1. Introduction.
2. The proposed letter, your editor.
3. The guilty letter — Charles River “Conservancy.”.
4. Supplement, 5/4/12.
1. Introduction.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has had printed a letter in the hard copy April 26, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle. It had severe problems. The Chronicle has since posted it on line. The link is in section 3.
I have submitted the response in section 2.
A few caveats.
Destructive people floating around Cambridge, MA, and the area create all sorts of lovely sounding groups. The same people can create two different names and rope in two different combinations of well meaning people who can be suckered into doing the opposite of what they claim to be doing. On the other hand, two groups with overlapping, destructive purposes frequently work together to achieve their common, destructive goals.
Many groups in and around Cambridge are active in environmental destruction. They very clearly work together and praise each other, giving each other false credibility as “environmental defenders” or “defenders” of Cambridge, etc.
Currently, we have the Charles River “Conservancy” fighting for general destruction along the Charles River.
In the Magazine Beach area, the Cambridgeport “Neighborhood Association” is taking the company union approach, loudly claiming concern and achieve massive destruction by telling people to worry about everything except the important stuff. With aggressively destructive government entities, it is not necessary for a fake group to aggressively fight for destruction. All they have to do is praise the destructive pols and censor a very vile reality.
This fake group in Cambridgeport helped destroy at Alewife praising the comparable Cambridge related group there which succeeded in massive destruction telling people to look at everything except for the totally avoidable and unnecessary destruction planned by Cambridge and the DCR..
The fake “neighborhood association” is getting very aggressive at conning people away from what counts in the BU Bridge area while lying about their having meaningful “concern” and fighting for further destruction. They are part of the massive Cambridge Pol organization which in turn has implemented a large part of the destructive agenda of the City of Cambridge. The Cambridge Pols can be beat. I have beat them many times on very major issues.
The letter of the Charles River “Conservancy” indicated it gave a major pitch to its highway proposals while indicating it was changing emphasis to the Boston side on the bridges nearest the BU Bridge. The plans long have advocated a portion of their beloved highway under the BU Bridge.
Does it figure the fake neighborhood association can do its dirty work or is the latest outrage making things too hot for even such a destructive entity?
It is always suicidal to try to psychoanalyze these groups.
My letter tries to respond to blatant falsehoods and convey the current outrage.
2. The proposed letter, your editor.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The Charles River “Conservancy”’s letter concerning the Charles River is more important for its omissions than for its statements.
CRC’s “underpasses” in Cambridge is a highway for small vehicles which would be constructed in the Charles River and on its banks. A combined Massachusetts Department of Transportation / Department of Conservation and Recreation report condemns the proposal as environmentally destructive.
CRC’s new highway would be part of the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. CRC’s highway would decimate the excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split. Even bigger trees would be destroyed.
DCR attempted to get Obama moneys. DCR stated that they were only destroying diseased trees. DCR’s filing with Cambridge proved the “diseased trees” statements to be lies.
CRC supported walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles by a swim in. It bragged that the project would help swimming. Playing fields at Magazine Beach have been downsized for drainage to drain off poisons which are used to keep alive sickly grass which replaced healthy grass that survived for the better part of a century without poisons. Boat docking has been destroyed.
CRC has repeatedly poisoned the eggs of migratory waterfowl.
The state is now, with no apparent legalities, introducing an impenetrable thicket into the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. Construction includes two wide concrete like paths / highways.
This impenetrable thicket replaces native bushes used for nesting for more than 30 years by the Charles River White Geese. This construction follows on the deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese by that bizarre wall at Magazine Beach.
Their food was taken from them. Now most of the ghetto into which they were forced is being destroyed for their use.
The impenetrable thicket is apparently illegal. The original destruction in this area was condemned for illegality by the Cambridge Conservation Commission.
This thicket fits a pattern of heartless abuse of these beautiful, valuable creatures while lying that the state has “no intent” to harm them. The policy is to kill off all animals in the Charles River Basin. The policy is part of the secret definition of “parkland.”
CRC and its predecessor are part of the destruction and animal abuse on the Charles as is Cambridge. The use of the word “Conservancy” in its name is just another lie.
3. The guilty letter — Charles River “Conservancy.”
Published on line by the Cambridge Chronicle is the Charles River “Conservancy” letter. It is posted at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x787574677/Guest-Commentary-It-s-time-to-improve-river-pathways-with-underpasses#axzz1tZoeQb4J.
4. Supplement, 5/4/12.
Our letter was printed in the May 3, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle at page 10.
Note the great sounding words and the incredible contrast with reality.
