The Charles River, Boston / Cambridge, MA, USA: Lies, Secret Definitions, and Photos of Reality

1. Introduction.
2. Photos.
A. 08 18 07-22 Mag Bch, Destroyed Boat Dock, Charles, Boston Side.
B. 09 17 07-22 Mag Bch, Ramp, Charles, Boston.
C. 10 16 07-22 Mag Bch Pool, Native, Charles, Boston.
D. 06 20 07-22 DNA E end of N intro, Mem, Ford Plant.
E. 11 15 07-22 Beacon Yards, Locomotive, Work Bldg
F. 12 14 07-22 Beacon Yards.
G. Satellite Photo, 2006.
3. Conclusion.


1. Introduction.

I first learned of the plans of the Cambridge City Manager for destruction in the BU Bridge area of the Charles River in 1996.

They were presented by the predecessor to the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy”. I was immediately struck by the harm these plans would do to the well established, beautiful and very popular gaggle of Charles River White Geese whose core habitat would be severely damaged.

The general reaction was “They would never stoop so low.”

When the first attacks came, with the destruction illegally done in the Nesting Area by Boston University for the state bureaucrats in October 1999, the bureaucrats (predecessor to the Department of Conservation and Recreation) immediately responded with the flat out lie: “We have no intentions to harm the white geese.”

The key bureaucrat repeated this flat out lie when they started starving the Charles River White Geese in 2004 by blocking access to their feeding grounds since 1981 at Magazine Beach from the Charles River.

The Boston Globe published a photo of the earth movers with a tiny White Goose overwhelmed by it. The key bureaucrat was quoted in a lie right next to the photo. “We have no intention to harm the White Geese.”

He has publicly stated that he was using a undisclosed definition (translation: FLAT OUT LIE) of “harm.” Starving them in his sick world is not harming them.

The lying plans for the feeding grounds of the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach were announced to be a lawn to the sea. This was the Magazine Beach playing fields.

The CRC celebrated the destruction with a media event, a swim in. They said the destruction would assist swimming. Typical lie. A solid wall blocking access assists swimming.

So the lawn to the sea became a wall of impenetrable introduced bushes.

The bureaucrats frequently repeated that they had a goal of nothing but water related uses for the Charles River. This flat out lie was exacerbated because this wall of impenetrable bushes was broken only by a vestigial boat dock. The boat dock was rendered useless by blocking the access to and from the boat dock from land.

The Cambridge machine / fake neighborhood association’s explanation for the destruction is that they do not recognize the existence of the last 13 years on the Charles River.

Very telling, I recently saw an Internet posting from a woman key in the fake neighborhood association.

She was denigrating the Charles River White Geese. She previously posted on the Internet a comment that she knew all about the plans for Alewife and that there would not be massive destruction.

That was at the point where her lies helped in the destruction of many acres of valuable woodlands and the killing of untold numbers of free animals by talking people out of taking protective action.

This is the sort of person the Cambridge Machine calls an “environmentalist.” Flat out lies on key issues are common. Paterno was a good guy in comparison to these people.

This report will show you the outrage from the Boston side.

These photos were taken on July 12, 2012, in the same photo session as the photos I presented in the last report.

2. Photos.

A. 08 18 07-22 Mag Bch, Destroyed Boat Dock, Charles, Boston Side.

This photo and the following were taken from the Boston side of the Charles River. To be exact, they were taken from the far side of the road on the Boston side, Soldiers Field Road. They are taken with a modest telephoto lense.

Commonly, the photos are looking over native vegetation. A good perspective of the situation is that the vegetation on the Cambridge side at Magazine Beach is far taller than the average human being. You do not shoot photos over it.

Almost all vegetation on the Charles River Basin is destroyed twice a year by the CRC for the bureaucrats. The vegetation walling off Magazine Beach’s playing fields has not been cut since it was planted and the bureaucrats started using it as a starvation tactic.

This photo shows at the bottom, vegetation on the Boston side with an overlook.

Above this vegetation is the Charles River. Some water birds can be seen in the photo. They may be Charles River White Geese. The Destroyed Nesting Area which has been turned into their ghetto is not very far to the right of the area show in the photo.

The brown spot which is the only break in the bizarre wall of introduced bushes used to be a boat dock. People would drive up into the parking lot which is north of the boat dock and put their boats in the water. The greenery beyond the brown spot was introduced as part of phase 2 of the outrages.

The boat dock was not destroyed itself. It was just rendered useless by the creation of a number of barriers on the Cambridge side. The greenery above the brown space is part of barriers for the Charles River White Geese created as part of phase 2.

I have a lot of photos on this particular outrage. Going into further detail at this point would overwhelm this report.

B. 09 17 07-22 Mag Bch, Ramp, Charles, Boston.

Same photo as the previous taken slightly to the left.

Straight ahead can be viewed the screen from the softball field at Magazine Beach. Before the continuing outrages, there were two softball fields. The story was that the softball fields were being reduced in size for soccer.

The lies of omission hid the fact that total playing fields were being reduced in size. As part of phase two, approximately seven acres of healthy grass which had survived for the better part of a century were destroyed. In place of the healthy grass were introduced sickly stuff which cannot survive without poisons. So a massive poison drainage system replaced the playing fields to drain off poisons which are only “necessary” to keep alive sickly grasses which should not have been introduced in the first place.

The model for this outrage is Ebersol Fields on the Boston side of the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. A few years ago, the poisons were not working well enough, so the bureaucrats dumped poisons there marked with prohibition against use near water. The next day, the Charles River was dead with algae grown from the Mass. Ave. Bridge to the harbor. This infestation repeats every year. It started early this year.

C. 10 16 07-22 Mag Bch Pool, Native, Charles, Boston.

At the bottom can be seen the top of a low fence lining the walkway / small vehicle highway on the river side of Soldiers Field Road. The fact that the vegetation on the Boston side just barely peers over the low fence shows the height of the vegetation.

On the Cambridge side I think the structure visible is the state's swimming pool built when the Charles River became too polluted to swim in. It is to the west of the hill area which is to the west of the playing fields. The parking lot the Cambridge Machine is fighting to destroy is just to the east of the pool.

Important, however, is the bordering vegetation lining the Charles on the Cambridge side. This is native and is needed by migrating water fowl. Like almost all other bordering vegetation on the Charles River Basin, it is destroyed twice a year by the CRC acting for the DCR.

By contrast the introduced stuff has never been cut. The bizarre wall of introduced stuff has value. It starves the beautiful Charles River White Geese.

When the introduced wall of vegetation was first put in, in phase 1, the Charles River White Geese tried to use this grass to replace their decades long food at Magazine Beach, but the hillside was too steep for them.

D. 06 20 07-22 DNA E end of N intro, Mem, Ford Plant.

This is the introduced bushes in the Northern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area, same day.

This is the precursor of the massive wall of introduced vegetation which is very clearly intended to copy the outrage at Magazine Beach. They leave this stuff alone and you get the stuff on the Charles.

E. 11 15 07-22 Beacon Yards, Locomotive, Work Bldg

This rail yard is almost opposite the area where the CRC is fighting for new environmental destruction, particularly near the structure over the highway. This photo and the next were taken between the photos of the Cambridge side and the photos putting the lie to the CRC’s false photo / whatever of their project.

This is the future home of Harvard Medical School.

Harvard’s empire building is a major part of the reason for environmental destruction on the Charles River.

F. 12 14 07-22 Beacon Yards.

Another view.

G. Satellite Photo, 2006.

To put things in perspective, the area on the left marked Cambridge Allston tolls includes the rail yard show in the last two photos just above the interchange.

This still, for the time being, is a large rail yard. It just so happens that it has the toll road exit in the middle of it.

At the middle lower of the photo is the BU Bridge with the rail bridge under it. Between the two is shown and marked as I90, the Mass. Pike. Harvard’s purchases started almost immediately after a state report saying that it is physically possible to create a ramp from the Mass. Pike to the Rail Bridge.

The massive wall of introduced vegetation was relatively tiny then, if these particular bushes existed at all, and is not visible from the satellite. Additionally the season was winter or very early spring and greenery is hard to see.

Nevertheless, the destroyed boat dock is probably just below the B in “Magazine Beach.” I am guessing that the structure to the right of “Cambridge-Allston” and above Mag in “Magazine Beach” is the swimming pool.

The Nesting Area which is now the Charles River White Geese’s ghetto is to the right of the BU Bridge and above the rail bridge.

When the bureaucrats started starving the Charles River White Geese in phase 1, Cambridge did a “sewer project” in the extended area east of the Destroyed Nesting Area and east of the white spot which is the BU Boat House.

Cambridge left a wall of plastic keeping pretty much all of that food from them as well.

So the combined projects took their main food and their principal alternate food from them.

3. Conclusion.

Nothing is done by the DCR without direct support of Cambridge. Frequently Cambridge’s money funds part or all of the destruction.

Paterno did very terrible things because he did not crack down on a child abuser in his midst. There is no allegation that he physically directly helped the child abuser other than by keeping the outrage secret.

The Cambridge Machine is very active on all sides of environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse and animal killing: in hiding the outrages after the fact, assisting the outrages before the fact, and in providing a lot of money.

This behavior is not just that of condoning or hiding destruction. It is that of an active participant in destruction.

The Cambridge Machine is directly comparable to Paterno when it comes to the Cambridge City Manager’s destroying a woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil / women’s rights complaint. The pols are just keeping this outrage as secret as possible although they have recently gone through the “Oh golly I tried” phase which is normal when they get caught, and also meaningless except to help reelection.

Paterno was a piker in comparison to the Cambridge Machine.

Techniques in Lying: Charles River Conservancy, River Street Bridge, lie and reality

1. Latest con from the Environmental Destroyers.
2. Their fake photo / rendition.
3. Reality.
A. 15 11 07-22 River St Br Appr w br
B. 16 10 07-22 Riv St Br Appr.
C. 17 09 River St Br Appr.
D. 18 08 07-22 Riv St Br Appr, S Side Ramp
E. 19 07 07-22 Riv St. Br Appr, S Side
F. 20 06 07-22 Riv St. Br Appr, Current small veh
G. 21 05 07-22 Riv St. Br from Walk.
H. 22 04 07-22 Riv. St. Br Approach.
I. 23 03 07-22 Riv. St. Br, Bot of Appr
J. 24 02 07-22 Riv. St. Br, Bottom of Ramp.
K. 01 07-22 Riv. St. Br, a little below.
L. Areal Shot 2006, Cambridgeport.
4. Analysis.


1. Latest con from the Environmental Destroyers.

The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” reports in its latest newsletter:

“We are happy to report that the Barr Foundation has matched the $25,000 we raised for our underpass advocacy work. If you want to lend your support (financial or otherwise) to add underpasses on the Boston side of the Anderson Memorial, Western Av, and river Street bridge reconstruction.”

Falsely named because this entity, one of the most active environmental destroyers on the Charles River, is flat out lying when it claims to be a “conservancy.”

2. Their fake photo / rendition.

We posted this rendition recently concerning the lie from the Charles River Conservancy about what they propose to do on the Boston side of the River Street Bridge. The River Street Bridge is the next bridge across the Charles west of the BU Bridge. Responsible have condemned these people’s comparable outrages on the Cambridge side. So they switched to the Boston side because the bureaucrats did not realize they could be so irresponsible as to simply switch sides of the river. When dealing with the Cambridge pols and their friends, it is always a serious error to assume “They would never stoop so low.”

Here is the Charles River “Conservancy”’s fake photo / rendition again.

07-19-12 CRC Sketch

3. Reality.

The poor dears from the Cambridge Machine and their friends have such a major problem with reality.

On July 22, I took photos of the area shown in their rendition which certainly looks like a photo, which I have copied again, above.

A. 15 11 07-22 River St Br Appr w br

The tall buildings in the middle are on the north, Cambridge side. They extend to the east from the northeast intersection of Memorial Drive and the River Street.

The highway is Soldiers Field Road. This is the same highway as Storrow Drive. The change in names is part of a long tradition of incompetence on the part of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Careful inspection at the far left of the picture will show above the guard rail the River Street Bridge. Above that you will see yellow and black signs warning of height limits. Above the yellow and black signs is another structure straddling the highway on which can, with great care, be seen a green and white destination sign.

The right hand support of the last structure is at the beginning of the area shown in the CRC’s fake photo.

B. 16 10 07-22 Riv St Br Appr.

This is a closer view of the previous photo, taken at an angle from which you can no longer see the River Street Bridge. The two structures across the highway are still visible.

C. 17 09 River St Br Appr.

Shot taken from even further west on the south side of Soldiers Field Road.

A significant portion, if not all of the trees you are looking at would be destroyed.

I do not have the plans and the plans are always kept as secret as possible.

Once again, note the structure crossing the highway which is, at its right, at about the point of the CRC photo. At this angle, the Cambridge buildings are almost directly north. The distance to the River Street Bridge is that great.

D. 18 08 07-22 Riv St Br Appr, S Side Ramp

The previous photos were taken with a close up lense. This is more of a normal view, taken from the on ramp to Soldiers Field Road on the south side.

Note the sudden disappearance of trees on the river side. And note also that, from this view almost directly to the south, you still cannot see the River Street Bridge.

E. 19 07 07-22 Riv St. Br Appr, S Side

This is the first photo looking in an easterly direction. It is taken from the south side on ramp.

Notice that structure straddling the highway again. Notice the trees between it and the river. Would all these trees be destroyed? Very likely.

Notice also the very long emptiness abutting the river. This is part of the distance of the existing and the proposed ramp. The CRC “photo” shows this as a very tiny area.

F. 20 06 07-22 Riv St. Br Appr, Current small veh

This is the area which shows as the open area in the prior photo. EVERYWHERE to the left would be the proposed small vehicle highway BUILT IN THE CHARLES RIVER.

Very careful view of this photo (unless it is my imagination) shows that structure straddling the highway which is at the bottom of the proposed new small vehicle highway.

Note that the structure of the River Street / Western Avenue Bridge area is such that this construction in the river would have to extend the full length of the distance between the River St. and the Western Avenue Bridge, a distance much longer than this ramp, also not mentioned by the CRC’s puff piece.

On the left, the white building is a boat house on the Cambridge side which is built on the western end of Magazine Beach. The point sticking out into the Charles River is probably just to the west of the Magazine Beach playing fields to which such great destruction has been inflicted with major heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese.

G. 21 05 07-22 Riv St. Br from Walk.

This is the historical River Street Bridge taken from the small vehicle highway where the above photo was taken. The CRC’s highway proposal would chop into this historical treasure. And be built in the Charles River, below.


H. 22 04 07-22 Riv. St. Br Approach.

To the left is the existing small vehicle highway.

In the massive expanse of water would go the new highway.

Straight ahead, of course, is the River Street Bridge.

I. 23 03 07-22 Riv. St. Br, Bot of Appr

The curve in the highway to the right appears to be the bottom of the CRC photo. Note that the photo shows a change in grade at that point. There is no further change in grade going up the existing ramp.

The trees at the left would clearly be destroyed.

J. 24 02 07-22 Riv. St. Br, Bottom of Ramp.

The green post is the base of the structure straddling the highway I have been pointing out.

The River Street Bridge is visible straight ahead. Filled land ends to the right of the pedestrian fence / barrier.

This view is the most honest real life equivalent of the CRC fake photo.

Look at the distance. Looks at the excellent trees to be destroyed.

K. 25 01 07-22 Riv. St. Br, a little below.

Photo of the previous area from a little to the East.

You can see the green fence and its ending if you look very closly.

This is not that great a distance. Clearly the new highway photo shows no trees. There is a curve approaching the split. How much further to the right would be approach be built?

When I first followed up on my report on this outrage and the usual lies, I said that the threatened trees looked to me to be a foot apart from the car. This is the area I was talking about.

L. Areal Shot 2006, Cambridgeport.

This is taken from an environmental analysis. It is probably a satellite view.

The River Street and Western Avenue Bridges are on the left.

Notice the distance between the River Street and Western Avenue bridges.

The CRC’s environmental outrage is infeasible unless their highway is built in the river at river level between the River Street Bridge and the Western Avenue Bridges, then through the Western Avenue Bridge, then with further destruction west / north of the Western Avenue Bridge.

4. Analysis.

To put it mildly the CRC’s sketch is yet another lie. The bad guys can only win through lying.

And they lie, and they lie, and they lie.

Paterno has been punished. How much longer will the outrages associated with the Cambridge Machine continue?

Paterno and the Cambridge Pols, An Exchange

1. Original Posting, follow up.
2. Friend, July 24, 2012.
3. Your editor, July 24, 2012.
4. Friend, July 24, 2012
5. Your editor, July 25, 2012.
6. Friend, July 25, 2012.
7. Your editor, July 25, 2012.
8. Your editor, July 25, 2012.
9. Editor Summation.


1. Original Posting, follow up.

I have posted a letter to the editor of the Cambridge (MA) Chronicle comparing the Paterno / Penn State situation to the outrageous situation in Cambridge, MA. My analysis concerned government environmental destruction, government heartless animal abuse and killings, and government attacks on women’s rights.

The original letter was posted on July 23, 2012 at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/paterno-and-cambridge-machine.html.

It was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle on July 27, 2012.

I had an exchange with a friend in Cambridge on the matter which is of interest.

I will not repeat yet again the letter. It is at the link, but the comments followed my notice of the letter on facebook, and really are read best by reading the letter first.


2. Friend, July 24, 2012.

and no Aurora...

3. Your editor, July 24, 2012.

Aurora exists but has been methodically suppressed by a ruthless organization.

4. Friend, July 24, 2012

we would all like a greener cambridge,

but

I would hope you might take a more persuasive approach...

4. Your editor, July 24, 2012.

[addressing the friend],

Your concern is strongly appreciated.

The trouble with the Cambridge Machine and those controlled by it is the total lack of connection with reality. And the very belligerent antagonism toward reality.

People are subjected to the equivalent of brainwashing. And it is a matter of denial to discuss reality with them.

What kind of discussion would you imagine you could have with a Penn State fan a few years back if you told them that Paterno was protecting and hiding a child abuser?

How would somebody be persuasive in such a discussion?

You cannot be. Cambridge’s destructiveness concerning the environment, their own heartless animal abuse, their massive animal killing, and their destructiveness toward women’s rights (Monteiro) are matters which are dictated to the victims on a theological basis. Talking reality with too many of these people is challenging their religion.

5. Your editor, July 25, 2012.

So all there really is available is to talk reality. You look for a weakness and you prod. Monteiro is a very major weakness. With a system imposed as this system is, the hope is to find that crack. Those judicial decisions are very hard, even with this totalitarian system, to ignore.

I had a situation with the fake neighborhood group where they were putting out lies about the impact of a referendum vote taken a few years ago. After a few non controlled people accurately tore the machine position apart, I went to the election committee records on line, and posted the record of the vote, strikingly different from the lie the machine was putting out. I suggested that it would be nice if the listserve stuck to reality.

I was pulled off the listserve, too strong, too accurate. I forwarded my communication to a friend who thinks independently whom the leader of the fake group is trying to con, with an explanation that I had seen nothing from the listserve in days. Very quickly I wound up back on the listserve.

There are weaknesses. The lies are so massive that they become unavoidable. It is a matter of keeping on and constantly standing up to the very constant pattern of fake realities which are indistinguishable from flat out lies.

6. Friend, July 25, 2012.

the key is harvard...

know the folks:

Drew Gilpin Faust et al...

best,

7. Your editor, July 25, 2012.

Thanks.

That route is very clear. The Machine is very happy to let people declare victory, just as long as reality is the other way around. This is a major factor in the dirty tricks which are so normal with them.

As part of my environmental activities, I have changed more zoning than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge and, in contrast to the City of Cambridge, my changes do what I say they do.

Almost all my victories have been at the expense of the Machine. I have led or been involved in at least four significant victories over Harvard.

The most visible was the vote that forced Harvard to build the Inn at Harvard as it is instead of 42% larger, and out to the lot line, no grass. The Inn at Harvard is one of the few new buildings in Harvard Square that normal people consider nice. 7 favorable votes, 1 in the hospital, 1 opposed.

I was working the polls for the Election Commission at the time, second in charge of the precinct where the president of Harvard voted. He did not seem at all pleased with me when he came in to vote.

PS: Thank you for your excellent comments. I think it is ok to pass on this exchange to the blog?

[ed: Two of the four victories over Harvard were zoning victories, two otherwise.

[A fifth victory was borderline. I saved Guffey Park across from the Inn at Harvard through publicity. The City Manager unilaterally destroyed the park in that location after he lost the Inn at Harvard zoning vote to me and to 7 or 8 members of the Cambridge City Council.

[The City Manager did the destruction to allow the expansion of a business which could no longer expand because of the change in zoning. The change in zoning had passed the City Council about a week before the destruction. The displeasure he created resulted in him rebuilding the park in a much nicer configuration.]

8. Your editor, July 25, 2012.

Correction. Harvard wanted the Inn at Harvard 72% larger.

9. Editor Summation.

The weakness of the Cambridge Machine is the non stop lies.

The Cambridge Machine can be beaten and I have repeatedly beaten them by publicly standing up for what they claim to stand for.

The decent people far outnumber the rotten ones who control the Machine and the well intentioned people who are manipulated by the Machine.

Printed: Paterno punished strongly, Cambridge Pols continue their outrages.

I recently posted my letter to the Cambridge Chornicle comparing the situation at Penn State which is being cleaned up with major punishments to the ongoing outrages from the Cambridge pols.

My letter was published in today’s Cambridge Chronicle, lead letter in the center of the editorial page, July 26, 2012 edition, page 10.

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/paterno-and-cambridge-machine.html

Paterno and the Cambridge Machine

The following has been submitted to the Cambridge (MA) Chronicle.

**********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

There are striking similarities between the Paterno scandal and business as usual with the Cambridge Pols.

The NCAA has struck all of Paterno’s victories dating back to when he should have taken action. The massive fine is probably related.

Paterno lived in a world of his own making. He had a lot to be proud of, but, rather than do the right thing, he just pretended he was holier than thou. The NCAA treated this with the appropriate disgust.

The Cambridge Pols nonstop tell us they are holier than thou.

They claim to be defending Alewife. They have destroyed many acres of irreplaceable forest and killed hundreds of animals for “flood protection” their project cannot provide but which can be provided across the street. Now they are yelling at the property owner across the street just as they yelled at another private property owner in doing the original destruction. Anything but yell at their friends who are prepared to keep on destroying and killing animals.

They claim to be defending the Charles River. In their world the last 13 years with its environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse do not exist. Now they are fighting to multiply the animal abuse and to destroy the parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street. They have no explanation. Just listen to the lovely project they yell about. Do anything but work to undo their pending and existing environmental destruction and animal abuse.

They claim to be pro Women’s Rights. But they have not wanted to know the real decision in Monteiro v. Cambridge, that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro because she filed a women’s rights complaint. The judge, jury and appeals court have given the city grounds to fire the city manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.

So we see a motion about apologies and chastisement. Two of the four sponsors were among the five members who voted to put the motion in committee. Of the four members objecting to putting it in committee, two quite possibly just wanted to kill the initiative. No councilor says to fire the City Manager.

Paterno and the Penn State leaders hid the vileness of his program until they could no longer hide in the shadows.

How much longer will the Cambridge Machine stay in the shadows while proclaiming a world of nonsense which is so different from reality?

Cambridge (MA) City Council plays games on Monteiro?

1. Introduction.
2. Analysis of City Council Action.
3. City Council motion.
4. Follow up to prior report.


1. Introduction.

We have followed the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge for quite awhile.

This is the case in which a Superior Court Judge and Jury and an Appeals Court panel found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of department head Malvina Monteiro because she filed a civil rights complaint alleging that she was discriminated against by the City of Cambridge because she is a woman.

The disgust of the Courts for the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager was extreme.

The jury awarded $1.1 million in real damages and $3.5 million in penal damages. The penal damage award was more three times the real damages award. This penal damages award was a multiple of the real damages award so extreme that it could possibly be illegal.

The trial judge wrote an excellent opinion which can be summarized in one of her words: “reprehensible.”

She very effectively demonstrated the Cambridge City Manager’s behavior to be “reprehensible.”

The Appeals Court panel expressed its disgust at the City of Cambridge’s behavior by refusing to issue a formal opinion although their refusal to issue a formal opinion was pretty extensive in itself. They cited “ample evidence [of] outrageous behavior”.

In addition to the general nonsense of the appeal, it is possible that the multiple of damages was a reason for not issuing a formal opinion. Clearly the panel saw the Cambridge City Manager’s behavior adequately “reprehensible” to justify such an unusual multiple of penal damages.

The trouble is that of setting precedent.

Hard cases make bad law. The “outrageous behavior” clearly justified the extreme award. It is possible that the court did not want the case to make precedent to support such an extreme award.

Succinctly, this combination of awards and findings places the Cambridge City Council in solid position to fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.

2. Analysis of City Council Action.

In section 3, below, I have copied from the official record the vote of the Cambridge City Council on June 18, including the role call vote.

The motion would place the City Council on record apologizing for the City Manager’s actions and communicating its disapproval to the Cambridge City Manager.

This motion is considerably more kind to the Cambridge City Manager that are the formal judicial rulings.

This motion does not support the immediate implementation of the judicial actions, but the language is so strong that it could be preliminary to taking action to fire him.

The very major trouble with such preliminary actions is that they are silly. They have final judicial determination of malfeasance in office. Malfeasance in office is grounds for firing.

The motion was apparently killed by referring it to a committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager which has little power. Appointees of the Cambridge City Manager, in addition, have to be fully aware of the possible impact on them of the Cambridge City Manager’s treatment of Malvina Monteiro and of the City Manager and City Council’s fighting the Monteiro matter way beyond the limits of reason.

I would appreciate input from folks who remember past action by this committee. I vaguely recall somebody, through this committee or, perhaps, a comparable committee trying to get information on the case and being stepped on by the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Particularly interesting on this vote is the vote itself.

The motion to refer the proposal was made by one of its sponsors, Councillor Reeves. It was supported by a second sponsor, Councillor Decker.

Voting against referral were the other two sponsors plus Councillors Maher and Toomey.

My reaction has been and continues to be extreme skepticism.

The Machine and the Cambridge City Council routinely play con games.

I continue to see exactly zero Cambridge City Councilors supporting and trying to implement the court decisions. I see exactly zero City Councilors supporting firing the Cambridge City Manager because of Monteiro.

I do see a motion of apology and disapproval submitted by four members of the nine member city council which was apparently killed with two authors supporting the killing.

I am constantly hoping for miracles when dealing with the City of Cambridge. I am constantly disappointed.

I would hope that a miracle would occur and that the referral to this committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager would turn out to be part of a miracle.

The normal con is to sound great and do nothing. This as it stands is sounding great and doing nothing.

I will not hold my breath waiting for something meaningful to happen.

3. City Council motion.

I apologize for the format. This is an electronic copy of the public record and this is what I wound up with. I am leaving it untouched simply to communicate the public record. Order number 1, June 18, 2012.

*************

COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR DECKER
COUNCILLOR REEVES
VICE MAYOR SIMMONS

WHEREAS:A combination of discrimination and wrongful
termination complaints have resulted in many millions of
dollars of costs and damages for the City of Cambridge;
and

WHEREAS:The actions that led to these complaints, plus
the filing of the complaints and subsequent law suits,
caused much anguish for the city employees involved; and

WHEREAS:It is not clear that the City Manager has ever
apologized to the City of Cambridge or anyone else
involved for any role he may have played in creating
this situation; and

WHEREAS:It is not clear what practices and policies the
City has instituted to help ensure that similar
situations do not arise in the future; now therefore be
it

ORDERED:That the City Council extend its apologies to
both the City employees who filed the complaints and to
the taxpayers and residents of the City of Cambridge for
both the angst created by its employee, the City
Manager, and the cost to the City as a result of these
cases; and be it further

ORDERED:That the City Council hereby lets the City
Manager know of its disapproval of his judgment and
actions regarding this situation; and be it further

ORDERED:That the City Manager be and hereby is requested
to report back to the City Council with an explanation
of what processes and procedures have been instituted to
help ensure that such a situation does not arise in the
future.





REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE FOR CIVIC UNITY View Roll Call
Votes from June 18, 2012

REFERRED TO THE CIVIC UNITY COMMITTEE ON ROLL CALL VOTE 5-4-0

***********

The Official Role Call Record of the Vote is as follows. I tried to upload the PDF without success. The following is the vote with my added words of explanation of the meaning of the vote.

The vote was:

Cheung:
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Decker: Cosponsor of motion.
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Kelley: Cosponsor of motion.
Do not refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Maher:
Do not refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Reeves: Cosponsor of motion. Maker of motion to refer,
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Simmons: Cosponsor of motion.
Do not refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Toomey:
Do not refer to City Manager appointed committee.

VanBeuzekom:
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Davis:
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

5 in favor of referring to City Manager appointed committee.
4 opposed to referring to City Manager appointed committee.

4. Follow up to prior report.

Please note that I previously commented on this decision by the Cambridge City Council. My analysis was based on the report in Cambridge Day.

This analysis is based on my actual review of the papers which constitute the actions. This analysis, of course, supercedes my prior evaluation.

CRC Keeping Additional Major Destruction of Trees Secret

I recently reported on the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” proposal for environmental, animal habitat and, possibly, historical destruction on the Boston end of the River Street Bridge as part of a highway proposal by them which, of course, does not mention the destruction.

The River Street Bridge is the next bridge across the Charles River west of the BU Bridge.

The report, with the CRC’s photo, is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/techniques-in-lying-underpasses-on.html.

I went by the target location a few hours ago.

I understated their destructiveness.

Their lovely photo shows a new two land (back and forth) small vehicle highway being built in the Charles River north of the existing off ramp / side walk / small vehicle highway from Soldiers Field Road west bound to the River Street Bridge.

I knew the embankment is very steep supporting the existing highway structure. I did not realize how enthusiastically nature has healed the harm of man in this location. Apparently coming up to the point where the CRC’s highway in the Charles would split off from the existing highway structure is a very solid line of trees.

The view of the Charles River from Soldiers Field Road approaching the off ramp facility goes from a solid wall of trees to wide open next to the ramp. The embankment with this excellent collection of trees would be wiped out by the CRC’s latest outrage.

The trees could very easily be as little as one foot apart. People frequently plant trees close to each other to create a situation in which a bunch of separate trees grow together into one very big tree. The situation on Soldiers Field road which would be destroyed by this outrage looks like it could wind up as many feet of joined trees. The trees are that close and are that plentiful.

The Charles River Conservancy, as is common with the various Charles River destroyers, lies by omission.

No mention whatsoever of this additional environmental outrage.

Techniques in Lying: “Underpasses” on the Charles River revisited

1. CRC’s record, abridged.
2. Latest attack.
3. Analysis.
A. Initial questions.
B. Prior examples of destruction on this side.
C. Summary.


1. CRC’s record, abridged.

Possibly the most destructive entity on the Charles River is a group which goes by the false name of Charles River “Conservancy”.

The CRC may be more destructive than the Department of Conservation and Recreation because I have seen the DCR join in a condemnation of at least one of the CRC projects as environmentally destructive.

One of the many environmental outrages supported by this group is environmental and habitat destruction on and in the Charles River.

They have been fighting for a new highway on the Cambridge side of the Charles River including destruction of hundreds of trees.

Like so many of their fellow groups, they lie through omission. They have posted admiring photos of the magnificent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split which they are fighting to decimate. They have posted admiring photos of the environmentally sound area at Magazine Beach across from Magazine Street whose parking area they are fighting to destroy. I could keep going.

Responsible bureaucrats have condemned their highway on the Cambridge side of the Charles River as environmentally destructive. So they put a sob letter in the Cambridge Chronicle saying how they were being abused and that they would convert their emphasis to the Boston side.

2. Latest attack.

This photo is from this group’s latest newsletter. It shows the CRC’s change of emphasis to the Boston / southern side of the Charles River. As usual, they call this proposal an underpass.

[2012 photos]

The relatively small ramp on the left is the existing bikeway / sidewalk. The larger highway / ramp to the right is the proposed construction.

The existing facility was clearly constructed so as to provide as much service as they could while minimizing environmental harm as much as possible. The bad guys do not bother themselves with such considerations.

But the bad guys do, falsely, call themselves environmental saints.

The thoughts that comes to my mind on looking at this proposal are environmental and historical.

This is the Boston end of the River Street Bridge, the next bridge to the west of the BU Bridge.

The shore area is already extremely crowded with highway development.

Not mentioned in the lovely description of this lovely project, as usual, is the harm the project will do. Lying by omission.

The only meaningful benefit out of it this project is that bicyclists do not have to share the obligations of cars. They can go through this area without stopping for a light. The poor dears.

The bureaucrats have condemned the CRC’s corresponding proposal in Cambridge. When the bureaucrats did that study, the bad guys were only attacking the Cambridge side, not the Boston side. Destruction for highway construction on the Boston side was not, as I recall, condemned in that study. It was not on the table.

3. Analysis.

A. Initial questions.

What harm is done by further destruction of the Charles River for this project?

What harm is done to the historical integrity of the historically protected River Street Bridge by this project?

What harm is done to animal habitat by this project?

Expanding existing construction into the Charles River would very much certainly cause further habitat destruction.

B. Prior examples of destruction on this side.

The Charles River Conservancy is not unknown to the Boston Conservation Commission in this area. I have seen a very distressed number of members of members expressing great concern about CRC destruction of native vegetation needed for migratory waterfowl.

I have previously shown you photos of the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney.

The area between here and the BU Bridge contained their home the first year they lived on the Charles River. Their home was directly across from Magazine Beach’s boat launch area destroyed in phase 1 of that destruction.

Folks from the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative went out of their way to cross the Charles to make certain the Charles River White Ducks were comfortable while they lived there.

The home of the Charles River White Ducks was too far to the east to be affected by this project. In any case, their habitat and home was casually destroyed with destruction of native vegetation throughout this area abutting the Charles River between the BU Bridge and the River Street Bridge.

C. Summary.

In any case, no mention, no concern. By lying in their name, these people claim to be environmental saints.

So they do the usual lying by omission from these fake groups.

They claim to be environmental saints, surely they are telling us about any environmental harm?

Business as usual for fake environmentalists.

Geese on the hillside, Massive thicket growth in two months.

1. Introduction.
2. Photos.
A. 05 06-14-12 DNA E hill, Intro, Geese, fence, sidewalk
B. 6 06-14 DNA, E Intro, Geese
C. 8 06-14 DNA ramp fence, Geese, E intro on hill
D. 17 06-24 DNA E intro, E hwy
E. 18 06-24-12 DNA E end of E intro, E hwy, Mem Dr
F. 26 06-27 dirt, geese, natives, @ intro, terrace, W hwy and pkg lot
G. 02 04-14-12 Potted thicket E hillside.
H. 14 04-22-12 Thicket, new highway, eastern leg.
I. Goose Meadow, Areal Shots, 2006, winter shot
3. Summary and Digression.


1. Introduction.

The rottenness of the cons of the fake groups fighting for yet more heartless animal abuse can be seen in photos from late June compared to the same area perhaps six weeks earlier.

We have had reports of the Charles River White Geese crossing the on ramp to Memorial Drive to get food in response to their regained access to the ramp.

2. Photos.

Here is are three photos of the step before the geese crossed the ramp. I have shown their foray into the middle part of the introduced soon to be impenetrable thicket. These are my first photos of them exploring the new outrage in the northern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area. They are from June 14, 2012.

A. 05 06-14-12 DNA E hill, Intro, Geese, fence, sidewalk

Here are the lead geese exploring that hill, the soon to be impenetrable thicket.

The metal rods hold up a new woven fence separating the Memorial Drive on ramp’s sidewalk from the soon to come thicket.

B. 6 06-14 DNA, E Intro, Geese

Here are a group of the geese at the foot of the hill.

C. 8 06-14 DNA ramp fence, Geese, E intro on hill

Here is a view of the geese from the sidewalk. The thicker fence is the historical fence which was illegally opened in two places by Boston University in the initial attacks on the Charles River White Geese.

The woven fence is the addition with the BU Bridge repairs.

One adult goose is close standing erect. The two smaller geese on his far side could be two of the adolescents I showed in my prior report.

D. 17 06-24 DNA E intro, E hwy

This photo is the first from June 24. It is taken from the Western end of the area just shown. The grey is the new highway.

E. 18 06-24-12 DNA E end of E intro, E hwy, Mem Dr

This photo, same day, is from the eastern end. This lower area is where so many geese were just photographed. The top of the hill between the two trees is where the smaller number of geese were photographed.

F. 26 06-27 dirt, geese, natives, @ intro, terrace, W hwy and pkg lot

This photo, from June 27, is of the reality heartlessly forced on them. The remnants native bushes which occupied the entire area and which have been destroyed except for here are right and left.

The gray material is the east highway and a new parking lot. Once again, this new highway is part of the highway on the banks of the Charles which has been condemned by responsible bureaucrats.

The parking lot is totally without prior review as is the massive impenetrable thicket which is coming.

G. 02 04-14-12 Potted thicket E hillside.

These are the pots dropped in place, before planting.

H. 14 04-22-12 Thicket, new highway, eastern leg.

This is the outrage when planted. Notice the tree from the above photos. The brick at the top is Memorial Drive on its overpass.

Compare to photos D and E above and to the preceding shots with the geese.

I. Goose Meadow, Areal Shots, 2006, winter shot

Remember, this is a winter shot. Look at all the vegetation and compare it to the geese’ current misery, above. That vegetation in season is what was there before. What you see above is all they have not destroyed.

The organized openings are the remnants of the ash walks which were part of the illegal Boston University work. There was another walk in the middle of the native vegetation. It became very much overgrown.

3. Summary and Digression.

While on a shoot for the new Sandra Bullock flick on Friday, I spoke with a woman who gushed very ludly the nonsense coming out of the corrupt Cambridge Machine: The Cambridge Machine yells that they are protecting roof top gardens.

The woman gushed about the beauty of rooftop gardens. I think she supports them when necessary, i.e. you can’t get real open space.

The con coming from the rotters in the Cambridge Machine is such that they never mention the fact that their destruction on the Charles River and at Alewife is most definitely not necessary.

That is why their fake groups talk about everything else except for the destruction they are fighting for.

That is why their fake group fighting in support of environmental destruction on the Charles River gives a history of the Charles River area which does not include the last 13 years. These are the ones fighting for this outrage at the Destroyed Nesting and fighting for the destruction of the environmentally commendable parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street.

They have no justification for their destructive initiatives. So they lie through omission. And they lie by praising each other.

They just have con games, and the flat out lies that they are environmentalists.

Interestingly and tellingly, the folks yelling the loudest about roof gardens fought against a meaningful park being created in place of Lechmere Station. They wanted a ten story building, a four story building and a plaza. The corruption in Cambridge “environmentalism” being what it is, they only mentioned the plaza, very loudly and very repeatedly, and did not mention, if they could help it, the real park they opposed and the two buildings on either side of the plaza they kept bragging about.

Letter on Charles River Destruction and state moneys

I have previously reported on the press release from, apparently, the Department of Conservation and Recreation that was printed as a news article on page 2 of the July 5, 2012, Cambridge Chronicle.

The following is a letter to the editor I have submitted:

**************

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

You have reported DCR moneys for Magazine Beach.

Part of this project is destruction of the environmentally sensitive parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street. It is never mentioned and never explained. It is filled on the weekends by little people using the picnic area.

The proposal’s first public presentation by the DCR was sponsored by this group. They censored negative comment.

This group put on a “history of Magazine Beach.” It omitted the destruction of the last 13 years. They shouted down my brief communication of the many outrages.

They conducted a stacked survey on desired “improvements.” A repeated comment called for the reversal of the most outrageous “improvement.” Last I heard, the survey was censored from the minutes.

A few “improvements” which should be uninstalled and thus are censored are:

• the impenetrable wall of introduced bushes blocking off the Charles from Magazine Beach and starving the Charles River White Geese (one spontaneously objected to “improvement’),

• the boat dock destruction,

• poisons dumped to keep alive sickly grass introduced in place of healthy grass needlessly destroyed, and

• the destruction of playing fields to drain off poisons which should not be there.

But Cambridge, the DCR and this group want to keep the environment destruction and animal abuse and want to destroy the parking.

A group insider praised the planting of more impenetrable bushes east of the BU Bridge in a nesting area which has become a Ghetto into which the Charles River White Geese were forced when their decades long home at Magazine Beach was taken from them. My objections to this outrage were shouted down as well.

You reported funds for park benches.

Also needed and not mentioned is reversal of “improvements” between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. Almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed and has not grown back (poisons?). The impenetrable thicket just started is not acceptable. Grass would be a nice replacement.

Commencement in the destroyed nesting area of a highway which has been condemned by responsible bureaucrats should also be reversed.

When the deliberate starvation of the Geese is reversed, closing the two openings in the fence of the geese’s nesting area / ghetto should follow. They are part of destruction that was condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission.

The DCR and its friends do praise each other. Mutual praise fools responsible people into thinking they are dealing with responsible people.

First Photos of Charles River White Geese in the soon to come impenetrable thicket.

Recently, I have passed on reports on the Charles River White Geese crossing the ramp north of their ghetto / destroyed nesting area to get to food.

I have taken a bunch of photos of the soon to come impenetrable thicket and have been trying to put together (1) a transition package and (2) a package comparing this situation to the outrage at Magazine Beach. The reality, however, is that I am sitting on my photos too long.

Here are photos of the first large scale visit I am aware of by the Charles River White Geese into the plantings for the impenetrable thicket. I previously reported this foray when I saw it. After that, they went further up the hill and then started crossing the ramp looking for food because they are being starved.

The first photo is of the cruel reality forced on the Charles River White Geese by the people who are deliberately starving them and then destroyed almost all the ground vegetation in the ghetto where they have been confined, rather than the mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge which has been their home for most of the three decades they have lived on the Charles River.

The fake group is fighting for all this outrage, as much as possible, by keeping it as secret as possible at the same time as spouting non stop lies of concern for Magazine Beach.

19 05-13-12, DNA dirt regrowing, natives, highway, geese.

The large wall straight ahead is the BU Bridge.

The dirt area used to be ground vegetation until it was destroyed by very cruel people. The large native vegetation to the right occupied most of this area until very destructive people destroyed it. Straight ahead is a second patch.

These two pieces are the ONLY ground vegetation which have not been destroyed between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse two block to the east.

You see three Charles River White Geese in the middle left eking out what little they can.

I had been hoping the green coloration in the middle of the dirt was grass. It now looks more like moss.

I have previously published an areal (probably satellite) photo of this area during the off season showing it filled with vegetation.

The grey substance to the upper right is the beginning of the environmentally destructive highway which has been condemned by responsible bureaucrats. I have state plans showing it extending through where the three geese are and running under the BU Bridge in the water to Magazine Beach. I believe I have posted them.

This highway has been described as “underpasses” by the destructive people who were condemned for its environmental destructiveness. The extension to the east would destroy hundreds of trees including decimating a magnificent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split.

The following photos are from June 2.

14 06-02-12 DNA Intro Mdle, Geese

This is a group of the gaggle hesitatingly entering the middle of the soon to be impenetrable thicket. The bushes to the right are the north side of the native bushes in the above photo. Most of these are Emden Geese. The goose to the far left with his head straight up and a long neck is a White China. The goose to the far right with black markings is the offspring of goose who is clearly white with either a Toulouse or a White China with vestigial Brown China markings.

The grey stuff under them is the highway I showed above.

15 06-02-12 DNA Intro Mdle, Geese, W Hwy

This photo is taken from the eastern leg of the highway. The goose on the left could be the White China I pointed out above. The three little guys are adolescent goslings who are leading the foray into the soon to be impenetrable thicket. Three adults are shown. The third is partially hidden by a bush. The Charles River White Geese have very close families. When goslings are being raised, a third goose will join the parents and act as a babysitter. Babies are always accompanied by three adults for protection.

16 06-02-12 DNA Intro Mdle, Geese

Another view of the gaggle group in the middle area, taken from the north.

17 06-02-12 DNA Intro Mdle, Geese, W Hwy, feeder.

This is the western leg of the highway. The man straight ahead with the bag on his shoulder and the reddish shirt is one of the volunteers of the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative. They have been keeping these beautiful animals from being starved by Cambridge, the state bureaucrats and the rotten people running lying about “concern.” He is coming with food. The Geese are following him for the food.

21 06-03-12 DNA E Hwy, Gaggle on Dirt, w native, intro to L, E to R

This is a photo from the next day taken from the highway shown above.

The grey is the eastern leg of the introduced highway. Left and right closer to the camera is the soon to come impenetrable thicket. Left and right on the other side of the plastic barrier are the small numbers of undestroyed native bushes.

Straight ahead in the middle of the artificially created wasteland are the Charles River White Geese and visitors. The Charles River can be seen through the trees, middle right. At the top is a Boston University building on the far side of the Charles River.

State bureaucrats brag of park benches, censor latest attack on Charles River White Geese.

I just reported on a press release printed by the Cambridge Chronicle which lied by omission about their fight to destroy the parking lot on Magazine Beach at the foot of Magazine Street. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/cambridge-chronicle-reports-on.html.

On further review, the press release also brags of park benches.

Glaringly missing in the bad guys’ publicity spread is the latest attack by the state on the Charles River White Geese. This is their introduction of yet more introduced bushes to create yet another destructive wall, in place of the area where the White Geese have nested for most of the last 31 years.

This, of course is in addition to walling off their food with the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation at the riverline of Magazine Beach and thus deliberately starving them, and in addition to the poisons being dumped on the Magazine Beach playing fields to keep alive sickly grass introduced in place of healthy grass, reduction of the size of the playing fields to drain off the poisons, destruction of the boat docks at Magazine Beach, and the sicking of the Machine on the situation to lie by omission about all the outrages.

This, of course, is the obvious reason for the sudden interest in the Cambridge Machine’s front organization in Cambridgeport.

I recently reported on the machine’s fight to destroy the parking lot on Magazine Beach at the foot of Magazine Street fitting the Machine’s Pattern of Behavior at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/machines-fight-to-destroy-parking-lot.html.

I reported on the fake meeting and fake minutes concerning this matter at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/fake-neighborhood-association-presents.html.

Please excuse my not going into massive detail yet again. There is plenty of detail in these documents.

And I have yet to get out my latest photo report on the introduced thicket, or my photo report on how the second phase destruction at Magazine Beach very clearly built on the starvation attacks.

But the bad guys do love to lie that they are politically correct.

Cambridge Chronicle reports on Cambridge’s Machine’s fight to destroy the parking lot at the end of Magazine Street at Magazine Beach.

Naturally, the destruction of the parking lot is not mentioned.

But the project gets glowing reviews.

July 5, 2012 issue, page 2.

This is a skilled elaboration on a state press release issued with glowing comments on support by the Governor.

As is the normal procedure with the corrupt situation we are facing, the Governor would not be told about the inexcusable destruction.

The pitch is always from the corrupt organization we are dealing with: look at the lovely things we are doing, and lies of omission about the irresponsible aspects. The particular entity putting out the nonsense would appear to be the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The Machine’s misleadingly named blog includes comparable photos, as usual not mentioning the intent to destroy the very key and environmentally beautiful parking lot.

Our most recent prior report may be viewed at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/fake-neighborhood-association-announces.html.

Techniques of Lying: Cambridge Machine creates a new “protective” organization

If you are in favor of a particular cause, be very much afraid if the Cambridge Machine says they are going to help you.

The record is too extremely bad.

The Cambridge Machine has announced the creation of a new “protective” group. It has a generic name, but the membership is focused on Central Square and Kendall Square.

Their blog has the usual lovely goals including, however, the following:

“We need continuing comprehensive urban planning efforts to improve the quality of life and work for Cambridge residents.”

“Comprehensive urban planning efforts” translates into the usual fine print.

Delegate more and more power to the Cambridge City Manager’s appointees.

Delegate more and more power to the back rooms.

The Cambridge Machine cannot understand why the decisions of the Appeals Court, the Superior Court Judge, and the Superior Court jury in Monteiro v. Cambridge should be implemented.

The decisions clearly provide grounds to fire the Cambridge City Manager without golden parachute and without legal danger to the City of Cambridge. The only thing borderline is whether he can be fired without pension.

The Cambridge City Manager fired a department head, destroyed her life, because she filed a civil rights complaint.

After getting an excellent opinion from the Trial Judge, the City Manager and City Council fought that case beyond reason.

The Trial Judge said “reprehensible.” The Trial Jury awarded $3.5 million penal damages on top of $1.1 million real damages, a multiple so major it communicated very real disgust.

The Appeals Court panel responded to the appeal by refusing to grant it a formal opinion. The Appeals Court panel communicated its disgust: “ample evidence [of] outrageous misbehavior”.

The Cambridge City Council has responded by, at no time, suggesting that the Cambridge City Manager be fired.

The strongest response attempted got four votes out of nine asking him to apologize.

What is likely to happen to any city manager appointee who seriously stands up to the Cambridge City Manager?

What is any “comprehensive planning effort” appointed by the Cambridge City Manager likely to amount to?

I can show you too many zoning initiatives written by the Cambridge City Manager and his friends with great words and secret fine print making the great words nonsense, with a lot of Cambridge Machine support.

And The Machine claims to be defending the world and proposes delegating to the Cambridge City Manager?

The usual con game.

Cambridge Machine progresses with its lies of concern for Magazine Beach

The Cambridge Machine has issued a rather outrageous “report” lying of its concern for Magazine Beach. As usual, they keep secret the massive environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse they do not want to know about and thus are fighting to continue. The Cambridge Machine includes this bullet:

**********

7) Hundreds of People Picnicked and Swam at Magazine Beach July 4th
Many extended families gathered there to barbecue and savor the warm summer breeze. Many have "vacationed" at Magazine Beach for generations. Check the blog for photos.

***********

The Machine is fighting to destroy the parking lot for the picnic area while lying through omission that Phase 3 destruction includes destruction of the Magazine Beach picnic area parking lot..

And they do not want to know about the outrages of the past 13 years. In fact, their official history of Magazine Beach explicitly excludes the last 13 years, and they shouted down attempts to bring reality into their discussions.

And they shouted down objections to constructing another impenetrable thicket in place of the area where the Charles River White Geese have nested for the past three decades, after allowing praise for this outrage by an insider.

When a loaded survey “seeking” desired improvements to Magazine Beach got responses saying to undo the most blatant physical outrage, the survey became just as much a non existing event as is the outrages of the last 13 years in their fake history.


The Machine is following the tactics by which they destroyed acres of the irreplaceable Alewife reservation. There they lied of “concern” while telling people to look at everything except the totally inexcusable environmental destruction and mass animal killing which has been accomplished by their friends.

Now they are fighting to massively increase that destruction by telling people to chase their tails concerning the massive parking lot where the Alewife destruction project should happen. This destruction and animal killing will be massively expanded unless The Machine changes sides to the side it claims to be on.


But they definitely proclaim themselves environmental saints.