1. General.
2. Henrietta Davis pitches her small vehicle highway and censors opposition.
3. Property interests disclosed in the meeting.
4. Interrelationship among plans.
5. Cambridge Machine tactics.
1. General.
Tuesday evening, December 13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted one of its regular meetings to discuss its plans for development. The meeting was conducted in a new, very large, dormitory building at the corner of Albany and Pacific Streets in Cambridge. The building is separated from the Grand Junction Railroad only by Albany Street and by a wet shelter for the homeless.
It was a very civil meeting concerning MIT development plans and concerns of the participants about the MIT development plans.
2. Henrietta Davis pitches her small vehicle highway and censors opposition.
The meeting got unruly only when City Councilor Henrietta Davis put in a pitch for the small vehicle highway proposal along the Grand Junction. This is the destructive proposal about which the machine stacked the MassDOT meeting last week concerning passenger service on the Grand Junction.
I responded to Davis and she, not the chair, immediately turned a civil meeting into the totalitarian tactics which are normal with the Cambridge Pols.
Davis tried to shut me up because I referred to her highway proposal as a highway proposal. One of the key techniques of lying used by the machine is falsely favorable terms used to describe their irresponsible goals. She attempted to shut me up unless I used her falsely favorable term.
Then, I attempted to communicate that her essentially identical highway in the Charles and on its banks had been killed by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation because it was so environmentally irresponsible, and that the portion of her highway in the Destroyed Nesting Area exactly fits the environmental destructiveness of the highly irresponsible highway proposal which had been killed by MassDOT.
Additionally, MassDOT controls the railroad right of way the Pols are trying to build their highway on.
3. Property interests disclosed in the meeting.
The discussion had touched on MIT’s building across Memorial Drive from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
MIT had passed around plot maps which showed MIT’s ownership to be larger than I had realized. MIT owns the land under the Grand Junction north of Memorial Drive and a small area to the east of the Grand Junction which they are leasing to that owner, the property at the corner of Vassar and Memorial Drive across from the eastern portion of the not fully destroyed goose habitat.
The Cambridge Pols’ small vehicle highway would pass over that MIT owned land in the railroad right of way, but their plans are larger than the very narrow two track right of way. Is it possible that Davis was trying to hide from MIT her plans to take MIT property?
4. Interrelationship among plans.
The small vehicle highway proposal is irresponsible because of its direct attack on the small habitat of free animals which has not yet been destroyed. This immediate destructiveness can be avoided by turning the small vehicle highway off the Grand Junction before the MIT ownership and running it between the building on the corner and the building behind it on Vassar Street to a point where Vassar Street turns. Vassar Street parallels the Grand Junction to this turning point and then runs perpendicular to Memorial Drive.
The highway lobbyists have contempt for the environment to the extent that the environment is in the way of their lovely highway. They took a very serious blow when MassDOT rejected their destruction of the Charles and the banks of the Charles for their Charles River highway proposal.
But there is a lot more going on than just the small vehicle highway. The next step would appear to stab this highway lobby in the back for the next highway.
The Grand Junction goes under Memorial Drive through a bridge / underpass just wide enough for two tracks.
Cambridge has previously fought to tear down that bridge to widen the opening supposedly to allow this small vehicle highway proposal plus another highway proposal.
That Cambridge initiative came back in 2003/2004 when MassDOT’s predecessor (the MBTA, now amalgamated into MassDOT in a reorganization) announced its analysis that the Grand Junction Bridge under the BU Bridge could be used for an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to Cambridge.
A few months after that announcement, Harvard University bought the off ramps from the Massachusetts Turnpike perhaps a mile down the Grand Junction track in Allston / Brighton, along with the rail yard to which the Grand Junction track is going.
Harvard is clearly planning to move the Harvard Medical School to the Massachusetts Turnpike Allston / Cambridge exit / the Beacon railroad Yards.
The timing of the purchase so very rapidly after the transportation people’s announcement that the Grand Junction railroad bridge could be used for an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike is most definitely not a coincidence.
The MBTA would have run their off ramp up the Grand Junction over Massachusetts Avenue to Main Street.
MIT has built a building over the tracks at that point. There is a rather distinctive hole in the MIT building which leaves room for the tracks plus more than just the tracks.
The MIT building north of Memorial Drive has a massive parking lot through which Cambridge has built a new boulevard level street. The plans for that street when they were under public discussion show large numbers of street trees, except between the street and the Grand Junction. The opening in the trees toward the Grand Junction would allow the off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to connect to that street and thus to Memorial Drive and the BU Bridge.
The proposal was only for three lanes, however. The Grand Junction Bridge would be widened to allow a two lane off / on ramp plus the highway proposal. There was not allowance for both the off ramp and the highway, just one or the other. It would appear that the small vehicle highway lobby is, in the long run, being shafted for the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramp which, in turn, would allow Harvard to build on the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramp to Allston / Cambridge.
The railroad is already far along in planning to move their rail yard to Worcester.
5. Cambridge Machine tactics.
The first and foremost tactic of the machine is to lie that the victories of their frequently bizarre goal is inevitable.
The machine uses whatever tool is at its disposal to achieve its ends.
One constant lie out of the machine is that the machine is holier than thou.
My use of an accurate term rather than Davis’s lying euphemism was threatening to Davis because I called a spade a spade. Her euphemism calls an environmentally irresponsible proposal something lovely.
But additionally, there is another lie that is always attempted behind everything: “You cannot win.” This lie is constantly used. The presence of a responsible state agency, MassDOT, really puts a kink into the Pol’s non-stop lie, “You cannot win.”
So the censorship.
And bullying.
The abuse of meetings is another very normal tactic.
The meeting with MIT was highly civilized and responsible as long as MIT was running the show. People were treated civilly and allowed without limit to make their comments.
The minute Davis started her abusive tactics, the Cambridge Pol stench pervaded the room.
There is no honor among the Cambridge Pols.
