1. Introduction.
2. Basic reason for continuing irresponsible behavior.
3. History of Magazine Beach.
4. “The athletes want their playing fields.”
5. The results of the stacked survey support undoing the destruction.
6. Starving the Charles River White Geese.
7. Summary.
1. Introduction.
The Cambridge, MA City Manager’s front organization for Cambridgeport had a public meeting on Magazine Beach last night, March 28. It turned out that their “survey”, in spite of years of censorship by the machine, condemned that part of the outrage which does not fall into the category “they would never stoop so low.”
So the same people will run around lying that Cambridge has a responsible government and based on those lies, seeking further destruction.
It is always a mistake to try to figure out the rationale for destruction by the Cambridge Machine.
Their basic argument always translates into: You can’t win. You can’t win. You can’t win. But have I got a deal for you.
So then they run around praising the unpraisable and fighting for reelection of city councilors, reps and senators they describe as intransigent and so corrupt that they will not undo obvious irresponsibilities which were, when done, either exactly the opposite of what they promised or deliberately kept secret.
2. Basic reason for continuing irresponsible behavior.
Because the city council / city manager / state bureaucrats / state reps and senators are not about to undo what they just did.
In spite of the fact that they promised exactly the opposite?
In spite of the fact that they kept their plans secret?
In spite of the fact that minimally correcting the unjustifiable situation will cost next to nothing?
In spite of the fact that your own stacked survey came out condemning the destruction except insofar as it falls into the category: they would never stoop so low?
So the machine trudges on lying to well intentioned people through “initiatives” that ignore the irresponsible and fight to achieve more irresponsible “achievements”, irresponsible “achievements” which are never mentioned if they can suppress them.
Clearly, indisputably, a corrupt government.
3. History of Magazine Beach.
The usual censorship.
The meeting included extended discussion of the old history.
The last ten years were suppressed from the formal presentation.
“If you want that, use your comment time.”
Comment time went from “3 minutes if you can hold it to that” to an absolute limit of three minutes with constant shouting from the chair during the last minute.
4. “The athletes want their playing fields.”
One explanation provided by the Cambridge Machine for the destruction at Magazine Beach.
But the athletes got shafted. The playing fields were decreased in size to allow drainage pits for the poisons.
The poisons are being dumped onto the banks of the Charles River to keep alive sickly introduced grass that was put in in place of healthy grass which survived the better part of a century.
The way to give the athletes the playing fields they had ten years ago is to move money from paying for poisons to keep the sickly grass alive to paying for grass seed to grow the grass they destroyed. Then they can fill in the drainage system and return it to the playing fields which were destroyed.
But they cannot do that. Their friends are too corrupt to reverse their recent “achievements” in spite of the fact that decreasing playing fields is exactly the opposite of what was promised.
And Cambridge has too corrupt a city government to correct obvious errors achieved by doing the opposite of what was promised.
And won’t you join us in praising this corrupt city government and its destructive behavior?
And won’t you join us in extending the irresponsible destruction while suppressing the irresponsible aspects as much as we can get away with?
And won’t you join us in reelecting city councilors and state reps and senators whom we insist are too corrupt to correct obviously wrong behavior?
5. The results of the stacked survey support undoing the destruction.
The survey was clearly stacked because reality is suppressed by the Cambridge Machine to the maximum extent possible.
Two things which clearly came up were: (1) objection to blocking off the Charles from Magazine Beach and (2) a need for boat docking.
The fact that both were destroyed in the past ten years is suppressed to the maximum extent possible.
After all their city councilors and state reps and senators are too corrupt to correct the obvious irresponsibility of the past ten years, and won’t you help us reelect these fine people?
Oh, and it is totally irrelevant that the Department of Conservation and Recreation through its falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” twice a year chops down all vegetation bordering on the Charles River basin except this bizarre wall.
And it is also irrelevant that the “Master Plan” of the DCR called for a lawn to the river at Magazine Beach. After they proved that promise yet another lie, the DCR changed the "master plan."
And the swim in by the CRC to celebrate the destruction at Magazine Beach is also irrelevant. How dare you point out the walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles River to prove claims of aiding swimming to be yet another lie?
6. Starving the Charles River White Geese.
What to do?
A deadly silence.
And won’t you help us reelect these fine councilors and state reps and senators who are too corrupt to refrain from heartless animal abuse?
Oh, and the twelve years of lying by the state bureaucrats that they have “no intention to harm” the Charles River White Geese is totally irrelevant.
7. Summary.
A rotten situation.
Oh, and the Cambridge Machine never used the word “corrupt.” The Cambridge Machine NEVER uses accurate terminology when misleading euphemisms are available.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Good news on the Western Avenue and River Street Bridges repair project over the Charles River
The lead environmental destroyer on the Charles River, the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has reported on the March 13 and 15 public meetings concerning the repair of the Western Avenue and River Street Bridges over the Charles River. These are the next two bridges to the west from the BU Bridge.
The technical reason for the hearings is that they are for the “25% design” on the project by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
This entity states that the CRC and fellow destroyers are fighting for underpasses on the south, BOSTON, side. That sounds very wrong, very certainly a typo. The fight is on the Cambridge side.
This outrage has already been rejected by MassDOT and the Department of Conservation and Recreation for its environmental destructiveness. As usual with these characters, lying by omission is the norm. The environmental destruction would include large environmental / wetlands / tree destruction and further heartless animal abuse, on the CAMBRIDGE side. The agencies referred to the proposal as the “Cambridge”: proposal when they rejected it. They did not deign to give credence to these cheerleaders.
The reporting entity is hurt that the plans for the bridges are responsible and do not comport with the environmental destruction they want.
Interestingly, the report states that Senator Brownsberger, Representatives Honan, Moran, and Wolf, and Cambridge Mayor Henrietta Davis spoke. Brownsberger, Wolf and Davis have bad records. It is likely they spoke in favor of environmental destruction.
The vague wording in the report gives the impression that the other two spoke in favor of destruction as well. That vague wording is almost certainly deliberately misleading.
Business as usual from the bad guys.
We had conflicts for the meeting, and it sounds like nothing new happened.
I would appreciate input from knowledgeable friends.
The technical reason for the hearings is that they are for the “25% design” on the project by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
This entity states that the CRC and fellow destroyers are fighting for underpasses on the south, BOSTON, side. That sounds very wrong, very certainly a typo. The fight is on the Cambridge side.
This outrage has already been rejected by MassDOT and the Department of Conservation and Recreation for its environmental destructiveness. As usual with these characters, lying by omission is the norm. The environmental destruction would include large environmental / wetlands / tree destruction and further heartless animal abuse, on the CAMBRIDGE side. The agencies referred to the proposal as the “Cambridge”: proposal when they rejected it. They did not deign to give credence to these cheerleaders.
The reporting entity is hurt that the plans for the bridges are responsible and do not comport with the environmental destruction they want.
Interestingly, the report states that Senator Brownsberger, Representatives Honan, Moran, and Wolf, and Cambridge Mayor Henrietta Davis spoke. Brownsberger, Wolf and Davis have bad records. It is likely they spoke in favor of environmental destruction.
The vague wording in the report gives the impression that the other two spoke in favor of destruction as well. That vague wording is almost certainly deliberately misleading.
Business as usual from the bad guys.
We had conflicts for the meeting, and it sounds like nothing new happened.
I would appreciate input from knowledgeable friends.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
What can we do to help on the Charles River?
INTRO.
1. Respond to an integrated attack on the environment.
4. Specific contact information.
5. Estate Planning and the Charles River White Geese.
C. The magnificent grove which constituted the entrance to the Cambridge Common was destroyed in April 2015.
D. Honorably retired Cambridge City Manager condemned by the courts for destroying a black, Cape Verdean, woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights action.
E. And this is, by far, not the only environmental destruction.
7. Summary.
INTRO.
If you can only do one thing, contact the governor.
Governor Charles Baker is at the heart of this situation on the state side. His managers do not merit attention. His own contact information is:
Email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office/
888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.
1. Respond to an integrated attack on the environment.
The basic purpose of this blog is to protect the Charles River, its animals, its vegetation, its waters and its air from truly destructive state and local governments, and the fake groups that they work through.
It would be foolhardy to think that this problem is limited to the Charles River.
The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge are destroying both the Charles River and virgin wild areas in the western part of Cambridge.
Cambridge has destroyed the excellent grove which constitutes the entrance to the Cambridge Common with state moneys.
We will proceed with what you can do and complete in the following sections with preliminary comments in sections 1, 2 and 3,
• in Section 4, with specific bullets to raise.
• in Section 5, with specific contact information of people to contact
• in Section 6, with more formal assistance possible.
• in Section 7, with a brief summary of the problems.
2. Basic Action.
First of all, please friend the Charles River White Geese on facebook.
Secondly, this blog has a link by which you can make a contribution to Friends of the White Geese through Paypal which accepts all major credit cards. Money is crucial to publicize the escalating outrage.
By snail mail, please send contributions to:
Friends of the White Geese
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139.
Fliers are minimal. Print advertisements are ideal. Mass mailings are a dream which might come true with your help.
These contributions are NOT tax deductible.
Workers, telephoning / writing and money are key.
We need leafleters, especially at the BU Bridge, but also at key meetings. Please contact Bob at 617-283-7649 or at boblat@yahoo.com.
3. Contact the big guys.
The really destructive people on the first ten miles of Charles River and in the most important part of Alewife are the governments, especially the state and Cambridge.
They have a very major weakness. They run around pretty much nonstop proclaiming they are environmental saints, and they have massive organizations repeating these silly claims.
The Cambridge City Government is particularly sensitive because they certainly look like they are in contact with pretty much everybody.
At the state level, the bureaucrats are beneath consideration. The responsible person is the governor. And the worst of the destruction is on state property.
The governor is very likely the one person most likely to behave responsibly. He had nothing to do with the allocation of funds for destruction of all those trees and animal habitat. The key legislation is Chapter 286, Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways”. $20 million is specified.
The governor is in office as a Republican smart management type. This expenditure is anything but.
The City of Cambridge is very much a part of the destruction. Moneys come from the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge City Council routinely tells everybody how to save the world.
The Cambridge City Council brags of environmental initiatives. They vote the bad stuff fast, occasionally by suspending rules to keep things as secret as possible. They then brag about “initiatives” which are next too meaningless. The Cambridge City Council is fully within its powers and its duties to end these outrages.
Communication is crucial, individual and, if possible, on a large scale.
4. Specific Bullets to Raise.
• Give back to the state the $20 million in Chapter 286 of the Acts of 2014 for “Historic Parkways” massive irresponsible destruction on Memorial Drive. Kill the new highway behind the swimming pool and on Magazine Beach hill.
• Kill plans to destroy the lovely parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street which is needed for the Magazine Beach picnic area.
• Make the bike highway plans responsible. No Mass. Pike off ramp from the Mass. Pike over the Grand Junction bridge, now or in phases. No massive tree destruction. Connect Grand Junction bike highway to Memorial Drive by Vassar Street.
• Stop tossing on poisons to keep alive the invasive introduced grass. Seed the responsible grass they destroyed. No silly drainage. Kill proposed expansion to the top of the hill and behind the swimming pool. Return responsible grass.
• Chop down the bizarre wall of introduced bushes which blocks off the Charles River from the playing fields. Chop it down like all other bordering vegetation is on the Charles River. Twice a year. Restore clear lines of access for the Charles River White Geese to return to their food and home of most of the last 34 years, the responsible grasses of the playing fields.
• End DCR’s killing and driving away of resident animals. Cherish the treasure of the Charles River White Geese.
5. Specific contact information.
Contact Information for people to contact:
A long shot, if these people are still trying to stick in Obama moneys is President Barack Obama. Millions of Obama stimulus dollars were requested for destruction of hundreds of healthy trees between the BU Boathouse and the Longfellow Bridge, PLUS being used for destruction of even more goose food across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel. That money could be once again requested. It is normal to find out about dirty tricks after the fact.
President Obama’s email contact form is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/. His telephone number is: 202-456-6213.
Much more important right now is Governor Charles Baker.
Governor Charles Baker is at the heart of this situation on the state side. Governor Baker’s contact information is:
Email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office/
888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.
It is pointless to contact the Cambridge City Manager. It may be useful to contact the Cambridge Conservation Commission although its members are the Manager's appointees. (One former appointee in a different city agency won that $8.3M legal payment against the City Manager for his retaliation against her when he found her civil rights complaint displeasing. As I mentioned above, Cambridge lost the case and the Cambridge City Council has it in its power to fire the City Manager because of the court decisions.)
The Cambridge Conservation Commission may be reached by e-mail:
Director Jennifer Wright, jwright@CambridgeMA.GOV; telephone: 617-349-4680.
The Cambridge City Council and other city officials and their supporters dismiss concerns about these environmental outrages to the extent they comment at all. 2011 is, however, an election year and voters need to know where the candidates stand.
Incumbent City Councillors are:
Mayor David P. Maher
mailto:dmaher@cambridgema.gov
617-547-7219 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Dennis A Benzan,
mailto:dbenzan@cambridgema.gov
617-800-7301 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Dennis J. Carlone,
mailto:dcarlone@cambridgema.gov
617-494-9559 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Leland Cheung,
mailto:LCheung@cambridgema.gov
617-491-2692 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Craig A. Kelley
mailto:ckelley@cambridgema.gov
617-354-8353 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Nadeem A. Mazen,
mailto:nmazen@cambridgema.gov
617-825-4638S (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Marc C. McGovern,
mailto:mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov
617-945-1866 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
E. Denise Simmons
mailto:dsimmons@cambridgema.gov
617-491-7435 (H), 617-349-4321 (W)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.
Also State Representative
mailto:TimToomey@aol.com
617-576-6483 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
State Representatives:
Marjorie Decker
marjorie.decker@mahouse.gov
617-722-2450, State House Room 136
Jonathan Hecht
jonathan.hecht@mahouse.gov
617-722-2140, State House Room 22
Jay Livingstone
jay.livingstone@mahouse.gov
617-722-2011, State House Room 136
David Rogers
dave.rogers@mahouse.gov
617-722-2460, State House Room 472
Timothy Toomey (above) serves both as Cambridge City Councilor and State Representative
State Senators:
Sal DiDomenico
Sal.DiDomenico@masenate.gov
617-722-1650, State House Room 208
Patricia Jehlen
patricia.jehlen@masenate.gov
617-722-1578, State House Room 424
Anthony Petrucelli
Anthony.Petruccelli@masenate
617-722-1634, State House Room 109D
It is our opinion that, in order to end the attacks on the Charles River, and possibly Alewife as well, the Cambridge City Manager must be fired, along with 10 out of 9 Cambridge City Councilors.. Minka vanBeuzecom is the tenth. She was on the prior City Council. As of this writing, she seems to be a candidate to return to the Cambridge City Council. She shares guilt for outrages on the Charles River, Alewife and Cambridge Common. It is silly not to include her as guilty.
6. Estate Planning and the Charles River White Geese.
A very major defect in Massachusetts law has existed concerning binding transfers for the benefit of animals.
The state legislature and the governor have recently added Chapter 203, section 3C to the General Laws.
Under this wording, trust conveyances can be made for the care of animals alive during the donor’s lifetime. The money cannot be retained beyond the death of the last surviving animal alive during the donor’s lifetime (legally important words). I have recently had a report by a caregiver of White Chinas living into their 30's.
Almost all of the Charles River White Geese have the appearance of White China Geese or of Emden Geese or of their progeny.
The trust can be created during the donor’s lifetime or by will at the time of death.
For the specific language of the change, please see: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2010/Chapter430.
7. Part of the problem.
A. Charles River, Abridged.
Massive destruction has been done at the Magazine Beach playing fields on the Charles River in Cambridge, just west of the BU Bridge. Heartless starvation is being imposed on the Charles River White Geese as part of a public policy of killing off all animals on the Charles River Basin with hypocritical lies whitewashing things. Poisons are being dumped on the banks of the Charles River to keep alive introduced invasive grasses which replace seven acres of healthy grass that survived without poisons for the better part of a Century. The Magazine Beach playing fields have been walled off from the Charles River with a bizarre wall of introduced invasive bushes. This bizarre wall is the only vegetation bordering the Charles River Basis which is NOT destroyed twice a year. The manager brags that it starves the Charles River White Geese.
The local fake group is fighting for all destruction planned by Cambridge and its friends by telling people not to look at it. In particular, they are fighting to keep and expand the invasive plantings to the top on the hill west of the playing fields and to the area behind the swimming pool. They would put in a bike highway which is related to massive destruction supported between the BU and Longfellow Bridges. They ae fighting to destroy the little guys parking lot. All of this is in coordination with the Department of Conservation and Recreation working with Cambridge.
Pretty much all ground vegetation was destroyed between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east except for vegetation near planned construction work on the BU Bridge. This is the area to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined since the destruction at Magazine Beach. Their habitat for most of the time since 1981 has been a mile long stretch centered on the BU Bridge. The destruction of ground vegetation has been done since anoter fake protective group which lies in its name that it is a “conservancy” started destroying the environment for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Massive and very much worse tree destruction is planned. Hundreds of trees are targeted, along with wildlife habitat, between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge in one of many projects. In 2014, by Chapter 286, of the Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways”, the State House allocated $20 Million for the destruction of hundreds of trees and of animal habitat on the Charles River’s Cambridge side between the BU and Longfellow Bridge.
The DCR brags, translating the fine print, of intent to kill off all resident animals in the Charles River Basin.
B. Destruction of the core Alewife reservation has been achieved. Total destruction is likely without major changes..
The Alewife reservation was an essentially virgin and massive woods just west of the subway Red Line’s terminus, Alewife station.
This vile behavior is playing out at Alewife where 3.4 plus acres of virgin woodlands were destroyed by Cambridge and the DCR with state and local moneys, commencing in October 2011. The big difference at Alewife is that the local fake group, after years of telling people concerned about Alewife to look at everything except the most important pending destruction planned by their friends, has gone public, through their leader and creator, admitting 19 years of con games to be flat out lies by praising the environmental destruction in the Cambridge Chronicle on September 16, 2011, and in a publication on line. She followed up by bragging to a fake “environmental” discussion group.
The massive destruction at Alewife is claimed to be for flood storage to protect against two year floods, directly across the street from a massive parking lot which readily could be used for a very large multiple of the flood storage possible through their silly and very very destructive project.
The extreme irresponsibility of the Alewife situation may be seen on Google Maps. Go to maps.google.com, select satellite view, and go to 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA. Directly above the street used to be an excellent, virgin wood lands with thousands of excellent animals. There is now a scar in the middle of this formerly virgin woods. Cambridge brags of this destruction and mass animal killing on its website.
Badly needed is a taking of underground property in new construction for flood storage as joint projects between Cambridge and local developers. This type of storage is in place in properties south of Cambridge Park Drive at a scale appropriate for the projects. Much larger scale is needed to undo failure to replace previously destroyed wetlands.
C. The magnificent grove which constituted the entrance to the Cambridge Common was destroyed in April 2015.
D. Honorably retired Cambridge City Manager condemned by the courts for destroying a black, Cape Verdean, woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights action.
One key person, now honorably retired Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy, has indulged in behavior called “reprehensible” by the superior court (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html) with the appeals court agreeing, finding “ample evidence [of] outrageous conduct.” (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html)
This Cambridge City Manager has, civilly, been found guilty of destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro, a black, Cape Verdean department head, by firing her in retaliation for her filing a civil right complaint. Cambridge has paid her $8.3 million in response to the court decisions, including $3.5 million penal damage awarded by the jury. The City of Cambridge paid $14,569,558 in five related cases which include Monteiro.
These combined decisions gave the self declared environmental and civil rights saints on the Cambridge City Council power to fire the Cambridge City Manager for malfeasance in office without his golden parachute and, possibly, without pension.
The Court condemned City Manager, Robert Healy, was allowed to retire with honor and with the Cambridge Police Station named after him.
This situation, in addition to the true vileness involved, sent a message to folks expecting responsible behavior from the City of Cambridge, whether those folks are employed by the City of Cambridge or otherwise.
That message was that, even with extreme condemnation, the Cambridge City Council does not give a whoot about what responsible people, even the Courts, think about punishment meted out by the Cambridge City Manager to people standing in his way.
E. And this is, by far, not the only environmental destruction.
It is not too late.
8. Summary.
Thank you in advance for whatever you can do.
This report was initially posted October 10, 2008
This report was updated most recently on April 28, 2015.
In recent years, we have posted a lot of supporting photographs. This summary is extremely long as it is. The photographs are not provided because this summary is extremely long as it is.
1. Respond to an integrated attack on the environment.
2. Basic Action.
3. Contact the big guys.4. Specific contact information.
5. Estate Planning and the Charles River White Geese.
6. Part of the problem.
A. Charles River, Abridged.
B. Destruction of the core Alewife reservation has been achieved. Total destruction is likely without major changes..C. The magnificent grove which constituted the entrance to the Cambridge Common was destroyed in April 2015.
D. Honorably retired Cambridge City Manager condemned by the courts for destroying a black, Cape Verdean, woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights action.
E. And this is, by far, not the only environmental destruction.
7. Summary.
INTRO.
If you can only do one thing, contact the governor.
Governor Charles Baker is at the heart of this situation on the state side. His managers do not merit attention. His own contact information is:
Email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office/
888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.
1. Respond to an integrated attack on the environment.
It would be foolhardy to think that this problem is limited to the Charles River.
The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge are destroying both the Charles River and virgin wild areas in the western part of Cambridge.
Cambridge has destroyed the excellent grove which constitutes the entrance to the Cambridge Common with state moneys.
We will proceed with what you can do and complete in the following sections with preliminary comments in sections 1, 2 and 3,
• in Section 4, with specific bullets to raise.
• in Section 5, with specific contact information of people to contact
• in Section 6, with more formal assistance possible.
• in Section 7, with a brief summary of the problems.
2. Basic Action.
First of all, please friend the Charles River White Geese on facebook.
Secondly, this blog has a link by which you can make a contribution to Friends of the White Geese through Paypal which accepts all major credit cards. Money is crucial to publicize the escalating outrage.
By snail mail, please send contributions to:
Friends of the White Geese
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139.
Fliers are minimal. Print advertisements are ideal. Mass mailings are a dream which might come true with your help.
These contributions are NOT tax deductible.
Workers, telephoning / writing and money are key.
We need leafleters, especially at the BU Bridge, but also at key meetings. Please contact Bob at 617-283-7649 or at boblat@yahoo.com.
3. Contact the big guys.
The really destructive people on the first ten miles of Charles River and in the most important part of Alewife are the governments, especially the state and Cambridge.
They have a very major weakness. They run around pretty much nonstop proclaiming they are environmental saints, and they have massive organizations repeating these silly claims.
The Cambridge City Government is particularly sensitive because they certainly look like they are in contact with pretty much everybody.
At the state level, the bureaucrats are beneath consideration. The responsible person is the governor. And the worst of the destruction is on state property.
The governor is very likely the one person most likely to behave responsibly. He had nothing to do with the allocation of funds for destruction of all those trees and animal habitat. The key legislation is Chapter 286, Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways”. $20 million is specified.
The governor is in office as a Republican smart management type. This expenditure is anything but.
The City of Cambridge is very much a part of the destruction. Moneys come from the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge City Council routinely tells everybody how to save the world.
The Cambridge City Council brags of environmental initiatives. They vote the bad stuff fast, occasionally by suspending rules to keep things as secret as possible. They then brag about “initiatives” which are next too meaningless. The Cambridge City Council is fully within its powers and its duties to end these outrages.
Communication is crucial, individual and, if possible, on a large scale.
4. Specific Bullets to Raise.
• Give back to the state the $20 million in Chapter 286 of the Acts of 2014 for “Historic Parkways” massive irresponsible destruction on Memorial Drive. Kill the new highway behind the swimming pool and on Magazine Beach hill.
• Kill plans to destroy the lovely parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street which is needed for the Magazine Beach picnic area.
• Make the bike highway plans responsible. No Mass. Pike off ramp from the Mass. Pike over the Grand Junction bridge, now or in phases. No massive tree destruction. Connect Grand Junction bike highway to Memorial Drive by Vassar Street.
• Stop tossing on poisons to keep alive the invasive introduced grass. Seed the responsible grass they destroyed. No silly drainage. Kill proposed expansion to the top of the hill and behind the swimming pool. Return responsible grass.
• Chop down the bizarre wall of introduced bushes which blocks off the Charles River from the playing fields. Chop it down like all other bordering vegetation is on the Charles River. Twice a year. Restore clear lines of access for the Charles River White Geese to return to their food and home of most of the last 34 years, the responsible grasses of the playing fields.
• End DCR’s killing and driving away of resident animals. Cherish the treasure of the Charles River White Geese.
5. Specific contact information.
Contact Information for people to contact:
A long shot, if these people are still trying to stick in Obama moneys is President Barack Obama. Millions of Obama stimulus dollars were requested for destruction of hundreds of healthy trees between the BU Boathouse and the Longfellow Bridge, PLUS being used for destruction of even more goose food across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel. That money could be once again requested. It is normal to find out about dirty tricks after the fact.
President Obama’s email contact form is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/. His telephone number is: 202-456-6213.
Much more important right now is Governor Charles Baker.
Governor Charles Baker is at the heart of this situation on the state side. Governor Baker’s contact information is:
Email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office/
888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.
It is pointless to contact the Cambridge City Manager. It may be useful to contact the Cambridge Conservation Commission although its members are the Manager's appointees. (One former appointee in a different city agency won that $8.3M legal payment against the City Manager for his retaliation against her when he found her civil rights complaint displeasing. As I mentioned above, Cambridge lost the case and the Cambridge City Council has it in its power to fire the City Manager because of the court decisions.)
The Cambridge Conservation Commission may be reached by e-mail:
Director Jennifer Wright, jwright@CambridgeMA.GOV; telephone: 617-349-4680.
The Cambridge City Council and other city officials and their supporters dismiss concerns about these environmental outrages to the extent they comment at all. 2011 is, however, an election year and voters need to know where the candidates stand.
Incumbent City Councillors are:
Mayor David P. Maher
mailto:dmaher@cambridgema.gov
617-547-7219 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Dennis A Benzan,
mailto:dbenzan@cambridgema.gov
617-800-7301 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Dennis J. Carlone,
mailto:dcarlone@cambridgema.gov
617-494-9559 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Leland Cheung,
mailto:LCheung@cambridgema.gov
617-491-2692 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Craig A. Kelley
mailto:ckelley@cambridgema.gov
617-354-8353 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Nadeem A. Mazen,
mailto:nmazen@cambridgema.gov
617-825-4638S (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
Marc C. McGovern,
mailto:mmcgovern@cambridgema.gov
617-945-1866 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
E. Denise Simmons
mailto:dsimmons@cambridgema.gov
617-491-7435 (H), 617-349-4321 (W)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.
Also State Representative
mailto:TimToomey@aol.com
617-576-6483 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)
State Representatives:
Marjorie Decker
marjorie.decker@mahouse.gov
617-722-2450, State House Room 136
Jonathan Hecht
jonathan.hecht@mahouse.gov
617-722-2140, State House Room 22
Jay Livingstone
jay.livingstone@mahouse.gov
617-722-2011, State House Room 136
David Rogers
dave.rogers@mahouse.gov
617-722-2460, State House Room 472
Timothy Toomey (above) serves both as Cambridge City Councilor and State Representative
State Senators:
Sal DiDomenico
Sal.DiDomenico@masenate.gov
617-722-1650, State House Room 208
Patricia Jehlen
patricia.jehlen@masenate.gov
617-722-1578, State House Room 424
Anthony Petrucelli
Anthony.Petruccelli@masenate
617-722-1634, State House Room 109D
It is our opinion that, in order to end the attacks on the Charles River, and possibly Alewife as well, the Cambridge City Manager must be fired, along with 10 out of 9 Cambridge City Councilors.. Minka vanBeuzecom is the tenth. She was on the prior City Council. As of this writing, she seems to be a candidate to return to the Cambridge City Council. She shares guilt for outrages on the Charles River, Alewife and Cambridge Common. It is silly not to include her as guilty.
6. Estate Planning and the Charles River White Geese.
A very major defect in Massachusetts law has existed concerning binding transfers for the benefit of animals.
The state legislature and the governor have recently added Chapter 203, section 3C to the General Laws.
Under this wording, trust conveyances can be made for the care of animals alive during the donor’s lifetime. The money cannot be retained beyond the death of the last surviving animal alive during the donor’s lifetime (legally important words). I have recently had a report by a caregiver of White Chinas living into their 30's.
Almost all of the Charles River White Geese have the appearance of White China Geese or of Emden Geese or of their progeny.
The trust can be created during the donor’s lifetime or by will at the time of death.
For the specific language of the change, please see: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2010/Chapter430.
7. Part of the problem.
A. Charles River, Abridged.
Massive destruction has been done at the Magazine Beach playing fields on the Charles River in Cambridge, just west of the BU Bridge. Heartless starvation is being imposed on the Charles River White Geese as part of a public policy of killing off all animals on the Charles River Basin with hypocritical lies whitewashing things. Poisons are being dumped on the banks of the Charles River to keep alive introduced invasive grasses which replace seven acres of healthy grass that survived without poisons for the better part of a Century. The Magazine Beach playing fields have been walled off from the Charles River with a bizarre wall of introduced invasive bushes. This bizarre wall is the only vegetation bordering the Charles River Basis which is NOT destroyed twice a year. The manager brags that it starves the Charles River White Geese.
The local fake group is fighting for all destruction planned by Cambridge and its friends by telling people not to look at it. In particular, they are fighting to keep and expand the invasive plantings to the top on the hill west of the playing fields and to the area behind the swimming pool. They would put in a bike highway which is related to massive destruction supported between the BU and Longfellow Bridges. They ae fighting to destroy the little guys parking lot. All of this is in coordination with the Department of Conservation and Recreation working with Cambridge.
Pretty much all ground vegetation was destroyed between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east except for vegetation near planned construction work on the BU Bridge. This is the area to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined since the destruction at Magazine Beach. Their habitat for most of the time since 1981 has been a mile long stretch centered on the BU Bridge. The destruction of ground vegetation has been done since anoter fake protective group which lies in its name that it is a “conservancy” started destroying the environment for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Massive and very much worse tree destruction is planned. Hundreds of trees are targeted, along with wildlife habitat, between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge in one of many projects. In 2014, by Chapter 286, of the Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways”, the State House allocated $20 Million for the destruction of hundreds of trees and of animal habitat on the Charles River’s Cambridge side between the BU and Longfellow Bridge.
The DCR brags, translating the fine print, of intent to kill off all resident animals in the Charles River Basin.
B. Destruction of the core Alewife reservation has been achieved. Total destruction is likely without major changes..
The Alewife reservation was an essentially virgin and massive woods just west of the subway Red Line’s terminus, Alewife station.
This vile behavior is playing out at Alewife where 3.4 plus acres of virgin woodlands were destroyed by Cambridge and the DCR with state and local moneys, commencing in October 2011. The big difference at Alewife is that the local fake group, after years of telling people concerned about Alewife to look at everything except the most important pending destruction planned by their friends, has gone public, through their leader and creator, admitting 19 years of con games to be flat out lies by praising the environmental destruction in the Cambridge Chronicle on September 16, 2011, and in a publication on line. She followed up by bragging to a fake “environmental” discussion group.
The massive destruction at Alewife is claimed to be for flood storage to protect against two year floods, directly across the street from a massive parking lot which readily could be used for a very large multiple of the flood storage possible through their silly and very very destructive project.
The extreme irresponsibility of the Alewife situation may be seen on Google Maps. Go to maps.google.com, select satellite view, and go to 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA. Directly above the street used to be an excellent, virgin wood lands with thousands of excellent animals. There is now a scar in the middle of this formerly virgin woods. Cambridge brags of this destruction and mass animal killing on its website.
Badly needed is a taking of underground property in new construction for flood storage as joint projects between Cambridge and local developers. This type of storage is in place in properties south of Cambridge Park Drive at a scale appropriate for the projects. Much larger scale is needed to undo failure to replace previously destroyed wetlands.
C. The magnificent grove which constituted the entrance to the Cambridge Common was destroyed in April 2015.
D. Honorably retired Cambridge City Manager condemned by the courts for destroying a black, Cape Verdean, woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights action.
One key person, now honorably retired Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy, has indulged in behavior called “reprehensible” by the superior court (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html) with the appeals court agreeing, finding “ample evidence [of] outrageous conduct.” (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html)
This Cambridge City Manager has, civilly, been found guilty of destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro, a black, Cape Verdean department head, by firing her in retaliation for her filing a civil right complaint. Cambridge has paid her $8.3 million in response to the court decisions, including $3.5 million penal damage awarded by the jury. The City of Cambridge paid $14,569,558 in five related cases which include Monteiro.
These combined decisions gave the self declared environmental and civil rights saints on the Cambridge City Council power to fire the Cambridge City Manager for malfeasance in office without his golden parachute and, possibly, without pension.
The Court condemned City Manager, Robert Healy, was allowed to retire with honor and with the Cambridge Police Station named after him.
This situation, in addition to the true vileness involved, sent a message to folks expecting responsible behavior from the City of Cambridge, whether those folks are employed by the City of Cambridge or otherwise.
That message was that, even with extreme condemnation, the Cambridge City Council does not give a whoot about what responsible people, even the Courts, think about punishment meted out by the Cambridge City Manager to people standing in his way.
E. And this is, by far, not the only environmental destruction.
It is not too late.
8. Summary.
Thank you in advance for whatever you can do.
This report was initially posted October 10, 2008
This report was updated most recently on April 28, 2015.
In recent years, we have posted a lot of supporting photographs. This summary is extremely long as it is. The photographs are not provided because this summary is extremely long as it is.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Save Kendall Square rooftop open space or the Charles River (or Alewife)?
1. General.
In the March 22, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle, the editor printed three letters to the editor, all on the “rooftop garden” at Cambridge’s Kendall Square.
The second and third letters were from a husband/wife tag team who use different names.
The first was from me.
The situation stems from the bizarre Cambridge zoning rules while require extremely little open space and allow half of that to be on the roof.
To make it worse, Kendall Square has special zoning which “spells things out” in a totally different way from the rest of the ordinance, thus hiding reality.
The husband/wife couple is smack dab in the middle of the Cambridge Pol organization. They have a long record. Two and only two examples:
They helped killed a Department of Conservation and Recreation project which would have converted the current Lechmere Square Green Line Rapid Transit station to open space after it is moved to the other side of McGrath / O’Brien Highway.
They had their own "open space" proposal: Two buildings with a plaza in between them. They kept the buildings as secret as possible. They bragged about the plaza without mentioning that the plaza was almost certainly required under the open space requirements for the two buildings that they kept as secret as possible.
They ran around lying that they were fighting for an open space proposal.
They also assisted the fake protective group at Alewife in its fight to destroy irreplaceable virgin woodlands at Alewife.
The couple, without identifying themselves as a couple, got two letters to the editor printed fighting to save rooftop open space in Kendall Square.
2. My letter.
My letter was printed first, with the heading:
“Save the roof top garden? Save the Charles River!”
The letter:
**********
I think it is a lot more important to save the Charles River.
End the dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach. Chop down the bizarre introduced vegetation which walls off Magazine Beach from the Charles River. Just like bordering vegetation is destroyed everywhere else on the Charles River basis twice a year.
Stop starving the Charles River White Geese. Let them return to Magazine Beach where they have fed and lived most of the last 30 years until their world was destroyed by a truly bizarre project.
Let nature return to the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse where almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed.
Stop the bizarre plans to extend the destruction to destruction of the picnic area at the foot of Magazine Street by destroying its tiny and environmentally responsible parking.
Stop the annual poisoning of the eggs of migratory waterfowl.
Let nature exist on the Charles River as it did 10 years ago before these bizarre projects did so much harm.
In the March 22, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle, the editor printed three letters to the editor, all on the “rooftop garden” at Cambridge’s Kendall Square.
The second and third letters were from a husband/wife tag team who use different names.
The first was from me.
The situation stems from the bizarre Cambridge zoning rules while require extremely little open space and allow half of that to be on the roof.
To make it worse, Kendall Square has special zoning which “spells things out” in a totally different way from the rest of the ordinance, thus hiding reality.
The husband/wife couple is smack dab in the middle of the Cambridge Pol organization. They have a long record. Two and only two examples:
They helped killed a Department of Conservation and Recreation project which would have converted the current Lechmere Square Green Line Rapid Transit station to open space after it is moved to the other side of McGrath / O’Brien Highway.
They had their own "open space" proposal: Two buildings with a plaza in between them. They kept the buildings as secret as possible. They bragged about the plaza without mentioning that the plaza was almost certainly required under the open space requirements for the two buildings that they kept as secret as possible.
They ran around lying that they were fighting for an open space proposal.
They also assisted the fake protective group at Alewife in its fight to destroy irreplaceable virgin woodlands at Alewife.
The couple, without identifying themselves as a couple, got two letters to the editor printed fighting to save rooftop open space in Kendall Square.
2. My letter.
My letter was printed first, with the heading:
“Save the roof top garden? Save the Charles River!”
The letter:
**********
I think it is a lot more important to save the Charles River.
End the dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach. Chop down the bizarre introduced vegetation which walls off Magazine Beach from the Charles River. Just like bordering vegetation is destroyed everywhere else on the Charles River basis twice a year.
Stop starving the Charles River White Geese. Let them return to Magazine Beach where they have fed and lived most of the last 30 years until their world was destroyed by a truly bizarre project.
Let nature return to the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse where almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed.
Stop the bizarre plans to extend the destruction to destruction of the picnic area at the foot of Magazine Street by destroying its tiny and environmentally responsible parking.
Stop the annual poisoning of the eggs of migratory waterfowl.
Let nature exist on the Charles River as it did 10 years ago before these bizarre projects did so much harm.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Charles River “Conservancy” Glories in Magnificent Grove it is fighting to Destroy?
How low can these people go?
Key factors in the destruction on the Charles River and the Cambridge, MA area in general are the destructive groups' lying about which side the groups are on.
This way they con people into destroying what their victims cherish. The “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” destroyed a key part of the Alewife reservation using this con. And they may yet destroy it all.
The Charles River “Conservancy” and the Cambridgeport “Neighborhood Association” are fighting for heartless animal abuse, dumping of poisons and walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles River using this tactic and fighting for further destruction.
Below is another photograph taken from the Charles River “Conservancy”’s facebook page.
The Charles River “Conservancy” is fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Cambridge side of the Charles River between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
One of the vilest goals of this really destructive organization is the destruction of a magnificent grove of about 104 trees at the Memorial Drive split perhaps half a mile from the Ghetto in which they have confined the beautiful Charles River White Geese. The ghetto where almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed since this falsely name group started environmental destruction for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
This photo strongly looks like the excellent grove at the Memorial Drive splint these rotten people are fighting to destroy.
And they are lying that they cherish this magnificent grove to con good people into doing the terrible deeds of the Charles River “Conservancy.”
This photograph is reproduced without permission under the fair use doctrine.
***************
PS: I have looked at the comments and related pictures. This is most definitely the grove at the Memorial Drive split they are fighting to destroy.
Business as usual with the fake groups conning people in the City of Cambridge, MA, with its destructive, routinely lying government.
Key factors in the destruction on the Charles River and the Cambridge, MA area in general are the destructive groups' lying about which side the groups are on.
This way they con people into destroying what their victims cherish. The “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” destroyed a key part of the Alewife reservation using this con. And they may yet destroy it all.
The Charles River “Conservancy” and the Cambridgeport “Neighborhood Association” are fighting for heartless animal abuse, dumping of poisons and walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles River using this tactic and fighting for further destruction.
Below is another photograph taken from the Charles River “Conservancy”’s facebook page.
The Charles River “Conservancy” is fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Cambridge side of the Charles River between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
One of the vilest goals of this really destructive organization is the destruction of a magnificent grove of about 104 trees at the Memorial Drive split perhaps half a mile from the Ghetto in which they have confined the beautiful Charles River White Geese. The ghetto where almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed since this falsely name group started environmental destruction for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
This photo strongly looks like the excellent grove at the Memorial Drive splint these rotten people are fighting to destroy.
And they are lying that they cherish this magnificent grove to con good people into doing the terrible deeds of the Charles River “Conservancy.”
This photograph is reproduced without permission under the fair use doctrine.
***************
PS: I have looked at the comments and related pictures. This is most definitely the grove at the Memorial Drive split they are fighting to destroy.
Business as usual with the fake groups conning people in the City of Cambridge, MA, with its destructive, routinely lying government.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Cambridge City Council to consider nine month contract extension for Cambridge City Manager
1. Cambridge Day Reports.
2. Evaluation of the non signers, of the Cambridge City Manager, and of the Cambridge City Council.
3. The motion to be considered by the Cambridge City Council on Monday, March 19, 2012.
1. Cambridge Day Reports.
Cambridge Day reports, at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/03/17/councillors-seek-to-extend-city-managers-contract-while-they-plan-succession/ that the Cambridge City Council, Monday night, March 19, 2012, will consider a nine month extension for the contract of City Manager Robert Healy. This would extend his end date from September 30, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
The motion to work on a nine month extension is sponsored by seven members of the nine member body. Not included as sponsors are Councilor Craig Kelley and Councilor Kenneth Reeves.
2. Evaluation of the non signers, of the Cambridge City Manager, and of the Cambridge City Council.
The motion is posted below. I find the action troubling.
I find the form of the motions surprising. It comes as quite a surprise in its form inasmuch as this is worded as an exercise of a right by the Cambridge City Council. The seven are proposing simply to extend the contract and have worded the motion as their action with no need to concur by the Cambridge City Manager. They propose a nine month extension to phase him out.
A few weeks ago, I reported a motion by Councilor Kelley to initiate the process on the Cambridge City Manager’s contract with no comment on whether the council would extend it or not. Action on the Kelley motion was delayed a week by, I believe, Councilor Davis’ exercise of her right under the City Charter. That motion was automatically placed on file the following week because Kelley had to be out of state that night.
Kelley was the only member of the current Cambridge City Council who in last year’s election stated he would not vote to rehire the Cambridge City Manager.
Kelley has a public record in which he appears to be the only council member hostile to the Cambridge City Manager.
His position is very hard to compute based on his record with regard to the fake downzonings written by the City Manager’s people and fronted by the Machine. Kelley was very much an aggressive part of these outrages, an aggressive part of the Machine.
Lovely words. Lots of secret fine print which made the words very often so many lies.
Kelley’s record on these zoning outrages put to the lie his long standing claims of environmentalism.
Similarly, Kelley’s main stomping grounds are North Cambridge, which includes Alewife. Kelley has no publicly stated problems with the destruction of the core Alewife reservation for promises of flood protection which, in reality are lies, skillfully worded as usual, but lies. The people active in the North Cambridge group who look the most visible and who the most do not seem t want to know what they are doing certainly look like Kelley people.
Kelley’s indifference to the destruction of Alewife puts the lie to his long standing claims of environmentalism.
Kelley’s claims of hostility to the city manager are interesting. His long record of being part of the city manager’s environmental destruction make his claims of hostility to the city manager quite interesting.
As far as Reeves goes, Reeves is not quite as much of a problem as an “environmentalist” destroying the environment as part of the city manager’s people. Reeves just fits into the normal rottenness of the Cambridge political machine.
As far as the other seven city councilors go, they are extending in office a city manager who should be fired without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
I am very disappointed the Cambridge City Council does not adopt the positions of the Appeals Court panel and the Superior Court judge and jury on Monteiro. It seems very clear that all found it proven that City Manager Healy had committed reprehensible violations of Monteiro’s civil right in retaliation for Monteiro filing a civil rights complaint.
There is nothing complicated about the Monteiro case because it has gone to the Appeals Court with very strong affirmation of findings all over the place. A responsible city council would fire the Cambridge City Manager for cause and use the court decisions as indisputable support.
Cambridge, MA does not have a responsible city council.
3. The motion to be considered by the Cambridge City Council on Monday, March 19, 2012.
The motion reads:
WHEREAS: City Manager Robert Healy's current employment contract with the City of Cambridge expires on September 30, 2012; and WHEREAS: The contract contains a notification provision which needs action by the City Council or Mr. Healy on or before March 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS: As a result of Mr. Healy's long tenure as City Manager, the City of Cambridge has not undertaken a search for a new City Manager for over thirty years; and WHEREAS: It is imperative to the overall stability of the City of Cambridge that the City Council develop both a comprehensive short-term and long-term succession plan that will assist the City Council in their ongoing goal of providing fiscal stability and thoughtful strategic planning and any short-term plan should be in place before the FY 2014 budget process begins; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council amends the expiration date of the City Manager's current employment contract to June 30, 2013 which coincides with the fiscal FY 2013 year-end; and be it further ORDERED: That all other provisions of the employment contract remain unchanged; and be it further
ORDERED:
That the City Council's Government Operations and Rules Committee, with the assistance of the City Manager, begin the process of developing a comprehensive short-term and long-term succession plans. Such plans shall include timelines and outline opportunities for input from the community including residents, businesses, institutions and city staff. Once developed, such plans shall be presented to the full City Council for final consideration.
Listed sponsors are:
COUNCILLOR MAHER, COUNCILLOR CHEUNG, COUNCILLOR DECKER, VICE MAYOR SIMMONS, COUNCILLOR TOOMEY, MAYOR DAVIS, COUNCILLOR VANBEUZEKOM
This motion is posted at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=34502.
2. Evaluation of the non signers, of the Cambridge City Manager, and of the Cambridge City Council.
3. The motion to be considered by the Cambridge City Council on Monday, March 19, 2012.
1. Cambridge Day Reports.
Cambridge Day reports, at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/03/17/councillors-seek-to-extend-city-managers-contract-while-they-plan-succession/ that the Cambridge City Council, Monday night, March 19, 2012, will consider a nine month extension for the contract of City Manager Robert Healy. This would extend his end date from September 30, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
The motion to work on a nine month extension is sponsored by seven members of the nine member body. Not included as sponsors are Councilor Craig Kelley and Councilor Kenneth Reeves.
2. Evaluation of the non signers, of the Cambridge City Manager, and of the Cambridge City Council.
The motion is posted below. I find the action troubling.
I find the form of the motions surprising. It comes as quite a surprise in its form inasmuch as this is worded as an exercise of a right by the Cambridge City Council. The seven are proposing simply to extend the contract and have worded the motion as their action with no need to concur by the Cambridge City Manager. They propose a nine month extension to phase him out.
A few weeks ago, I reported a motion by Councilor Kelley to initiate the process on the Cambridge City Manager’s contract with no comment on whether the council would extend it or not. Action on the Kelley motion was delayed a week by, I believe, Councilor Davis’ exercise of her right under the City Charter. That motion was automatically placed on file the following week because Kelley had to be out of state that night.
Kelley was the only member of the current Cambridge City Council who in last year’s election stated he would not vote to rehire the Cambridge City Manager.
Kelley has a public record in which he appears to be the only council member hostile to the Cambridge City Manager.
His position is very hard to compute based on his record with regard to the fake downzonings written by the City Manager’s people and fronted by the Machine. Kelley was very much an aggressive part of these outrages, an aggressive part of the Machine.
Lovely words. Lots of secret fine print which made the words very often so many lies.
Kelley’s record on these zoning outrages put to the lie his long standing claims of environmentalism.
Similarly, Kelley’s main stomping grounds are North Cambridge, which includes Alewife. Kelley has no publicly stated problems with the destruction of the core Alewife reservation for promises of flood protection which, in reality are lies, skillfully worded as usual, but lies. The people active in the North Cambridge group who look the most visible and who the most do not seem t want to know what they are doing certainly look like Kelley people.
Kelley’s indifference to the destruction of Alewife puts the lie to his long standing claims of environmentalism.
Kelley’s claims of hostility to the city manager are interesting. His long record of being part of the city manager’s environmental destruction make his claims of hostility to the city manager quite interesting.
As far as Reeves goes, Reeves is not quite as much of a problem as an “environmentalist” destroying the environment as part of the city manager’s people. Reeves just fits into the normal rottenness of the Cambridge political machine.
As far as the other seven city councilors go, they are extending in office a city manager who should be fired without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
I am very disappointed the Cambridge City Council does not adopt the positions of the Appeals Court panel and the Superior Court judge and jury on Monteiro. It seems very clear that all found it proven that City Manager Healy had committed reprehensible violations of Monteiro’s civil right in retaliation for Monteiro filing a civil rights complaint.
There is nothing complicated about the Monteiro case because it has gone to the Appeals Court with very strong affirmation of findings all over the place. A responsible city council would fire the Cambridge City Manager for cause and use the court decisions as indisputable support.
Cambridge, MA does not have a responsible city council.
3. The motion to be considered by the Cambridge City Council on Monday, March 19, 2012.
The motion reads:
WHEREAS: City Manager Robert Healy's current employment contract with the City of Cambridge expires on September 30, 2012; and WHEREAS: The contract contains a notification provision which needs action by the City Council or Mr. Healy on or before March 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS: As a result of Mr. Healy's long tenure as City Manager, the City of Cambridge has not undertaken a search for a new City Manager for over thirty years; and WHEREAS: It is imperative to the overall stability of the City of Cambridge that the City Council develop both a comprehensive short-term and long-term succession plan that will assist the City Council in their ongoing goal of providing fiscal stability and thoughtful strategic planning and any short-term plan should be in place before the FY 2014 budget process begins; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council amends the expiration date of the City Manager's current employment contract to June 30, 2013 which coincides with the fiscal FY 2013 year-end; and be it further ORDERED: That all other provisions of the employment contract remain unchanged; and be it further
ORDERED:
That the City Council's Government Operations and Rules Committee, with the assistance of the City Manager, begin the process of developing a comprehensive short-term and long-term succession plans. Such plans shall include timelines and outline opportunities for input from the community including residents, businesses, institutions and city staff. Once developed, such plans shall be presented to the full City Council for final consideration.
Listed sponsors are:
COUNCILLOR MAHER, COUNCILLOR CHEUNG, COUNCILLOR DECKER, VICE MAYOR SIMMONS, COUNCILLOR TOOMEY, MAYOR DAVIS, COUNCILLOR VANBEUZEKOM
This motion is posted at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=34502.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Photo of Muskrat from Charles River “Conservancy” - Sophisticated and Very Cynical Lying
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” posted on its facebook page on Thursday, March 15, 2012, a beautiful photo of a Muskrat in the Charles River near Watertown, MA.
Watertown is borderline. Part of Watertown is in that area of the Charles River whose environment and animals are being destroyed by the Charles River “Conservancy” acting as agent for Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge, MA. Part is not.
This photo posting is an excellent example of the cynical tactics by which destructive entities lie about themselves, their environmental destruction and their heartless animal abuse.
The CRC is posting this photo and admiring this excellent animal. That gives the highly false impression that they are pro environment.
Animals are explicitly under attack on the Charles River basin by the DCR and the habitat destruction which the CRC specializes in directly attacks the animals of the Charles River. Over the past 10 years, it is impossible to say how many animals they have killed. It is clear that they have been deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese since 2004 by walling off Magazine Beach and the food there which these beautiful animals have had as their principal diet for most of the past 30 years.
The lie from the CRC also is a sophisticated lie about the destructive entities with whom they are so closely aligned, the DCR and Cambridge. Look at the photo of the muskrat. Don’t look at the heartless abuse at Magazine Beach and the destroyed nesting area. Don’t look at the acres of wanton destruction at Alewife and mass animal killing there.
Don’t look at the policy of the DCR being implemented over more than 12 years: kill off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. Don’t look at the many other outrages.
Look at the lovely photo of the muskrat.
Do not look at the dishonestly by which an animal destructive organization lies about itself by showing this photo without mentioning its own very destructive reality.
Since the CRC started environmental destruction for the DCR, almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed between the BU Bridge and, to its east, the BU Boathouse. This is the ghetto to which the beautiful Charles River White Geese have been heartlessly consigned.
The photo was take by Carole Berney, wildlife photographer, and submitted to this falsely named group.
Please note that this photo is being reproduced without permission under the fair use doctrine.
Watertown is borderline. Part of Watertown is in that area of the Charles River whose environment and animals are being destroyed by the Charles River “Conservancy” acting as agent for Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge, MA. Part is not.
This photo posting is an excellent example of the cynical tactics by which destructive entities lie about themselves, their environmental destruction and their heartless animal abuse.
The CRC is posting this photo and admiring this excellent animal. That gives the highly false impression that they are pro environment.
Animals are explicitly under attack on the Charles River basin by the DCR and the habitat destruction which the CRC specializes in directly attacks the animals of the Charles River. Over the past 10 years, it is impossible to say how many animals they have killed. It is clear that they have been deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese since 2004 by walling off Magazine Beach and the food there which these beautiful animals have had as their principal diet for most of the past 30 years.
The lie from the CRC also is a sophisticated lie about the destructive entities with whom they are so closely aligned, the DCR and Cambridge. Look at the photo of the muskrat. Don’t look at the heartless abuse at Magazine Beach and the destroyed nesting area. Don’t look at the acres of wanton destruction at Alewife and mass animal killing there.
Don’t look at the policy of the DCR being implemented over more than 12 years: kill off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. Don’t look at the many other outrages.
Look at the lovely photo of the muskrat.
Do not look at the dishonestly by which an animal destructive organization lies about itself by showing this photo without mentioning its own very destructive reality.
Since the CRC started environmental destruction for the DCR, almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed between the BU Bridge and, to its east, the BU Boathouse. This is the ghetto to which the beautiful Charles River White Geese have been heartlessly consigned.
The photo was take by Carole Berney, wildlife photographer, and submitted to this falsely named group.
Please note that this photo is being reproduced without permission under the fair use doctrine.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Photos of Alewife before destruction and the parking lot where flood storage needs to go
I have reviewed the North Cambridge Stabilization Fund’s file on 160 CambridgePark Drive. This is the massive parking lot which, together with adjacent lots should be used for flood storage to protect neighbors.
Below is the developer’s plan for the project.
The photo that is the basis for the plan is a satellite photo which is now dated. The excellent woods where the words “Alewife Reservation” appear have been destroyed plus perhaps an additional area about as wide to the left. The waterway above is the northern boundary. Destruction does not seem to go quite to it. Photos of the destruction and the current view of the current parking lot / future building may be seen at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.
The lie is that this is flood storage to protect neighbors. Close questioning discloses that the “flood storage” protects against the worst likely storm in any two year period (two year storm). There have been two fifty year storms in this area in the past twenty years. When the public finds out the lie, the poor dears will be “forced” to destroy what has not been destroyed, unless the flood storage is built south of CambridgePark Drive, the street below the destroyed Alewife reservation.
The structure shown in yellow just below CambridgePark Drive is the proposed building in what is now a massive parking lot directly across from access to what is now wasteland, formerly the Alewife reservation. The gray area to the right and dropping is the additional parking also owned by the prime developer. The street to the right of the parking lot is Alewife Brook parkway. Note that the parking lot gets wider proceeding to Alewife Brook Parkway.
Above CambridgePark Drive is a big white building with circular ramps left and right at the top. This is the Alewife Subway Station and garage.
Flood storage plans for the building shown in yellow may be obtained by reviewing the BCS Flood Report at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-ZbJdsEcId8bGg0RU8xYkJTNkc1RlRaMHNHajh3dw/edit?pli=1.
Their proposal looks like a smaller scale description of the flood control project that should be placed under the current project and under the parking lot to the right. You just build what they are building but larger, and you need a responsible city government.
Below is the developer’s plan for the project.
The photo that is the basis for the plan is a satellite photo which is now dated. The excellent woods where the words “Alewife Reservation” appear have been destroyed plus perhaps an additional area about as wide to the left. The waterway above is the northern boundary. Destruction does not seem to go quite to it. Photos of the destruction and the current view of the current parking lot / future building may be seen at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.
The lie is that this is flood storage to protect neighbors. Close questioning discloses that the “flood storage” protects against the worst likely storm in any two year period (two year storm). There have been two fifty year storms in this area in the past twenty years. When the public finds out the lie, the poor dears will be “forced” to destroy what has not been destroyed, unless the flood storage is built south of CambridgePark Drive, the street below the destroyed Alewife reservation.
The structure shown in yellow just below CambridgePark Drive is the proposed building in what is now a massive parking lot directly across from access to what is now wasteland, formerly the Alewife reservation. The gray area to the right and dropping is the additional parking also owned by the prime developer. The street to the right of the parking lot is Alewife Brook parkway. Note that the parking lot gets wider proceeding to Alewife Brook Parkway.
Above CambridgePark Drive is a big white building with circular ramps left and right at the top. This is the Alewife Subway Station and garage.
Flood storage plans for the building shown in yellow may be obtained by reviewing the BCS Flood Report at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-ZbJdsEcId8bGg0RU8xYkJTNkc1RlRaMHNHajh3dw/edit?pli=1.
Their proposal looks like a smaller scale description of the flood control project that should be placed under the current project and under the parking lot to the right. You just build what they are building but larger, and you need a responsible city government.
RE: Alewife Update, key developer at North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
1. Introductory.
2. McKinnon presentation.
A. Ownership.
B. Nature of Use.
C. Flood Protection.
3. The North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
4. Summary.
1. Introductory.
Last night, March 14, 2012, I caught a further presentation by Richie McKinnon and his team concerning their project at Alewife. This is the project slated for the massive parking lot where flood storage should go for which Cambridge and the DCR claim they have destroyed the core Alewife reservation.
Their destruction will protect against the worst possible storm in two years (“two year storm”). Alewife has seen two instances of 50 years storms in the past 20 years. When the victims find out they have been lied to with promises that seem to be promising flood protection, the powers that be will be oh, so sorry. They will have to continue with destruction of this irreplaceable virgin woods and its animals.
Richie’s project and adjoining parking stretching along commuter rail line to Alewife Brook Parkway could readily provide the needed flood protection but it would be very much needed to have his project built above flood protection to do the job as well as possible.
Richie’s presentation was to a group named North Cambridge Stabilization Committee. I was either a founding member or an early member of this group, many years ago when I lived in North Cambridge.
Richie had spoken with them before concerning his plans and was providing further details.
Prior posts of value may be seen at:
Photos of destruction and McKinnon’s parking lot: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.
My analysis of his project:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/alewife-richie-mckinnon-true.html.
I have not checked the quality of the collection but the NCSC people say that all the documents are posted at http://northcambridge.net/. Just click on 160/180 CambridgePark Drive.
2. McKinnon presentation.
A. Ownership.
McKinnon, very heavily for my benefit, went into detail concerning the parking lot ownership.
The parking lot where he is building is to be owned by him during construction. They already have a managing company / subsequent owner lined up to take it over when it is ready for occupancy.
This lot is the one that can be seen on the parking lot photo. The lot, however, is part of a package owned by the owner of two existing office buildings and the development is being coordinated with those buildings. That owner is the current owner of the lot where McKinnon is building and the parking lots between there and Alewife Brook Parkway.
I my prior report I stated that McKinnon could be the owner of everything. He is not. The other guy from whom he is buying is the owner of everything.
We had an almost tense moment when he explained that. I thanked him for correcting my understanding. The reality, however, is that the other owner who owns all the parking lots seems very clearly to be the important entity and that owner owns everything, subject to development plans.
Even if ownership is separated, having different owners on two parts of this massive parking lot which should be used for flood protection would be no big thing to a responsible city government.
B. Nature of Use.
There was extensive discussion of traffic problems associated with the existing development.
Residential uses create much less traffic problems. My interpretation of the discussion is that the big reason this is a residential project is to minimize traffic impact.
The building will have a shell of residential uses on the first floor facing CambridgePark Drive and the destroyed Alewife reservation. The rest of the first floor will be parking for cars and bicycles. The presenter had a good grasp on local bike highways.
They anticipate bikes will access Cambridge to the east through an underpass under Alewife Brook Parkway that is part of the Alewife Station Complex. That could be a good analysis, much better than trying to cross the heavily traveled Alewife Brook Parkway. But bicyclists, lawless or not, could readily cut over to Rindge Avenue across from CambridgePark Drive. It could be done legally as pedestrians. They could then go through the neighborhood that way.
C. Flood Protection.
Their engineer distinguished between two different types of protection from water impact. I still do not understand his distinction, but fortunately another person in the room followed up and got the key details out.
There is one kind of flood protection in two rectangular tanks on the commuter rail side of the project. There is also a massive flood gathering arrangement built under the parking.
These two items are crucial. These items should be greatly expanded to be part of a regional flood protection system, but this can only be done now as part of the construction of the building.
Corresponding flood protection can and should be put under the massive parking lot toward Alewife Brook Parkway which will be retained by the principal developer.
3. The North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
This group is a breath of fresh air after dealing with the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” and the Charles River “Conservancy.” The problem individuals are a much smaller number, but, even so, they are enough to dominate well meaning neighbors who mean well.
The interactions are an excellent example of how the Cambridge Machine works in a group with minimal but real connection.
The meeting was conducted by the number 2 member of the group. He claims to be a zoning expert. His zoning expertise seems to amount to going to the City Manager’s people and learning what is his opinion.
A second key Machine type is a “transportation expert” who is visible in the Machine groups pretty much uniformly to the extent the Machine groups are working on development issues. He always sounds great. He is always part of the resulting, bad effort.
In a public meeting presentation, he did, however, provide me with the key issue concerning the extremely irresponsible development of Alewife.
The “zoning expert” gave the usual pitch: You can’t win, you can’t win, but have I got a deal for you.
The deal amounted to chasing their tails at various meetings while Richie presents his plan to people working for / appointed by the Cambridge City Manager.
The idea of doing something meaningful like talking to the City Council was pooh poohed / ignored. The Machine maneuvers people away from the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge City Council is the only people they should be dealing with because the Cambridge City Council should be taking underground rights in those parking lots including Richie’s for the flood storage the city needs, rather than massive destruction of the irreplaceable Alewife woodlands.
Also visible was a couple I know from when I lived in North Cambridge. Disclosure: I dated their daughter for awhile.
The woman in the couple has been very belligerent that they did what they could to prevent the outrage at Alewife. They sued city employees. Neither can meaningfully explain why, in the years they have been attempting to protect Alewife, they have not and will not talk with the Cambridge city council.
The Machine strongly discourages talking with the Cambridge City Council. You can’t win, but have we got a deal for you. Besides, suing city employees and ignoring the Cambridge City Council keeps people out of trouble from the point of view of the machine.
The reality is that there could be no knaves in this group. The knaves could just be the city employees / Cambridge machine members pulling the strings of a very tiny minority. It is really irrelevant whether we are talking knaves or otherwise. The problem people have long, bad records and, as usual, they present themselves as experts.
4. Summary.
I spoke with almost all the local people individually. I showed them my photos of Alewife as destroyed as of a month ago. I pointed them to this blog for further copies of those photos and gave them the standard FOWG informational flier that leads with Alewife on one side while devoting the full other side to the Charles River.
There are good people in this group. They are exactly the type of people I have worked with in so many major victories. I hope they can free themselves of the Cambridge Machine and put pressure where it belongs, on the Cambridge City Council.
1. Introductory.
2. McKinnon presentation.
A. Ownership.
B. Nature of Use.
C. Flood Protection.
3. The North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
4. Summary.
1. Introductory.
Last night, March 14, 2012, I caught a further presentation by Richie McKinnon and his team concerning their project at Alewife. This is the project slated for the massive parking lot where flood storage should go for which Cambridge and the DCR claim they have destroyed the core Alewife reservation.
Their destruction will protect against the worst possible storm in two years (“two year storm”). Alewife has seen two instances of 50 years storms in the past 20 years. When the victims find out they have been lied to with promises that seem to be promising flood protection, the powers that be will be oh, so sorry. They will have to continue with destruction of this irreplaceable virgin woods and its animals.
Richie’s project and adjoining parking stretching along commuter rail line to Alewife Brook Parkway could readily provide the needed flood protection but it would be very much needed to have his project built above flood protection to do the job as well as possible.
Richie’s presentation was to a group named North Cambridge Stabilization Committee. I was either a founding member or an early member of this group, many years ago when I lived in North Cambridge.
Richie had spoken with them before concerning his plans and was providing further details.
Prior posts of value may be seen at:
Photos of destruction and McKinnon’s parking lot: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.
My analysis of his project:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/alewife-richie-mckinnon-true.html.
I have not checked the quality of the collection but the NCSC people say that all the documents are posted at http://northcambridge.net/. Just click on 160/180 CambridgePark Drive.
2. McKinnon presentation.
A. Ownership.
McKinnon, very heavily for my benefit, went into detail concerning the parking lot ownership.
The parking lot where he is building is to be owned by him during construction. They already have a managing company / subsequent owner lined up to take it over when it is ready for occupancy.
This lot is the one that can be seen on the parking lot photo. The lot, however, is part of a package owned by the owner of two existing office buildings and the development is being coordinated with those buildings. That owner is the current owner of the lot where McKinnon is building and the parking lots between there and Alewife Brook Parkway.
I my prior report I stated that McKinnon could be the owner of everything. He is not. The other guy from whom he is buying is the owner of everything.
We had an almost tense moment when he explained that. I thanked him for correcting my understanding. The reality, however, is that the other owner who owns all the parking lots seems very clearly to be the important entity and that owner owns everything, subject to development plans.
Even if ownership is separated, having different owners on two parts of this massive parking lot which should be used for flood protection would be no big thing to a responsible city government.
B. Nature of Use.
There was extensive discussion of traffic problems associated with the existing development.
Residential uses create much less traffic problems. My interpretation of the discussion is that the big reason this is a residential project is to minimize traffic impact.
The building will have a shell of residential uses on the first floor facing CambridgePark Drive and the destroyed Alewife reservation. The rest of the first floor will be parking for cars and bicycles. The presenter had a good grasp on local bike highways.
They anticipate bikes will access Cambridge to the east through an underpass under Alewife Brook Parkway that is part of the Alewife Station Complex. That could be a good analysis, much better than trying to cross the heavily traveled Alewife Brook Parkway. But bicyclists, lawless or not, could readily cut over to Rindge Avenue across from CambridgePark Drive. It could be done legally as pedestrians. They could then go through the neighborhood that way.
C. Flood Protection.
Their engineer distinguished between two different types of protection from water impact. I still do not understand his distinction, but fortunately another person in the room followed up and got the key details out.
There is one kind of flood protection in two rectangular tanks on the commuter rail side of the project. There is also a massive flood gathering arrangement built under the parking.
These two items are crucial. These items should be greatly expanded to be part of a regional flood protection system, but this can only be done now as part of the construction of the building.
Corresponding flood protection can and should be put under the massive parking lot toward Alewife Brook Parkway which will be retained by the principal developer.
3. The North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
This group is a breath of fresh air after dealing with the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” and the Charles River “Conservancy.” The problem individuals are a much smaller number, but, even so, they are enough to dominate well meaning neighbors who mean well.
The interactions are an excellent example of how the Cambridge Machine works in a group with minimal but real connection.
The meeting was conducted by the number 2 member of the group. He claims to be a zoning expert. His zoning expertise seems to amount to going to the City Manager’s people and learning what is his opinion.
A second key Machine type is a “transportation expert” who is visible in the Machine groups pretty much uniformly to the extent the Machine groups are working on development issues. He always sounds great. He is always part of the resulting, bad effort.
In a public meeting presentation, he did, however, provide me with the key issue concerning the extremely irresponsible development of Alewife.
The “zoning expert” gave the usual pitch: You can’t win, you can’t win, but have I got a deal for you.
The deal amounted to chasing their tails at various meetings while Richie presents his plan to people working for / appointed by the Cambridge City Manager.
The idea of doing something meaningful like talking to the City Council was pooh poohed / ignored. The Machine maneuvers people away from the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge City Council is the only people they should be dealing with because the Cambridge City Council should be taking underground rights in those parking lots including Richie’s for the flood storage the city needs, rather than massive destruction of the irreplaceable Alewife woodlands.
Also visible was a couple I know from when I lived in North Cambridge. Disclosure: I dated their daughter for awhile.
The woman in the couple has been very belligerent that they did what they could to prevent the outrage at Alewife. They sued city employees. Neither can meaningfully explain why, in the years they have been attempting to protect Alewife, they have not and will not talk with the Cambridge city council.
The Machine strongly discourages talking with the Cambridge City Council. You can’t win, but have we got a deal for you. Besides, suing city employees and ignoring the Cambridge City Council keeps people out of trouble from the point of view of the machine.
The reality is that there could be no knaves in this group. The knaves could just be the city employees / Cambridge machine members pulling the strings of a very tiny minority. It is really irrelevant whether we are talking knaves or otherwise. The problem people have long, bad records and, as usual, they present themselves as experts.
4. Summary.
I spoke with almost all the local people individually. I showed them my photos of Alewife as destroyed as of a month ago. I pointed them to this blog for further copies of those photos and gave them the standard FOWG informational flier that leads with Alewife on one side while devoting the full other side to the Charles River.
There are good people in this group. They are exactly the type of people I have worked with in so many major victories. I hope they can free themselves of the Cambridge Machine and put pressure where it belongs, on the Cambridge City Council.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Urban Ring Supplement, Passenger Service, choice of crossings, Yawkey Station
In yesterday’s post, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/archie-on-mbta.html, I partially responded to Archie Mazmanian’s comments concerning the Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee.
On greater thought, my comment needs supplementation.
I informed the group of the MassDOT decision rejecting passenger service. The MassDOT representative spoke later about wishes of the group for the Grand Junction which are still on MassDOT’s active list.
This group does not give the impression of being strongly a citizen’s group. In the Charles River area, it looks very much like the institutions. The group was continued after the state officially gave up on the Urban Ring.
The Urban Ring concept dates back to the mid 80's when it was created as a means of allowing connections between the spokes of the subway system to allow people to get from place to place without going through the heavily used downtown stations where they still have to transfer.
Most recently, the bureaucrats have attempted to add a stage in the proposal for buses before putting in new subway lines.
Buses make excellent sense in the part of the Boston transportation system outside the Cambridge - Boston core area. In the Cambridge-Boston core area, buses are quite simply silly.
The Urban Ring bus proposal before it was put on hold was subjected to an interim environmental order prohibiting the Bus actions to do anything to predetermine which of two subway possibilities would be used.
The two subway proposals most important difference is in the crossing of the Charles River. The heavy subway Kenmore Crossing would cross near Kenmore Square. The streetcar BU Bridge Crossing would cross near the BU Bridge. The streetcar proposal is a spin off of a heavy subway proposal for the same basic route. The streetcars are being proposed because of a turn at Mountfort and Park Drive which heavy subway cannot achieve.
An additional difference between the two is that the streetcar proposal needed to move the Yawkey Commuter Rail Station to Mountfort and St.Mary’s within view of Marsh Chapel, the core of the BU Campus, to get Commuter Rail connections.
The legislature, as reported in the Urban Ring CAC meeting, has spent millions upgrading the existing Yawkey Station. Yawkey is an integral part of an excellent combination of the Urban Ring / Street Cars (existing Kenmore) and Commuter Rail. It provides excellent connections.
The CAC types have proposed a complicated bunch of busses going over and under the BU Bridge. The proposal clearly was intended to decide the choice of crossings in favor of the BU Bridge crossing.
But the legislature has made it a fait accompli that the Kenmore Crossing will be used by upgrading Yawkey in place. The games with the commuter rail on the Grand Junction looks like a response. Supposedly this was for some Worcester / Framingham to Boston trains, but the obvious tactic is to get some and then the rest. Moving all the Worcester service to the Grand Junction would make Yawkey Station superfluous and give their streetcar alternative a chance.
But the bad guys have lost yet another key vote.
And somehow the apparent killing of passenger service on the Grand Junction was not reported to the Urban Ring CAC until I informed them of it.
On greater thought, my comment needs supplementation.
I informed the group of the MassDOT decision rejecting passenger service. The MassDOT representative spoke later about wishes of the group for the Grand Junction which are still on MassDOT’s active list.
This group does not give the impression of being strongly a citizen’s group. In the Charles River area, it looks very much like the institutions. The group was continued after the state officially gave up on the Urban Ring.
The Urban Ring concept dates back to the mid 80's when it was created as a means of allowing connections between the spokes of the subway system to allow people to get from place to place without going through the heavily used downtown stations where they still have to transfer.
Most recently, the bureaucrats have attempted to add a stage in the proposal for buses before putting in new subway lines.
Buses make excellent sense in the part of the Boston transportation system outside the Cambridge - Boston core area. In the Cambridge-Boston core area, buses are quite simply silly.
The Urban Ring bus proposal before it was put on hold was subjected to an interim environmental order prohibiting the Bus actions to do anything to predetermine which of two subway possibilities would be used.
The two subway proposals most important difference is in the crossing of the Charles River. The heavy subway Kenmore Crossing would cross near Kenmore Square. The streetcar BU Bridge Crossing would cross near the BU Bridge. The streetcar proposal is a spin off of a heavy subway proposal for the same basic route. The streetcars are being proposed because of a turn at Mountfort and Park Drive which heavy subway cannot achieve.
An additional difference between the two is that the streetcar proposal needed to move the Yawkey Commuter Rail Station to Mountfort and St.Mary’s within view of Marsh Chapel, the core of the BU Campus, to get Commuter Rail connections.
The legislature, as reported in the Urban Ring CAC meeting, has spent millions upgrading the existing Yawkey Station. Yawkey is an integral part of an excellent combination of the Urban Ring / Street Cars (existing Kenmore) and Commuter Rail. It provides excellent connections.
The CAC types have proposed a complicated bunch of busses going over and under the BU Bridge. The proposal clearly was intended to decide the choice of crossings in favor of the BU Bridge crossing.
But the legislature has made it a fait accompli that the Kenmore Crossing will be used by upgrading Yawkey in place. The games with the commuter rail on the Grand Junction looks like a response. Supposedly this was for some Worcester / Framingham to Boston trains, but the obvious tactic is to get some and then the rest. Moving all the Worcester service to the Grand Junction would make Yawkey Station superfluous and give their streetcar alternative a chance.
But the bad guys have lost yet another key vote.
And somehow the apparent killing of passenger service on the Grand Junction was not reported to the Urban Ring CAC until I informed them of it.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Archie on the MBTA
1. Archie Mazmanian Reports.
2. Editor’s response.
1. Archie Mazmanian Reports.
Bob,
I was checking out the CHWG Blog this morning and after reading it I clicked on "Next Blog" out of curiousness and what popped up was the "Mass Sierra Club News" with its March 3, 2012 post "Boston Area Transit Under Threat" at
http://mass-sierra.blogspot.com/
This reminded me that I have been derelict in not reporting on the Urban Ring "Revival Meeting" that we both attended on February 27th. You may recall that at the end of the public comment period, I made reference to the fact that the CAC's Agenda for that meeting was set on MassDOT letterhead that features this phrase (new to me) at the bottom:
"Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence".
I suggested that MassDOT might add an asterisk after "Excellence" and note: "except for public transit."
I may have more to say about the "Revival Meeting" in due course. I don't plan to attend the upcoming meeting focusing on Melnea Cass Boulevard; if you do, I think your comments would be appropriate. Perhaps over the 20 years or so various segments of the Urban Ring will be patched together. By then Bus Rapid Transit may be replaced by more efficient technology.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Editor’s response.
I would like to attend the Melnea Cass meeting. I am not certain if I can.
A very major problem with the Massachusetts Sierra Club is the presence very visibly of members of Cambridge’s political machine with quite bad records on zoning issues. They submit zoning changes written by the Cambridge City Manager and, to no surprise, those proposals altogether too often have unexplained fine print which belies the lovely claims of the proposals. The secret fine print commonly is very destructive.
With such people in such a very visible location, the repeated endorsement by the Massachusetts Sierra Club of Cambridge City Councilors who are belligerently destructive of the environment comes as no surprise. It does, however, destroy the credibility of the Massachusetts Sierra Club as far the Charles River and the City of Cambridge goes.
As far as the Urban Ring meeting goes, there were points to be made, but I am still getting around to making them.
They had the Grand Junction passenger service on the agenda, but neglected to tell the members of the Committee that MassDOT has rejected passenger service on the Grand Junction for Worcester/Framingham service unless expansion of South Station is impossible.
2. Editor’s response.
1. Archie Mazmanian Reports.
Bob,
I was checking out the CHWG Blog this morning and after reading it I clicked on "Next Blog" out of curiousness and what popped up was the "Mass Sierra Club News" with its March 3, 2012 post "Boston Area Transit Under Threat" at
http://mass-sierra.blogspot.com/
This reminded me that I have been derelict in not reporting on the Urban Ring "Revival Meeting" that we both attended on February 27th. You may recall that at the end of the public comment period, I made reference to the fact that the CAC's Agenda for that meeting was set on MassDOT letterhead that features this phrase (new to me) at the bottom:
"Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence".
I suggested that MassDOT might add an asterisk after "Excellence" and note: "except for public transit."
I may have more to say about the "Revival Meeting" in due course. I don't plan to attend the upcoming meeting focusing on Melnea Cass Boulevard; if you do, I think your comments would be appropriate. Perhaps over the 20 years or so various segments of the Urban Ring will be patched together. By then Bus Rapid Transit may be replaced by more efficient technology.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Editor’s response.
I would like to attend the Melnea Cass meeting. I am not certain if I can.
A very major problem with the Massachusetts Sierra Club is the presence very visibly of members of Cambridge’s political machine with quite bad records on zoning issues. They submit zoning changes written by the Cambridge City Manager and, to no surprise, those proposals altogether too often have unexplained fine print which belies the lovely claims of the proposals. The secret fine print commonly is very destructive.
With such people in such a very visible location, the repeated endorsement by the Massachusetts Sierra Club of Cambridge City Councilors who are belligerently destructive of the environment comes as no surprise. It does, however, destroy the credibility of the Massachusetts Sierra Club as far the Charles River and the City of Cambridge goes.
As far as the Urban Ring meeting goes, there were points to be made, but I am still getting around to making them.
They had the Grand Junction passenger service on the agenda, but neglected to tell the members of the Committee that MassDOT has rejected passenger service on the Grand Junction for Worcester/Framingham service unless expansion of South Station is impossible.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Selected Entities Funding the Charles River “Conservancy” — Part 2
The following is another partial list of entities contributing to the environmentally destructive and falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
This is taken from an attachment to a Fall 2011 fundraising letter bragging, among other things about their fight for a new small vehicle highway on and in the Charles River on the Cambridge side. This major initiative (and not mentioned any more than they can help) would destroy hundreds of healthy trees, wetlands, and animal habitat including major portions of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.
I have recently reported on the Longfellow Bridge Repairs. This falsely named group was there fighting against the needs of bicycle commuters by restricting them to the sidewalk on the Longfellow Bridge.
It seems likely that this entity and its controlled activists are treating the Longfellow Bridge repairs as an extension of their irresponsible highway project on the Cambridge side of the Charles River. Their irresponsible project would destroy hundreds of trees, wetlands and portions of the Charles River. The project has deservedly been condemned for its environmental destruction by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Their small vehicle highway would be highly destructive to the Charles River White Geese in the tiny area to which they have been consigned east of the BU Bridge. It would multiply destruction there, at Magazine Beach and on the riverbank to the east. It would destroy a magnificent grove of 104 trees at the Memorial Drive Split.
Since the Charles River “Conservancy” constantly and very visibly lies about their reason for existence by using the false word “Conservancy” in their name, the number of troops it presents as activists probably includes a lot of people who have been duped by the lying in their name and by who knows what irresponsible techniques used less publicly.
The CRC’s list of contributors is preceded with the comment: “We are grateful to our corporate sponsors and to the foundations who have supported us over the last 18 months.”
VERY prominently displayed at the top of the list are the following logos:
The Boston Foundation
Intersystems
WilmerHale
Massachusetts Environmental Trust
Bank of America
Fidelity Investiments
Converse
The third grouping is as follows. Please excuse errors in compilation. Printing is in white letters on a beige background. Definitely not conducive to accurate reading.
*********
Benefactor
Alexander, Aronsin, Fleming and Company, PC
Allston Brighton / Boston College Community Fund
Anchor Capital Advisors, LLC
BoseZen Consulting.
Blitz Media
Boston Duck Tours
Boston University
Cambridge Heritage Trust
Cambridge Trust Company
Charles Riverboat Company
Charlesbank Capital Partners LLC
Clean Harbors, Inc.
Druker Company, Lts.
Dyus Corporation
Fields Pond Foundation
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Infinity Pharmaceuticals
Intercontinental Management Corporation
ITA Software, Inc.
JumpTap, Inc.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Icn.
Rosales & Partners
Sun Life Financial
TD Bank
Tufts Health Plan Foundation
WBUR 90.0 FM
*********
Very visible on the list are Harvard University, MIT Community Service Fund, Harvard Business School, Boston University, Allston Brighton / Boston College Community Fund, and the New England College of Optometry.
Our prior posting on this issue presented the first two groupings on this list of shame. It may be viewed at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/selected-non-profits-funding-charles.html
This is taken from an attachment to a Fall 2011 fundraising letter bragging, among other things about their fight for a new small vehicle highway on and in the Charles River on the Cambridge side. This major initiative (and not mentioned any more than they can help) would destroy hundreds of healthy trees, wetlands, and animal habitat including major portions of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.
I have recently reported on the Longfellow Bridge Repairs. This falsely named group was there fighting against the needs of bicycle commuters by restricting them to the sidewalk on the Longfellow Bridge.
It seems likely that this entity and its controlled activists are treating the Longfellow Bridge repairs as an extension of their irresponsible highway project on the Cambridge side of the Charles River. Their irresponsible project would destroy hundreds of trees, wetlands and portions of the Charles River. The project has deservedly been condemned for its environmental destruction by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Their small vehicle highway would be highly destructive to the Charles River White Geese in the tiny area to which they have been consigned east of the BU Bridge. It would multiply destruction there, at Magazine Beach and on the riverbank to the east. It would destroy a magnificent grove of 104 trees at the Memorial Drive Split.
Since the Charles River “Conservancy” constantly and very visibly lies about their reason for existence by using the false word “Conservancy” in their name, the number of troops it presents as activists probably includes a lot of people who have been duped by the lying in their name and by who knows what irresponsible techniques used less publicly.
The CRC’s list of contributors is preceded with the comment: “We are grateful to our corporate sponsors and to the foundations who have supported us over the last 18 months.”
VERY prominently displayed at the top of the list are the following logos:
The Boston Foundation
Intersystems
WilmerHale
Massachusetts Environmental Trust
Bank of America
Fidelity Investiments
Converse
The third grouping is as follows. Please excuse errors in compilation. Printing is in white letters on a beige background. Definitely not conducive to accurate reading.
*********
Benefactor
Alexander, Aronsin, Fleming and Company, PC
Allston Brighton / Boston College Community Fund
Anchor Capital Advisors, LLC
BoseZen Consulting.
Blitz Media
Boston Duck Tours
Boston University
Cambridge Heritage Trust
Cambridge Trust Company
Charles Riverboat Company
Charlesbank Capital Partners LLC
Clean Harbors, Inc.
Druker Company, Lts.
Dyus Corporation
Fields Pond Foundation
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Infinity Pharmaceuticals
Intercontinental Management Corporation
ITA Software, Inc.
JumpTap, Inc.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Icn.
Rosales & Partners
Sun Life Financial
TD Bank
Tufts Health Plan Foundation
WBUR 90.0 FM
*********
Very visible on the list are Harvard University, MIT Community Service Fund, Harvard Business School, Boston University, Allston Brighton / Boston College Community Fund, and the New England College of Optometry.
Our prior posting on this issue presented the first two groupings on this list of shame. It may be viewed at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/selected-non-profits-funding-charles.html
Monday, March 05, 2012
Harvard’s public position on Allston expansion
Harvard’s empire building in Boston’s Allston neighborhood is directly relevant to the Charles River because its activities are only a few hundred feet from the Charles and because it is involved in many attacks on the Charles directly supporting its activities in Allston, whether obvious or hidden behind the almost non stopping con games.
The following is taken from page 33 and the top of page 34 of a document entitled “Harvard University’s Town Gown Report 2011." It was submitted to the Cambridge Planning Board in a meeting in February 2012 which received such reports from Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge College. My memory is that there was a document describing this report as actually submitted in late (December?) 2011. I do not see that document now.
*********
C. Other Planning Priorities.
Allston Planning.
In the summer of 2011, the Harvard Allston Work Team presented the University with the following set of five recommendations for proposed next steps in Allston.
● Resume planning and development of the Western Avenue foundation (science site) [Ed: this is on the southern side of Western Avenue across from the Charlesview (subsidized) Housing and north or east of North Harvard Street] as an innovative, interdisciplinary health and life science center [ed: fits exactly in with the clear plans to move the Harvard Medical School to the rail yard / I90 exit which Harvard owns and which is further to the east on the other side of Cambridge Street].
● Develop an enterprise research campus in Allston Landing North, creating a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, research and science Development
[Ed: "Allston Landing North" confuses me and I have not been able to get a straight answer. Is this the rail yard / I90 exit? Is this further west on Western Avenue between Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road? Is this on Lincoln Street which parallels Western Avenue, abuts the I90, between Everett Street and Market Street, a few blocks south of the destroyed Western Avenue Shopping Center? Is this the shopping center at Cambridge Street and North Harvard across east of the Hess Station? Is it the triangle created by Brighton Avenue, Cambridge Street and Harvard Avenue / Street?]
● Enhance the vibrancy of Barry’s Corner through housing and other amenities [ed: this is Western Avenue and North Harvard Street where Harvard is in the process of destroying the Charlesview housing.]
● Enable academic growth by preserving land adjacent to the existing campus, consistent with past planning
● Explore the feasibility of a conference center and hotel to accommodate the academic and research sector
These recommendations were endorsed by the President and the Harvard Corporation in September, and initial implementation is expected in two distinct but related phases of work.
Phase one includes three major components:
● Moving ahead on a Health and Life Science Center of the Western Avenue foundation, driven by academic planning under the leadership of the Provost. As a program of specific health, life and interdisciplinary science research uses is identified, the building plan will be evaluated and re-programmed to ensure the optimization of science and research space.
● Planning for a new residential commons and retail center in the Barry’s Corner area. Rental housing for Harvard graduate students, visiting scholars, faculty members and others will be combined with retail facilities and amenities for the entire neighborhood. After soliciting ideas and feedback from the community to inform planning for Barry’s Corner, the University plans to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for third-party development partners to plan, build and manage the residential commons and retail center. Depending on the pace of the design and permitting processes, construction could begin in 2013.
● This phase will also include site assessment and academic planning for the current Charlesview Apartments site along Western Avenue and North Harvard Street. As soon as the new Charlesview Residences are occupied As soon as the new Charlesview Residences are occupied, and prior to demolition at the existing site, Harvard will provide an update on the site assessment, academic planning and timeline.
[Ed: former Western Avenue Shopping Center west of Barry’s corner most of which was landbanked by Harvard in its successful pressure on the owner of Charlesview Housing to vacate Barry’s Corner. The former retail mall has been destroyed and is now an extremely large construction site. The super market has been returned to its original name of Star Market from Shaw’s and an addition to which I believe Shaw’s expanded has been demolished. The McDonald’s has been rebuilt to the east of the construction zone. The retail building at Western and Everett has been untouched. So the formerly vibrant shopping center has been drastically reduced in size.]
Phase two will focus on Allston Landing North and include the identification of appropriate development partners to assist in planning and developing an Enterprise Research Campus, which could potentially include a hotel and conference center. The Enterprise Research Campus is intended to serve as a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, and research and science development. This activity will be explored in tandem with phase one, but with longer-term objectives and timeframes.
[Ed.: such “collaborative” development is commonly done on long term rentals. The renter creates and uses buildings on Harvard property which then become a part of the Harvard campus without Harvard having to pay for building the buildings. Many buildings in Cambridge have been built for MIT in this manner. Allston Landing North could very likely be the current I90 exit / rail yard and future Harvard Medical School, but I have gotten such conflicting explanations for “Allston Landing North”.]
Harvard anticipates that the planning efforts associated with these two phases will result in a new institutional Master Plan Notification Form (IMPNF) submission by the end of 2012, a process which will include a series of conversations with the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the community that will ultimately lead to a new Institutional Master Plan for Harvard in Allston.
The following is taken from page 33 and the top of page 34 of a document entitled “Harvard University’s Town Gown Report 2011." It was submitted to the Cambridge Planning Board in a meeting in February 2012 which received such reports from Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge College. My memory is that there was a document describing this report as actually submitted in late (December?) 2011. I do not see that document now.
*********
C. Other Planning Priorities.
Allston Planning.
In the summer of 2011, the Harvard Allston Work Team presented the University with the following set of five recommendations for proposed next steps in Allston.
● Resume planning and development of the Western Avenue foundation (science site) [Ed: this is on the southern side of Western Avenue across from the Charlesview (subsidized) Housing and north or east of North Harvard Street] as an innovative, interdisciplinary health and life science center [ed: fits exactly in with the clear plans to move the Harvard Medical School to the rail yard / I90 exit which Harvard owns and which is further to the east on the other side of Cambridge Street].
● Develop an enterprise research campus in Allston Landing North, creating a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, research and science Development
[Ed: "Allston Landing North" confuses me and I have not been able to get a straight answer. Is this the rail yard / I90 exit? Is this further west on Western Avenue between Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road? Is this on Lincoln Street which parallels Western Avenue, abuts the I90, between Everett Street and Market Street, a few blocks south of the destroyed Western Avenue Shopping Center? Is this the shopping center at Cambridge Street and North Harvard across east of the Hess Station? Is it the triangle created by Brighton Avenue, Cambridge Street and Harvard Avenue / Street?]
● Enhance the vibrancy of Barry’s Corner through housing and other amenities [ed: this is Western Avenue and North Harvard Street where Harvard is in the process of destroying the Charlesview housing.]
● Enable academic growth by preserving land adjacent to the existing campus, consistent with past planning
● Explore the feasibility of a conference center and hotel to accommodate the academic and research sector
These recommendations were endorsed by the President and the Harvard Corporation in September, and initial implementation is expected in two distinct but related phases of work.
Phase one includes three major components:
● Moving ahead on a Health and Life Science Center of the Western Avenue foundation, driven by academic planning under the leadership of the Provost. As a program of specific health, life and interdisciplinary science research uses is identified, the building plan will be evaluated and re-programmed to ensure the optimization of science and research space.
● Planning for a new residential commons and retail center in the Barry’s Corner area. Rental housing for Harvard graduate students, visiting scholars, faculty members and others will be combined with retail facilities and amenities for the entire neighborhood. After soliciting ideas and feedback from the community to inform planning for Barry’s Corner, the University plans to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for third-party development partners to plan, build and manage the residential commons and retail center. Depending on the pace of the design and permitting processes, construction could begin in 2013.
● This phase will also include site assessment and academic planning for the current Charlesview Apartments site along Western Avenue and North Harvard Street. As soon as the new Charlesview Residences are occupied As soon as the new Charlesview Residences are occupied, and prior to demolition at the existing site, Harvard will provide an update on the site assessment, academic planning and timeline.
[Ed: former Western Avenue Shopping Center west of Barry’s corner most of which was landbanked by Harvard in its successful pressure on the owner of Charlesview Housing to vacate Barry’s Corner. The former retail mall has been destroyed and is now an extremely large construction site. The super market has been returned to its original name of Star Market from Shaw’s and an addition to which I believe Shaw’s expanded has been demolished. The McDonald’s has been rebuilt to the east of the construction zone. The retail building at Western and Everett has been untouched. So the formerly vibrant shopping center has been drastically reduced in size.]
Phase two will focus on Allston Landing North and include the identification of appropriate development partners to assist in planning and developing an Enterprise Research Campus, which could potentially include a hotel and conference center. The Enterprise Research Campus is intended to serve as a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, and research and science development. This activity will be explored in tandem with phase one, but with longer-term objectives and timeframes.
[Ed.: such “collaborative” development is commonly done on long term rentals. The renter creates and uses buildings on Harvard property which then become a part of the Harvard campus without Harvard having to pay for building the buildings. Many buildings in Cambridge have been built for MIT in this manner. Allston Landing North could very likely be the current I90 exit / rail yard and future Harvard Medical School, but I have gotten such conflicting explanations for “Allston Landing North”.]
Harvard anticipates that the planning efforts associated with these two phases will result in a new institutional Master Plan Notification Form (IMPNF) submission by the end of 2012, a process which will include a series of conversations with the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the community that will ultimately lead to a new Institutional Master Plan for Harvard in Allston.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Longfellow Bridge Project, excellent MassDOT behavior, as usual
0. General introduction to letter to MassDOT.
1. Introductory.
2. Drainage system.
A. Magazine Beach.
B. Ebersol Fields.
3. Bicycle traffic.
A. General.
B. MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.
C. The friends of Cambridge and the DCR.
D. The record of Cambridge, the DCR and their controlled activists.
E. The falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
4. Summary.
Last night, I attended the public hearing by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation concerning the Longfellow Bridge repairs.
The Longfellow Bridge is the second bridge to the east of the BU Bridge. It is the farthest point that I am aware of of the environmental outrages coming on the Charles River by Cambridge, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their stand-ins.
As usual, the biggest problem was not with MassDOT but with Cambridge, the DCR and the stand-ins.
I am sending in the following comments. They are self explanatory.
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attn: Kevin Walsh
RE: Rehabilitation of the Longfellow Bridge over Charles River
Sir:
This will follow up on my comments of last evening.
I have great respect for MassDOT and great lack of respect for Cambridge and the DCR.
1. Introductory.
Cambridge has a massive organization, as well as does the so called Charles River Conservancy. Large turnouts furthering the cause of either should be ignored because those turnouts commonly are based on false information to well meaning people.
An excellent example of the most basic lie comes in the name of the Charles River Conservancy which is most definitely not a Conservancy, as your department has very responsibly noted in rejecting past environmentally destructive initiatives from this entity. When there is a large perhaps even blind turnout with a key “organization” lying about itself in its name, need I say more? And I really do not want to spend a long time bad mouthing bad people.
I have more than 30 years experience defending the environment in Cambridge. I have frequently encountered and defeated such “groups.” My 30 years plus experience includes experience in transportation including bicycle matters.
Two points stand out to me: Your complicated drainage system to drain off pollutants and the treatment of bicycle transportation.
2. Drainage system.
Your proposal devotes a fair amount of land to natural drainage of pollutants.
A. Magazine Beach.
This natural drainage is strikingly similar to a system put in place at Magazine Beach and the problems are similar at Magazine Beach and on the Boston side of the Longfellow Bridge.
At Magazine Beach, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed seven acres of vegetation which had successfully existed for the better part of a Century without poisons being used to keep it alive.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed the responsible grasses and replaced them with sickly grasses which need poisons to avoid dying. These introduced grasses thus exactly fit the definition of vegetation which should be destroyed. Instead of destroying this destructive stuff, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed what had been playing fields to put in complicated fancy drainage to keep poisons out of the Charles River which are being used to keep alive grasses which have no business on the Charles River.
If Cambridge and the DCR were responsible entities, instead of dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River, Cambridge and the DCR would be spending the money seeding the responsible grasses back onto Magazine Beach which they should not have destroyed in the first place.
Once the responsible grasses were returned, the playing fields which were destroyed for this irresponsible drainage could be returned and the Charles River would have as many playing fields as it did before this irresponsible destruction.
A parallel step at Magazine Beach would be to chop down the introduced wall of vegetation as the DCR, twice a year, chops down all other bordering vegetation the Charles River Basin. But it continues to grow and it continues to grow for a purpose. The DCR’s goal is to wipe out all animals living on the Charles. Destroying almost all bordering vegetation serves that goal by driving away migratory waterfowl. Keeping the bizarre wall growing and growing furthers that goal by starving the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.
The DCR is unfit to manage the environment.
B. Ebersol Fields.
The irresponsible behavior of Cambridge and the DCR at Magazine Beach follows on irresponsible behavior at Ebersol Fields.
Ebersol Fields also has sickly grasses which will not survive without be dosed regularly with poisons.
A few years ago, the poisons proved inadequate. So the DCR dumped Tartan on Ebersol Fields. Tartan is marked against use next to bodies of water. But the DCR is unfit to manage the environment. So the DCR dumped Tartan.
The next day, the Charles River was dead from the Mass. Ave. (Harvard) Bridge to the Harbor, infested with algae. That algae recurs annually.
If the natural drainage being installed on the Boston side of the Charles River is being installed to neutralize the poisoning of the Charles by the DCR at Ebersol Fields, the responsible thing to do is stop the poisoning. As at Magazine Beach, instead of spending money on poisons at Ebersol Fields, money should be spent on seeds for the responsible grasses the DCR and Cambridge destroyed at Magazine Beach.
If responsible grasses being introduced at Ebersol Fields solves the pollutant problem, MassDOT can create parkland rather than this drainage system.
3. Bicycle traffic.
A. General.
I have done extensive bicycle commuting. I commuted daily even during the worst of weather to Boston University Law. My bicycle commuting has been as long as seven miles, even in the worst of weather.
I commuted over the Longfellow Bridge to an internship at the State House. During that internship, I was given personal credit by the Governor’s Office for killing a silly change in bicycle laws which had passed both house without negative comment.
B. MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.
A bicycle lane to the right of traffic separated from the sidewalk is the sensible way to go. Vehicles capable of traveling 20 miles an hour on a highway with a 30 mile an hour speed limit should be handled like vehicles capable of traveling 20 miles an hour. They should not be mixed with pedestrians.
Bicycles must, in order for our world to survive, be made a responsible part of the traffic mix. Bicycle commuting must be viable. Treating bicycle traffic with the contempt that is associated with limiting the rights as if they were the most incompetent, irresponsible members of their community is exactly the wrong way to go.
C. The friends of Cambridge and the DCR.
Bicycles on sidewalks endanger pedestrians and prevent normal commuting by bicyclists.
I have a friend who was laid up for six months when she was run down by a sidewalk bicyclist.
The irresponsibility of sidewalk bicycle highways is shown on Cambridge’s Vassar Street small vehicle highway on the sidewalk. That project is an obvious failure.
Cambridge is repeating the Vassar Street error on Western Avenue. Cambridge’s response to the impossibility of making a left turn at an intersection for bicycles traveling on the right sidewalk is that bicycles do not have to use the supposed bike paths. So Cambridge is deliberately constructing “bike paths” which Cambridge knows are useless. The short term for that kind of behavior is incompetence.
D. The record of Cambridge, the DCR and their controlled activists.
MassDOT has rejected the proposal to build a small vehicle highway (the euphemism is “bike path) on the north side of the Charles River in wetlands and in the river.
MassDOT has accurately pointed out that this is environmentally irresponsible.
The DCR has sought Obama moneys to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge in part for their irresponsible small vehicle highway. This includes devastation of an excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split.
The DCR lied concerning the Obama application that this destruction was only destroying sickly trees. The DCR documented that their lie was a lie by its exactly contrary filing with the City of Cambridge.
The governor received a copy of the filing at the City of Cambridge. Somebody killed this irresponsible proposal this time. But friends of Cambridge and the DCR continue their efforts.
E. The falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
In the middle of all the destructive outrages.
4. Summary.
MassDOT is behaving responsibly in this proposal but should consider whether reversing the DCR environmental destruction at Ebersol Fields would negate the “need” for the natural drainage system.
MassDOT should continue to defend the Charles River from the irresponsibility of Cambridge, the DCR and their stand-ins.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
1. Introductory.
2. Drainage system.
A. Magazine Beach.
B. Ebersol Fields.
3. Bicycle traffic.
A. General.
B. MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.
C. The friends of Cambridge and the DCR.
D. The record of Cambridge, the DCR and their controlled activists.
E. The falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
4. Summary.
Last night, I attended the public hearing by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation concerning the Longfellow Bridge repairs.
The Longfellow Bridge is the second bridge to the east of the BU Bridge. It is the farthest point that I am aware of of the environmental outrages coming on the Charles River by Cambridge, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their stand-ins.
As usual, the biggest problem was not with MassDOT but with Cambridge, the DCR and the stand-ins.
I am sending in the following comments. They are self explanatory.
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attn: Kevin Walsh
RE: Rehabilitation of the Longfellow Bridge over Charles River
Sir:
This will follow up on my comments of last evening.
I have great respect for MassDOT and great lack of respect for Cambridge and the DCR.
1. Introductory.
Cambridge has a massive organization, as well as does the so called Charles River Conservancy. Large turnouts furthering the cause of either should be ignored because those turnouts commonly are based on false information to well meaning people.
An excellent example of the most basic lie comes in the name of the Charles River Conservancy which is most definitely not a Conservancy, as your department has very responsibly noted in rejecting past environmentally destructive initiatives from this entity. When there is a large perhaps even blind turnout with a key “organization” lying about itself in its name, need I say more? And I really do not want to spend a long time bad mouthing bad people.
I have more than 30 years experience defending the environment in Cambridge. I have frequently encountered and defeated such “groups.” My 30 years plus experience includes experience in transportation including bicycle matters.
Two points stand out to me: Your complicated drainage system to drain off pollutants and the treatment of bicycle transportation.
2. Drainage system.
Your proposal devotes a fair amount of land to natural drainage of pollutants.
A. Magazine Beach.
This natural drainage is strikingly similar to a system put in place at Magazine Beach and the problems are similar at Magazine Beach and on the Boston side of the Longfellow Bridge.
At Magazine Beach, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed seven acres of vegetation which had successfully existed for the better part of a Century without poisons being used to keep it alive.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed the responsible grasses and replaced them with sickly grasses which need poisons to avoid dying. These introduced grasses thus exactly fit the definition of vegetation which should be destroyed. Instead of destroying this destructive stuff, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed what had been playing fields to put in complicated fancy drainage to keep poisons out of the Charles River which are being used to keep alive grasses which have no business on the Charles River.
If Cambridge and the DCR were responsible entities, instead of dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River, Cambridge and the DCR would be spending the money seeding the responsible grasses back onto Magazine Beach which they should not have destroyed in the first place.
Once the responsible grasses were returned, the playing fields which were destroyed for this irresponsible drainage could be returned and the Charles River would have as many playing fields as it did before this irresponsible destruction.
A parallel step at Magazine Beach would be to chop down the introduced wall of vegetation as the DCR, twice a year, chops down all other bordering vegetation the Charles River Basin. But it continues to grow and it continues to grow for a purpose. The DCR’s goal is to wipe out all animals living on the Charles. Destroying almost all bordering vegetation serves that goal by driving away migratory waterfowl. Keeping the bizarre wall growing and growing furthers that goal by starving the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.
The DCR is unfit to manage the environment.
B. Ebersol Fields.
The irresponsible behavior of Cambridge and the DCR at Magazine Beach follows on irresponsible behavior at Ebersol Fields.
Ebersol Fields also has sickly grasses which will not survive without be dosed regularly with poisons.
A few years ago, the poisons proved inadequate. So the DCR dumped Tartan on Ebersol Fields. Tartan is marked against use next to bodies of water. But the DCR is unfit to manage the environment. So the DCR dumped Tartan.
The next day, the Charles River was dead from the Mass. Ave. (Harvard) Bridge to the Harbor, infested with algae. That algae recurs annually.
If the natural drainage being installed on the Boston side of the Charles River is being installed to neutralize the poisoning of the Charles by the DCR at Ebersol Fields, the responsible thing to do is stop the poisoning. As at Magazine Beach, instead of spending money on poisons at Ebersol Fields, money should be spent on seeds for the responsible grasses the DCR and Cambridge destroyed at Magazine Beach.
If responsible grasses being introduced at Ebersol Fields solves the pollutant problem, MassDOT can create parkland rather than this drainage system.
3. Bicycle traffic.
A. General.
I have done extensive bicycle commuting. I commuted daily even during the worst of weather to Boston University Law. My bicycle commuting has been as long as seven miles, even in the worst of weather.
I commuted over the Longfellow Bridge to an internship at the State House. During that internship, I was given personal credit by the Governor’s Office for killing a silly change in bicycle laws which had passed both house without negative comment.
B. MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.
A bicycle lane to the right of traffic separated from the sidewalk is the sensible way to go. Vehicles capable of traveling 20 miles an hour on a highway with a 30 mile an hour speed limit should be handled like vehicles capable of traveling 20 miles an hour. They should not be mixed with pedestrians.
Bicycles must, in order for our world to survive, be made a responsible part of the traffic mix. Bicycle commuting must be viable. Treating bicycle traffic with the contempt that is associated with limiting the rights as if they were the most incompetent, irresponsible members of their community is exactly the wrong way to go.
C. The friends of Cambridge and the DCR.
Bicycles on sidewalks endanger pedestrians and prevent normal commuting by bicyclists.
I have a friend who was laid up for six months when she was run down by a sidewalk bicyclist.
The irresponsibility of sidewalk bicycle highways is shown on Cambridge’s Vassar Street small vehicle highway on the sidewalk. That project is an obvious failure.
Cambridge is repeating the Vassar Street error on Western Avenue. Cambridge’s response to the impossibility of making a left turn at an intersection for bicycles traveling on the right sidewalk is that bicycles do not have to use the supposed bike paths. So Cambridge is deliberately constructing “bike paths” which Cambridge knows are useless. The short term for that kind of behavior is incompetence.
D. The record of Cambridge, the DCR and their controlled activists.
MassDOT has rejected the proposal to build a small vehicle highway (the euphemism is “bike path) on the north side of the Charles River in wetlands and in the river.
MassDOT has accurately pointed out that this is environmentally irresponsible.
The DCR has sought Obama moneys to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge in part for their irresponsible small vehicle highway. This includes devastation of an excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split.
The DCR lied concerning the Obama application that this destruction was only destroying sickly trees. The DCR documented that their lie was a lie by its exactly contrary filing with the City of Cambridge.
The governor received a copy of the filing at the City of Cambridge. Somebody killed this irresponsible proposal this time. But friends of Cambridge and the DCR continue their efforts.
E. The falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
In the middle of all the destructive outrages.
4. Summary.
MassDOT is behaving responsibly in this proposal but should consider whether reversing the DCR environmental destruction at Ebersol Fields would negate the “need” for the natural drainage system.
MassDOT should continue to defend the Charles River from the irresponsibility of Cambridge, the DCR and their stand-ins.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
Alewife letter almost published in Cambridge Chronicle; milestone
1. Response to letter almost published in Cambridge Chronicle.
2. References.
A. The letter unedited.
B. Transmittal of photos.
C. Transmittal of eighth photo.
3. Milestone. This is our 800th post on this blog.
1. Response to letter almost published in Cambridge Chronicle.
The following proposed letter is self explanatory. I will follow with the documents referenced.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Thank you for very visibly publishing my letter responding to the “Silver Maple Forest” scam to which you have given such major visibility and I equally appreciate the many prior letters you have published.
The trouble is that you omitted two key paragraphs, the 3d and 4th, and thus gutted my comments.
The second through fifth paragraphs read:
“The game is: “Don’t look at what we are destroying, look at how great we sound when we yell at the other guy.”
“Attached is a photo of the massive destruction done by the "Silver Maple Forest" activists’ friends at the City of Cambridge in the core Alewife Reservation a few hundred feet away.
“This, Cambridge promises, will protect against the worst storm likely in every two year period. Two fifty year storms have hit the area in the last 20 years.
“A massive parking lot directly across Cambridge ParkDrive is about to be built on. In a combined project, this parking lot can provide the flood protection needed by local residents.”
Attached to the letter was a photo of Cambridge / DCR’s and this group’s totally needlessly destroyed acres of former virgin forest with the killing of untold numbers of animals. I was anticipating that the attachment would be counted against the approximately 250 words I had left against your word limit.
This was one of six photos I provided you a few hours earlier showing the destruction, plus a photo of the key part of the parking lot where meaningful flood protection should be constructed plus a photo of some of the destroyed reservation from that parking lot.
I find it incredible that Cambridge / DCR can needlessly destroy acres of irreplaceable woodlands hiding behind a group friendly to Cambridge / DCR conducting a smokescreen and the Chronicle only seems capable of publishing photos of the scam but not of the needless and irresponsible destruction in a related area being hidden by the scam.
Certainly I made strong statements, but I proved the strong statements and you gutted the key parts of the proof.
I am ready, willing and able to provide you the same eight photos for your use including the one I referenced in the omitted paragraphs. I realize that I could very easily have missed part of the needless destruction.
2. References.
A. The letter unedited.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/fund-raising-which-aids-destruction-at.html
B. Transmittal of photos.
This transmitted the six photos of destruction plus the photo of the key part of the parking lot which can provide the flood protection falsely claimed to being provided.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html
C. Transmittal of eighth photo.
This transmitted the eighth, the photo of preliminary destruction taken next to the parking lot where it belongs.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/response-to-alewife-destroyers-silver.html
3. Milestone. This is our 800th post on this blog.
This post is our 800th post on this blog. The blog was preceded by an email newsletter which, at its peak, reached over 1300 recipients. That letter had more than 500 issues, starting in March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to their beloved Nesting Area to find that it had been destroyed for the first time.
That first destruction was an illegal gift to the state bureaucrats from Boston University. BU, as is the custom with so many of these destructive people, lied. They proceeded to deny that they did the destruction from the time of the destruction in October 1999 to six months later, when the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it. Then they blamed the lying on their president’s secretary, who was not fired. We are dealing with a lot of really rotten people.
So now they are dealing in massive starvation and heartless abuse, using fake groups in Cambridge playing con games telling people to look at everything else except their own rotten behavior and the rotten behavior of their friends, but they sound so good.
2. References.
A. The letter unedited.
B. Transmittal of photos.
C. Transmittal of eighth photo.
3. Milestone. This is our 800th post on this blog.
1. Response to letter almost published in Cambridge Chronicle.
The following proposed letter is self explanatory. I will follow with the documents referenced.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Thank you for very visibly publishing my letter responding to the “Silver Maple Forest” scam to which you have given such major visibility and I equally appreciate the many prior letters you have published.
The trouble is that you omitted two key paragraphs, the 3d and 4th, and thus gutted my comments.
The second through fifth paragraphs read:
“The game is: “Don’t look at what we are destroying, look at how great we sound when we yell at the other guy.”
“Attached is a photo of the massive destruction done by the "Silver Maple Forest" activists’ friends at the City of Cambridge in the core Alewife Reservation a few hundred feet away.
“This, Cambridge promises, will protect against the worst storm likely in every two year period. Two fifty year storms have hit the area in the last 20 years.
“A massive parking lot directly across Cambridge ParkDrive is about to be built on. In a combined project, this parking lot can provide the flood protection needed by local residents.”
Attached to the letter was a photo of Cambridge / DCR’s and this group’s totally needlessly destroyed acres of former virgin forest with the killing of untold numbers of animals. I was anticipating that the attachment would be counted against the approximately 250 words I had left against your word limit.
This was one of six photos I provided you a few hours earlier showing the destruction, plus a photo of the key part of the parking lot where meaningful flood protection should be constructed plus a photo of some of the destroyed reservation from that parking lot.
I find it incredible that Cambridge / DCR can needlessly destroy acres of irreplaceable woodlands hiding behind a group friendly to Cambridge / DCR conducting a smokescreen and the Chronicle only seems capable of publishing photos of the scam but not of the needless and irresponsible destruction in a related area being hidden by the scam.
Certainly I made strong statements, but I proved the strong statements and you gutted the key parts of the proof.
I am ready, willing and able to provide you the same eight photos for your use including the one I referenced in the omitted paragraphs. I realize that I could very easily have missed part of the needless destruction.
2. References.
A. The letter unedited.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/fund-raising-which-aids-destruction-at.html
B. Transmittal of photos.
This transmitted the six photos of destruction plus the photo of the key part of the parking lot which can provide the flood protection falsely claimed to being provided.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html
C. Transmittal of eighth photo.
This transmitted the eighth, the photo of preliminary destruction taken next to the parking lot where it belongs.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/response-to-alewife-destroyers-silver.html
3. Milestone. This is our 800th post on this blog.
This post is our 800th post on this blog. The blog was preceded by an email newsletter which, at its peak, reached over 1300 recipients. That letter had more than 500 issues, starting in March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to their beloved Nesting Area to find that it had been destroyed for the first time.
That first destruction was an illegal gift to the state bureaucrats from Boston University. BU, as is the custom with so many of these destructive people, lied. They proceeded to deny that they did the destruction from the time of the destruction in October 1999 to six months later, when the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it. Then they blamed the lying on their president’s secretary, who was not fired. We are dealing with a lot of really rotten people.
So now they are dealing in massive starvation and heartless abuse, using fake groups in Cambridge playing con games telling people to look at everything else except their own rotten behavior and the rotten behavior of their friends, but they sound so good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)