Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Charles River: Chutzpah, Tree Destruction and Heartless Human Abuse

Charles River:   Chutzpah, Tree Destruction and Heartless Human Abuse

Following up on my last report on the accusation I got when I was leafleting against Cambridge City Council “protective” claims.  Members of the Cambridge City Council were conducting a rally allegedly fighting against tree destruction.  Friends of the Cambridge City Council have been finding all sorts of ways to defend trees without stopping the Cambridge City Council’s fight to destroy trees plus multiple other outrages on the Charles River.

I was seeking a word for those folks fighting for destruction and blaming the destruction on me.

Chutzpah!!!!

* * * * *

It’s La Trémouille’s fault.  He should have kept the Cambridge City Council from voting to destroy all those trees.

* * * * *

Thanks to Phil Barber for remembering the word that describes what somebody, either the female city councilor or somebody around her commented about me when I was leafleting about Cambridge City Councilors voting to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees on the Charles River.  The leafleting came when she and another councilor were putting on a show on the steps of Cambridge City Hall of defending trees.

My memory of the attack on me brings back the response of folks controlled by the City of Cambridge with regard to Malvina Monteiro after the jury awarded her $1 million or so plus $3.5 million penal damages.  The jury was offended because the then Cambridge City Manager destroyed Malvina Monteiro’s life in retaliation for her working for equal pay for women from the City of Cambridge.

The pitch against Monteiro was passed on to me be a woman who has spent most of her life fighting for what she is told is politically correct.  This claim was typically Cambridge with regard to supposed activists running around claiming sainthood on all sorts of issues. 

If a Republican pays off a woman he has heartlessly abused, the same people would condemn the Republican. 

But when a woman has her life destroyed by then Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy, AND A COURT ORDERS DAMAGES INCLUDING PENAL DAMAGES, the same sort of women controlled by the City of Cambridge strongly blasted the victim. 

“Look at all the money she made.”

This is how extremely bad the situation is among people controlled by the City of Cambridge.

And now, once again, they are blaming the guy standing up against the outrage.  Never the string puller who is deified by the City of Cambridge.  It is the person defending the victims who is at fault.

This is what controls “progressive politics” in the City of Cambridge.

In addition to damages / costs, accumulation related to a nonsensical appeal and many other things, the payout to Ms. Monteiro exceeded $10 million after a bizarre appeal

So naturally, the Cambridge City Council named the police station after Robert Healy, and the “politically correct” damned Malvina Monteiro because of the size of the payment as a result of the heartless human abuse of Robert Healy.

The opinion of the Trial Judge described his destruction of Malvina Monteiro’s life as “reprehensible.

The appeals court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion.  “. . . ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior . . .”

And now La Trémouille is blamed for the imminent destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees on the Charles River with the support of the Cambridge City Council.

And now:

* * * *

It’s La Trémouille’s fault.  He should have kept the Cambridge City Council from voting to destroy all those trees.

* * * *

Chutzpah!!!!

Chutzpah!!!!

Chutzpah!!!!

Business as usual from the “politically correct” in Cambridge, MA, USA.

Monday, June 18, 2018

Charles River: Outrage at Magazine Beach is my fault?

Charles River:   Outrage at Magazine Beach is my fault?

A takeaway from my leafleting the rally led by members of the Cambridge City Council last Friday, June 15.

Here is a tidbit which came to me while leafleting the tree protection rally by members of the tree destructive Cambridge City Council on the steps of Cambridge City Hall on June 15.

During the allegedly pro tree rally, passing out leaflets, I had the nerve to summarize a key point in the leaflets:   Cambridge City Council destroys trees.

A word came from the group surrounding the two Cambridge City Councilors leading the rally.

It seems that, possibly from a councilor, I have turned out to be responsible for the increasing outrage at Magazine Beach, the massive pending destruction of excellent trees, the increasing heartless animal abuse, the rerouting of poisons into the Charles, etc..

According to the individual whose statement was being passed to participants, I HAD FAILED IN MY DUTY.

IT HAD BEEN MY DUTY TO KEEP THE CITY COUNCIL FROM VOTING IN SUPPORT OF THESE TERRIBLE THINGS.

Thus, according to friends of the City Council, I have no right to object to the terrible things the Cambridge City Council is fighting for.

There is a Yiddish word for taking such a position.  The word escapes me, but the word is most definitely not complimentary.

It is also the sort of reasoning which over too many years, has been altogether too common coming out of people controlled by the City of Cambridge.

Friday, June 15, 2018

Charles River: Our Goals.

Charles River:   Our Goals.

The situation is ominous from the core portion of the ongoing and increasing outrage on the Charles River with regard to operatives of the City of Cambridge.

They recently, along with the reprehensible Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, destroyed hundreds of mostly excellent trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.  Now they are fighting to destroy 56 more mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach, probably together with the usual heartless animal abuse and habitat destruction.  The latest outrage could be imminent or otherwise.  After all, secrecy is a key technique in environmental destruction in the City of Cambridge.

So what are the powers that be and their friends doing?

They are very loudly defending trees with all sorts of initiatives, but  somehow none of these “well meaning” people can notice the destruction THEY and their friends are inflicting on the Charles River.

Last evening I had a lovely leafleting session in front of Cambridge City Hall.  On the steps, City Councilors were proudly proclaiming the latest “process” they are fighting for TO DEFEND TREES, and, deafeningly are silent about THEIR outrages on the Charles River.

On the sidewalks, I leafleted passers-by with leaflets reflecting reality and the explanation: “City Council is destroying trees.”

I got word that the poor dears were confused as to the basis for the objections.  So we have mailed the following to the City Manager / City Council.  The Manager will get it Monday or so.  The Council will get it at their meeting on June 25.  It is quite possible that they will only have one meeting between then and September, and THE LATEST logging could be under way by then.

** ** ** ** **

RE: Charles River / Environmentalism: What the Cambridge City Council Should Do.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

In the last month, we have not spelled out the overall activities which the City Council should accomplish, given the non stop mantra of being pro-environment.  We apologize for our failure for the last month to state the obvious.

The following is taken from our letter of May 9, 2018, entitled “Charles River: More GOVERNMENT Destruction at Magazine Beach.’  It was provided in that letter as section 7, Summary.  It repeats statements made many times.  It was received at the May 14, 2018 meeting.

* * * * *

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.

* * * *

These repeatedly stated goals are eminently reasonable from a city government which purports to be an example for humanity.

** ** ** **

Our video on the outrage between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  The City Manager referenced is the prior City Manager.

Our letter of June 4, 2017, responding to the City Council’s outrageous vote of April 24, 2017, may be viewed at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249.  This letter runs 51 pages with over a hundred graphics, detailing to the Cambridge City Council the nature of the situation at Magazine Beach.  It provides a detailed debunking of the flat out lie “dead or dying” used in the April 24 vote.  It shows the excellence of the trees they are destroying which they, now, somehow, are so confused about.  There have been MANY follow ups.

Note, however, that there are three new City Councilors.  Unfortunately, while it is possible that one or more of the three is as confused as the City of Cambridge and friends are trying to make the voters, such a claim get tiring with age.  Sympathy will be totally gone if destruction starts so soon that they “cannot do anything about it.”

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Charles River: I90 rebuild, Response to wishes of the Cambridge City Council

Charles River:  I90 rebuild, Response to wishes of the Cambridge City Council


I. The latest dirty trick from the Cambridge City Council.
II. Analysis of the latest dirty trick to the two state secretaries.
III. Attachments.
A. The City Council Motion.
B. My record.

I. The latest dirty trick from the Cambridge City Council.

The Cambridge City Council is sounding pious again.

This time it is about the comments made by the state environmental people concerning the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s proposed rebuild of I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) on the Boston side of the Charles River across from Magazine Beach.  Magazine Beach has been the home and the food of the Charles River White Geese for most of the time since 1981. 

In the last ten years, Cambridge and the vile Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation have been destroying the habitat of the Charles River White Geese and starving them.  That is in addition to destruction of hundreds of mostly excellent trees east of the BU Bridge, and plans to destroy 56 more mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach, plus, of course, animal habitat, plus poisoning of the Charles River.

And Cambridge keeps their lovely plans and “achievements” as secret as possible because the City Council lies to the voters that the City Council is a bunch of environmental saints.

The situation is more complicated now because there are three new City Councilors as of January, and it is not certain whether the lying is directed as well to the new City Councilors or not.

This latest important motion is typical Cambridge.  The City Council through various subterfuges has communicated some rather irresponsible stuff, but the key outrages came before the incumbency of the three new councilors. 

This latest motion directed a letter to the Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation and the Environmental Secretary griping that the Cambridge City Council have not seen changes in plans for the I90 rebuild based on the Environmental Secretary’s analysis of the plans.  And the City Council, of course, has “ideas.”

The City Council passed a lovely sounding motion WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF DELEGATION to the irresponsible Cambridge Development Department.  So you really have to know what the referenced, prior, irresponsible, positions consist of to realize just how irresponsible the vote was.

Below is my response to the two secretaries, basically saying that the two secretaries should only look at the action TAKEN IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE VOTER AND THE THREE NEW COUNCILORS think that the Cambridge City Council is being responsible, and worded so that the voter and the three new councilors should not look at the secret irresponsible behavior really being elegated to be put into the delegated letter from the CDD to the two Secretaries.

The two Secretaries should disregard all of the secret stuff.  The two Secretaries should assume they are dealing with a responsible city government.

In most of this package, I go into the outrages pending on the Charles River.  It is getting very far advanced for the new three to be claiming they do not know what is going on.  The outrages could, in fact be imminent.

Below is the letter, sent as Chair, Friends of the White Geese.  The Letter has two attachments which follow the letter.  It includes my decidedly impressive record.

II. Analysis of the latest dirty trick to the two state secretaries.

1. General.
2. Part of the relevant record of the Cambridge City Council.
A. Massive destruction of mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach coming, AS SECRETLY AS POSSIBLE.
B. SECRET new or renovated (depends when they are talking) Boat Dock.
C. Poisons being redirected into the Charles River.
3. Conclusion.
4. Partial Record of the Signer.

Madam / Sir:

1. General.

Enclosed is a copy of the operative part of a motion approved by the Cambridge City Council on June 4, 2018.  I am attaching it to ensure there is no confusion.

We support transition of all responsibilities on the Charles River of the Department of Conservation and Recreation to the Department of Transportation because, on key matters, MassDOT has responsibly stood up to the destructiveness of Cambridge and of the DCR.

A key factor in the destructiveness is an electorate in Cambridge which demands environmentally responsible behavior from its elected representatives.  The trouble is that very much too often the elected representatives do a lot of lying to their constituents rather than living up to the expectations of their constituents.

The current communication is an excellent example.  The City Council motion is a publicly and readily available document to the voters in Cambridge.  Whatever comes out of the Cambridge Development Department is not.  So the important parts of the communication to you are kept secret from the Cambridge electorate, and perhaps from the newer members of the Cambridge City Council.

The motion, while including the mandatory politically correct language, gives power of communication to the Cambridge Development Department in support of very irresponsible communications which have come out of the City Council / come on behalf of the City Council / BEEN ENDORSED BY the City Council.  Irresponsible documents by or endorsed by the City Council have also been done without meaningful identification of the real actions in play.

The reality is that MassDOT has been significantly more reflective of the wishes of the Cambridge electorate than have been their elected representatives.

Accordingly, we strongly encourage MassDOT to respect the wishes of the electorate as stated in the motion and to disregard the resulting almost certainly irresponsible communications by city staff.

Inasmuch as the Cambridge City Council is ashamed to publicly support so many things WHICH IT SUPPORTS, MassDOT should continue its past responsiveness to the Cambridge electorate which the Cambridge City Council is hiding from.  Skillfully referenced BUT SECRET policies that the Cambridge City Council / the bureaucrat who wrote this motion could also be policies which the City Council is hiding from the new members of the Cambridge City Council.

In any case, we have provided extensive comments in response to the DEIR.  Following those comments would be an excellent way to determine positive policies which the Cambridge City Council / Cambridge Development Department is keeping from the Cambridge electorate / the new members of the Cambridge City Council.

Should you be interested in a knowledgeable position clos to the opinions of the Cambridge electorate, our communication in response to the DEIR has been placed by the Cambridge City Clerk in the records of the City Council of the City of Cambridge at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, Pages 94 to 125.

2. Part of the relevant record of the Cambridge City Council.

A. Massive destruction of mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach coming, AS SECRETLY AS POSSIBLE.

The most significant POSITIVE part of the record of the Cambridge City Council on the environment is yelling at the other guy.

In addition to using dirty tricks such as the current letter to their voters, an excellent example of the “environmental” concern of the Cambridge City Council is demonstrated by their record on the Charles River, exactly where they are yelling at you about.

On April 24, 2017, certain members of the Cambridge City Council conducted a rally for themselves on the steps of Cambridge City Hall.  The members loudly proclaimed their environmental sainthood.

They then went inside and voted, WITH NO PUBLIC PROCESS WHATSOEVER, in favor of the Department of Conservation and Recreation destroying 56 mostly excellent trees on Magazine Beach, along with related outrages.  Key in their motion was the flat out lie of “dead or dying” giving the false impression that the City Council was being responsible.  “Dead or Dying” was an outrageous expansion on skillfully fraudulent word games concerning those trees by the DCR.

On June 6, 2017, we filed with the City Council and City Manager  a detailed, tree by tree response analyzing the trees impacted and not impacted by the destruction supported by the Cambridge City Council.  We analyzed every tree, with photos, at Magazine Beach.  This 51 page analysis included 100 or more graphics.  The official record of this letter is posted at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249.

Among other things, it debunks in detail the “dead or dying” fraud, and the fraudulent word games of the DCR upon which the City Council Fraud was based.  We have elaborated in many subsequent letters.


Here are some of the trees they voted to destroy.

This magnificent willow  is on the river at the far western end of the playing fields.



To the left in the picture is the western end of the Starvation Wall introduced in the 2000's with the promise “a lawn to the river.”

The Starvation Wall seems to have no purpose except to starve the Charles River White Geese by keeping them from their food of most of their 38year habitat at the Magazine Beach Playing fields.

The DCR admits the starvation wall is hated by the public.  After all, it makes these riverfront playing fields essentially 10 miles from the river by blocking the river and the playing fields, but Cambridge and the DCR refuse to get rid of it.  It has value, heartless animal abuse.  The DCR has a goal of killing off or driving away all resident animals.  The Starvation Wall starves the Charles River White Geese.  Photo of Starvation Wall below.

Here is the magnificent grove of ten trees which overhangs the western end of the Magazine Beach playing fields.


The DCR plays more word games.  They create confusion about how many trees they are destroying.  They lie through secret definitions that these ten trees are “only” three.  Perhaps a third of these ten trees could be pruned.  All are possibly doomed, BY VOTE OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE OPPOSITE OF PUBLIC PROCESS.

The story, as usual, varies.  That is directed at confusing responsible people.  The DCR “may” or “may not” kill all of the trees, just enough deliberate confusion to mess things up for well intentioned people.  The only intelligent assumption is total destruction.
The Cambridge City Council voted to destroy this excellent public park.  They are gentrifying the area.  A bunch of little guys have barbeques here.  The environmentally sensitive parking lot they use would be devastated.  ONE tree in the parking lot WOULD NOT BE DESTROYED plus a whole lot of other destruction oif major trees between the parking lot and the river.  For a complete analysis, please see my detailed response to the Cambridge City Council.  Once again, the URL is http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True , pages 198 to 249.


Below is a marked up destruction plan from the DCR.  Trees are being destroyed to speed up traffic on Memorial Drive to take traffic from the private exit from I90 which was initially proposed by the MBTA in 2003.  Details in my DEIR comments at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, pages 94 to 125.


That highway is political death in Cambridge.  So it is hidden behind all sorts of euphemisms, and lies.

Driveways (the blue marks, by me) are being combined ON TOP OF TREES to speed up Memorial Driver

This magnificent, admitted perfect grove of seven trees is being destroyed to “move the parking lot.”



The woman who is the designated “saver of the Charles River” by the Cambridge Development Department REFUSES TO PUBLICLY SHOW HER DESTRUCTION PLANS.

She spent years fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges by telling people not to look at those destruction plans.

Her pitch was that she was defending the Charles River and that concerned people should only look at a building which was abandoned for 80 years.

Company union.

Destruction has already started THIS TIME.  Here is what the DCR and Cambridge left of two street trees adjacent to the MicroCenter across from the Magazine Beach recreation area.  These trees next to  parking lot which were lovingly cared for by the owner of the shopping center.


This destruction was reported by me to the Cambridge City Council on August 7, 2017.  Record in City Clerk’s files at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1825&Inline=True, pages 151 to 157.

This destruction is within the blank check given by the City Council on April 24, 2017, after the deification for environmental sainthood on the front steps of City Hall.  Although these two trees were not in the supposed plans.

SILENCE.
B. SECRET new or renovated (depends when they are talking) Boat Dock.

The City Council recently voted first $25,000 and then another $44,000 for a SECRET project which may or may not impact the Starvation Wall.  SOMEWHERE, they are doing boat dock work.  My guess is that they are returning to use the boat dock of the 20th Century which Cambridge and the DCR rendered useless as part of the outrages of the 2000's.  Here is the starvation wall a few years ago.  The brown opening WAS the boat dock until massive obstacles were built to prevent access.


Key is the reality that this Starvation Wall was provided instead of the “Lawn to the River” promised by the DCR / Cambridge on the edge of the playing fields.  What it does is keep the Charles River White Geese from feeding on the luscious grass north of the Starvation Wall, their feeding grounds for most of their 37 year habitat on the Charles River.

The tiny opening supposedly was to allow use of the 20th Century boat dock at this location.  Massive introduced vegetation north of the opening keeps the Charles River White Geese away from their food.  North of the opening is a narrow bridge over created wetlands which prevent access to the boat dock.

The ONLY information provided about the boat dock being provided is that it is in the eastern part of the playing fields and this plan.  The plan most definitely does not look like a boat dock.  What it looks like is yet another technique to keep the Charles River White Geese from their food.

This, on the left [ed:  the first], is the total justification for that $69,000 on public record.  It was called a NEW and then a renovated boat dock.  The “plans” were buried in a bunch of other general items given to folks who have no knowledge of the situation on Magazine Beach and without any meaningful communication to people concerned about Magazine Beach.



To the right [ed: below] is what the plan looks like.  It  looks more like the wall behind the 80 year unused building than it looks like a boat dock. Nevertheless, the Cambridge City Council has recently increased the $25,000 essentially approved in secret to $69,000 without any meaningful description of the project.


One thing is very clear is that the individuals involved brag of heartless animal abuse.

To the right [ed: below] is a photo taken from a propaganda show in City Hall Annex bragging about these outrages, while, of course, keeping the outrages secret.



Here is a photo of the most visible of the victims of countinuing and escalating heartless animal abuse, the Charles River White Geese.


C. Poisons being redirected into the Charles River.

The woman who is the CDD’s designated “defender” of the Charles River and will not publicly show what she and the Cambridge City Council wants destroyed.   has taken on her own to block drainage ditches installed in the 2000's to drain off poisons being introduced then by Cambridge and the DCR into what was a pristine environment.

She has blocked half the drainage ditches.

To the right [ed. below] is the work, in December 2018.


Complaint to the Cambridge City Council when done received on January 8, 2018:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1875&Inline=True, pages 163 to 167.

SILENCE by them, of course. And here is an algae pool which she / the DCR / the CDD have created through the  blocking of the poison drainage ditches.

                                Photo:  Phil Barber

I made an attempt to find out how an “environmental” city councilor explains this VARIOUS stuff at a public meeting.

She ignored her record and prattled on about “process” which translates as going to the destructive Cambridge Development Department and asking them whom she should be talking to in the community.

Naturally, the CDD is not about to refer people to responsible individuals, only those who speak the CDD’s party line.

3. Conclusion.

The bizarre definition for “process” infected the I90 study inasmuch as the CDD drove MassDOT officials away from the responsible members of the public who objected, among other things, to Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction as part of the MassDOT study on that.

And the Cambridge City Council yells at you while keeping the details of the terrible stuff they are trying to get out of you secret from the voters by referring to the Development Department, and the Development Department will send you a letter which will be a nightmare for the public to access if even possible.

Thank you in advance for your time, your consideration, and your continuation of so many responsible actions in the past..

4. Partial Record of the Signer.

I have been active working on environmental issues in the City of Cambridge since 1974.

My first major action was not really  as an activist but as a lawyer.

This was an attempt in Court to save the best park in the Central Part of the City from needless destruction by the City of Cambridge.

I obtained a preliminary injunction against destruction ON APPEAL.  This is next to impossible.

There were two key issues in the case.  One was factual, on whether the park was a park.

The other was a matter of law.  During the progress of the case, the Supreme Judicial Court, in dicta, overruled an entire line of precedent crucial to my case.  The SJC reversed itself ten years later, but, with that erroneous SJC decision before me, I could not get the legal error corrected without winning on the separate factual issue.  I lost the separate factual issue.

I proposed the Kenmore Crossing for the Urban Ring subway project in 1986, about five years before it was made the official policy of the MBTA in 1991.  The current situation on that project, if it goes through, is that the rebuild of Yawkey Station in place indicates that the Kenmore Crossing is the likely winner over the extremely destructive Cambridge government supported BU Bridge crossing, if Urban Ring rail goes forward.

In the current I90 rebuild, I proposed the most important change in the plans made during the planning process, the creation of a connection from the project site to Soldiers Field Road inbound east of the River Street Bridge.  The important difference between my proposal and the one in the plan under study is that I proposed only the left turn off the west bound Soldiers Field Road ramp to the River Street Bridge be discontinued.  The current proposal kills both left and right turns.

VERY ODDLY, when I objected to killing the left turn when this change was first made public, the key MassDOT representative was very indignant that the killing of both turns was approved by appointees of the City of Cambridge on the advisory committee.  A key appointee has since, with city council rubber stamp GIVEN THE IMPRESSION that this was not her position.  Last I read the materials, the fine print (one of the many things hidden in the latest (attached) city council vote is worded to give a contrary understanding of her position, BUT CLOSER READING indicates that her, now secret, position DOES NOT CHANGE her vote in committee.  Just another con game from City of Cambridge people.

As Chair / Cochair of Friends of the White Geese, I have been actively fighting the outrages of the City of Cambridge, the Department on Conservation and Recreation, and their robots / fake protective groups since 2000.

Enclosed, as well, is a two sided summary of activist actions be me in the core part of the City Council, a marked up zoning map, and a summary table.  This is by no means a total listing for even this part of the city, but it does summarize major efforts by me there.  My principal, BUT BY NO MEANS ONLY, tactic has been to use Chapter 40A, zoning, of the General Laws of Massachusetts as a means by which the public can force a vote by the City Council.  My most consistent opposition in this effort has been folks very similar to the folks currently fighting for destruction on the Charles River.  I have won quite a bit more than I have lost.

Mentioned in part in the table is my suggestion that a Green Line spur connect the BU Bridge / Comm. Ave. area to the project site running between I90 and Boston University, then going underground through the residential neighborhood and the North Harvard Street part of the Harvard campus, running under the Charles and connecting to Harvard Station by the tunnel which formerly connected Harvard Station to Red Line yards which are now JFK Park, the JFK School, and the Charles Hotel.

I have two years lower management railroad experience (labor relations), including six months actual on the ground work, for the Penn Central Transportation Company.

Once again, thank you for your interest.


Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair

cc: The Task Force appointed by MassDOT re the Allston I90 rebuild
Cambridge City Manager
Cambridge City Council

Enclosures:

1. Motion of City Council authorizing SECRET communications from the Cambridge Development Department to you.
2. A partial résumé of Robert J. La Trémouille (two sided)


III. Attachments.

A. The City Council Motion.

Attachment 1

Relevant Motion of the Cambridge City Council
June 4, 2018

 O-1
IN CITY COUNCIL
June 4, 2018

VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX MAYOR MCGOVERN COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN COUNCILLOR CARLONE

WHEREAS: On February 18, 2018, the Certificate of the Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Allston I-90 Interchange project was issued; and 

WHEREAS: The Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs requested that MassDOT reconvene the Stakeholder Task Force, which includes Cambridge representatives, and confer with community representatives to ensure that the concerns and needs of all impacted communities are reflected in the design; and 

WHEREAS: The Certificate called for continuing study and development of a “Preferred Alternative” from the State; and now therefore be it 

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to transmit the City’s concerns about issues still to be resolved for the Allston I-90 Interchange project and urge that the stakeholder process be promptly reconvened to review outstanding work to respond to the Certificate; and be it further 

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to communicate to MassDOT the issues requiring follow-up to the issuance of the I-90 Certificate that are pertinent to Cambridge, including access to and from Cambridge, noise, impact on parklands, and also about next steps in the development of the “Preferred Alternative”; and be it further 

ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to transmit a suitably engrossed copy of this Order with comments to be provided by the City Manager and CDD to the office of Secretary Pollack, Secretary Beaton and the Cambridge State Delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

[Attachment 2 not marked, tabular partial summary of activist experience of Robert J. La Trémouille, 2 sided.]
[Ed: this bracketed comment in the original.]

B. My record.

[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.]

Friday, June 08, 2018

Charles River / Cambridge:  Vellucci Park Protectors report controlled “Activists”.


1. Introduction.
2. Letter to Cambridge City Council and City Manager.
3. Conclusion.


1. Introduction.

In these reports, I have avoided getting into internal politics in the City of Cambridge.

Unfortunately, sickness of the internal political situation drives the situation on the Charles River.

It was thus a pleasure last Monday, June 4, to see a very impressive turnout at the Cambridge City Council concerning plans to destroy yet more parkland.

It gets even better because I lived in the neighborhood for seven years and wrote / provided technical assistance to two zoning changes in the area.

The public is given a limited amount of time, three minutes per person to comment on matters before the City Council.  Public comment ran more than two hours.

The usual characters were there and, rather incredibly, one member of the City Council commented that certain of the usual characters said something new.  The usual characters run around fighting for destruction.  What is new is what they are destroying this time.

What was extremely nice to me was hearing opponents of the destruction commenting that there were folks on the destruction side who looked like their strings were being pulled.

I followed up with a letter to the City Council that placed those comments in context with the performance of one of the self proclaimed City Council “environmentalists” at a meeting of the fake group which is fighting for destruction of the Charles River.

My victories in the area are part of the city zoning map.

Here is the relevant part of the zoning map.



Vellucci Park is in Inman Square, Cambridge.  The square proper is the elongated X at the upper right of the map.  The area marked OS between the two streets which are the left part of the X is Vellucci Park.

The C-2 area to the left of the X is Cambridge Hospital.  The next C-2 after Cambridge Hospital is Youville Hospital, now part of one of Boston’s hospital conglomerates.

The upside down L around Youville is the C-2B area which  my Leonard Avenue downzoning created to protect the neighbors.  Both hospitals are on Cambridge Street.  The area on the upper side of Cambridge Street between the hospitals was changed from the hospitals’ C-2 zoning to C-1, the neighborhood zoning.

Slightly to the right and across the street from this C-1 area is Highland Avenue.  I lived on the left slightly below the cross street.

The BIG area marked B is the next residential zoning district below Residence C-1.  It was created as a result of the Maple Avenue / Fayette Street zoning petition which I wrote and advised.  Above the B area is another OS area, Marie Avenue Park.

Marie Avenue Park was the first neighborhood area zoned for Open Space in Cambridge.  My idea.

The grey area at the top of the map is Somerville, MA.  Several Somerville residents testified last Monday.

For two and a half years, I commuted by bicycle from here to Boston University Law in all kinds of weather.  It was over a mile.  I commuted over the BU Bridge to BU Law before the beginning of the residence of the Charles River White Geese there.  BU Law is visible across the Charles River in a lot of photos of the goose habitat.

In the letter, I mention Sarah Mae Berman, a former School Committee member who supported the Maple Avenue downzoning.  She owns property in the B area.  I know which property it is, but this blog is read in more than 100 countries.  Identifying her exact residence to such a potentially wide audience would do nothing to further the value of this report, and would be indiscrete.

My letter to the Cambridge City Council:

2. Letter to Cambridge City Council and City Manager.

This letter was mailed on June 6.  Thus it will likely be received by the City Manager either on June 7 or on this coming Monday.  It will be formerly received by the Cambridge City Council the following Monday because they are conducting a special meeting this coming Monday which does not include any ordinary business.

* * * *

Gentlemen / Ladies:

The tentative vote to destroy Vellucci Park taken on June 4, strikes very close to home.

I lived at 67 Highland Avenue, within view of Cambridge Hospital, for seven years. .

I wrote / provided major technical assistance to the Maple Avenue / Fayette Street downzoning which created the Residence B district in that area.  That zoning change made the Marie Avenue Park have the first neighborhood level open space zoning, and included the home of at least one of the speakers Monday night, Sarah Mae Berman.  Sarah Mae consented to that change without being an activist in the creation of the change.

Although I am not aware of anybody present Monday night who was on my side with regard to that area, I also wrote / provided major technical assistance to the downzoning of the Leonard Avenue area.  This change converted to Residence C-1 a C-2 strip which formerly connected Cambridge Hospital and Youville Hospital on the north side of Cambridge Street.  Our downzoning also created a C-2B buffer in the Youville Hospital property to protect its neighbors.

I was extremely pleased at the astute comments on June 4 of a number of the neighbors who rather clearly recognized that  “protectors” active in the effort should, in reality, be considered controlled by the Cambridge Development Department.

People who work to protect Cambridge are commonly descended upon by supposed ”protectors” who are impossible to distinguish from robots of the Cambridge Development Department.

I recall a City Councilor who recently spoke to a fake protective group fighting for destruction on the Charles River.  She commented in praise of her idea of “process.”  She refused to discuss the 56 mostly excellent trees she voted to destroy at Magazine Beach, but she happily talked of “process.”  Her idea of “process” was very clearly one of going to the Cambridge Development Department and asking them whom to talk to.

The CDD commonly refers people to, it is very clear, folks who parrot the CDD, folks who work to  achieve very terrible goals of the CDD.

English translation, this councilor considers going to the destructive CDD to find out whom to listen to as correct “process” in evaluating CDD outrages.  Could be lack of understanding of reality.  Could be deliberate.  If deliberate, the use of “process” with regard to such behavior strikes me as fraud on the voter.

Well intentioned folks are besieged by individuals, commonly with bad records, who tell responsible citizens either to rely on fake protective groups or to directly rely on the very destructive CDD.

A still partial but more detailed communication of my record to the City Council is posted by the City Clerk at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1928&Inline=True, pages 99 to 103.  This partial listing of my record includes very destructive activities of such fake protectors.  Such entities have, commonly, been the biggest problem in my many responsible activities defending the City of Cambridge.

Once again, there were a lot of good, very astute people speaking in defense of Vellucci Park.  They must take care, and I think they will, to avoid being infiltrated by and destroyed by this tiny, very destructive, and well organized bunch of people.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille

PS: I did a commentary / interview show on The Cambridge Environment on CCTV [ed: Cambridge Community Television, Cambridge’s public access broadcaster] for 22 years.  The end of that effort has allowed me the very great amount of time needed to more directly communicate with the Cambridge City Council.

During my 22 years on CCTV, there was only one time I had as my guest on my show a then sitting member of the Cambridge City Council.  That person was Al Vellucci. [ed: the namesake of the tentatively doomed park]

Atch: Zoning map of mentioned areas [ed. above in this publication.]

3. Conclusion.

I think I have photos of pretty much all of these areas.

This blog is about the Charles River, its animals, its trees, its water, and its vegetation.  The relevant part of this hearing is the recognition by protectors that “activists” opposing them include folks who are being told what they believe.  Another part of the same filth which along the Charles River is fighting for, AND HAS ACHIEVED, major destruction on and into the Charles River.

I think the map makes my point adequately.

Sunday, June 03, 2018

Charles River:   The Reality of a Bad Vote.

I. Editor’s Introduction.
II. Letter to Cambridge City Council / City Manager.
III. Additional Links.


I. Editor’s Introduction.

On May 21, 2018, the Cambridge City Council took a destructive vote whose reality was and continues to be supposedly secret from them and definitely secret from their voters.

The situation in the City of Cambridge is that when actions are kept secret there is PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS a good reason.  If the reason is publicly stated, it is a responsible reason, or it is an irresponsible reason FOR WHICH A GOOD SOUNDING LIE HAS BEEN CONCOCTED.  If the reason is kept secret, don’t be so stupid as to think it is a responsible action.

Additionally, in this situation, six of the nine City Councilors support destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and other outrages in the Magazine Beach recreation area.  There is a tradition with regard to such SHARED outrages with the vile Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.  The tradition is that funds get allocated to comport with the lies the City Councilors are putting out that members of the City Council are politically correct (possible caveat on three new members).  Nominally responsible expenses on shared projects get allocated to the Cambridge City Council.  The dirty stuff goes to the DCR.  It is all one project and thus REALLY one fund, but Cambridge voters demand that the members of their City Council be politically correct in their behavior.  So it really is all one package, but it gets constructed to allow the City Council to lie about themselves.

This is the basis for the vote of May 21, 2018.  Politically correct supposedly, but with no meaningful details, and it allows exactly the same amount of money to be allocated by the DCR for tree destruction and other obvious outrages.

Almost certainly the money for the “dock” work is for heartless animal abuse.  WHY ELSE WOULD IT BE SECRET?  Especially since the vote is based SOLELY on a “dock” plan which most definitely does not look like a dock, but which looks like just another starvation barrier to continue starving the Charles River White Geese.

THE SUPPOSED DOCK IS IN THE ONLY OPEN PART OF THE STARVATION WALL which, in turn, is admitted by the DCR to be hated by the public.  But it has value.  It blocks off Magazine Beach from their food for most of the last 37 years on the Charles River.  The Starvation Wall has been in place since the last outrages at Magazine Beach during the 2000's.

THIS TINY OPEN PART, THEORETICALLY, ALLOWS THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE THROUGH TO GET THEIR FOOD OF MOST OF THE LAST 36 YEARS.  In reality, there is yet another wall inside the opening to ensure their starvation.

THE NATURE OF WORK ON THE CHARLES RIVER IS ROUTINELY KEPT SECRET.   HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE IS ROUTINELY STUCK INTO EVEN APPARENTLY RESPONSIBLE PROJECTS.   IT IS QUITE STUPID TO THINK A SECRET PROJECT AT THIS LOCATION HAS ANY SEMBLANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY.

Besides, at best, it is just another juggling of money to lie that the Cambridge City Council has nothing to do with the massive destruction at Magazine Beach PUBLICLY supported by at least six members. That vote came almost immediately after city councilors led a rally declaring the environmental sainthood of the Cambridge City Councilors who voted for that particular outrage..

The following is my response letter to this vote.  The letter will be received by the Cambridge City Council on June 4.  It was received by the Cambridge City Manager on May 31.

The letter was finished with very little time for detailed editing while making the deadline to get it to the City Council on Monday, June 4.  As a result, there were a number of obvious typos.  As many of the typos as I could catch are corrected in this publication.



II. Letter to Cambridge City Council / City Manager.


RE: Charles River:   Reality of the vote on City Manager Agenda Item 2, May 21, 2018.

1. Analysis
2. Photos.
a. The CDD and fake protectors bragging of heartless animal abuse.
b. The most visible victims in their foodless, government destroyed, ghetto.
c. The official photograph / plan of whatever the City Council voted for.
d. Some of my photographs of May 31, 2018, of the rear of the recently renovated 80 year unused building, striking similar to the fake dock plans..
e. The Starvation Wall, sold under the lie “lawn to the river.”
f. Blocking of the poison drainage system by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors.”
g. Algae accumulation created by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors” blocking the poison drainage system.
h. Two street trees lovingly nursed by the MicroCenter’s owners ‒ after destruction by the DCR and by six incumbent Cambridge City Councilors.
i. Magnificent Grove overhanging the Magazine Beach Playing Fields ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
j. Magnificent Willow ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.  Western end of the public’s hated Starvation Wall also shows.
k. Excellent park at the top of the Magazine Beach hill, across from Magazine Street ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
l. Seven ADMITTEDLY excellent trees across from the MicroCenter parking lot ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
m. Our Mark up of DCR Destruction Plans to show rearrangement of driveways (and tree destruction) to speed up traffic coming from MIT’s private exit for I90 (Mass. Pike).
n. Temporary chopping of Starvation Wall around the 20th Century boat dock which was made useless in the 2000's outrages.
3. A partial record of my experience.

1. Analysis

There is a pattern in the behavior of Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and fake and very destructive “protectors” they designate as a claim to “process.”

I get the impression that one or more members of the Cambridge City Council are not interested in whether or not they are environmentally responsible.  They just want to blame it on process.  The reality is that one woman with a terrible environmental record is running around lying about what she is doing and keeping her terrible actions as secret as she can.  She has a strong record of major destruction, and is implementing that record.  That is irrelevant to the City Council.

What is relevant is that she is rubber stamping a Cambridge Development Department with a terrible record, and she has a record of a rubber stamp.  WHILE KEEPING THE VERY TERRIBLE THINGS SHE HAS DONE AND IS FIGHTING FOR AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE.

To NO SURPRISE WHATSOEVER, THE CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT is very fond of and recommends this woman rubber stamping the Cambridge Development Department.

That is “process”.

The reality of whatever has been voted in in City Manager’s Agenda Item Number 2 of May 21, 2018 is that, in the location where the SECRET work is being performed, Cambridge, the Cambridge Development Department and the Department of Conservation and Recreation, have a well established record of heartless animal abuse.

The outrages at Magazine Beach rather clearly prevent access by the Charles River White Geese to their home and food at Magazine Beach of most of the period since 1981.  That starvation wall was implement in direct violation of public promises of a “lawn to the river” and is public hated, according to admissions of the DCR.

The apparent location of the “boat dock” almost certainly is an exacerbation of the starvation campaign.  A photo of the beloved (by the bureaucrats) and hated (by the public, according to the clear admissions of the reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation) starvation wall is attached.

I, as I constantly do, am trying  to communicate to the Cambridge City Council what the Cambridge City Council is doing.  I call the Cambridge City Council’s  kind of “process” exactly the opposite of environmentalism.  I consider it fraud on the voters.

Below is the complete photo which is the only substantive explanation for City Manager Agenda Item 2, May , 21, 2018, except for it being constatnly called a ‘NEW’ or a renovated Boat Dock, a claim which the City Manager has corrected by calling it a renovation.  Use of renovation (or whatever) / NEW varies.   A renovation would be to the boat dock rendered useless as part of the 2000's outrage which installed the hated Starvation Wall based on outright lies.  A NEW boat dock as promised could be anywhere.

This project MAY BE in the only opening in the Starvation Wall.

This bizarre plan was apparently the TOTAL SUPPORT for $25,000 allotted by a bunch of people who did not have the slightest idea what they were doing, but it sounded nice.  And the “process” buried the possible destructiveness of the proposal from being visible TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  The amount of other items concerned lovely “process” which, as usual, buried the important, potentially destructive stuff.

The City Manager has stated the supposed boat dock as being in the eastern part of the Magazine Beach playing fields, although the plan which is the TOTAL SUPPORT for the $25,000 certainly looks similar to construction behind the recently renovated building which has not been used for 80 years.  Photos from May 30 attached.

This latest vote, on May 21, was an added $44,000 with, again, no meaningful public process, except that it was added for discussion the day the budget was voted on FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR with NO REAL PROCESS, and no real communication to anybody, it would appear, of what is happening.

I recall a City Councilor claiming to be pro environment who would not discuss the mostly excellent 56 trees plus at Magazine Beach which six members, including her, of the Cambridge City Council voted to destroy.

The vote she was keeping secret in that meeting came as Order 1 following a rally on City Hall front steps on April 24, 2017 in which councilors loudly called themselves environmental saints.  But while she would not discuss the destruction, she then spent a lot of time bragging about process.  I have repeatedly provided the City Council with multiple communications debunking the flat out lie of April 24, 2017, “dead or dying” describing the mostly excellent trees and other excellence those six city councilors voted to destroy.  Order 1, NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PROCESS.

Debunking of this nonsense is on the public record at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, page 198 to 249.  There have been multiple follow ups.

Recently, a bunch of well intended folks followed directions of fake protectors and TEMPORARILY chopped down part of the publicly hated starvation wall which makes the Magazine Beach playing fields, for all practical purposes, ten miles from the Charles River.  The TEMPORARILY chopped down this part of the PUBLIC HATED starvation wall is located around the location of the boat dock of the 20th Century which was made useless by the outrages of the 2000's paid in part by the Cambridge City Council.  The Starvation Wall was installed in direct violation of the very formal lie which promised a “lawn to the river.”  Photo below.

As near as I can gather from surmise and public statements, this part of the Magazine Beach destruction project is slated to occur in the eastern part of the Magazine Beach playing fields.  This project is of value to the Cambridge City Council because it follows on the environmentally destructive vote of the Cambridge City Council on April 24, 2017.  That vote rapidly followed the self deification of many councilors on City Hall steps as environmental saints.

The April 24, 2017 vote was for major destruction at Magazine Beach based on the flat out lie, “dead or dying.”  I proved that flat out lie a flat out lie in great detail in my 51 page letter which I wrote on June 6, 2017 which was delivered to City Council and City Manager, City URL above.

Part of the outrage voted on April 24, 2017, has already occurred, and it is consistent with the very terrible record of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and of the Cambridge Development Department.

Two street trees have already been destroyed which were lovingly cared for by the shopping center owner at MicroCenter.  The loving care handed to those excellent, DESTROYED, trees is another party debunking the “dead or dying” lie in order 1 of April 24, 2016.  Photo below.  NOTE THE MULCH AROUND THE STUBS of the destroyed, lovingly care for, trees.

The only meaningful description of the dock project that I am aware of is one plan which does not look like a dock.  I posted that key photo, the City Council’s TOTAL FORMAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOAT DOCK PROJECT, among other places, on the Facebook page for the Charles River White Geese.

George E. Despotes responded on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page.  He made a very intelligent question.  He asked what this photo was all about.  My response did not make it into the record, but I have recently returned to the Facebook page, and double clicked the photo to get a better view.

The photo which has been presented as what the City Council is now paying $69,000 for, WITH NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PROCESS, is strikingly different from a boat dock.  This photo is strikingly similar to the wall behind the recently renovated building which has not been used for 80 years.

This recently renovated 80 year unused building is the item which fake protectors for years told people was the only thing they should look at on the Charles River.  This pitch was major in the fake protector’ fight for and victory in the destruction of hundreds of mostly excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

Part of the fake protectors’ fight for destruction featured the fake protectors lying that they were meaningfully defending the Charles River.  The technical term is “Company Union.”

This recently renovated 80 year unused building is southwest of the magnificent grove which overhangs the Playing fields from the Magazine Beach hill, that six or more City Councilors want to destroy.

There are ten trees in this doomed grove of which less than a third cannot be saved.  The DCR plays a lot of word games.  Their word games were converted into “dead or dying.”  The word games in this case state that the DCR and SIX OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL are “only” destroying three trees, not the ten which normal humans would count.

This recently renovated 80 year unused building is directly west of the magnificent willow which six city councilors voted to destroy on April 24, 2017, photo attached.

This recently renovated 80 year unused  building is at the southern end of the magnificent park in the middle of the Magazine Beach recreation area which six or more City Councilors want to destroy.  Attached is a photo of this excellent and doomed park from the Memorial Drive side.  Much more detail is provided in my June 6, 2018 letter which shows AND EVALUATES every tree in the Magazine Beach recreation area.  The URL for this analysis is provided above.  Greater detail is provided in follow ups.

The photo which is the total basis for the $69,000 now voted by the Cambridge City Council is strikingly similar to the rear of this recently renovated location with its 80 year unused building, a location which is west of the western end of the playing fields and which most definitely is not a boat dock.

Attached are my photos of the same NON BOAT DOCK area.

The City Council has $69,000 on a pig in a poke.

No meaningful description of the project has ever been provided.  The DCR and Cambridge do have a history of HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE on the Charles River, and pretty much every recent project on the Cambridge side of the Charles has included HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE.

The City Council has based this money on a photo which does not even portray the supposed boat dock.  But Cambridge and its fake protectors commonly brag about that which the voters would love, and keep as secret as possible that which would earn the Cambridge City Council derision by the voters.

This pattern of outrage is highly consistent with one of the reasons why the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission, routine irresponsible destruction of public property.  The irresponsible planners, with their plans, went to the DCR, and, with Cambridge’s irresponsible Development Department and the CDD’s rubber stamps are implemented these terrible plans.

2. Photographs.

a. The CDD and fake protectors bragging of heartless animal abuse.



b. The most visible victims in their foodless, government destroyed, ghetto.


c. The official photograph / plan of whatever the City Council voted for.


d. Some of my photographs of May 31, 2018, of the rear of the recently renovated 80 year unused building, strikingly similar to the fake dock plans..





e. The Starvation Wall, sold under the lie “lawn to the river.”



f. Blocking of the poison drainage system by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors.”


g. Algae accumulation created by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors” blocking the poison drainage system.

                                Photo:  Phil Barber

h. Two street trees lovingly nursed by the MicroCenter’s owners ‒ after destruction by the DCR and by six incumbent Cambridge City Councilors.


i. Magnificent Grove overhanging the Magazine Beach Playing Fields ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.


j.Magnificent Willow ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.  Western end of the public’s hated Starvation Wall also shows.


k. Excellent park at the top of the Magazine Beach hill, across from Magazine Street ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.


Exact analysis in our June 6, 2017 letter, URL above.

l. Seven ADMITTEDLY excellent trees across from the MicroCenter parking lot ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.



m. Our Mark up of DCR Destruction Plans to show rearrangement of driveways (and tree destruction) to speed up traffic coming from MIT’s private exit for I90 (Mass. Pike).





n. Temporary chopping of Starvation Wall around the 20th Century boat dock which was made useless in the 2000's outrages.


3. A partial record of my experience.

IN SHARP CONTRAST TO THE CDD’Ss proclamation of rubber stamps to be inserted as “process” which is anything but, a PARTIAL record of my experience, with map may be found in the City Clerk’s records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1928&Inline=True, pages 99 to 103.

IN SHARP CONTRAST to the rubber stamps proclaimed as defenders, ALL my record is on the side I claim to be on.


III. Additional Links.

a, Official City of Cambridge of this communication as submitted to the City Council:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1933&Inline=True, Pages 103 to 114.

b. The newly upgraded website of Friends of the White Geese.

http://focrwg.com.


Friday, June 01, 2018

Charles River: “Process” = Fraud?

Charles River:   “Process” = Fraud?

1. Magazine Beach. ‒ Phil Reports
a. Website reborn.
b. Interesting article on invasives:
c. On the fake “protectors” who are destroying at Magazine Beach and being told they are saints.
d. Dock Project.
2. “Process” or fraud?
a. “Environmental” City Councilor brags.
b. Cambridge Common destruction.
c. Alewife Destruction.
d. Architect wants moneys for RECOGNIZED neighborhood associations.
e. Destructive Passenger Train Service.
f. Reduction of car access to Cambridge by the I90 rebuild.
g. How many years of fighting for destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River while lying about “neutrality.”

1. Magazine Beach ‒ Phil Reports

a. Website reborn.

Phil has been doing a heck of a job cleaning up the Charles River White Geese website.

He reports that the fruits of his labor so far may be seen at:  http://focrwg.com

b. Interesting article on invasives:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/25/happy-talk-about-weeds/

c. On the fake “protectors” who are destroying at Magazine Beach and being told they are saints.

The "gardens" they planted aren't faring well. About half the plants seem to be surviving.

The Phrags are pushing up under the tarps that were just laid down, some actually ripping through. makes me think of weeds you see germinating through asphalt. Determined!

As anticipated much uprooting (including wildflowers, not just in the reed area) and new tarps.

The rabbits have found the newly planted flowers, about half are still left uneaten.

Yesterday [ed: several days ago now] at Magazine Beach, I saw they've put in grass seed where the little wading pool was and in several nearby small areas that were damaged by the recent construction vehicle passage. The old Magazine is lit up on the outside at night now, more work of some sort being done inside. I guess they're keeping the small parking area, with the new handicap access curb cut - an SUV was parked blocking it when i was there, no pained markings yet.

d. Dock Project.

That is really outrageous kicking in all that city money for the dock project.

2. “Process” or fraud?

a. “Environmental” City Councilor brags.

At the last gathering of the fake neighborhood association, they had a city councilor speaking who claims to be an environmentalist.

She loudly brags about process.

She refuses to discuss the 56 excellent trees whose destruction she supports on Magazine Beach, or the total lack of process involved in that city council vote.

There were a bunch of City Councilor leading a rally on the Cambridge City Hall steps before the meeting.

They bragged of their environmental sainthood.  Then they went inside and voted for the destruction at Magazine Beach.

b. Cambridge Common destruction.

The Cambridge Development Department and self proclaimed environmentalists destroyed the excellent grove at the Harvard Square entrance to the Cambridge Common.

The CDD objected to the excellent grove blocking the view of a monument.

Now I see saplings planted.

My guess is that responsible people were highly offended by the destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council.

c. Alewife Destruction.

Last I heard, city councilors were still talking about the sanctity of the Silver Maple Forest at Alewife, the western end of Cambridge, and keeping as secret as possible (subject to nonsensical bragging) their destruction of 3.4 acres of it.

d. Architect wants moneys for RECOGNIZED neighborhood associations.

The architect who is an elected member of the Cambridge City Council put in a pitch during the budget process for funds for the RECOGNIZED “neighborhood associations.”

I have been close to a number of these fake protective groups.

One allegedly represents the “neighborhood” nearest Alewife.

Most recently, it has been very active at telling people to yell at developers obeying City Council created zoning at Alewife, but IN NO CASE, yell at the City Council responsible for the zoning, and most definitely not to look at Cambridge and the DCR’s destruction of 3.4 acres at Alewife.

I recall ten years of so again, how the same people who complaining that their funding was having problems, and them guessing that the Development Department was unhappy at some of their stands.

Last I heard, I was unable to tell the difference between the two.

They do have a “zoning expert” who brags that his “expertise” is based on going to the Development Department to find out what he thinks.

e. Destructive Passenger Train Service.

Passenger service on the Grand Junction railroad which runs through the last remaining habitat of free animals on this portion of the Charles River was killed a few years ago when people who would be impacted by the blocking of public streets by Commuter Rail in Cambridge.

MassDOT found that Commuter Rail would be of no value to anybody except for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology dominated Kendall Square in Cambridge.

The euphemism for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction this time is “West Station” as part of the rebuild of I90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) on the Boston side across from Magazine Beach.  West Station would be a key part of Commuter Rail if passed.

MassDOT asked the Cambridge Development Department who to contact.

The CDD has been fighting for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction for years.  TO NO SURPRISE, the CDD told MassDOT not to talk to the people who beat the project, and instead to contact the fake neighborhood association which rammed through destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges (MIT supported, reinforces that part of Memorial Drive as, for all practical purposes, their personal feifdom.)

The “neighborhood” the fake neighborhood association clams to present has no real impact related to the Commuter Rail, except for the majority (but driven away from the group) who are shocked by the environmental destruction.

f. Reduction of car access to Cambridge by the I90 rebuild.

Same thing.  The “neighborhood” the fake neighborhood association claims to represent has minimal use of the route being destroying in the project because the route GOES AROUND most of the neighborhood and is on little value to the supposed people represented.

So, naturally, after the CDD representatives on the “advisory” committee supported the destruction, the CDD, also told MassDOT to talk to these controlled folks who do not even meaningfully claim to represent impacted people.

g. How many years of fighting for destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River while lying about “neutrality.”

Now the game is to fight for destruction and to lie by bragging about the little stuff and even lying about their destructive fight, but TOTALLY censoring reality.  The local fake protective group put on this supposed City Council environmental to brag about “process.”

As near as I can gather, her idea of process is to listen to people controlled by the CDD, She would not respond when asked about the 56 excellent trees and related excellence which the City Councilor supports destroying.