1. Representative Walz to defend the Charles before one of the Cambridge City Manager’s Groups.
2. The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, the actions it brags about.
3. Walz’ legislation.
4. Latest outrages.
5. Clarification.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Representative Walz to defend the Charles before one of the Cambridge City Manager’s Groups.
The following is the listing of item number 2 on the agenda for the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting on September 10.
2) State Rep. Marty Walz has requested an opportunity to update the neighborhood about new legislation she has filed for better protecting open space along the river, by including, among other things, shadow analysis and better protection of how construction along the Charles should maximize and preserve open space (this follows Marty's supporting the CNA's successful legislative work to have City Council pass other legislation to enlarge the Charles River buffer zone (area without development) along the Charles and within Cport.
2. The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, the actions it brags about.
The Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association was created at the request of the Cambridge City Manager. In its first organizing action, it “fought” a project going into the decommissioned Blessed Sacrament Church arguing it was too large. They had a victory. They made the project larger.
The “victory” they brag about on the Charles is the typical fake victory which is the norm from Cambridge Pols.
In, I believe, 2006, close friends of the leaders of this group, fellow members of the Cambridge Pols, destroyed zoning protections on the north side of Memorial Drive across from Magazine Beach and extending to Putnam Avenue. They lied that they were doing exactly the opposite and you have to read the fine print of this fake downzoning to realize exactly what it was.
The “leaders” of the two groups and many friends including at least one current city council member have spent the better part of the last decade destroying zoning protections in Cambridge with many zoning initiatives containing exactly the same sort of lies, lovely big letters, fine print which turned the big letters into nonsense.
Marilyn Wellons and I spoke against the 2006 outrage to the Cambridge City Council and attempted to get this group to stand up to this outrage, but the City Manager’s groups are very well established by now and, as good company unions, prevented organization by being in the way and doing nothing.
The lie that this outrage was protective was very quickly proven by a major expansion authorized for the Radisson Hotel across from Magazine Beach which exactly violated the protections that the authors claimed to be providing.
During the last year, the leaders of the CNA have PARTIALLY reinstated protections which they helped destroy, leaving very major destructive fine print in place.
They have since repeatedly bragged (as in the above) that this PARTIAL reinstatement of protections which they help destroy in the first place was an achievement.
3. Walz’ legislation.
The outrages going on on the Charles River and soon to come on the Charles River which Walz supports prove any "protective" legislation to be just so much lies.
But that is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA.
4. Latest outrages.
The group has kept their friends “neutral” on the latest outrages. They have passed on a key communication of mine to their mailing list.
5. Clarification.
I make no claim as to knowledge of what is in Representative Walz' legislation.
The reality is that, no matter how good it is, it cannot possibly neutralize the truly reprehensible (and I carefully use the judge's word) Representative Walz' behavior is.
Walz' hands are filthy rotten. Walz is flat dab in the middle of massive, irresponsible environmental destruction. Walz is a beligerant and heartless animal abuser as part of reprehensible projects which taken as a whole in meaningful reality and looking at the obvious and easy alternatives condemn her as a really vile person.
Her filing legislation and her running around with such legislation at such a time can only reasonably be interpreteted as her attempt to lie to her constituents that she is a decent human being.
We are way beyond the "have you no shame" level.
She has no redeeming value to anybody with respect for animals or to anybody who might be impressed with whatever her legislation claims to do.
I use the word "lie." I would be a damn fool not to.
