I note that Awaiting Report 16-74 [ed: of the City Council Agenda] asks for a report on the Harvard Square “Conservation” District’s effectiveness.

I am very close to that matter since I wrote the zoning change which succeeded in modification of the zoning in East Harvard Square to make that zoning compatible with the residential  neighborhoods to the North and to the South.  I advised the neighborhood group with great success.  The C2B district [ed: the principal zoning in East Harvard Square] was suggested by Councilor William Walsh.  The Walsh suggestion received my enthusiastic support.  We only had one negative vote (1 probable supporter in the hospital) on a zoning change about which Harvard University was decidedly opposed.

This zoning forced the former Inn at Harvard building (Mass. Ave. and Harvard St.) on Harvard University.   The requirements of the C2B district were refined in the downzoning of the Dana / Hancock to City Hall area of Massachusetts Avenue so that this part of Cambridge reflects large scale zoning with great sensitivity to residential neighbors, retaining the residential nature of this part of Mass. Ave. [ed.: This is the one example of recent construction in Harvard Square which is generally loved.]  I was highly visible in that particular change.

I have 42 years experience with the Development Department under the three manager Cambridge City Manager Machine, [ed.: does not chastise the current City Manager] including very major experience in zoning myself.  In sharp contrast to too many initiatives by the Development Department and its Robots under the three manager City Manager Machine, my zoning does what I said it does.  Based on my experience, I interpret the request as to the “Conservation” District’s effectiveness on two levels.  It looks like the “Conservation” district has achieved both its real goals.

First,  It lied to the well intended that a “Conservation” District was being created and thus gave the well intended a false impression that Conservation was occurring.

Secondly, under the claim of “conserving” Harvard Square, the “Conservation” District destroyed the historical building at the northwest corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Remington Street.  It replaced that historical building with a faux historical building.  This destruction looks like the intention of the zoning change.

As such, there is a great deal of value in simply deleting this zoning.  It has passed its sunset provision anyway.  The continued presence on the books of this nonsense is an affront to people who want honesty in government.  It is most definitely not an isolated incident from the Development Department under the three member Cambridge City Manager Machine and its Robots.

Far less offensive an action is what Harvard did to the nearby 1890's historical building at 10 Mt. Auburn Street after I saved it in an action under a provision of the Rent Control Ordinance.  Harvard saved the exterior, and, in its later construction in the area, possibly built up the area in a more sensitive manner than Harvard would have done without 10 Mt. Auburn Street’s continued presence.  Nothing REAL was saved at Massachusetts Ave. and Remington Street.

Another very major change in the zoning in the area came in the early 2000's when, in the name of “improving” zoning, a citywide atrocity was accomplished by the Development Department and its Robots.  That zoning outrage trashed all the residential zoning in the City in favor of office districts which require more housing than office use.  Naturally, that was not meaningfully communicated to the voters.

That change, as part of destroying all residential zoning in the city, converted East Harvard Square’s residential district into an office district which requires more housing than office use in buildings.

* * * *

Not part of the letter to the Cambridge City Council.  Not needed for the Cambridge City Council, but possibly of value to non Cantabridgians.

Here is the building formerly known as The Inn at Harvard, forced on Harvard by my East Harvard Square Downzoning, instead of a building possibly 72% larger and built to the lot line.  First, the side facing Harvard Square proper, then the side facing Mass. Ave.

This is not a tiny building, but it could have been much more intrusive and non residential.  It is the only recent construction in Harvard Square generally loved.

Those trees are on Harvard property and would not be there if built to the lot line.

Here is the faux historical building which was the apparent purpose of the fake conservation district.  The historical building was destroyed, it would appear, primarily to add parking underneath it.  It is a copy of the original building above ground, with a floor added and and very significant added construction toward its rear (note the difference in style).  It is in the same block as the former Inn at Harvard, the far end of the block, three buildings to the east, Remington Street and Massachusetts Avenue.

The yellow building to the far right in the above picture is to the left of the faux historical building.

Here is 10 Mt. Auburn Street, maybe 1000 feet south of the faux historical building which pretty much faces it, with two buildings in between.  10 Mt. Auburn Street dates to the 1890's.  I saved it using fine print in the Rent Control Ordinance.  It was, instead, rebuilt in a “gut rehab” which is now highly common in the development of older historical buildings in Cambridge, MA, USA.

Here are historical structures on the south (opposite) side of Massachusetts Avenue between The Inn at Harvard and the faux historical building.  These almost certainly are being protected by the zoning I created.

Not that visible is a replacement park on the left in the photo, almost across from the faux historical building.  The then Cambridge City Manager destroyed it about 10 days after the City Council passed our zoning.  Expansion was intended to expand a business which could no longer legally expand under our zoning change, which the City Manager opposed.  I leafleted.  The City Manager apologized to the City Council with this glorious, but necessarily tiny park.

Below is a slightly better photo of my lovely little park.

The building behind it we had to compromise on to get the downzoning.  The back side is kitty corner, albeit the top of a T intersection, from 10 Mt. Auburn Street.

The photo of 10 Mt. Auburn Street, above, is taken from the direction of the back side of this building.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Charles River: Wild Falsehoods, Responses and Reality in election season ‒ the last few days with the Cambridge Machine

Charles River:  Wild Falsehoods, Responses and Reality in election season ‒ the last few days with the Cambridge Machine

Normally these reports are published in three versions.  This version, the blog version, is the full analysis on any particular issue.  Condensed versions are posted on Facebook and in an email newsletter with links to this commonly much longer blog report.

Things have been getting nasty on the Charles River.  The following is a very slightly clarified version of a report which went out to the email report system.  The distribution was normal distribution minus news media.

I usually try to keep these reports strictly concerning the irresponsible government entities.  The reality, however, is that the irresponsible government entities work through controlled Company Union groups which claim to be defending the world and which, altogether too often, do exactly the opposite while proclaiming their own sainthood.

Hopefully, this report will give you a feel for the reality of on the ground work defending the Charles River.  It is based on a ListServ managed by the bad guys.

Two Cambridge City Councilors are named in the report.  That is highly appropriate for a report which went solely to Cambridge, MA and closely related.  I am changing to #1 and #2 to reflect the international audience of these blog reports.

The election which is related to this report is in progress as this report is published.

I normally include photos in these reports.  I have considered adding photos in relevant locations.  Photos were not provided in the original report.  It just does not seem proper, and would require more changes than I feel comfortable with.

* * * *

The fake protective group which is fighting for and has achieved massive destruction on the Charles River was forced into ending censorship of their ListServ when I publicized the censorship as demonstration of the lack of meaning of the entity.

A few days ago, an operative who has been very visible with most of the fake protective groups in the City of Cambridge made a flat out lie about me on line.  Flat out lies and wild accusations commonly become THE TRUTH with these people so I responded, denied the flat out lie, and went into my record standing up against outrages by this individual’s friends in the Cambridge Machine.  A couple of these exchanges got quite strong and nonsensical on his part, so I passed on my collection of reality to people to whom these memoirs of reality could be valuable.

The thing which apparently got me thrown off the Listserv was misbehavior on the Listserv by Councilor #1.  I really had not been bothered by #1 putting a prohibited list of his record and pitch for votes on the ListServ.  A number of other people were.

The candidates for City Council number somewhere in the 20's.  Equal time for the others would be nonsensical.  So the folks were condemning #1 repeatedly.  One other candidate alleged this was not #1’s first such violation.

#1 happens to be one of the two worst members of the current City Council with regard to his record on the Charles River.

In the on line discussion, one woman was the only visible member of the group which pulls the strings on this entity.  So I suggested to her that a one on one response from a person who strongly disagrees with #1 would be an excellent way to neutralize the effect of this action by #1.

I got no answer to my offer.

The condemnations of #1 proceeded on line, so since I had received no response on my offer, I pointed out that I had suggested to the string pullers that I be allowed to respond to him, without going into meaningful detail.

The key string puller (a different woman), not long after that post by me, posted a strong comment with a wild falsehood, aimed at me without naming me.

I have seen nothing of what had been an active ListServ since then, so I must assume I have been thrown off the list because I OFFERED to respond to #1.  I did not put my response on line and I made no attempt to do so.

Since a very busy ListServ has suddenly gone silent, I have to assume that I have been evicted.  I have just checked and received a bounce.

But, as with the FLAT OUT LIE that started this busy period of several days, I am faced with the reality that, with the Cambridge Machine, wild statements become THE TRUTH.  I responded to the original FLAT OUT LIE in overwhelming detail.

If I had not been shut off the ListServ, I would have been very happy to simply let things lie with the public statement that I had offered a response.  But since I have been shut off the ListServ, the likelihood of yet another massive personal attack is a certainty.

The sooner the better to squelch such further outrages.  My pulling off the ListServ was preceded by an email with fraud aimed at me without naming me.

Nastiness will be used to smokescreen the ongoing fight of this destructive group of people for more horrible things on the Charles River.  The nastiness will use this latest outrage by them as an example of why their terrible goals are justifiable.  As usual, the fully predictable nastiness will not mention the very terrible goals.  Their very terrible goals will obscured by yet more delicately and “quietly” worded, but truly LOUD yelling..

So here goes.  Here is the comment offered to the string pullers with key sections analyzed.

* * * *

Councilor #1 wrote the April 24, 2017, motion to destroy the 56 mostly excellent trees and do other terrible things at Magazine Beach.  That motion was the first use that I am aware of the “dead or dying” fraud.

#1 fought for the outrages of the 2000's.  His explanation on that fight was that he was only responsible for the good parts of his actions, not the bad.

His explanation was that he was improving the playing fields.  But a significant part of the playing fields were destroyed to put in that poison drainage system.

To the best of my knowledge, he has never complained that, by reducing playing field size, he achieved EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what he said he was fighting for.

And bees are dying on Magazine Beach because of poisons that initiated in the 2000's operation.

Their beloved poisons are apparently being expanded to the top of the hill, plus to behind the swimming pool, and probably to east of the BU Bridge.  These actions, of course, are part of continuing destruction of habitat and of animal abuse, and of the Charles River.

* * * *

The only part of this package I have possible second thoughts about is saying #1 “wrote” order 1 of April 24, 2017.  The exactly correct terminology is that he, and #2 SPONSORED that order.  So “wrote” is technically slightly off exact center.  That order has the stench of the Development Department who probably WROTE it.  #1, by cosigning that motion, took credit for authorship.  There are more than one person who can be blamed for this outrage.  If #1 wishes to specify the actual author, I will be pleased to be more exact in my terminology.

The “dead or dying” fraud appears to be the offshoot of skillfully worded fraud by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.  The DCR and Cambridge are destroying truly excellent and massive trees.  These trees are so old and so excellent that many have probably passed their peak of beauty.

The skillful fraud from the DCR claims that, without spelling it out, a tree which has passed its peak of beauty is in "decline." To my understanding that is the definition of the term, "decline." "Decline" is the term the DCR skillful fraud used. Once it is "in decline (very fraudulent language in this situation), the DCR claims to have a RIGHT to destroy it.

The DCR also admits they want to destroy a lot of excellent trees which have not reached their peak of beauty.  Those are a very significant part of the number of trees the DCR, and nine members of the Cambridge City Council want to destroy, destroy, destroy.

In addition to the many excellent trees which are not yet at their peak, most of the trees being destroyed are excellent trees which have “passed their peak” and still have ONLY (they always use that word) 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years of fruitful beauty left.  The lie here is that these excellent trees are in “decline.”

And there are a tiny percentage which are dead.  My June 4, 2017 51 page letter to the Cambridge City Council  analyzed the situation in detail with photos and plans INCLUDING PHOTOS OF THE DEAD TREES.  My analysis is posted in the city record at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249.  I also offer email sized PDF’s, five in number, to those who are overwhelmed by the amount of time it takes to download the 400 or 500 page document which includes my report.

The #1 / #2 motion rather clearly took the skillful fraud in the word “decline” and spouted “dead or dying” from the skillful fraud.

“Dead or dying” is outrageous fraud, worse than skillful fraud.  ‘Dead or dying” is loudly repeated by the individuals fighting for this outrage.

“Dead or dying,” an unjustified expansion of skillful fraud, has become “REALITY” in the eyes of the Cambridge Machine.

I have elaborated and clarified my June 6 analysis in several subsequent letters.  That includes reports of destruction already accomplished including destruction of two trees which the shopping center across the street had lovingly cared for and which were not in the destruction plans.

* * * *

The other oddity which can use explanation is #1’s comment that he was only responsible for the good stuff, not the bad.

That comment was made outside a candidate’s night in North Cambridge where he was running for School Committee.

#1 was, to my recollection, the only figure visibly supporting the outrages inflicted on Magazine Beach in the 2000's outside of the bureaucrats implementing it.  The City Councilors, as is their wont, voted for the terrible things and then ran away from their guilt, letting the bureaucrats take the blame.

#1 was bragging that he was improving the playing fields.  It turned out to be exactly the opposite.  Playing fields were destroyed to put in a drainage system to drain off poisons being added to the Magazine Beach playing fields by Cambridge and the DCR.  #1 apparently supported the reversal with silence.

#1 probably was inflicting the usual Cambridge Machine bullying fraud on me with those words, but he said those words loudly and strongly.  What he said had a lot of meaning, and the Cambridge Machine rubber stamps everything.

I have published Phil Barber’s report on the bee sickness, and gone into detail about the love of the DCR for poisons on the banks of the Charles River, including the annual algae infestation of the Charles River which dates back use of probably the same poison at Ebersol Field because the DCR’s less powerful beloved poisons were not working.

I proposed to the string pullers of this fake protective group a short document which is made much longer by this analysis.  I kept quiet about the content until it would appear that I have been pulled off the ListServ. It is thus necessary to respond to the fully predictable nastiness which will be done by word of mouth, and which has already started with the falsehood in that key email.

I have lived with this terrible Cambridge Machine organization for way too long.  The three bad City Managers who thrived with this terrible organization are gone.  City Manager DePasquale looks like he is standing up to this terrible organization.

In the trenches, I, as usual, will be the victim of a terrible personal attack campaign.  I believe in reality.  Giving in to bullies emboldens them.  Their cause has no value.  It is a very terrible cause.

The Cambridge Machine has great antipathy toward reality.  I have communicated reality.

Monday, October 30, 2017

More Dirty Tricks on the Charles River, as usual.

More Dirty Tricks on the Charles River, as usual.

At the October 23, 2017 meeting of the Cambridge City Council, the Cambridge City Council consented to moving further toward destruction on the Charles River in the habitat of free animals including the Charles River White Geese based on a zoning proposal for Kendall Square.

Kendall Square is at least half a mile from the proposed area of destruction, and the Cambridge Development Department had informed the Cambridge City Council that the effort was UNLIKELY to involve properties away from Kendall Square.

UNLIKELY, business as usual.

Here is our response, which will has been included in the City Council package for October 30.

RE: Action of October 23, 2017 on Kendall Square with Secret impact on the Charles River.

1. Introduction.  Yet more secrecy from the voters.
2. The MIT commitment at Memorial Drive.
3. Passenger Rail on the Grand Junction sneaked in.
4. The reality, the Inner Belt with dishonesty.
5. Destruction of Animal Habitat.
6. Reality and the Bike Highway.
7. Some trees being destroyed, and various types of Fraud versus reality.
8. Red Line Planning.
9. Summary.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

1. Introduction.  Yet more secrecy from the voters.

I have reviewed the action presented to the City Council at its October 23, 2017 meeting, including a document not presented to the City Council but which is on the Development Department’s site and was referenced in the MIT Letter of Committment and in the Development Department letter of September 19, 2017, presented to the City Council on September 25, 2017.  This clearly gave the impression that the zoning discussions would only concern the Volpe site.

The MIT commitment, apparently accepted by the City Council’s approval of the zoning draft clearly goes beyond the Volpe property.

As is distressingly common in touchy matters, destructive stuff is kept secret.

2. The MIT commitment at Memorial Drive.

The MIT commitment for the Grand Junction includes all MIT properties abutting the Grand Junction, which includes the former Polaroid / Ford Plant building on Memorial Drive west of and abutting the Grand Junction.  Thus the development provided would include development between that building and the Grand Junction.

Here is MIT’s map of the area in question presented in its earlier report which was not kept secret.

The offer made by MIT and apparently accepted by the City Council includes major construction by MIT in that portion of the Grand Junction (blue and reddish lines) which is marked in red.  This major construction was kept secret by the City Council and the Development Department from people concerned with the Charles River and with this neighborhood.

Very clearly kept secret from all except those working on the Volpe project.

Of interest in this commitment is a report which has apparently NEVER BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.  The report AGAIN clearly claims to be concerned with Kendall Square, but it includes recommendations destructive to the Charles River and antagonistic to the established position of the City Council.  Cited in the Commitment Letter is a “Final Report” of the “Kendall Square Mobility Task Force” dated August 2017.

3. Passenger Rail on the Grand Junction sneaked in.

I note on page 2-6, a recommendation of yet another Grand Junction demand study, with the comment that the last study is outdated.  The City Council, on August 1, 2011, opposed Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.  As I recall, this was associated with the study at that time which resulted in MassDOT rejection of Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction because it would make no sense except to Kendall / MIT.

SIX YEARS LATER, this study is being called “obsolete.”  Oh, come on now.

This is similar to the defeat of the Inner Belt 45 years ago in association with a PUBLIC attempt to build it.  Now it is being moved half a block westward to the Grand Junction and is being sold as a bike path.  And this deal with MIT furthers this secret maneuver.

4. The reality, the Inner Belt with dishonesty.

A big difference between the defeat of the version in the 60's and now, is that now things are being handled as secretly as possible.

The MBTA 2003 study showed that the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge can be widened by cantilevering to add one lane, and that the additional lane south of the current Bridge could be combined with the southern of the two existing lanes to create an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to go up the Grand Junction.

The supposed publicly beneficial improvements promised by MIT just north of Memorial Drive (the reddish marked area) would benefit MIT by being part of this private off ramp to MIT from the Mass. Pike, with ramps to Memorial Drive.  Those ramps are key reasons why the City Council is destroying 56 trees on Memorial Drive (order 1, April 24, 2017).

Here are driveways which are being rearranged at Magazine Beach as part of the massive destruction of excellent trees supported by self proclaimed “environmentalists” on the Cambridge City Council.

We have given you a tree by tree analysis in our June 4, 2017 report expanded on in subsequent reports.

The key part is the widening of the Grand Junction Bridge over the Charles River.  Here is a photo of the Boston end.  The green sign straight ahead is over the Mass. Pike.  The situation can be clearly observed on the MIT plan at the top of page 2, above.

In 2003, the MBTA proved that a ramp can be constructed off the bridge by cantilevering to the east (left) and using the west (left) side of the existing bridge.  In the photo, this would require moving the track to the right into the currently unused side.

The sales pitch would create a cantilevered bridge for bikes and two railroad lanes.  How long would that last?  The sudden addition of the former Ford Plant to Kendall discussions show exactly the level of honesty present.

5. Destruction of Animal Habitat

And here is the DCR’s destruction plan for the thick woods east of the Grand Junction and south of Memorial Drive.  This is taken from the plans for the January 2016 destruction with the unanimous consent by silence of nine members of the Cambridge City Council.  Following, left and right, are recent corresponding photos.

One area being visibly destroyed is the area to the east of the Grand Junction, the Wild Area, which shows only one tree “not being destroyed.”  Destruction in the area to the west of the Grand Junction is kept more vague, although MIT has shown construction there, and the nonsensical 2006 report also shows destruction there.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation / Friends of the DCR have made of much of a mess of the left area [middle photo] as they had the nerve to, destroyed ground vegetation, splattering of crushed rock.  The right area [third photo here; I am repeating language in letter with correction for this medium in brackets as necessary], the Wild Area, was totally devoided of ground vegetation with sniffs of disdain, and replaced, as at the Goose Meadow with dirt.

Existing gross irresponsibility of the DCR and its friends is not a reason to further destroy.  A responsible city government would get rid of the DCR.

Massive future destruction of both areas is the sort of thing that the “planners” consider normal.

Rabbits have returned to the goose meadow.  The Charles River White Geese are not the only victims of irresponsible government behavior.  They are just the most visible.

Here is a recent photo of wild turkeys roaming the streets of Cambridge in the winter.  They have been displaced by the reprehensible destruction done in 2016 by the DCR and Cambridge

Our world is being destroyed, piece by piece by irresponsible human beings.  Cambridge has seen members of its City Council proclaim themselves environmental saints on the steps of the City Hall on April 24, 2017and step inside to vote for environmental destruction.  Our proof of fraud my letter of June 6, 2017 with regard to “dead or dying” used in the motion, showed that “dead or dying” was based on a massive expansion of fraudulent word games from the DCR pitch which equated beyond the peak of beauty with “decline,” and, suddenly, “dead or dying” became “reality” in spite of “dead or dying” not even having any basis in the fraud in the source material.

Here are the MIT plans (item 4) for further destruction in the Goose Meadow.  The J plan in the 2006 CDD plan was outrageous, but this would make it worse.

Here is the MIT plan for under Memorial Drive.  This would be widened to handle the Inner Belt, in accordance with discussions in 2003.

At that time, the MBTA only supported widening to handle one track plus two off ramp lanes.

And here are photos of heartless and deliberate starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese in place already.

The Starvation Wall viewed from Boston.

I have recently provided great detail on the outrages inflicted in the 2000's by this bizarre introduced starvation wall and the layers of introduced vegetation to prevent feeding through the tiny opening left.

Here is the blocking of the entrance to the Goose Meadow to keep the Charles River White Geese from feeding under Memorial Drive on the tiny amount of food there.

The stones introduced at the Hyatt prevent access to that food.

And here is Cambridge bragging of its heartless animal abuse in a propaganda show in the City Hall Annex.

Nonsense is being distributed, comparable to the supposed Kendall Square limitations of zoning discussions, that the Grand Junction Bridge is being widened for some sort of bike highway.

Thinking that the expansion will be some sort of bike highway is comparable to believing that the Volpe Center discussions were only concerned with the Volpe Center.

And so much of those lovely faces “fighting for” a bike highway sure do look like MIT.  And the key “protective group: which claims to be concerned about responsible highways sure has looked like it has or originally had its office on the MIT campus.

Let’s not talk nonsense.

6. Reality and the Bike Highway.

To the right [below] is a responsible connection from the Grand Junction to Vassar Street at its bend.

Here is another graphic from this MIT package showing where the bike path will be moved to when MIT gets it new Inner Belt lined up.

The pen and ink type marking at the Vassar Street bend in the below MIT graphic shows the area of the photo above.

The brown markings on the MIT graphic toward the upper right, reflect the existing crossing from Ft. Washington.  In what would appear to be yet another stalking horse, MIT proposed this connection by way of Amesbury Street for the bike path.  Tsk, tsk, that looks like the plan after MIT puts things in a row to instal its beloved Inner Belt connecting MIT to a private exit off the Mass. Pike.

7. Some trees being destroyed, and various types of Fraud versus reality.

Above I gave you the driveways being rearranged as part of Order 1 of April 24, 2017.  Here are 7 trees across from the MicroCenter parking lot which the Cambridge City Council wants destroyed.

The DCR fraud admits that all seven of the City Council doomed trees are excellent.  Order 1 took skillful fraud from the DCR and turned the skillful fraud into flat out fraud, “dead or dying.

And these DCR admitted excellent trees are smaller than SO MANY much larger, truly massive trees the City Council wants destroyed on Magazine Beach..

I say “smaller” in reality because the City Council wants much larger, more excellent trees destroyed.  And order 1 of April 24, 2017, called these trees “dead or dying.”

The DCR says these ADMITTTEDLY EXCELLENT trees are being destroyed to move the parking lot from the rear to fit the moving of the parking lot’s driveway to speed up traffic on Memorial Drive coming from the Mass. Pike over the Inner Belt being set up, among other frauds, as a bike highway.

And a bunch of City Councilors led a rally for themselves on City Hall steps calling them environmental saints before they went inside and voted for this outrage.

8. Red Line Planning.

The Final Report of the essentially secret committee on Kendall Square Mobility included great concern for Red Line planning.  Attached hereto is a plan I provided to the MassDOT committee on the Mass. Pike / Harvard Medical School rearrangement.  This idea certainly work a lot better if allowed for in the Mass. Pike work.  It suggests a major movement of traffic off the Park Street - Harvard portion of the Red Line, clearly the most heavily traveled portion.  This idea would create a Green Line A spur running from the Commonwealth Avenue / BU Bridge Intersection to Harvard Square through the Mass. Pike / Harvard Medical School area.

This alternate route would be highly attractive to passengers from the Back Bay, including Commuter Rail passengers who could transfer to the Green Line at the Kenmore / Yawkey superstation in the Kenmore Crossing alternative of the Urban Ring subway proposal.  I realize that, last time my notes indicate, in 2012, the Development Department was still claiming that this alternative does not exist, but the legislature did spend a lot of money rebuilding Yawkey Station in place, rather than moving it as would be required by the alternative which the Development Department repeatedly stated did not exist starting with its adoption as an alternative by the MBTA in 1991.

And, once again, here are the MBTA plans for the responsible crossing of the Charles River as an alternate Urban Ring Charles River crossing.  This Kenmore Crossing alternative is now the much more likely alternative to the BU Bridge crossing which the Development Department called the ONLY anticipated subway crossing, at minimum from 1991 to 2012.

That claim is equivalent to saying the Volpe Center discussions only referred to Kendall Square.

Is the Development Department still calling these MBTA plans lies of the MBTA?  At minimum, that was the only explanation of the official Development Department line from 1991 to 2012, AT MINIMUM.

The previous City Manager, in his comments on the South Station expansion, reasserted Cambridge’s interest in the Urban Ring subway, although that City Manager, once again POSSIBLY was only told about the Development Department favored and highly irresponsible crossing.

9. Summary.

Development Department documents misled the City Council AND THE PUBLIC, to be much kinder than the actions deserve.  The Development Department gave the usual misinformation on what was going on in the Kendall Square discussions, and related, but secret matters.

And, as I recall, the same people are claiming that the construction south of Memorial Drive will be meaningful bike paths.


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

Enclosure: Proposal for Green Line A connector from BU Bridge / Commonwealth Avenue to Mass. Pike. exit to Cambridge / Allston / Harvard Medical School to Harvard Square.  A proposal to move Red Line traffic currently traveling Park to Harvard to this route.

[Separate Page, legal, landscape, in letter]

Friday, October 20, 2017

Charles River: Bees, Trees, Poisons and the Cambridge, MA, USA City Council

Charles River: Bees, Trees, Poisons and the Cambridge, MA, USA City Council

By voting for destruction on Magazine Beach on April 24, 2017, the Cambridge City Council made itself one of the key villains, as is very much too common.  They do a lot of lying to their constituents by doing the terrible stuff fast and hiding it in silence, followed by non stop lovely actions, frequently of negligible meaning, in the meetings.  They then brag about the next to meaningless stuff.  So I am responding, and the responses are highly appropriate for these reports.

Last Monday, October 16, the Cambridge City Council had three lovely items on their agenda.  I have checked to see what they did with the lovely items, but I have not been able to access the actions on line yet.  Normally the lovely items are approved without negative comment.

Here is my formal response to the lovely stuff on October 16.  My response will be part of their meeting package next Monday.  It is addressed to the City Manager and City Council.

The extended quote is of Phil Barber, the biggest RESPONSIBLE expert on the Magazine Beach area.  I will have to follow up with a correction identifying him as the author of this material.

* * * *

RE: Bees, trees and poisons.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

I have reviewed with interest order 8 and committee reports 1 and 2 of October 16, 2017.

All these lovely words from the city council, of course, have no value given the reality which is order 1 of April 24, 2017, in which nine city councilors voted to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees on Magazine Beach, and have, since June 6, 2017, completely ignored our extensive, 51 page, report debunking of claims of “dead or dying” in that order.

It is to be noted that members of the public in the committee meetings expressed distress at the failure of just yelling at the other guy.  Members of the public have expressed concern about public destruction.

The bee zoning ordinance gets into another part of the public outrage which exists on the Charles River with the apparent support of the City Council, while yelling at the other guy.

I have received the following report on Magazine Beach.  The comments pick up as noticing a clear omission in propaganda put out by the local fake protective group people, by which they are lying that they are protecting Magazine Beach.  This sort of nonsense has been common from the Company Union groups since their inception in 1974.

* * *

What I don’t see in it and probably not surprisingly is the. . . large number of sick bees I’ve been noticing there all summer and especially now at the end of the season. I have seen many bumblebees who appear to be suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder  (Monsanto’s infamous Roundup herbicide has been linked to this disaster and is banned by the EU I think because of it). They are lethargic and disoriented, even on warm days, and you can find dead ones in the AM who perished overnight unable to find their way back to the hive. There are a fair number of honeybees there as well, who seem to be less affected.  It feels like the world is dying all around us and no one is noticing.

* * *

The reality is that CAMBRIDGE AND THE DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) love poisons on the banks of the Charles River, and the blank check in order 1 of April 24, 2017, reemphasizes this love.

In the 2000's, under the leadership of subsequent City Manager Rossi, Cambridge and the DCR started poisoning the previously responsibly managed Magazine Beach playing fields.

Part of the outrage of the 2000's was the fraudulent claims that playing fields were being improved.  Part of the fraud is that playing fields were reduced in size to drain off poisons which should not even be used.  At the top of the next page is a photo of part of the silly poison drainage system.

Draining off poisons which should not be there does not protect resident animals, INCLUDING BEES, and draining off poisons does not protect human beings rolling in poison-managed grasses.

The DCR has expressed an intent to replace the existing failed poison drinking grass on the playing fields with other grasses which, of course, will be maintained with poisons.  The DCR has shown intention to expand its lovely poison drinking grasses to the portion of Magazine Beach west of the playing fields.  It is, of course, silly to expect that that area or the area east of the BU Bridge will be managed responsibly.

There is an annual blight of algae on the Charles River.  It dates back to the year of the first Charles River Swims.  The first Swim was delayed because of the first algae blight which occurred from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge.

That first blight occurred the day after the DCR reacted to what it considered inadequate response to its lovely poisons on Ebersol Fields next to the Massachusetts General Hospital.  The DCR dumped more lovely poisons on Ebersol Fields to “improve” performance.  The new lovely poisons were marked “Do not use near water.”  The new lovely poisons could have been Round-Up.

It is thus no surprise that the infestation recurs annually.

Reality is that, as long as the DCR persists in management of the Charles River, outrages will multiply.

Implement your lovely words.  Yelling at the other guy is useless if you are on the wrong side when it counts.

Have the legislature get rid of this belligerently irresponsible agency in favor of the not perfect Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  MassDOT is not perfect.  Like other human entities it does occasionally make mistakes.  The DCR belligerently approaches being perfect, on the wrong side.

Reverse, as much as possible, the outrages of the 2000's and the outrages so far in the 2010's.

In particular,

rescind order 1 of April 24, 2017,

rescind the nonsense about Magazine Beach Boat Dock “improvements” in the CPA package,

modify Grand Junction plans to eliminate the stalking horse changes south of Memorial Drive which, in reality,

move closer a new Inner Belt providing a private exit from the Mass. Pike to MIT with ramps to Memorial Drive, and which, as well,

are clearly hostile to the environment and to animals south of Memorial Drive.

help out bicyclists by removing that portion of the current Grand Junction plans which make longer than necessary the distance bicyclists must go to get to Memorial Drive from the bike highway on the Grand Junction.  We have shown you two responsible alternatives, one proposed by MIT.

reverse the multiple starvation attacks on the 36 year resident and tourist and scholar attractive Charles River White Geese: 

the Starvation Wall and the nonsensical vegetation, etc. north of the still present, but rendered unusable boat dock of the 20th Century on Magazine Beach,

the blocked entrance to keep them from grasses under Memorial Drive.

the shoreline modifications which keep them from their 36 year feeding area across from the Hyatt.

the poisons.


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

P.S. Here is a photo of the massive grove overhanging the Magazine Beach playing fields.  The Cambridge City Council voted to destroy this grove in Order 1 of April 24, 2017.

Friday, October 13, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * *

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


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

1. Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Supposed dock improvement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Solution.

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

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

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

Poisoning of the banks of the Charles River must end.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Documentation.

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

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

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

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


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

Friday, October 06, 2017

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

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

1. Prelude.
2. Magazine Beach, More Dirty Tricks, CPA funds.  Solution for continuing outrages.
3. What You Can Do.
A. Introductory.
B. General.
C. The Institutions.

1. Prelude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. What You Can Do.

A. Introductory.

What we need is:

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

B. General.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. The Institutions.

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

The three key institutions involved are:

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

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

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

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

Please contact.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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