The Cambridge Chronicle led its photo report on last weekend’s Charles River Regatta rowing race with an excellent photo of the Charles River White Geese. The photo report occupies page B1 of the hard copy edition on October 25, 2012.
The photo shows two boats with a flotilla of Charles River White Geese in the Charles River prominently featured above them, and with a nice notation in the caption. Above the Charles River White Geese is a brief view of the tiny area to which they have been heartlessly confined.
Also part of the photo report is a photo from the Cambridge side of rowers going under the Grand Junction railroad bridge, and, above it, the BU Bridge.
In the same edition, on pages 10 and 11, is the letter to the editor which I reported at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/response-to-cambridge-chronicles-praise.html. This responds to the Chronicle's puff piece on The Cambridge, MA, USA Machine's fight for environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse in the area.
On the front page is the Chronicle's report on Ms. Yanow’s attempt to withdraw the Cambridge Central Square zoning petition bearing her name. My reports on this nonsense from The Cambridge Machine are at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/central-square-cambridge-ma-usa-machine.html, and at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/relationship-to-charles-river-of.html.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Relationship to the Charles River of Cambridge, MA, USA Machine’s Attack on Central Square, Cambridge
A few days ago, I posted an analysis of The Cambridge Machine shafting its “friends” in a zoning petition affecting the neighborhood north and east of Central Square, Cambridge, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/central-square-cambridge-ma-usa-machine.html.
My letter to the Cambridge Chronicle places this nonsense with regard to Machine attacks on the Charles River in Cambridge in a more concise package.
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Ms. Yanow’s attempt to withdraw the Yanow petition could be the worst thing she could do for her cause. Her stated reason, respect for the process being imposed on Central and Kendall Squares makes things that much worse.
I have written more successful zoning petitions than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge.
The difference between my results and that of processes supported by The Machine can be seen in two relatively new buildings, each with the same relative size (FAR) on its lot.
The City Council, in passing my Natalie Ward petition forced the Inn at Harvard on Harvard in place of construction 72% larger wished by Harvard.. We followed the process dictated by state law.
The new Harvard building on Memorial Drive near Western Avenue was the result of a “process” created by friends of The Machine. The City’s related zoning petition was so irresponsible that not even Harvard could accept it. Harvard’s less irresponsible petition created the final result.
The Inn at Harvard, forced on Harvard by the Natalie Ward petition, is the most popular new building in Harvard Square. Harvard’s new building on Memorial Drive has same relative density on its lot (FAR). The Memorial Drive building has been generally panned.
This is the difference between The Machine and responsible behavior.
Withdrawing her petition is exactly the worst thing Ms. Yanow could do. The proper procedure is to allow it to die out of inaction.
The difference? Ms. Yanow’s withdrawal prohibits discussing the topics of her petition for two years. Dying from inaction allows further work to be done on the Yanow petition.
Withdrawal would protect city councilors who oppose the petition from going on record opposing the petition and what it stands for. The Machine tends to do a lot of protecting of city councilors.
Ms. Yanow’s praise for the process is distressingly similar to the con game done in Riverside which resulted in that inferior Harvard building.
We are told a process is the thing. The Machine’s process has no mandatory basis in law. We also saw a lot of process on the Harvard building on Memorial Drive. The Memorial Drive process was made up on the fly, as is the current nonsense.
But The Machine goes on, and another neighborhood certainly looks like it has had inflicted totally unnecessary harm. And The Machine and these silly processes keep praising themselves.
My letter to the Cambridge Chronicle places this nonsense with regard to Machine attacks on the Charles River in Cambridge in a more concise package.
***********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Ms. Yanow’s attempt to withdraw the Yanow petition could be the worst thing she could do for her cause. Her stated reason, respect for the process being imposed on Central and Kendall Squares makes things that much worse.
I have written more successful zoning petitions than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge.
The difference between my results and that of processes supported by The Machine can be seen in two relatively new buildings, each with the same relative size (FAR) on its lot.
The City Council, in passing my Natalie Ward petition forced the Inn at Harvard on Harvard in place of construction 72% larger wished by Harvard.. We followed the process dictated by state law.
The new Harvard building on Memorial Drive near Western Avenue was the result of a “process” created by friends of The Machine. The City’s related zoning petition was so irresponsible that not even Harvard could accept it. Harvard’s less irresponsible petition created the final result.
The Inn at Harvard, forced on Harvard by the Natalie Ward petition, is the most popular new building in Harvard Square. Harvard’s new building on Memorial Drive has same relative density on its lot (FAR). The Memorial Drive building has been generally panned.
This is the difference between The Machine and responsible behavior.
Withdrawing her petition is exactly the worst thing Ms. Yanow could do. The proper procedure is to allow it to die out of inaction.
The difference? Ms. Yanow’s withdrawal prohibits discussing the topics of her petition for two years. Dying from inaction allows further work to be done on the Yanow petition.
Withdrawal would protect city councilors who oppose the petition from going on record opposing the petition and what it stands for. The Machine tends to do a lot of protecting of city councilors.
Ms. Yanow’s praise for the process is distressingly similar to the con game done in Riverside which resulted in that inferior Harvard building.
We are told a process is the thing. The Machine’s process has no mandatory basis in law. We also saw a lot of process on the Harvard building on Memorial Drive. The Memorial Drive process was made up on the fly, as is the current nonsense.
But The Machine goes on, and another neighborhood certainly looks like it has had inflicted totally unnecessary harm. And The Machine and these silly processes keep praising themselves.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Harvard University Contracting Its Empire in Cambridge, selling massive elderly housing at 2 Mt. Auburn Street.
1. Announcement of Plans.
2. My history.
3. Analysis of effect on the Empire.
4. What should be done?
1. Announcement of Plans.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012, City Councilor / soon to be State Representative Decker conducted a hearing in Cambridge City Hall concerning the just announced plans of Harvard University to sell a grossly out of scale elderly housing building at 2 Mt. Auburn Street in Cambridge, at the outer limits of Harvard Square.
Harvard has a map at http://map.harvard.edu/ from which a lot of the details can be translated. Google Maps, satellite view, http://maps.google.com, is also excellent. I tried to download Harvard’s map and edit it without success.
There was considerable discussion at the hearing of supposed legal protections on the sale of the 2 Mt. Auburn building.
Apparently a state agency has designated Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. as its preferred purchaser for 2 Mt. Auburn Street under the legislation.
HRI previously bought an older but much more neighborhood sensitive apartment complex not far from 2 Mount Auburn, on Ware Street, at the corner of Ware and Broadway. HRI has managed that property for 10 or 20 years with subsidized tenants in place.
2 Mt. Auburn dominates the square created by Mt. Auburn Street, Putnam Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue and Trowbridge Street. Ware Street is one block long. It is one block west of Trowbridge Street, running from Harvard Street to Broadway, the two major streets north of Massachusetts Avenue in this part of Cambridge.
As the crow flies 2 Mt. Auburn is less distant from the Charles River than it is from the Ware Street properties.
The area between 2 Mt. Auburn and the Charles has seen major expansion of the Harvard empire in the last decade.
The next street off Mt. Auburn street to the west, toward Harvard Square, is Banks Street. In the last ten years, Harvard has constructed quite a few “neighborhood scale” buildings south of Mt. Auburn Street and west of Banks between Mt. Auburn and Grant Street. Between the next street to the west, Athens Street and DeWolfe Street, and facing DeWolfe Street, Harvard built a very large, nearly block long residential / dorm structure in the 90s. Further down Banks between Grant and Cowperthwaite Street facing Cowperthwaite is another massive structure built in the last ten years in the manner of a large dormitory.
This area is the Kerry Corner neighborhood.
2. My history.
I have had major impact on the area.
I wrote three zoning change proposals which downzoned about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue from the Inn at Harvard at the east end of the obvious Harvard Square to Cambridge City Hall, plus major portions of Mt. Auburn Street, Green Street and side streets between Mt. Auburn and Mass. Ave.
We emphasized housing, ground floor open space and large but not unreasonable density of construction.
Harvard wanted the Inn at Harvard to be 72% larger than it is. We forced the Inn at Harvard on Harvard in the Natalie Ward petition.
The Natalie Ward petition rezoned the block of Mt. Auburn Street from Putnam Avenue to Banks Street for neighborhood type of construction rather than the same type of construction that was legal in the core Harvard Square. This block includes 2 Mt. Auburn and 10 Mt. Auburn.
We made similar changes to Harvard fraternities (called “Houses”) on Mt. Auburn Street near the rear of Holyoke Center whose opposite side dominates Harvard Square. This is neighborhood zoning one block from the heart of Harvard Square.
We rezoned the side streets between Banks Street and the Inn at Harvard and the area around the Inn at Harvard to fit the neighborhood to the north and south rather than Harvard Square to the west.
I saved the historical building at 10 Mt. Auburn Street, the opposite end of the 2 Mt. Auburn block using fine print in the Rent Control ordinance.
Saving that building could have been crucial in the development of the last ten years because Harvard wanted to tear 10 Mt. Auburn down and put in a grossly disproportionate modern building on the corner of Banks and Mt. Auburn. I maintained the neighborhood scale and could very easily have determined the scale of the construction Harvard put in as part of the 2000's zoning effort dominated by machinations of The Machine.
To look at the alternative, just look at the monstrous building Harvard built on DeWolfe Street in the 90s, half a block from the latest residential construction.
I assisted in the saving of Corporal Burns Playground a block further east from the Cowperthwaite construction. Harvard wanted to build on it. Corporal Burns faces on the Charles River / Memorial Drive. Harvard’s new Memorial Drive housing is a block east of Corporal Burns. That housing was made legal by The Machine’s zoning effort.
A responsible alternative would have been the same zoning as we forced on the Inn at Harvard which has exactly the same density as the new Memorial Drive complex. The Inn at Harvard fits the neighborhood and the Harvard campus. That construction would have been responsible in the new Memorial Drive complex.
3. Analysis of effect on the Empire.
Harvard is clearly looking very strongly at expansion in Allston on the other side of the Charles River.
Harvard is destroying the Charlesview subsidized housing at North Harvard and Western and moving those residents to new construction replacing half of the neighborhood shopping center south of Western Avenue and four blocks west of Charlesview. Harvard bought this shopping center and then rendered it nearly empty by refusing to rent as stores became vacant.
The 2 Mt. Auburn building dates back to the early 70's. Neighbors were highly concerned when a developer which claimed to have nothing to do with Harvard proposed the structure.
2 Mt. Auburn was given major variances, was managed by the developer for a few years, and then, dah dah, Harvard owned it.
The great fear has been that Harvard would treat 2 Mt. Auburn as Harvard did so many of its rent control buildings, simply refuse to rent to non affiliates as vacancies occurred. This is the tactic Harvard used to destroy the residential shopping center on Western Avenue.
The games by the Machine which resulted in the construction of the last ten years featured bad faith typical of The Machine. As usual a dirty trick zoning change was involved. The proposal The Machine bullied out of good people was so irresponsible that Harvard found it unreasonable generous to Harvard.
Fine print buried in Machine related zoning of the last ten years or so played games with parking.
10 Mt. Auburn when built was allowed to have significantly less parking than would be expected. This was because of its elderly housing nature. Machine related zoning changes allowed parking for 2 Mt. Auburn to be further away than would previously have been allowed. The Cowperthwaite Street building has parking quite a bit larger than is needed for that building. The changes made using the Cowperthwaite parking for 2 Mt. Auburn.
The obvious maneuver was to use the Cowperthwaite parking for 10 Mt. Auburn, to allow transition from elderly housing to Harvard affiliate.
Harvard is giving that up.
4. What should be done?
Cambridge should buy 2 Mt. Auburn and dedicate it to use for elderly housing, the use for which it supposedly was constructed and which Cambridge appointees made legal.
2. My history.
3. Analysis of effect on the Empire.
4. What should be done?
1. Announcement of Plans.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012, City Councilor / soon to be State Representative Decker conducted a hearing in Cambridge City Hall concerning the just announced plans of Harvard University to sell a grossly out of scale elderly housing building at 2 Mt. Auburn Street in Cambridge, at the outer limits of Harvard Square.
Harvard has a map at http://map.harvard.edu/ from which a lot of the details can be translated. Google Maps, satellite view, http://maps.google.com, is also excellent. I tried to download Harvard’s map and edit it without success.
There was considerable discussion at the hearing of supposed legal protections on the sale of the 2 Mt. Auburn building.
Apparently a state agency has designated Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. as its preferred purchaser for 2 Mt. Auburn Street under the legislation.
HRI previously bought an older but much more neighborhood sensitive apartment complex not far from 2 Mount Auburn, on Ware Street, at the corner of Ware and Broadway. HRI has managed that property for 10 or 20 years with subsidized tenants in place.
2 Mt. Auburn dominates the square created by Mt. Auburn Street, Putnam Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue and Trowbridge Street. Ware Street is one block long. It is one block west of Trowbridge Street, running from Harvard Street to Broadway, the two major streets north of Massachusetts Avenue in this part of Cambridge.
As the crow flies 2 Mt. Auburn is less distant from the Charles River than it is from the Ware Street properties.
The area between 2 Mt. Auburn and the Charles has seen major expansion of the Harvard empire in the last decade.
The next street off Mt. Auburn street to the west, toward Harvard Square, is Banks Street. In the last ten years, Harvard has constructed quite a few “neighborhood scale” buildings south of Mt. Auburn Street and west of Banks between Mt. Auburn and Grant Street. Between the next street to the west, Athens Street and DeWolfe Street, and facing DeWolfe Street, Harvard built a very large, nearly block long residential / dorm structure in the 90s. Further down Banks between Grant and Cowperthwaite Street facing Cowperthwaite is another massive structure built in the last ten years in the manner of a large dormitory.
This area is the Kerry Corner neighborhood.
2. My history.
I have had major impact on the area.
I wrote three zoning change proposals which downzoned about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue from the Inn at Harvard at the east end of the obvious Harvard Square to Cambridge City Hall, plus major portions of Mt. Auburn Street, Green Street and side streets between Mt. Auburn and Mass. Ave.
We emphasized housing, ground floor open space and large but not unreasonable density of construction.
Harvard wanted the Inn at Harvard to be 72% larger than it is. We forced the Inn at Harvard on Harvard in the Natalie Ward petition.
The Natalie Ward petition rezoned the block of Mt. Auburn Street from Putnam Avenue to Banks Street for neighborhood type of construction rather than the same type of construction that was legal in the core Harvard Square. This block includes 2 Mt. Auburn and 10 Mt. Auburn.
We made similar changes to Harvard fraternities (called “Houses”) on Mt. Auburn Street near the rear of Holyoke Center whose opposite side dominates Harvard Square. This is neighborhood zoning one block from the heart of Harvard Square.
We rezoned the side streets between Banks Street and the Inn at Harvard and the area around the Inn at Harvard to fit the neighborhood to the north and south rather than Harvard Square to the west.
I saved the historical building at 10 Mt. Auburn Street, the opposite end of the 2 Mt. Auburn block using fine print in the Rent Control ordinance.
Saving that building could have been crucial in the development of the last ten years because Harvard wanted to tear 10 Mt. Auburn down and put in a grossly disproportionate modern building on the corner of Banks and Mt. Auburn. I maintained the neighborhood scale and could very easily have determined the scale of the construction Harvard put in as part of the 2000's zoning effort dominated by machinations of The Machine.
To look at the alternative, just look at the monstrous building Harvard built on DeWolfe Street in the 90s, half a block from the latest residential construction.
I assisted in the saving of Corporal Burns Playground a block further east from the Cowperthwaite construction. Harvard wanted to build on it. Corporal Burns faces on the Charles River / Memorial Drive. Harvard’s new Memorial Drive housing is a block east of Corporal Burns. That housing was made legal by The Machine’s zoning effort.
A responsible alternative would have been the same zoning as we forced on the Inn at Harvard which has exactly the same density as the new Memorial Drive complex. The Inn at Harvard fits the neighborhood and the Harvard campus. That construction would have been responsible in the new Memorial Drive complex.
3. Analysis of effect on the Empire.
Harvard is clearly looking very strongly at expansion in Allston on the other side of the Charles River.
Harvard is destroying the Charlesview subsidized housing at North Harvard and Western and moving those residents to new construction replacing half of the neighborhood shopping center south of Western Avenue and four blocks west of Charlesview. Harvard bought this shopping center and then rendered it nearly empty by refusing to rent as stores became vacant.
The 2 Mt. Auburn building dates back to the early 70's. Neighbors were highly concerned when a developer which claimed to have nothing to do with Harvard proposed the structure.
2 Mt. Auburn was given major variances, was managed by the developer for a few years, and then, dah dah, Harvard owned it.
The great fear has been that Harvard would treat 2 Mt. Auburn as Harvard did so many of its rent control buildings, simply refuse to rent to non affiliates as vacancies occurred. This is the tactic Harvard used to destroy the residential shopping center on Western Avenue.
The games by the Machine which resulted in the construction of the last ten years featured bad faith typical of The Machine. As usual a dirty trick zoning change was involved. The proposal The Machine bullied out of good people was so irresponsible that Harvard found it unreasonable generous to Harvard.
Fine print buried in Machine related zoning of the last ten years or so played games with parking.
10 Mt. Auburn when built was allowed to have significantly less parking than would be expected. This was because of its elderly housing nature. Machine related zoning changes allowed parking for 2 Mt. Auburn to be further away than would previously have been allowed. The Cowperthwaite Street building has parking quite a bit larger than is needed for that building. The changes made using the Cowperthwaite parking for 2 Mt. Auburn.
The obvious maneuver was to use the Cowperthwaite parking for 10 Mt. Auburn, to allow transition from elderly housing to Harvard affiliate.
Harvard is giving that up.
4. What should be done?
Cambridge should buy 2 Mt. Auburn and dedicate it to use for elderly housing, the use for which it supposedly was constructed and which Cambridge appointees made legal.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Central Square, Cambridge, MA, USA: The Machine Shafts Those who trust it as usual.
1. The Cambridge Machine has, apparently, fooled a bunch of zoning petitioners into doing exactly the wrong thing with their petition.
2. Central Square in Context.
3. The real game — Fool well meaning people into respecting a situation worthy of disgust
4. The details?
5. Defeat versus slumber.
6. The Machine con — withdraw, withdraw, withdraw.
7. Standard Game — The Script from the Machine.
1. The Cambridge Machine has, apparently, fooled a bunch of zoning petitioners into doing exactly the wrong thing with their petition.
They have fooled them into withdrawing the petition, thus preventing further consideration for two years.
The smart thing is to simply let it die from inaction. Then you can refile at will.
2. Central Square in Context.
I avoid commenting about strictly in town Cambridge, MA machinations and concentrate on the attacks on the environment, almost all of which are general attacks on the environment. The rottenness of the situation in Cambridge is a key part of the destructiveness, but it is ancillary to whichever outrage they are pulling this time.
Thus, while I have had various approaches on various con games, I have not bothered spending my time on the con games on the blog unless the games are clearly of general interest. The nonsense going on in Central Square and Kendall Square fall into the category of: So what.
3. The real game — Fool well meaning people into respecting a situation worthy of disgust.
The Machine defines the parameters so that the victims think that what is going on in Cambridge is worthy of respect. That is the most important function of the company union, to give credibility to a pretty much non stop outrage and to fool well meaning people into thinking that the City Manager’s organization and the Cambridge City Council are worthy of respect.
It does not matter what the Machine claims to be doing, what matters is that the system is drilled into folks as something to respect, and that people are given the idea that THEY LOVE THE MACHINE.
4. The details?
I was approached during, I guess, the drafting of a zoning proposal for areas on the edges of Central Square. I asked a lot of questions and I communicated my lack of confidence in the Machine’s front behind the supposed proposal because of the very clear Machine participation. The details are irrelevant. The most important factors, after giving credibility to the Cambridge Administration and City Council are to fool people into thinking The Machine is worthy of Respect.
I offended the sensibilities of the “activists” and I did not want anything to do with them anyway. I am concerned with reality.
5. Defeat versus slumber.
The Cambridge Chronicle reported this week that Susan Yanow was in the process of withdrawing the Susan Yanow Petition, the workproduct of the Machine and its friends.
After checking and ensuring I had no contact information for Yanow, I immediately contacted a friend who is involved in the effort.
I communicated reality, a very bad thing to try with somebody under the control of The Machine.
Zoning initiatives have a life of their own, all spelled out in Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Machine has no use for Chapter 40A. Their reality is whatever their controllers tell them is reality.
A very key provision in chapter 40A concerns withdrawal of a petition. It says that withdrawal is the same as a defeat and bars consideration of the matter again for two years.
How do you get around it? You tell the city council you will not push the matter and, please forget about it. About six months or so after it is filed it goes into a state of limbo from which it cannot be resuscitated except by reinitiating the petition.
But you can resuscitate it and you can file a similar petition containing a lot of the same provisions, all with no problem.
You just do not withdraw it.
6. The Machine con — withdraw, withdraw, withdraw.
The Machine has informed the petitioners that they cannot win. So the Machine has advised the petitioners to do exactly the wrong thing. Withdraw the petition and have the punishment associated with a defeat without actually suffering a defeat.
The cause is given the worst possible treatment and no member of the City Council can be blamed, because the petitioners stabbed themselves in the back.
The Machine achieves its goals. It has fooled a bun ch of people into thinking the Machine is their friend and the Machine has achieved their real objectives. Fool those people into thinking the City of Cambridge has a viable system and fool outsiders into thinking the Cambridge City Council is a bunch of good guys.
The pitch given to me was that the City Council would defeat the proposal so there is no sense in fighting. Withdraw it.
So the victims get the worst possible result WITHOUT ANY CITY COUNCILORS TO BLAME. By withdrawing the petition, bad city councilors are protected from taking bad votes.
In the responsible way of handling it, just asking for no action, bad city councilors are also protected from taking bad votes, but the petitioners do not have the punishment associated with a withdrawal / defeat.
Instead, the Machine has talked the petitioners into getting the punishment of a defeat WITHOUT A VOTE SHOWING THE BAD GUYS TO BE BAD GUYS.
Would the city council take a vote on its own and give the petitioners the punishment associated with a defeat?
Hell, no. There would be no benefit to the bad members of the city council. The opponents of the petition are able to avoid the scorn which the petitioners would have for them if they took a vote the petitioners sad they did not want and they voted against the petitioners.
A pol would have to be a total fool to force a vote under such a circumstance.
So The Machine has persuaded the petitioners into voluntarily giving themselves the punishment associated with being voted down, WITHOUT HAVING THE BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO POINT OUT IRRESPONSIBLE CITY COUNCILORS.
7. Standard Game — The Script from the Machine.
The running theme of The Machine: “You can trust me, I’m your friend.” Followed by“You can’t win, you can’t win, you can’t win, but have I got a deal for you.”
A very rotten organization.
2. Central Square in Context.
3. The real game — Fool well meaning people into respecting a situation worthy of disgust
4. The details?
5. Defeat versus slumber.
6. The Machine con — withdraw, withdraw, withdraw.
7. Standard Game — The Script from the Machine.
1. The Cambridge Machine has, apparently, fooled a bunch of zoning petitioners into doing exactly the wrong thing with their petition.
They have fooled them into withdrawing the petition, thus preventing further consideration for two years.
The smart thing is to simply let it die from inaction. Then you can refile at will.
2. Central Square in Context.
I avoid commenting about strictly in town Cambridge, MA machinations and concentrate on the attacks on the environment, almost all of which are general attacks on the environment. The rottenness of the situation in Cambridge is a key part of the destructiveness, but it is ancillary to whichever outrage they are pulling this time.
Thus, while I have had various approaches on various con games, I have not bothered spending my time on the con games on the blog unless the games are clearly of general interest. The nonsense going on in Central Square and Kendall Square fall into the category of: So what.
3. The real game — Fool well meaning people into respecting a situation worthy of disgust.
The Machine defines the parameters so that the victims think that what is going on in Cambridge is worthy of respect. That is the most important function of the company union, to give credibility to a pretty much non stop outrage and to fool well meaning people into thinking that the City Manager’s organization and the Cambridge City Council are worthy of respect.
It does not matter what the Machine claims to be doing, what matters is that the system is drilled into folks as something to respect, and that people are given the idea that THEY LOVE THE MACHINE.
4. The details?
I was approached during, I guess, the drafting of a zoning proposal for areas on the edges of Central Square. I asked a lot of questions and I communicated my lack of confidence in the Machine’s front behind the supposed proposal because of the very clear Machine participation. The details are irrelevant. The most important factors, after giving credibility to the Cambridge Administration and City Council are to fool people into thinking The Machine is worthy of Respect.
I offended the sensibilities of the “activists” and I did not want anything to do with them anyway. I am concerned with reality.
5. Defeat versus slumber.
The Cambridge Chronicle reported this week that Susan Yanow was in the process of withdrawing the Susan Yanow Petition, the workproduct of the Machine and its friends.
After checking and ensuring I had no contact information for Yanow, I immediately contacted a friend who is involved in the effort.
I communicated reality, a very bad thing to try with somebody under the control of The Machine.
Zoning initiatives have a life of their own, all spelled out in Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Machine has no use for Chapter 40A. Their reality is whatever their controllers tell them is reality.
A very key provision in chapter 40A concerns withdrawal of a petition. It says that withdrawal is the same as a defeat and bars consideration of the matter again for two years.
How do you get around it? You tell the city council you will not push the matter and, please forget about it. About six months or so after it is filed it goes into a state of limbo from which it cannot be resuscitated except by reinitiating the petition.
But you can resuscitate it and you can file a similar petition containing a lot of the same provisions, all with no problem.
You just do not withdraw it.
6. The Machine con — withdraw, withdraw, withdraw.
The Machine has informed the petitioners that they cannot win. So the Machine has advised the petitioners to do exactly the wrong thing. Withdraw the petition and have the punishment associated with a defeat without actually suffering a defeat.
The cause is given the worst possible treatment and no member of the City Council can be blamed, because the petitioners stabbed themselves in the back.
The Machine achieves its goals. It has fooled a bun ch of people into thinking the Machine is their friend and the Machine has achieved their real objectives. Fool those people into thinking the City of Cambridge has a viable system and fool outsiders into thinking the Cambridge City Council is a bunch of good guys.
The pitch given to me was that the City Council would defeat the proposal so there is no sense in fighting. Withdraw it.
So the victims get the worst possible result WITHOUT ANY CITY COUNCILORS TO BLAME. By withdrawing the petition, bad city councilors are protected from taking bad votes.
In the responsible way of handling it, just asking for no action, bad city councilors are also protected from taking bad votes, but the petitioners do not have the punishment associated with a withdrawal / defeat.
Instead, the Machine has talked the petitioners into getting the punishment of a defeat WITHOUT A VOTE SHOWING THE BAD GUYS TO BE BAD GUYS.
Would the city council take a vote on its own and give the petitioners the punishment associated with a defeat?
Hell, no. There would be no benefit to the bad members of the city council. The opponents of the petition are able to avoid the scorn which the petitioners would have for them if they took a vote the petitioners sad they did not want and they voted against the petitioners.
A pol would have to be a total fool to force a vote under such a circumstance.
So The Machine has persuaded the petitioners into voluntarily giving themselves the punishment associated with being voted down, WITHOUT HAVING THE BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO POINT OUT IRRESPONSIBLE CITY COUNCILORS.
7. Standard Game — The Script from the Machine.
The running theme of The Machine: “You can trust me, I’m your friend.” Followed by“You can’t win, you can’t win, you can’t win, but have I got a deal for you.”
A very rotten organization.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Response to Cambridge Chronicle’s praise for the Machine on the Charles River, Concise description of the Cambridge Machine
1. General.
2. Letter to the Editor.
3. Concise description of the Cambridge, MA, USA Machine.
1. General.
In the Thursday, October 20, 2012, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle, and on line, the Chronicle did a puff piece misrepresenting the actions of the Cambridge Machine at Magazine Beach as helpful to Magazine Beach.
I offered a response in a letter to the editor.
2. Letter to the Editor.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I was fascinated by your front page report on The Machine’s discovery of Magazine Beach. The front organization stands for one good thing which it brags about. It stands for many bad things which it keeps as secret as possible.
They fight for the destruction of the parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street. It is needed by little people who picnic in that area. Their explanation translates: How dare you fight destroying the parking lot. We don’t have the money yet. You might beat us.
There are very serious problems at Magazine Beach. Those problems have been created by the misbehavior of Cambridge and the State during 13 years of irresponsible destruction and animal abuse. The machine’s history of Magazine Beach does not include the last 13 years.
By telling people to look at everything else they:
• Are fighting for the continued deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese whose food for most of the last 32 years has been forcibly taken from them.
• Are fighting to keep poisons being dumped on the playing fields to keep alive sickly introduced grass which replaces healthy environmentally responsible grass they needlessly destroyed. The destroyed grass continues to survive next to the parking lot they now want to destroy.
• Are fighting to keep the playing fields smaller than they should be. Massive areas have been converted to drainage to drain off the poisons needlessly being dumped there.
• Are fighting to keep Magazine Beach walled off from the Charles River with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which has never been explained. Vegetation next to the Charles elsewhere is destroyed twice a year.
• Are fighting to keep the boat dock closed.
• Are fighting to keep yet another massive wall of bushes being built in the tiny area to which they have confined the Charles River White Geese by their bizarre machinations.
The machine at Magazine Beach is copying its successful tactics at Alewife.
The Machine spent 14 years claiming to defend Alewife. They succeeded in destroying acres of Alewife for a “flood control” project which cannot be achieved by their destruction but which can be done under the parking lot across the street. They have killed hundred of resident animals. They are working for perhaps total destruction.
The game is the same: yell about everything else. Ignore their friends’ outrageous behavior.
The Machine always sounds great. Reality commonly is the opposite.
3. Concise description of the Cambridge, MA, USA Machine.
The concept of the Machine which established itself around James Leo Sullivan and Robert Healy is that of a company union. The Machine has been very effective as a company union and has shown itself to be an excellent example of the reason why true Unionists have contempt for company unions.
The idea of a company union is to prevent real organization and possibly get some bad stuff done in the process.
Company unions step into a void and fill that void, rottenly, preventing action that needs to be done.
I recently published a taste of this in my remembrance report for James Leo Sullivan, published at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/first-half-of-cambridge-ma-usa-city.html.
2. Letter to the Editor.
3. Concise description of the Cambridge, MA, USA Machine.
1. General.
In the Thursday, October 20, 2012, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle, and on line, the Chronicle did a puff piece misrepresenting the actions of the Cambridge Machine at Magazine Beach as helpful to Magazine Beach.
I offered a response in a letter to the editor.
2. Letter to the Editor.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I was fascinated by your front page report on The Machine’s discovery of Magazine Beach. The front organization stands for one good thing which it brags about. It stands for many bad things which it keeps as secret as possible.
They fight for the destruction of the parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street. It is needed by little people who picnic in that area. Their explanation translates: How dare you fight destroying the parking lot. We don’t have the money yet. You might beat us.
There are very serious problems at Magazine Beach. Those problems have been created by the misbehavior of Cambridge and the State during 13 years of irresponsible destruction and animal abuse. The machine’s history of Magazine Beach does not include the last 13 years.
By telling people to look at everything else they:
• Are fighting for the continued deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese whose food for most of the last 32 years has been forcibly taken from them.
• Are fighting to keep poisons being dumped on the playing fields to keep alive sickly introduced grass which replaces healthy environmentally responsible grass they needlessly destroyed. The destroyed grass continues to survive next to the parking lot they now want to destroy.
• Are fighting to keep the playing fields smaller than they should be. Massive areas have been converted to drainage to drain off the poisons needlessly being dumped there.
• Are fighting to keep Magazine Beach walled off from the Charles River with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which has never been explained. Vegetation next to the Charles elsewhere is destroyed twice a year.
• Are fighting to keep the boat dock closed.
• Are fighting to keep yet another massive wall of bushes being built in the tiny area to which they have confined the Charles River White Geese by their bizarre machinations.
The machine at Magazine Beach is copying its successful tactics at Alewife.
The Machine spent 14 years claiming to defend Alewife. They succeeded in destroying acres of Alewife for a “flood control” project which cannot be achieved by their destruction but which can be done under the parking lot across the street. They have killed hundred of resident animals. They are working for perhaps total destruction.
The game is the same: yell about everything else. Ignore their friends’ outrageous behavior.
The Machine always sounds great. Reality commonly is the opposite.
3. Concise description of the Cambridge, MA, USA Machine.
The concept of the Machine which established itself around James Leo Sullivan and Robert Healy is that of a company union. The Machine has been very effective as a company union and has shown itself to be an excellent example of the reason why true Unionists have contempt for company unions.
The idea of a company union is to prevent real organization and possibly get some bad stuff done in the process.
Company unions step into a void and fill that void, rottenly, preventing action that needs to be done.
I recently published a taste of this in my remembrance report for James Leo Sullivan, published at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/first-half-of-cambridge-ma-usa-city.html.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Harvard University announces more detail on its Allston expansion
Today’s (October 19, 2012) Harvard Gazette provided a link to Harvard’s announcement concerning its filing yesterday of plans for its expansion in the Allston neighborhood of Boston, MA.
Allston is located on the south side of the Charles River from the area in Cambridge, MA we have most discussed. The future Harvard Medical School relocation two blocks south of the main site shown appears to be key in the worst environmental destruction going on.
Here are two maps from the report, one an apparent satellite view, the other more detailed. Full explanations are at the link below.
The street going through the middle of the main area shown leads directly to Harvard Square and the main Harvard University campus, on the north side of the Charles River.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/10/paperwork-for-a-new-future/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10.19.12%2520%281%29.
Allston is located on the south side of the Charles River from the area in Cambridge, MA we have most discussed. The future Harvard Medical School relocation two blocks south of the main site shown appears to be key in the worst environmental destruction going on.
Here are two maps from the report, one an apparent satellite view, the other more detailed. Full explanations are at the link below.
The street going through the middle of the main area shown leads directly to Harvard Square and the main Harvard University campus, on the north side of the Charles River.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/10/paperwork-for-a-new-future/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10.19.12%2520%281%29.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Cambridge City Council Documentation: Environmental Destruction and Heartless Animal Abuse at Magazine Beach Playing Fields
1. General.
2. July 30, 2007 vote.
3. February 27, 2006 vote.
4. September 13, 2004 vote.
1. General.
I have done more study on the City Clerk’s records.
I find the following three votes since the City started saving these on line as votes of the City Council in May 2003. Copying is a pain. There are some formatting differences here from the originals.
Links are provided in each case.
There are votes, to my memory, under the City Manager’s communications concerning games with funding, moving money from a category which is more blatant than they would like to a category which sounds less irresponsible.
They could have happened before May 2003. They could be findable under the computer records.
I am calling it a day.
2. July 30, 2007 vote.
O-23
IN CITY COUNCIL
July 30, 2007
COUNCILLOR DAVIS
COUNCILLOR DECKER
COUNCILLOR GALLUCCIO
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR MURPHY
MAYOR REEVES
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SULLIVAN
VICE MAYOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Cambridge Legislative Delegation about the status of the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.
July 30, 2007
Adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members.
Attest:- D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
A true copy;
ATTEST:-
D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?action=search&item_id=18789
3. February 27, 2006 vote.
O-43
AMENDED ORDER IN CITY COUNCIL
February 27, 2006
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SULLIVAN
COUNCILLOR DAVIS
COUNCILLOR DECKER
COUNCILLOR GALLUCCIO
COUNCILLOR MURPHY
MAYOR REEVES
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR TOOMEY ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments as well as the Department of Conservation and Recreation to develop an update on the status of ongoing work at Magazine Beach; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.
In City Council February 27, 2006
Adopted as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members.
Attest:- D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
A true copy;
ATTEST:-
D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?action=search&item_id=10226
[Ed. The unamended order is linked.]
4. September 13, 2004 vote.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation using money from the Cambridge City Council started heartlessly starving the Charles River White Geese in September 2004.
The following vote shows on the record:
************
O-14
IN CITY COUNCIL
September 13, 2004
COUNCILLOR DAVIS
VICE MAYOR DECKER
COUNCILLOR GALLUCCIO
COUNCILLOR MAHER
COUNCILLOR MURPHY
COUNCILLOR REEVES
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR SULLIVAN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the maintenance and improvement issues at Magazine Beach.
September 13, 2004
Adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members.
Attest:- D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
A true copy;
ATTEST:-
D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?action=search&item_id=4382
2. July 30, 2007 vote.
3. February 27, 2006 vote.
4. September 13, 2004 vote.
1. General.
I have done more study on the City Clerk’s records.
I find the following three votes since the City started saving these on line as votes of the City Council in May 2003. Copying is a pain. There are some formatting differences here from the originals.
Links are provided in each case.
There are votes, to my memory, under the City Manager’s communications concerning games with funding, moving money from a category which is more blatant than they would like to a category which sounds less irresponsible.
They could have happened before May 2003. They could be findable under the computer records.
I am calling it a day.
2. July 30, 2007 vote.
O-23
IN CITY COUNCIL
July 30, 2007
COUNCILLOR DAVIS
COUNCILLOR DECKER
COUNCILLOR GALLUCCIO
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR MURPHY
MAYOR REEVES
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SULLIVAN
VICE MAYOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Cambridge Legislative Delegation about the status of the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.
July 30, 2007
Adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members.
Attest:- D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
A true copy;
ATTEST:-
D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?action=search&item_id=18789
3. February 27, 2006 vote.
O-43
AMENDED ORDER IN CITY COUNCIL
February 27, 2006
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SULLIVAN
COUNCILLOR DAVIS
COUNCILLOR DECKER
COUNCILLOR GALLUCCIO
COUNCILLOR MURPHY
MAYOR REEVES
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR TOOMEY ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments as well as the Department of Conservation and Recreation to develop an update on the status of ongoing work at Magazine Beach; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.
In City Council February 27, 2006
Adopted as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members.
Attest:- D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
A true copy;
ATTEST:-
D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?action=search&item_id=10226
[Ed. The unamended order is linked.]
4. September 13, 2004 vote.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation using money from the Cambridge City Council started heartlessly starving the Charles River White Geese in September 2004.
The following vote shows on the record:
************
O-14
IN CITY COUNCIL
September 13, 2004
COUNCILLOR DAVIS
VICE MAYOR DECKER
COUNCILLOR GALLUCCIO
COUNCILLOR MAHER
COUNCILLOR MURPHY
COUNCILLOR REEVES
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR SULLIVAN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the maintenance and improvement issues at Magazine Beach.
September 13, 2004
Adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members.
Attest:- D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
A true copy;
ATTEST:-
D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?action=search&item_id=4382
Reality and the con games from the Cambridge, MA, USA Political Machine: Magazine Beach destruction
1. General, personal knowledge.
2. City Manager report, October 17, 2012.
3. City Manager Report, May 22, 2006.
4. City Manager Report, December 20, 2004.
5. Awaiting Reports.
1. General, personal knowledge.
We have gotten the usual con game from the Cambridge Machine. This time from Person 3.
Now they are denying that Cambridge had anything to do with the environmental outrage and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach.
I have posted a quote from Kathy Podgers stating that she was actively involved in fighting Cambridge’s outrage at Magazine Beach.
I have gone back through the City Clerk’s on line records and pulled out a few reports from the Cambridge City Manager. The good on line records only date back to May 2003. Hard copies can be obtained way back if you go through the bother.
The reality is that I was present for the key vote in the last meeting of 1999, in which the Cambridge City Council voted to spend about $1.5 million on environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse at the Magazine Beach playing fields in exchange for control of use of the Magazine Beach playing fields.
The vote was unanimous. One of the destructive people voting for the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse currently anchors news at New England Cable News. I am a strong watcher of New England Cable News, but I cannot stomach his false impression of sainthood. I do not watch him.
In our discussions in 1999, he repeatedly jerked tears about how much his kids loved the Charles River White Geese. I have no knowledge if he informed his kids of his paying for heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
The following are copied from the City Clerk’s records since May 2003. I probably missed a lot. Relevant links are provided.
2. City Manager report, October 17, 2012.
September 17, 2007
To the Honorable, the City Council:
In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-95, regarding a report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:
We were informed on September 11, 2007 by Richard Corsi from the DCR that the bid package for Magazine Beach was delayed once again, due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system, which required further review and revisions to the drawings. He anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out for bids in mid-October of 2007. This latest delay will result in a construction delay, thus the field will not be renovated in time for next year’s Little League season. No projected completion date was provided.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
RWH/mec
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/cmLetter.cfm?action=search&item_id=10685
3. City Manager Report, May 22, 2006.
May 22, 2006
To the Honorable, the City Council:
In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-23, regarding a report on ongoing work at Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:
The reconstruction of the stormwater outfall at Magazine Beach is substantially complete. The contractor is presently completing the “punch list” work on the isolation structure. Once this work is complete, work with then begin on the shoreline restoration. All work should be completed by the end of July.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
RWH/mec
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/cmLetter.cfm?action=search&item_id=7467
4. City Manager Report, December 20, 2004.
December 20, 2004
To the Honorable, the City Council:
Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 04-78, regarding a report on the maintenance and improvement issues at Magazine Beach, received from Department of Conservation and Recreation Commissioner Katherine F. Abbott.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
RWH/mec
Attachment(s)
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/cmLetter.cfm?action=search&item_id=3418
5. Awaiting Reports.
Awaiting reports is a list of items the City Council has asked from the Cambridge City Manager.
I find five such items listed in a search result but the actual items searched for do not seem to be linked. Two of these items concern the Magazine Beach pool. I found corresponding reports in the above search but they do not seem to be directly relevant. In this case, since I do not seem to be able to get the documents, I am providing the list which came up.
The list:
October 5, 2009; Awaiting Report 09-62
Report from the City Manager:
report on keeping the Magazine Beach pool opened.
September 17, 2007; Awaiting Report 07-95
Report from the City Manager:
report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach.
May 22, 2006; Awaiting Report 06-23
Report from the City Manager:
report on ongoing work at Magazine Beach.
January 10, 2005; Awaiting Report 04-58
Report from the City Manager:
report on what it would cost the City to purchase the MDC pool at Magazine Beach.
December 20, 2004; Awaiting Report 04-78
Report from the City Manager:
report on the maintenance and improvement issues at Magazine Beach.
2. City Manager report, October 17, 2012.
3. City Manager Report, May 22, 2006.
4. City Manager Report, December 20, 2004.
5. Awaiting Reports.
1. General, personal knowledge.
We have gotten the usual con game from the Cambridge Machine. This time from Person 3.
Now they are denying that Cambridge had anything to do with the environmental outrage and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach.
I have posted a quote from Kathy Podgers stating that she was actively involved in fighting Cambridge’s outrage at Magazine Beach.
I have gone back through the City Clerk’s on line records and pulled out a few reports from the Cambridge City Manager. The good on line records only date back to May 2003. Hard copies can be obtained way back if you go through the bother.
The reality is that I was present for the key vote in the last meeting of 1999, in which the Cambridge City Council voted to spend about $1.5 million on environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse at the Magazine Beach playing fields in exchange for control of use of the Magazine Beach playing fields.
The vote was unanimous. One of the destructive people voting for the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse currently anchors news at New England Cable News. I am a strong watcher of New England Cable News, but I cannot stomach his false impression of sainthood. I do not watch him.
In our discussions in 1999, he repeatedly jerked tears about how much his kids loved the Charles River White Geese. I have no knowledge if he informed his kids of his paying for heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
The following are copied from the City Clerk’s records since May 2003. I probably missed a lot. Relevant links are provided.
2. City Manager report, October 17, 2012.
September 17, 2007
To the Honorable, the City Council:
In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 07-95, regarding a report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:
We were informed on September 11, 2007 by Richard Corsi from the DCR that the bid package for Magazine Beach was delayed once again, due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system, which required further review and revisions to the drawings. He anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out for bids in mid-October of 2007. This latest delay will result in a construction delay, thus the field will not be renovated in time for next year’s Little League season. No projected completion date was provided.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
RWH/mec
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/cmLetter.cfm?action=search&item_id=10685
3. City Manager Report, May 22, 2006.
May 22, 2006
To the Honorable, the City Council:
In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-23, regarding a report on ongoing work at Magazine Beach, please be advised of the following:
The reconstruction of the stormwater outfall at Magazine Beach is substantially complete. The contractor is presently completing the “punch list” work on the isolation structure. Once this work is complete, work with then begin on the shoreline restoration. All work should be completed by the end of July.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
RWH/mec
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/cmLetter.cfm?action=search&item_id=7467
4. City Manager Report, December 20, 2004.
December 20, 2004
To the Honorable, the City Council:
Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 04-78, regarding a report on the maintenance and improvement issues at Magazine Beach, received from Department of Conservation and Recreation Commissioner Katherine F. Abbott.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
RWH/mec
Attachment(s)
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/cmLetter.cfm?action=search&item_id=3418
5. Awaiting Reports.
Awaiting reports is a list of items the City Council has asked from the Cambridge City Manager.
I find five such items listed in a search result but the actual items searched for do not seem to be linked. Two of these items concern the Magazine Beach pool. I found corresponding reports in the above search but they do not seem to be directly relevant. In this case, since I do not seem to be able to get the documents, I am providing the list which came up.
The list:
October 5, 2009; Awaiting Report 09-62
Report from the City Manager:
report on keeping the Magazine Beach pool opened.
September 17, 2007; Awaiting Report 07-95
Report from the City Manager:
report on the timeline for refurbishment of Magazine Beach.
May 22, 2006; Awaiting Report 06-23
Report from the City Manager:
report on ongoing work at Magazine Beach.
January 10, 2005; Awaiting Report 04-58
Report from the City Manager:
report on what it would cost the City to purchase the MDC pool at Magazine Beach.
December 20, 2004; Awaiting Report 04-78
Report from the City Manager:
report on the maintenance and improvement issues at Magazine Beach.
Kathy Podgers: Cambridge has spent millions on Magazine Beach
I just posted discussions from the Cambridgeport listserve concerning destruction on Memorial Drive and the Charles River.
One comment, from Person 3 belligerently stated that Cambridge has not spent money on Magazine Beach. I strongly disagreed, calling the report typical of nonsense spouted by the Cambridge Machine.
I passed a link to the report to the Cambridgeport listserve.
Kathy Podgers, today, has posted:
Fact Check: The City of Cambridge has spent millions over the past 10 years on Magazine Beach. I know this, because several years ago, I gathered sigs on a petition, and then Sen Travelini helpet put a stop to the development at that time. Our present Mayor should be able to explain how she wrested these funds from Cambridge taxpayers for a State Park. Since money is fungible, it is silly to claim the ped bridge did not benefit.
One comment, from Person 3 belligerently stated that Cambridge has not spent money on Magazine Beach. I strongly disagreed, calling the report typical of nonsense spouted by the Cambridge Machine.
I passed a link to the report to the Cambridgeport listserve.
Kathy Podgers, today, has posted:
Fact Check: The City of Cambridge has spent millions over the past 10 years on Magazine Beach. I know this, because several years ago, I gathered sigs on a petition, and then Sen Travelini helpet put a stop to the development at that time. Our present Mayor should be able to explain how she wrested these funds from Cambridge taxpayers for a State Park. Since money is fungible, it is silly to claim the ped bridge did not benefit.
Magazine Beach pedestrian bridge in the context of massive construction plans being kept secret.
1. Introduction.
2. My Comments, the secret plans, succinctly.
3. Nice response.
A. Person 1.
B. Your Editor.
4. How do things fit in?
A. Person 2.
B. Your editor.
C. Satellite / Aerial Photo.
5. Person parroting a standard Machine con.
A. Person 3.
B. Your Editor.
6. Harvard’s Medical School Relocation.
1. Introduction.
Yesterday, October 16, 2012, the Cambridgeport listserve had a lot of discussion concerning the condition of the newly reconstructed pedestrian bridge connecting the playing fields to the neighborhood over Memorial Drive.
This is the sort of thing the Machine loves to discuss. It gives the impression that they are in favor of responsible behavior at Magazine Beach without the substance.
I commented trying to put things in perspective and got three responses, one nice, one thought provoking, and one passing on the standard nonsense from the machine. The listserve only allows one communication per day. So I could not respond on the listserve. Thus I responded to each writer and, copied the previous recipients on subsequent responses.
I can still only pass one response to the listserve and, if I try more than one, will run up against the rule against longe communications.
So here is the exchange, deleting the names of the other folks.
I am adding one comment at the end that I sort of regretted not including in the second very long response.
There is a lot of related matter on the blog. I do not know if I will add links or not.
2. My Comments, the secret plans, succinctly.
The reason for keeping out the traffic light is the same reason, never stated, for destroying the parking lot at the light.
The idea is to get traffic moving fast enough to make this an alternative to Storrow Drive and to allow Mass. Pike traffic over the Grand Junction Bridge. Harvard bought the Mass. Pike exit months after the MBTA proved an off ramp could be built from the Mass. Pike over the rail bridge. A little while later, modifications were made to the turnpike that make the Grand Junction useable for traffic in both directions.
As I recall the position of the "Magazine Beach activists" on the destruction of that parking lot is the same as their position on the 13 years of destruction and animal abuse at the playing fields. They do not want to talk about it. When pushed, the explanation for destroying the parking lot is not to worry, they do not have the money yet. What happens when they get the money, why they destroy the parking lot without further ado. Destroying that parking lot is very clearly part of the "renovations" in that area, but destroying the parking lot has never been explained.
There is a reason. The same as not allowing the traffic light.
3. Nice response.
A. Person 1.
Thanks for the long view, as it is easy to form opinions without the history or full impact of the actions of the disjointed community.
As tax payer's who contributes to the $450 million yearly budget with over a billion dollars in debt city - I want to remind folks that we have 9 city councilor's making over $70,000 a year with full benefits and pensions who job it is to keep us informed and to build a strong community a city manager who makes almost as much as President Obama and three times what Gov. Dpatrick makes. We have a Community Maintenance and Development Budget of close to $100 million dollars and I see less trees, less maintenance and very little community development - not buildings but good ole consensus among neighborhoods.
IMHO,
B. Your Editor.
It is amazing how many different things come together in that part of the Charles River. And how much discussion is prevented.
Thank you for the nice comment.
4. How do things fit in?
A. Person 2.
Bob,
That is interesting: I have kept up somewhat on the Grand Junction issues over the years, including the Mass Pike exit connecting to the railroad bridge modified for vehicular use, but had not heard that it is being actively pursued. Do you know what the current plans are for the vehicles after crossing the river, other than to access Memorial Drive? Is any kind of road along the overall "Inner Belt" route being seriously reconsidered for example? Also, can you describe the modifications to the Mass Pike that facilitate accessing the railroad bridge?
That does help explain the planned destruction of the semi-circle parking drive next to the pool. Removing the drive is not in the best interest of Magazine Beach, the neighborhood, or the City; as it serves a legacy of weekend picnicking families, and will further support current efforts to further activate Magazine Beach and make it more of a destination along the Charles River park. I do not agree with the idea that the parking lot on the other side of the pool (next to the boathouse) serves the same purpose; the convenience of the semi-circle drive greatly increases the appeal of using the picnic area, my guess is it is a 'tipping point' difference between the two lots.
B. Your editor.
Thank you for your astute comments. Because of limits of one posting per day, I cannot copy to the listserve.
There are lots of items of evidence.
Hundreds of trees are proposed to be destroyed on Memorial Drive to straighten it out. Among other things, the excellent grove of trees at the split would be decimated along with many major trees on the median. The DCR tried to get Obama moneys for this destruction lying that all the trees were diseased. The papers they filed with Cambridge proved that to be a lie. The trees they, and Cambridge, and MIT, want destroyed are all excellent. The prior phase of destruction destroyed the bad trees.
The work in the connector street from Granite to Waverly, the Waverly connector, had vegetation plans included but not yet implemented. The tree plantings were very extensive, but had gaps to allow connection from a new highway on the railroad right of way so that traffic could travel from the Grand Junction off ramp through the Waverly Connector to Memorial Drive and the BU Bridge. There has been a rendering showing a ramp from the Rail Bridge northbound through the woods east of the grand junction to Memorial Drive east.
The DCR's detailed tree destruction plans for the Memorial Drive destruction show a lot of existing trees, but show, I believe, one tree on that hillside.
The various "bike paths" and the bus highway plans associated with the Urban Ring bus phase join in the building up of the area to assist an eventual off ramp. The City Manager's refusal to recognize the existence of one of the Urban Ring rail plans exactly fits determination to build up this area. I provided the City Council with a detailed analysis of this continuing lie, and have posted it on the Charles River White Geese blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-grand-junction-railroad-subway.html. That will link to the official copy.
I would be interested in seeing exactly what the numbers are on that new overpass as opposed to the one which was destroyed, to see how that fits in.
C. Satellite / Aerial Photo.
Ed. This aerial / satellite shot is from an ENF in 2006 with my markings.
5. Person parroting a standard Machine con.
A. Person 3.
Oh, please.
Neither Magazine Beach nor the pedestrian bridge are paid for out of city funds, they are state controlled entities. Hence, how Cambridge chooses to allocate its resources has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens there.
B. Your Editor.
Cannot copy to the list serve because of the one a day limit.
Succinctly, you are talking nonsense. The DCR does nothing in Cambridge which is not fully coordinated with Cambridge. They shuffle funds back and forth as is politically convenient in producing the lie that the DCR is the bad guy and poor dear Cambridge means so well.
The 13 years of destruction at Magazine Beach and the Nesting Area was juggled in exactly that manner.
Everything is coordinated. Everything is supported by that particular part of the Machine.
An excellent example was a comment by MIT's chief environmental destroyer in an MIT planning meeting.
First he supported the mass tree destruction on Memorial Drive. He may have tossed in the cynical "protection" used by the "Magazine Beach protectors". They do not have the money yet. How dare you try to beat us when you can still keep us from getting the money (English translation).
In the next breath, he praised the leader of this supposed neighborhood protective group for his group's initiatives at Magazine Beach. Damning with praise.
But they do love to praise each other.
6. Harvard’s Medical School Relocation.
Note in the satellite shot above that the now Harvard owned rail yards are, for all practical purposes, directly across the Charles River from Magazine Beach.
As part of getting transportation for the moving of its Medical School to the railroad track area, Harvard has proposed “deep bore” construction of a subway spur from Harvard Station through the Medical School Area to a “Bus” Tunnel being proposed as part of Urban Ring “Bus” planning in support of the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area.
This would allow students at the relocated Harvard Medical School direct contact between the hospitals where they are being trained and the formal academic buildings. Harvard Medical School, in these long term projections, is the logical location for expansion of Harvard / Longwood Hospitals.
2. My Comments, the secret plans, succinctly.
3. Nice response.
A. Person 1.
B. Your Editor.
4. How do things fit in?
A. Person 2.
B. Your editor.
C. Satellite / Aerial Photo.
5. Person parroting a standard Machine con.
A. Person 3.
B. Your Editor.
6. Harvard’s Medical School Relocation.
1. Introduction.
Yesterday, October 16, 2012, the Cambridgeport listserve had a lot of discussion concerning the condition of the newly reconstructed pedestrian bridge connecting the playing fields to the neighborhood over Memorial Drive.
This is the sort of thing the Machine loves to discuss. It gives the impression that they are in favor of responsible behavior at Magazine Beach without the substance.
I commented trying to put things in perspective and got three responses, one nice, one thought provoking, and one passing on the standard nonsense from the machine. The listserve only allows one communication per day. So I could not respond on the listserve. Thus I responded to each writer and, copied the previous recipients on subsequent responses.
I can still only pass one response to the listserve and, if I try more than one, will run up against the rule against longe communications.
So here is the exchange, deleting the names of the other folks.
I am adding one comment at the end that I sort of regretted not including in the second very long response.
There is a lot of related matter on the blog. I do not know if I will add links or not.
2. My Comments, the secret plans, succinctly.
The reason for keeping out the traffic light is the same reason, never stated, for destroying the parking lot at the light.
The idea is to get traffic moving fast enough to make this an alternative to Storrow Drive and to allow Mass. Pike traffic over the Grand Junction Bridge. Harvard bought the Mass. Pike exit months after the MBTA proved an off ramp could be built from the Mass. Pike over the rail bridge. A little while later, modifications were made to the turnpike that make the Grand Junction useable for traffic in both directions.
As I recall the position of the "Magazine Beach activists" on the destruction of that parking lot is the same as their position on the 13 years of destruction and animal abuse at the playing fields. They do not want to talk about it. When pushed, the explanation for destroying the parking lot is not to worry, they do not have the money yet. What happens when they get the money, why they destroy the parking lot without further ado. Destroying that parking lot is very clearly part of the "renovations" in that area, but destroying the parking lot has never been explained.
There is a reason. The same as not allowing the traffic light.
3. Nice response.
A. Person 1.
Thanks for the long view, as it is easy to form opinions without the history or full impact of the actions of the disjointed community.
As tax payer's who contributes to the $450 million yearly budget with over a billion dollars in debt city - I want to remind folks that we have 9 city councilor's making over $70,000 a year with full benefits and pensions who job it is to keep us informed and to build a strong community a city manager who makes almost as much as President Obama and three times what Gov. Dpatrick makes. We have a Community Maintenance and Development Budget of close to $100 million dollars and I see less trees, less maintenance and very little community development - not buildings but good ole consensus among neighborhoods.
IMHO,
B. Your Editor.
It is amazing how many different things come together in that part of the Charles River. And how much discussion is prevented.
Thank you for the nice comment.
4. How do things fit in?
A. Person 2.
Bob,
That is interesting: I have kept up somewhat on the Grand Junction issues over the years, including the Mass Pike exit connecting to the railroad bridge modified for vehicular use, but had not heard that it is being actively pursued. Do you know what the current plans are for the vehicles after crossing the river, other than to access Memorial Drive? Is any kind of road along the overall "Inner Belt" route being seriously reconsidered for example? Also, can you describe the modifications to the Mass Pike that facilitate accessing the railroad bridge?
That does help explain the planned destruction of the semi-circle parking drive next to the pool. Removing the drive is not in the best interest of Magazine Beach, the neighborhood, or the City; as it serves a legacy of weekend picnicking families, and will further support current efforts to further activate Magazine Beach and make it more of a destination along the Charles River park. I do not agree with the idea that the parking lot on the other side of the pool (next to the boathouse) serves the same purpose; the convenience of the semi-circle drive greatly increases the appeal of using the picnic area, my guess is it is a 'tipping point' difference between the two lots.
B. Your editor.
Thank you for your astute comments. Because of limits of one posting per day, I cannot copy to the listserve.
There are lots of items of evidence.
Hundreds of trees are proposed to be destroyed on Memorial Drive to straighten it out. Among other things, the excellent grove of trees at the split would be decimated along with many major trees on the median. The DCR tried to get Obama moneys for this destruction lying that all the trees were diseased. The papers they filed with Cambridge proved that to be a lie. The trees they, and Cambridge, and MIT, want destroyed are all excellent. The prior phase of destruction destroyed the bad trees.
The work in the connector street from Granite to Waverly, the Waverly connector, had vegetation plans included but not yet implemented. The tree plantings were very extensive, but had gaps to allow connection from a new highway on the railroad right of way so that traffic could travel from the Grand Junction off ramp through the Waverly Connector to Memorial Drive and the BU Bridge. There has been a rendering showing a ramp from the Rail Bridge northbound through the woods east of the grand junction to Memorial Drive east.
The DCR's detailed tree destruction plans for the Memorial Drive destruction show a lot of existing trees, but show, I believe, one tree on that hillside.
The various "bike paths" and the bus highway plans associated with the Urban Ring bus phase join in the building up of the area to assist an eventual off ramp. The City Manager's refusal to recognize the existence of one of the Urban Ring rail plans exactly fits determination to build up this area. I provided the City Council with a detailed analysis of this continuing lie, and have posted it on the Charles River White Geese blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-grand-junction-railroad-subway.html. That will link to the official copy.
I would be interested in seeing exactly what the numbers are on that new overpass as opposed to the one which was destroyed, to see how that fits in.
C. Satellite / Aerial Photo.
Ed. This aerial / satellite shot is from an ENF in 2006 with my markings.
5. Person parroting a standard Machine con.
A. Person 3.
Oh, please.
Neither Magazine Beach nor the pedestrian bridge are paid for out of city funds, they are state controlled entities. Hence, how Cambridge chooses to allocate its resources has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens there.
B. Your Editor.
Cannot copy to the list serve because of the one a day limit.
Succinctly, you are talking nonsense. The DCR does nothing in Cambridge which is not fully coordinated with Cambridge. They shuffle funds back and forth as is politically convenient in producing the lie that the DCR is the bad guy and poor dear Cambridge means so well.
The 13 years of destruction at Magazine Beach and the Nesting Area was juggled in exactly that manner.
Everything is coordinated. Everything is supported by that particular part of the Machine.
An excellent example was a comment by MIT's chief environmental destroyer in an MIT planning meeting.
First he supported the mass tree destruction on Memorial Drive. He may have tossed in the cynical "protection" used by the "Magazine Beach protectors". They do not have the money yet. How dare you try to beat us when you can still keep us from getting the money (English translation).
In the next breath, he praised the leader of this supposed neighborhood protective group for his group's initiatives at Magazine Beach. Damning with praise.
But they do love to praise each other.
6. Harvard’s Medical School Relocation.
Note in the satellite shot above that the now Harvard owned rail yards are, for all practical purposes, directly across the Charles River from Magazine Beach.
As part of getting transportation for the moving of its Medical School to the railroad track area, Harvard has proposed “deep bore” construction of a subway spur from Harvard Station through the Medical School Area to a “Bus” Tunnel being proposed as part of Urban Ring “Bus” planning in support of the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area.
This would allow students at the relocated Harvard Medical School direct contact between the hospitals where they are being trained and the formal academic buildings. Harvard Medical School, in these long term projections, is the logical location for expansion of Harvard / Longwood Hospitals.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Environmental Nightmare at Magazine Beach / the Destroyed Nesting Area — Report to the Cambridge City Council
1. Magazine Beach Walled off from the Charles River, Phase 1.
2. Prior status at Magazine Beach, the norm everywhere else on the Charles River Basin.
3. Situation at Magazine Beach between phase 1 and phase 2 destruction.
4. Situation at Magazine Beach Phase 2 destruction.
5. Current situation at Destroyed Nesting Area.
6. The lie of improved playing fields.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
The following was addressed to the Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council on August 20. Some typos have been corrected.
All of these items have never been publicly discussed or are exactly the opposite of what has been publicly discussed.
1. Magazine Beach Walled off from the Charles River, Phase 1.
This is the current status of Magazine Beach viewed from the Boston side.
Exactly ZERO public discussion has been allowed as to whether you would close off access between the playing fields and the Charles River. These bushes have grown without limit since you planted them.
The tiny opening used to be a boat dock, but you have blocked access to the boat dock from the Cambridge side.
The state’s manager has bragged that this outrage starves the Charles River White Geese by keeping them out of their home, their feeding grounds since 1981.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” conducted a media event bragging that this outrage assists swimming in the Charles.
The second picture shows the same opening from the Cambridge side. Vegetation on the Boston side is small bushes on a steep incline. The Cambridge side is flat. Obstructions to vehicle access to this light and previously unnecessary bridge can be seen just in front of the camera.
2. Prior status at Magazine Beach, the norm everywhere else on the Charles River Basin.
This is a photo of the area just to the west of Magazine Beach.
Cambridge is on the far side of the Charles River. The reddish structure appears to be the Magazine Beach pool.
At the river’s edge in Cambridge is native vegetation which is normal on the Charles River.
I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission express shock at destruction of such vegetation on the Boston side because of harm to migratory waterfowl. Destruction is commonly done by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” as agent for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
During the period the CRC has worked for the DCR pretty much all native ground vegetation between the BU Boathouse has been destroyed and does not regrow, indicating a likelihood of poisoning.
Native vegetation bordering the Charles River is commonly destroyed twice a year. The vegetation shown on the Cambridge side is a continuation of and very similar to the native vegetation at the playing fields destroyed as part of the playing fields project. The bizarre introduced wall which replaced the native vegetation at Magazine Beach is never trimmed.
The small size of the bushes on the Boston side of the Charles is clear in this photo. The wooden structure is Soldiers Field Road’s guard rail separating pedestrians and bicyclists from the bushes and from the steep incline on the Boston side on which they grow. The distance to the Charles River, horizontally, is small. Vertically, the distance is larger. The bases of the Boston trees, I should think, are a fair distance below the highway.
3. Situation at Magazine Beach between phase 1 and phase 2 destruction.
On planting the outrage blocking off Magazine Beach from the water, you left an opening at the destroyed boat dock through which the Charles River White Geese entered and fed. This photo was taken by an MWRA official in 2006.
The vegetation to the right is the status of that bizarre wall in 2006. Note that in 2006, the boat dock was not accessible. The following is an additional photo from the same event and photographer. It shows the status of that bizarre wall in 2006. The orangish items are likely the destroyed boat dock.
4. Situation at Magazine Beach Phase 2 destruction.
The Cambridge Administration and its friends were offended that the Charles River White Geese could get food by walking through the destroyed dock. In phase 2 you created a second wall to prevent entrance through the destroyed boat dock, of course never explained or even publicized. This is the current situation. All access to food is blocked.
The barriers have not been moved from the prior photo. The artificial bridge is unchanged as well. It is on the far side and left of the trash bin.
5. Current situation at Destroyed Nesting Area.
You have confined the Charles River White Geese to the area east of the BU Bridge. Your intended starvation has been prevented by volunteers feeding them.
This year you / your friends introduced bushes into the area where, for most of the last more than 30 years, the Charles River White Geese have made most of their nests.
I would suggest you compare these photos to the photos of the impenetrable wall in 2006, the second and third preceding photos.
This is also the area where the small vehicle highway is intended to go after crossing under Memorial Drive.
The grey areas look like they are intended small vehicle highways.
6. The lie of improved playing fields.
Another totally unannounced change by you came in your destruction of grass which had been in the playing fields for the better part of a century and its replacement with sickly grass which cannot survive without poisons.
You did not destroy the grass on the top of the hill to the west which is the same as the grass you casually destroyed.
The sickly stuff needs poisons to survive. You destroyed major portions of the playing fields to drain off these poisons “needed” only to keep alive sickly grass which should not have been introduced in the first place.
These are photos from 2010.
This is only part of the playing fields which you have destroyed to drain off poisons to keep alive sickly grass which should not even be there.
To look at the grass you destroyed on the playing fields, go to the hillside just to the west. You did not destroy that portion of the grass. It is still there, thriving without poisons.
The solution is simple. Stop spending money on poisons. Start spending money on the healthy grass you destroyed. When the healthy grass is returned, fill in the drainage ditches and get back the playing fields you used to have.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
This report was submitted a few weeks ago to the Cambridge City Council as an appendix to my letter objecting to plans to attack the Charles River White Geese and other resident animals by destroying their tiny remaining urban wild by ringing the main portion with a new highway and splitting it off from the adjacent urban wild with a fence.
In this printing, I have cleaned up presentation of the plans (computer problem off line), and corrected one distressing typo.
The Cambridge City Clerk’s posting of the letter may be seen as appendix 3 at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/LaTremouille%20com.pdf.
The rather clear pattern of dishonesty on this matter very much fits the large scale existence of “independent” organizations with interlocking friendships to the Cambridge Administration. My report on the passing of the first of the City of Cambridge’s City Manager regency went into massive environmental destruction with such a group in the middle of it.
The situation has simply gotten much more massive and more destructive since then.
1. Magazine Beach Walled off from the Charles River, Phase 1.
2. Prior status at Magazine Beach, the norm everywhere else on the Charles River Basin.
3. Situation at Magazine Beach between phase 1 and phase 2 destruction.
4. Situation at Magazine Beach Phase 2 destruction.
5. Current situation at Destroyed Nesting Area.
6. The lie of improved playing fields.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
The following was addressed to the Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council on August 20. Some typos have been corrected.
All of these items have never been publicly discussed or are exactly the opposite of what has been publicly discussed.
1. Magazine Beach Walled off from the Charles River, Phase 1.
This is the current status of Magazine Beach viewed from the Boston side.
Exactly ZERO public discussion has been allowed as to whether you would close off access between the playing fields and the Charles River. These bushes have grown without limit since you planted them.
The tiny opening used to be a boat dock, but you have blocked access to the boat dock from the Cambridge side.
The state’s manager has bragged that this outrage starves the Charles River White Geese by keeping them out of their home, their feeding grounds since 1981.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” conducted a media event bragging that this outrage assists swimming in the Charles.
The second picture shows the same opening from the Cambridge side. Vegetation on the Boston side is small bushes on a steep incline. The Cambridge side is flat. Obstructions to vehicle access to this light and previously unnecessary bridge can be seen just in front of the camera.
2. Prior status at Magazine Beach, the norm everywhere else on the Charles River Basin.
This is a photo of the area just to the west of Magazine Beach.
Cambridge is on the far side of the Charles River. The reddish structure appears to be the Magazine Beach pool.
At the river’s edge in Cambridge is native vegetation which is normal on the Charles River.
I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission express shock at destruction of such vegetation on the Boston side because of harm to migratory waterfowl. Destruction is commonly done by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” as agent for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
During the period the CRC has worked for the DCR pretty much all native ground vegetation between the BU Boathouse has been destroyed and does not regrow, indicating a likelihood of poisoning.
Native vegetation bordering the Charles River is commonly destroyed twice a year. The vegetation shown on the Cambridge side is a continuation of and very similar to the native vegetation at the playing fields destroyed as part of the playing fields project. The bizarre introduced wall which replaced the native vegetation at Magazine Beach is never trimmed.
The small size of the bushes on the Boston side of the Charles is clear in this photo. The wooden structure is Soldiers Field Road’s guard rail separating pedestrians and bicyclists from the bushes and from the steep incline on the Boston side on which they grow. The distance to the Charles River, horizontally, is small. Vertically, the distance is larger. The bases of the Boston trees, I should think, are a fair distance below the highway.
3. Situation at Magazine Beach between phase 1 and phase 2 destruction.
On planting the outrage blocking off Magazine Beach from the water, you left an opening at the destroyed boat dock through which the Charles River White Geese entered and fed. This photo was taken by an MWRA official in 2006.
The vegetation to the right is the status of that bizarre wall in 2006. Note that in 2006, the boat dock was not accessible. The following is an additional photo from the same event and photographer. It shows the status of that bizarre wall in 2006. The orangish items are likely the destroyed boat dock.
4. Situation at Magazine Beach Phase 2 destruction.
The Cambridge Administration and its friends were offended that the Charles River White Geese could get food by walking through the destroyed dock. In phase 2 you created a second wall to prevent entrance through the destroyed boat dock, of course never explained or even publicized. This is the current situation. All access to food is blocked.
The barriers have not been moved from the prior photo. The artificial bridge is unchanged as well. It is on the far side and left of the trash bin.
5. Current situation at Destroyed Nesting Area.
You have confined the Charles River White Geese to the area east of the BU Bridge. Your intended starvation has been prevented by volunteers feeding them.
This year you / your friends introduced bushes into the area where, for most of the last more than 30 years, the Charles River White Geese have made most of their nests.
I would suggest you compare these photos to the photos of the impenetrable wall in 2006, the second and third preceding photos.
This is also the area where the small vehicle highway is intended to go after crossing under Memorial Drive.
The grey areas look like they are intended small vehicle highways.
6. The lie of improved playing fields.
Another totally unannounced change by you came in your destruction of grass which had been in the playing fields for the better part of a century and its replacement with sickly grass which cannot survive without poisons.
You did not destroy the grass on the top of the hill to the west which is the same as the grass you casually destroyed.
The sickly stuff needs poisons to survive. You destroyed major portions of the playing fields to drain off these poisons “needed” only to keep alive sickly grass which should not have been introduced in the first place.
These are photos from 2010.
This is only part of the playing fields which you have destroyed to drain off poisons to keep alive sickly grass which should not even be there.
To look at the grass you destroyed on the playing fields, go to the hillside just to the west. You did not destroy that portion of the grass. It is still there, thriving without poisons.
The solution is simple. Stop spending money on poisons. Start spending money on the healthy grass you destroyed. When the healthy grass is returned, fill in the drainage ditches and get back the playing fields you used to have.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
This report was submitted a few weeks ago to the Cambridge City Council as an appendix to my letter objecting to plans to attack the Charles River White Geese and other resident animals by destroying their tiny remaining urban wild by ringing the main portion with a new highway and splitting it off from the adjacent urban wild with a fence.
In this printing, I have cleaned up presentation of the plans (computer problem off line), and corrected one distressing typo.
The Cambridge City Clerk’s posting of the letter may be seen as appendix 3 at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/LaTremouille%20com.pdf.
The rather clear pattern of dishonesty on this matter very much fits the large scale existence of “independent” organizations with interlocking friendships to the Cambridge Administration. My report on the passing of the first of the City of Cambridge’s City Manager regency went into massive environmental destruction with such a group in the middle of it.
The situation has simply gotten much more massive and more destructive since then.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Weighted body pulled from Charles River next to BU Bridge
On October 8, shortly before 7:30 am, a Boston University rowing coach discovered a body in the Charles River near the Boston University sailing pavilion. This facility is east of the BU Bridge, exactly across the Charles River from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The body was found on the Boston side of the Charles River across the BU Bridge and the Charles River from Cambridge, MA, USA.
Thank you to Ellen Schloss for making us aware of the report, at http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?format=comments&articleid=1061166422&cnum=2.
The link is to Boston Herald story concerning a weighted body found near the BU sailing pavilion. The report is internally inconsistent. It looks like it was updated without removing the earlier version.
It was the badly decomposed body of a middle aged man weighted down by a cinderblock and chains.
The Herald initially hypothesized the body was that of a missing architecture student, but that apparently turned out not to be the case.
The Boston side of the Charles River is a continuing problem of rapes and muggings because of the small vehicle highway which is built there in quite isolated locations. The Machine wants to expand the danger zone to the Cambridge side of the Charles River by creating the same sort of dangerous situation in Cambridge on top of environmental sensitive areas and animal habitat, another isolated small vehicle highway.
The Cambridge Machine pushed small vehicle highway following the Grand Junction railroad which would have very severe harm to the habitat of the Charles River White Geese includes a highly publicized option to link to this mugging zone as well. The plans, however, do not show the physical connection.
UPDATE:
The Herald report included two contradictory identifications of the victim. Watching New England Cable News just now, October 10, I selected the wrong identification.
It was the architecture student. His family has conducted a very visible hunt for him over the past week.
Monday, October 08, 2012
I have sent the following objection to the latest outrage from the City of Cambridge, MA, USA. Comments are due October 9, 2012.
**********
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us
RE: Cambridge Common and Flagstaff Park Enhancement Project, EEA # 14947
Ms. Holly S. Johnson
MEPA
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Let me see, Cambridge wants to destroy 22 trees on the Cambridge Common because they are blocking the view.
Oh, come on now.
The nicest thing that can be said about such a proposal is that it is yet another example of the environmentally corrupt situation in Cambridge, MA, USA.
**********
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us
RE: Cambridge Common and Flagstaff Park Enhancement Project, EEA # 14947
Ms. Holly S. Johnson
MEPA
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Let me see, Cambridge wants to destroy 22 trees on the Cambridge Common because they are blocking the view.
Oh, come on now.
The nicest thing that can be said about such a proposal is that it is yet another example of the environmentally corrupt situation in Cambridge, MA, USA.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
The Grand Junction Railroad, Subway Planning, the Cambridge, MA, USA Administration and Reality.
PREQUIL. Why the lies on subway possibilities?
1. MBTA Urban Ring, BU Bridge Crossing, Cambridge Side
2. MBTA Urban Ring, Kenmore Crossing.
3. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side.
A. General Map.
B. BU Bridge Crossing.
C. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side, Kenmore Crossing.
4. Reality and the Cambridge Administration.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
PREQUIL. Why the lies on subway possibilities?
The Cambridge Administration has spent ten or twenty years lying that there is only one option under consideration for Urban Ring rail. This is the option which would further destroy the Charles River animal habitat next to the BU Bridge. Since Cambridge is working with state bureaucrats to kill off animals all over the place, that makes sense to them.
Their position is not only false but the legislature is spending millions subsidizing the upgrade of Yawkey Station which is part of the responsible alternative. And Yawkey Station would have to be moved under the alternative which Cambridge lies is the only alternative being considered.
Plus, of the two alternatives, the Kenmore Crossing (which Cambridge says does not exist) is the only meaningful alternative for environmental and transportation considerations. A common situation with regard to Cambridge’sdestructive policies: spouted as the only reasonable course when reality is the opposite.
All of these maps are documents from the MBTA, the local transit company.
1. MBTA Urban Ring, BU Bridge Crossing, Cambridge Side
This is the alternative for which the Cambridge Administration puts out a pretty much non stop lie that it is the only alternative under consideration. The long hashed line parallel to and crossing the Charles River and having two dots on it is the proposed streetcar / light rail line.
The dot in the very middle of the picture is an station at Massachusetts Avenue in the middle of the MIT campus. The dot to the very left is a station at Putnam Avenue in Cambridge. The crossing would be to the immediate east of the Grand Junction line, apparently breaking off to go underground after going under Memorial Drive, thus directly impacting and harming the wildlife habitat south of Memorial Drive including the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.
Even a brief review of this photo demonstrates very severe harm to their habitat.
2. MBTA Urban Ring, Kenmore Crossing.
In this alternative, the Mass. Ave. Station continues to exist but, quickly after going under Mass. Ave., the Heavy Rail / Orange Line alternative swings south. First it goes under the MIT playing fields and then it goes under the Charles River, a much less environmentally destructive option.
The Cambridge Administration has spent ten or twenty years saying that this alternative does not exist.
It is environmentally responsible in dramatic contrast to the Administration’s falsely described “only” route.
It has been subsidized by millions of dollars from the Legislature to upgrade Yawkey Station in place. Yawkey station in its current location is a key part of the Kenmore Crossing. The Cambridge Administration’s “only” route would require Yawkey Station to be moved a half mile or more.
3. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side.
Three maps follow the text in this letter. [Ed: in this reprint, these three maps are inserted with the text.] The first is the MBTA’s unedited presentation of the two alternatives on the Boston side. This is followed by my edit emphasizing the BU Bridge Crossing and my edit emphasizing the Kenmore Crossing. These maps are presented separately from text because trying to combine text and maps has confused my computer, even after upgrading the computer.
A. General Map.
This map is a good way to compare the relative locations of the two options and to see almost all the shared part.
The shared part is in the lower extreme of the map. The alternate lines are shown by moderately heavy broken lines.
The BU Bridge Crossing curves down from the left and meets the Kenmore Crossing which is a straight line top to bottom. The two lines meet under Brookline Avenue just before Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and curve in deep bore construction under BIDMC.
The wider black rectangle just after the curve ends is the proposed Longwood Medical Area Station under Longwood Avenue at Louis Pasteur Boulevard.
The line curves just before Huntington Avenue under the Massachusetts College of Art. It then curves again at Ruggles Street under undeveloped property of the Wentworth Institute of Technology. It ends at Ruggles Station on the Orange Line which is just off the map at bottom right.
Ruggles Station is off the map at bottom right.
B. BU Bridge Crossing.
The BU Bridge crossing would be constructed under University Road, which works as an on and off ramp for east bound traffic on Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive.
The path is hard to make out. At the top of the map, just south of the Charles River, the path is just to the left of “BU”. It turns and comes to a black rectangle indicating the combined Urban Ring station at St. Mary’s and the relocated Yawkey Station. Connection to the Green Line Commonwealth Avenue branch is by tunnel under St. Mary’s dropping people on the south sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue.
The route then turns at Park Drive and comes to another underground station between a new Green Line Station under Beacon Street (Green Line, Cleveland Circle branch) and the Riverside Station (Riverside Branch of the Green Line).
These two stations attempt to duplicate the function of the Urban Ring station in the Kenmore Crossing located between Yawkey and Kenmore Stations and creating one big megastation.
The necessary new station on the Cleveland Circle line (C branch) at Beacon and Park Drive to make the connection with the Urban Ring streetcar is not shown on the map.
C. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side, Kenmore Crossing.
The Kenmore Crossing tunnel runs under Raleigh Street in eastern Kenmore Square.
As shown, the Kenmore Crossing would have a new station under Brookline Avenue with direct connections to Yawkey Station, Kenmore Station and Fenway Park, creating covered connections among Commuter Rail, Urban Ring and the three Green Line Branches.
The new station shows on the map as a solid rectangle rising to the right slightly more than half an inch below “Kenmore Square.”
Yawkey Station shows on the map as the less large black rectangle above and to the left of the proposed Urban Ring station.
The legislature is spending millions upgrading Yawkey Station. Thus, Yawkey Station is not going anywhere, contrary to the needs of the BU Bridge Crossing.
The legislature has spent millions subsidizing the Kenmore Crossing and making the alternative the Cambridge Administration claims does not exist (Kenmore Crossing) much more likely than the one the Cambridge The Cambridge Administration claims is the only one Crossing that exists (BU Bridge Crossing).
The Kenmore Crossing line proceeds under Brookline Ave., going under BIDMC as shown on the General Map.
4. Reality and the Cambridge Administration.
The Cambridge Administration and its activists and influenced organizations have spent years denying the existence of the Kenmore Crossing.
They have no meaningful argument for the BU Bridge Crossing.
The Kenmore Crossing is far superior both from an environmental and a transportation point of view. It has now received millions of dollars in subsidies in the legislature’s funds for the upgrading of Yawkey Station in place.
It is hard to escape the obvious strategy of the Cambridge Administration.
When you cannot possibly win on the merits, lie.
So they simply and repeatedly for very many years have denied that the Kenmore Crossing exists.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
This report was submitted a few weeks ago to the Cambridge City Council as an appendix to my letter objecting to plans to attack the Charles River White Geese and other resident animals by destroying their tiny remaining urban wild by ringing the main portion with a new highway and splitting it off from the adjacent urban wild with a fence.
In this printing, I have cleaned up presentation of the plans (computer problem off line), and corrected one distressing typo.
The Cambridge City Clerk’s posting of the letter may be seen as appendix 1 at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/LaTremouille%20com.pdf.
The rather clear pattern of dishonesty on this matter very much fits the large scale existence of “independent” organizations with interlocking friendships to the Cambridge Administration. My report on the passing of the first of the City of Cambridge’s City Manager regency went into massive environmental destruction with such a group in the middle of it.
The situation has simply gotten much more massive and more destructive since then.
1. MBTA Urban Ring, BU Bridge Crossing, Cambridge Side
2. MBTA Urban Ring, Kenmore Crossing.
3. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side.
A. General Map.
B. BU Bridge Crossing.
C. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side, Kenmore Crossing.
4. Reality and the Cambridge Administration.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
PREQUIL. Why the lies on subway possibilities?
The Cambridge Administration has spent ten or twenty years lying that there is only one option under consideration for Urban Ring rail. This is the option which would further destroy the Charles River animal habitat next to the BU Bridge. Since Cambridge is working with state bureaucrats to kill off animals all over the place, that makes sense to them.
Their position is not only false but the legislature is spending millions subsidizing the upgrade of Yawkey Station which is part of the responsible alternative. And Yawkey Station would have to be moved under the alternative which Cambridge lies is the only alternative being considered.
Plus, of the two alternatives, the Kenmore Crossing (which Cambridge says does not exist) is the only meaningful alternative for environmental and transportation considerations. A common situation with regard to Cambridge’sdestructive policies: spouted as the only reasonable course when reality is the opposite.
All of these maps are documents from the MBTA, the local transit company.
1. MBTA Urban Ring, BU Bridge Crossing, Cambridge Side
This is the alternative for which the Cambridge Administration puts out a pretty much non stop lie that it is the only alternative under consideration. The long hashed line parallel to and crossing the Charles River and having two dots on it is the proposed streetcar / light rail line.
The dot in the very middle of the picture is an station at Massachusetts Avenue in the middle of the MIT campus. The dot to the very left is a station at Putnam Avenue in Cambridge. The crossing would be to the immediate east of the Grand Junction line, apparently breaking off to go underground after going under Memorial Drive, thus directly impacting and harming the wildlife habitat south of Memorial Drive including the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.
Even a brief review of this photo demonstrates very severe harm to their habitat.
2. MBTA Urban Ring, Kenmore Crossing.
In this alternative, the Mass. Ave. Station continues to exist but, quickly after going under Mass. Ave., the Heavy Rail / Orange Line alternative swings south. First it goes under the MIT playing fields and then it goes under the Charles River, a much less environmentally destructive option.
The Cambridge Administration has spent ten or twenty years saying that this alternative does not exist.
It is environmentally responsible in dramatic contrast to the Administration’s falsely described “only” route.
It has been subsidized by millions of dollars from the Legislature to upgrade Yawkey Station in place. Yawkey station in its current location is a key part of the Kenmore Crossing. The Cambridge Administration’s “only” route would require Yawkey Station to be moved a half mile or more.
3. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side.
Three maps follow the text in this letter. [Ed: in this reprint, these three maps are inserted with the text.] The first is the MBTA’s unedited presentation of the two alternatives on the Boston side. This is followed by my edit emphasizing the BU Bridge Crossing and my edit emphasizing the Kenmore Crossing. These maps are presented separately from text because trying to combine text and maps has confused my computer, even after upgrading the computer.
A. General Map.
This map is a good way to compare the relative locations of the two options and to see almost all the shared part.
The shared part is in the lower extreme of the map. The alternate lines are shown by moderately heavy broken lines.
The BU Bridge Crossing curves down from the left and meets the Kenmore Crossing which is a straight line top to bottom. The two lines meet under Brookline Avenue just before Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and curve in deep bore construction under BIDMC.
The wider black rectangle just after the curve ends is the proposed Longwood Medical Area Station under Longwood Avenue at Louis Pasteur Boulevard.
The line curves just before Huntington Avenue under the Massachusetts College of Art. It then curves again at Ruggles Street under undeveloped property of the Wentworth Institute of Technology. It ends at Ruggles Station on the Orange Line which is just off the map at bottom right.
Ruggles Station is off the map at bottom right.
B. BU Bridge Crossing.
The BU Bridge crossing would be constructed under University Road, which works as an on and off ramp for east bound traffic on Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive.
The path is hard to make out. At the top of the map, just south of the Charles River, the path is just to the left of “BU”. It turns and comes to a black rectangle indicating the combined Urban Ring station at St. Mary’s and the relocated Yawkey Station. Connection to the Green Line Commonwealth Avenue branch is by tunnel under St. Mary’s dropping people on the south sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue.
The route then turns at Park Drive and comes to another underground station between a new Green Line Station under Beacon Street (Green Line, Cleveland Circle branch) and the Riverside Station (Riverside Branch of the Green Line).
These two stations attempt to duplicate the function of the Urban Ring station in the Kenmore Crossing located between Yawkey and Kenmore Stations and creating one big megastation.
The necessary new station on the Cleveland Circle line (C branch) at Beacon and Park Drive to make the connection with the Urban Ring streetcar is not shown on the map.
C. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side, Kenmore Crossing.
The Kenmore Crossing tunnel runs under Raleigh Street in eastern Kenmore Square.
As shown, the Kenmore Crossing would have a new station under Brookline Avenue with direct connections to Yawkey Station, Kenmore Station and Fenway Park, creating covered connections among Commuter Rail, Urban Ring and the three Green Line Branches.
The new station shows on the map as a solid rectangle rising to the right slightly more than half an inch below “Kenmore Square.”
Yawkey Station shows on the map as the less large black rectangle above and to the left of the proposed Urban Ring station.
The legislature is spending millions upgrading Yawkey Station. Thus, Yawkey Station is not going anywhere, contrary to the needs of the BU Bridge Crossing.
The legislature has spent millions subsidizing the Kenmore Crossing and making the alternative the Cambridge Administration claims does not exist (Kenmore Crossing) much more likely than the one the Cambridge The Cambridge Administration claims is the only one Crossing that exists (BU Bridge Crossing).
The Kenmore Crossing line proceeds under Brookline Ave., going under BIDMC as shown on the General Map.
4. Reality and the Cambridge Administration.
The Cambridge Administration and its activists and influenced organizations have spent years denying the existence of the Kenmore Crossing.
They have no meaningful argument for the BU Bridge Crossing.
The Kenmore Crossing is far superior both from an environmental and a transportation point of view. It has now received millions of dollars in subsidies in the legislature’s funds for the upgrading of Yawkey Station in place.
It is hard to escape the obvious strategy of the Cambridge Administration.
When you cannot possibly win on the merits, lie.
So they simply and repeatedly for very many years have denied that the Kenmore Crossing exists.
POSTSCRIPT, history of this report.
This report was submitted a few weeks ago to the Cambridge City Council as an appendix to my letter objecting to plans to attack the Charles River White Geese and other resident animals by destroying their tiny remaining urban wild by ringing the main portion with a new highway and splitting it off from the adjacent urban wild with a fence.
In this printing, I have cleaned up presentation of the plans (computer problem off line), and corrected one distressing typo.
The Cambridge City Clerk’s posting of the letter may be seen as appendix 1 at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/LaTremouille%20com.pdf.
The rather clear pattern of dishonesty on this matter very much fits the large scale existence of “independent” organizations with interlocking friendships to the Cambridge Administration. My report on the passing of the first of the City of Cambridge’s City Manager regency went into massive environmental destruction with such a group in the middle of it.
The situation has simply gotten much more massive and more destructive since then.
Friday, October 05, 2012
First half of Cambridge, MA, USA, City Manager Regency Passes Away
The Cambridge Chronicle at page B3 of its October 4, 2012 edition printed an extended obituary for former Cambridge City Manager James Leo Sullivan. The current Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy was Sullivan’s Assistant City Manager and replaced him very much in the manner of the Crown being passed on to the Crown Prince.
Reading from the obituary, James Leo first served as Cambridge City Manager from 1968 to spring 1970. From fall 1970 to 1974, he served as City Manager in his home town of Lowell, MA. He returned to Cambridge in 1974 bringing along his assistant, the current Cambridge City Manager. James Leo served until 1981 when he retired and was replaced by Robert Healy. James Leo proceeded to lead the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce from then until 1991.
Continuing from the obituary, James Leo was born December 11, 1924, and grew up in Somerville, near Inman Square, Cambridge. He passed away peacefully on September 26, 2012 at a facility in New Jersey.
James Leo’s administration had friends in the first of the Cambridge Machine organizations to be created. James Leo wanted to destroy the best park in the Mid-Cambridge neighborhood and, da da, a “neighborhood association” announced its creation and proceeded to help in the destruction, including more than 23 one hundred year old trees. I obtained a preliminary injunction on appeal, next to impossible but I did it. In the trial, the judge found that magnificent park to be not a park and authorized its destruction, bragging about all the saplings which would be planted at the far end of that block. Almost all of the saplings were destroyed as part of phase II of the related projects on that site. No mention was made of phase 2 when phase 1 was destroying those excellent trees.
The Cambridge Common, which is currently under attack, is perhaps six blocks west of this destruction.
There was great bitterness at the original firing of James Leo and a bit of vindication at his return.
The Cambridge Machine has been pivotal in a lot of outrageous destruction. The participation of the Cambridge Machine in the outrages on the Charles River and at Alewife could be interpreted as the regency showing just how rotten the power structure in Cambridge, MA is.
The replacement, Robert Healy continues to serve in spite of judicial findings in the case of Malvina Monteiro that Healy destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a women’s rights complaint. Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who ran the Cambridge Police Review Board until her firing.
The judicial decisions clearly found malfeasance in office by Robert Healy, authorizing the Cambridge City Council to fire him without golden parachute and, possibly without pension.
The Monteiro case, if the regency was trying to prove the rottenness of the Cambridge political structure, did an excellent job of really strengthening the stench. A city council which constantly calls itself holier than thou, by not wanting to know of the real court findings have shown very real contempt for Women’s Rights at the same time as loudly proclaiming concern for Women’s Rights.
The same con applies to the Cambridge Machine’s non-stop lying of concern for the environment as well.
Reading from the obituary, James Leo first served as Cambridge City Manager from 1968 to spring 1970. From fall 1970 to 1974, he served as City Manager in his home town of Lowell, MA. He returned to Cambridge in 1974 bringing along his assistant, the current Cambridge City Manager. James Leo served until 1981 when he retired and was replaced by Robert Healy. James Leo proceeded to lead the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce from then until 1991.
Continuing from the obituary, James Leo was born December 11, 1924, and grew up in Somerville, near Inman Square, Cambridge. He passed away peacefully on September 26, 2012 at a facility in New Jersey.
James Leo’s administration had friends in the first of the Cambridge Machine organizations to be created. James Leo wanted to destroy the best park in the Mid-Cambridge neighborhood and, da da, a “neighborhood association” announced its creation and proceeded to help in the destruction, including more than 23 one hundred year old trees. I obtained a preliminary injunction on appeal, next to impossible but I did it. In the trial, the judge found that magnificent park to be not a park and authorized its destruction, bragging about all the saplings which would be planted at the far end of that block. Almost all of the saplings were destroyed as part of phase II of the related projects on that site. No mention was made of phase 2 when phase 1 was destroying those excellent trees.
The Cambridge Common, which is currently under attack, is perhaps six blocks west of this destruction.
There was great bitterness at the original firing of James Leo and a bit of vindication at his return.
The Cambridge Machine has been pivotal in a lot of outrageous destruction. The participation of the Cambridge Machine in the outrages on the Charles River and at Alewife could be interpreted as the regency showing just how rotten the power structure in Cambridge, MA is.
The replacement, Robert Healy continues to serve in spite of judicial findings in the case of Malvina Monteiro that Healy destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a women’s rights complaint. Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who ran the Cambridge Police Review Board until her firing.
The judicial decisions clearly found malfeasance in office by Robert Healy, authorizing the Cambridge City Council to fire him without golden parachute and, possibly without pension.
The Monteiro case, if the regency was trying to prove the rottenness of the Cambridge political structure, did an excellent job of really strengthening the stench. A city council which constantly calls itself holier than thou, by not wanting to know of the real court findings have shown very real contempt for Women’s Rights at the same time as loudly proclaiming concern for Women’s Rights.
The same con applies to the Cambridge Machine’s non-stop lying of concern for the environment as well.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
22 Trees proposed to be destroyed on the Cambridge Common.
Cambridge, MA, USA, has an Environmental Notification Form out on tree destruction they are proposing on the Cambridge Common.
They, at the top of page 3, the end of the first complete paragraph, propose to destroy 22 trees.
Why? They are blocking the view.
This is the sort of sickness which is normal in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.
http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2012/090512em/nps/enf/14947.pdf.
The environmental monitor publication is at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/emonitor.aspx. Comments are due October 9, 2012.
Comments should be emailed to holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us.
They, at the top of page 3, the end of the first complete paragraph, propose to destroy 22 trees.
Why? They are blocking the view.
This is the sort of sickness which is normal in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.
http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2012/090512em/nps/enf/14947.pdf.
The environmental monitor publication is at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/emonitor.aspx. Comments are due October 9, 2012.
Comments should be emailed to holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
City Council Letter on the Grand Junction attack on the Charles River White Geese
I filed a large package with the Cambridge City Council and have given you a link to the city clerk’s posted copy, at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/LaTremouille%20com.pdf. That is a very large file and a lot is lost because color documents have been reproduced in black and white.
I have hesitated to post it because I am pushing my application knowledge and because this is a lot of work. I have broadened my knowledge, so here goes. I will lead with the three attachments. They are so important, I do not want to lose them way down in this report. The appendices will be posted separately.
The actual letter will follow the attachments.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Page 7 in the City Council report, link above. I am at a loss as to where I have it stored in all its colorful glory, and this report is way too late as it is.
**********
September 19, 2012
Cambridge City Council
c/o City Clerk
City of Cambridge
795 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
Councilor / Representative Timothy Toomey, Chair
Committee on Economic Development, Training
and Employment
Cambridge City Council
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
RE: Grand Junction Development Discussions and Related (Alewife, Charles River, Urban Ring rail)
Ladies/Gentlemen:
This follows up on my comments at the Committee Meeting of August 7, 2012 concerning a small vehicle highway on the Grand Junction which would inflict very major destruction on the Charles River. The report continues the Administration’s lie that there is only one rail proposal for mass transit / Urban Ring planning.
[Ed: See attachment 1, above with regard to the route analysis. Attachment 2 shows a new fence blocking access between the two animal areas on either side of the Grand Junction.]
The proposed small vehicle highway, for environmental, animal abuse, and cost reasons, should not go south of Memorial Drive. The route should turn east just prior to the buildings on Memorial Drive on either side of the Grand Junction. This responsible alternative should be built between the building on the corner of Memorial Drive and Vassar Street and the building behind it on Vassar Street. There is an ample undeveloped area there to get the route to Vassar Street where it could connect to Memorial Drive.
The responsible route would remove major harm to the environment and to the Charles River White Geese. It would give bicyclists much more direct access to Memorial Drive and would significantly reduce costs.
This small vehicle highway as proposed would have major, destructive impact on the Charles River both on the Cambridge side and on the Boston side. The supposed Boston side proposal does not even show any form of linking on the Boston side, perhaps because it would be so destructive and expensive.
The 2006 report is notable for blatant hypocrisy giving, as usual, the false impression of concern for the environment, particularly the impression of concern for the Charles River White Geese, the 30 plus year residents whom Cambridge and its friends have been attacking and deliberately starving since 2004.
The 2006 report features a photo of the head of one of the members of the gaggle on its front page. The photo is part of the standard format throughout this outrage. The proposal would destroy for animal use the tiny nesting area to which they have been confined. Destruction would be accomplished by building a new highway at perimeters of this area (see pages 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5). The proposal would block access between this area and the hill east of the Grand Junction by building a fence along the railroad track (page 4-6). Pages 3-5 and 4-6 are attached.
On page 3-5, after reviewing the planned destruction, back up the Grand Junction to the point where this broken light / dark line intersects with a light solid line. This is the point where responsible planning would connect the proposed small vehicle highway to Vassar Street by running the new highway between the two buildings through the opening to the right and then to Memorial Drive. Compare the amount of work and expense involved in the two routes and compare the convenience to bicyclists on the two routes. There is no meaningful competition between the two routes. The Vassar Street route is the better of the two on all counts.
Cambridge has forced this tiny area on the Charles River White Geese as their sole habitat by the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields. You are now building another impenetrable thicket to make the northern part of this tiny area inaccessible to them. See Appendix 3. Now you are destroying this area to them by this circumferential highway and the bizarre fence. And the Administration’s proposal, once again, is nonsensical if you share the Administration’s supposed goals.
And the Administration lies of affection for these beautiful animals by using that photo including a goose’s head throughout the document.
This irresponsible proposal would build on the deliberate starvation of these beautiful thirty plus year residents since 2004.
As with past destruction on the Charles River and the mass animal killings and woodland destruction at Alewife, the destruction on the Charles River associated with the small vehicle highway on the Grand Junction is totally avoidable.
Impact of environmental destruction on the Charles of this nature has already been condemned by last fall’s joint report of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Conservation and Recreation concerning connectivity on the lower Charles River basin and in the reports on the Anderson, Western Avenue and River Street Bridges.
Any connection of the new Grand Junction highway on the Boston side can only be done with the same construction on the river involved with regard to the Cambridge side of the three bridges. Construction on the Cambridge side would involve the same destruction of fragile land, plus would be highly harmful to the valuable 30 plus year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese.
Almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed by your agents since 2003. The state does nothing which is not acceptable to the Cambridge administration.
The fake environmental assessments give no mention to this latest heartless animal abuse, although your heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese would be a fraction of the mass animal kill achieved by you in the unnecessary destruction at Alewife last October and November. Please see Appendix 3.
The report includes repetition of the flat out lie which the Administration has been putting out concerning the rail options in the Urban Ring, to wit that the Kenmore Crossing option does not exist. Among other things, the report gives detailed analysis of impact on everything going on on the Grand Junction except for the rail alternative the Administration claims does not exist. This analysis in the PDF version is at pages 110 to 138 of the 158 pages in the document. Please see the official MBTA maps in Appendix 1 showing the reality of the Urban Ring rail proposals.
The legislature has given the lie to the decade plus falsehoods by subsidizing the Kenmore Crossing, the responsible Urban Ring rail alternative. The legislature has funded the Kenmore Crossing alternative by providing millions for the rebuilding in place of Yawkey Station, a key part of the Kenmore Crossing. Yawkey Station is a station which the Administration’s BU Bridge crossing needs to move to near BU’s Marsh Chapel. But the administration says that the Kenmore Crossing does not exist.
Appendices
Appendix 1 responds to and proves as lies the pattern of repeated statements by the Cambridge Administration concerning the Urban Ring rail system and its relationship to the Grand Junction that the only Urban Ring rail alternative is its favorite, the BU Bridge crossing, and that the Kenmore Crossing does not exist.
Appendix 2 goes into the lies by which Cambridge has indulged in massive, valueless environmental destruction at Alewife including totally wasteful destruction of acres of irreplaceable woodland last October and November including killing of hundreds of animals. This effort is ongoing since intentions are very clearly to massively multiply the environmental destruction and killings.
Key in the current situation is stalling by North Cambridge residents associated with the Cambridge Machine to make the responsible alternative unavailable to the City Council and the only option available perhaps total destruction of Alewife. They want people, once again, to yell at local developers rather than yell at the City Council and the Cambridge Administration which should be taking underground property rights by eminent domain for flood storage, but the developers are going forward and the possibility of joint use of their properties could quickly disappear.
Please note that appendix 2 is dated. The property between the parking lot and the Alewife Reservation is now also proposed for condo construction. The two condo projects should, along with the massive parking lot be built with an underground easement for flood storage which is badly needed by North Cambridge. Destruction, so far, at Alewife will only protect against the worst possible storm in two years. Underground construction by easement could satisfy full 100 year flood needs. Delay would give “no choice” other than massive expansion of the already unreasonable environmental destruction and mass animal killing.
As a third photo attachment I am enclosing the 160 CambridgePark Drive developer’s plans. You have destroyed most of the area below the river marked “Alewife Brook Reservation”. The yellow structure is the first of the planned condos. The area between it and the destroyed “Alewife Brook Reservation” is the second project. The parking lot which is readily available for use for flood storage stretches to the right of the 160 project to Alewife Brook Parkway.
Appendix 3 goes into the existing outrages achieved at Magazine Beach and this year’s attacks on the destroyed nesting area.
None of the destruction in the appendices has been meaningfully discussed in public prior to the fact. Lies and lies of omission have been normal.
Appendix 4 is my point by point notes on the 2006 study.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
Attachments: 3 copied pages and 4 appendices as stated above.
cc:
Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA 02116
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114-2104
I have hesitated to post it because I am pushing my application knowledge and because this is a lot of work. I have broadened my knowledge, so here goes. I will lead with the three attachments. They are so important, I do not want to lose them way down in this report. The appendices will be posted separately.
The actual letter will follow the attachments.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Page 7 in the City Council report, link above. I am at a loss as to where I have it stored in all its colorful glory, and this report is way too late as it is.
**********
September 19, 2012
Cambridge City Council
c/o City Clerk
City of Cambridge
795 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
Councilor / Representative Timothy Toomey, Chair
Committee on Economic Development, Training
and Employment
Cambridge City Council
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
RE: Grand Junction Development Discussions and Related (Alewife, Charles River, Urban Ring rail)
Ladies/Gentlemen:
This follows up on my comments at the Committee Meeting of August 7, 2012 concerning a small vehicle highway on the Grand Junction which would inflict very major destruction on the Charles River. The report continues the Administration’s lie that there is only one rail proposal for mass transit / Urban Ring planning.
[Ed: See attachment 1, above with regard to the route analysis. Attachment 2 shows a new fence blocking access between the two animal areas on either side of the Grand Junction.]
The proposed small vehicle highway, for environmental, animal abuse, and cost reasons, should not go south of Memorial Drive. The route should turn east just prior to the buildings on Memorial Drive on either side of the Grand Junction. This responsible alternative should be built between the building on the corner of Memorial Drive and Vassar Street and the building behind it on Vassar Street. There is an ample undeveloped area there to get the route to Vassar Street where it could connect to Memorial Drive.
The responsible route would remove major harm to the environment and to the Charles River White Geese. It would give bicyclists much more direct access to Memorial Drive and would significantly reduce costs.
This small vehicle highway as proposed would have major, destructive impact on the Charles River both on the Cambridge side and on the Boston side. The supposed Boston side proposal does not even show any form of linking on the Boston side, perhaps because it would be so destructive and expensive.
The 2006 report is notable for blatant hypocrisy giving, as usual, the false impression of concern for the environment, particularly the impression of concern for the Charles River White Geese, the 30 plus year residents whom Cambridge and its friends have been attacking and deliberately starving since 2004.
The 2006 report features a photo of the head of one of the members of the gaggle on its front page. The photo is part of the standard format throughout this outrage. The proposal would destroy for animal use the tiny nesting area to which they have been confined. Destruction would be accomplished by building a new highway at perimeters of this area (see pages 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5). The proposal would block access between this area and the hill east of the Grand Junction by building a fence along the railroad track (page 4-6). Pages 3-5 and 4-6 are attached.
On page 3-5, after reviewing the planned destruction, back up the Grand Junction to the point where this broken light / dark line intersects with a light solid line. This is the point where responsible planning would connect the proposed small vehicle highway to Vassar Street by running the new highway between the two buildings through the opening to the right and then to Memorial Drive. Compare the amount of work and expense involved in the two routes and compare the convenience to bicyclists on the two routes. There is no meaningful competition between the two routes. The Vassar Street route is the better of the two on all counts.
Cambridge has forced this tiny area on the Charles River White Geese as their sole habitat by the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields. You are now building another impenetrable thicket to make the northern part of this tiny area inaccessible to them. See Appendix 3. Now you are destroying this area to them by this circumferential highway and the bizarre fence. And the Administration’s proposal, once again, is nonsensical if you share the Administration’s supposed goals.
And the Administration lies of affection for these beautiful animals by using that photo including a goose’s head throughout the document.
This irresponsible proposal would build on the deliberate starvation of these beautiful thirty plus year residents since 2004.
As with past destruction on the Charles River and the mass animal killings and woodland destruction at Alewife, the destruction on the Charles River associated with the small vehicle highway on the Grand Junction is totally avoidable.
Impact of environmental destruction on the Charles of this nature has already been condemned by last fall’s joint report of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Conservation and Recreation concerning connectivity on the lower Charles River basin and in the reports on the Anderson, Western Avenue and River Street Bridges.
Any connection of the new Grand Junction highway on the Boston side can only be done with the same construction on the river involved with regard to the Cambridge side of the three bridges. Construction on the Cambridge side would involve the same destruction of fragile land, plus would be highly harmful to the valuable 30 plus year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese.
Almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed by your agents since 2003. The state does nothing which is not acceptable to the Cambridge administration.
The fake environmental assessments give no mention to this latest heartless animal abuse, although your heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese would be a fraction of the mass animal kill achieved by you in the unnecessary destruction at Alewife last October and November. Please see Appendix 3.
The report includes repetition of the flat out lie which the Administration has been putting out concerning the rail options in the Urban Ring, to wit that the Kenmore Crossing option does not exist. Among other things, the report gives detailed analysis of impact on everything going on on the Grand Junction except for the rail alternative the Administration claims does not exist. This analysis in the PDF version is at pages 110 to 138 of the 158 pages in the document. Please see the official MBTA maps in Appendix 1 showing the reality of the Urban Ring rail proposals.
The legislature has given the lie to the decade plus falsehoods by subsidizing the Kenmore Crossing, the responsible Urban Ring rail alternative. The legislature has funded the Kenmore Crossing alternative by providing millions for the rebuilding in place of Yawkey Station, a key part of the Kenmore Crossing. Yawkey Station is a station which the Administration’s BU Bridge crossing needs to move to near BU’s Marsh Chapel. But the administration says that the Kenmore Crossing does not exist.
Appendices
Appendix 1 responds to and proves as lies the pattern of repeated statements by the Cambridge Administration concerning the Urban Ring rail system and its relationship to the Grand Junction that the only Urban Ring rail alternative is its favorite, the BU Bridge crossing, and that the Kenmore Crossing does not exist.
Appendix 2 goes into the lies by which Cambridge has indulged in massive, valueless environmental destruction at Alewife including totally wasteful destruction of acres of irreplaceable woodland last October and November including killing of hundreds of animals. This effort is ongoing since intentions are very clearly to massively multiply the environmental destruction and killings.
Key in the current situation is stalling by North Cambridge residents associated with the Cambridge Machine to make the responsible alternative unavailable to the City Council and the only option available perhaps total destruction of Alewife. They want people, once again, to yell at local developers rather than yell at the City Council and the Cambridge Administration which should be taking underground property rights by eminent domain for flood storage, but the developers are going forward and the possibility of joint use of their properties could quickly disappear.
Please note that appendix 2 is dated. The property between the parking lot and the Alewife Reservation is now also proposed for condo construction. The two condo projects should, along with the massive parking lot be built with an underground easement for flood storage which is badly needed by North Cambridge. Destruction, so far, at Alewife will only protect against the worst possible storm in two years. Underground construction by easement could satisfy full 100 year flood needs. Delay would give “no choice” other than massive expansion of the already unreasonable environmental destruction and mass animal killing.
As a third photo attachment I am enclosing the 160 CambridgePark Drive developer’s plans. You have destroyed most of the area below the river marked “Alewife Brook Reservation”. The yellow structure is the first of the planned condos. The area between it and the destroyed “Alewife Brook Reservation” is the second project. The parking lot which is readily available for use for flood storage stretches to the right of the 160 project to Alewife Brook Parkway.
Appendix 3 goes into the existing outrages achieved at Magazine Beach and this year’s attacks on the destroyed nesting area.
None of the destruction in the appendices has been meaningfully discussed in public prior to the fact. Lies and lies of omission have been normal.
Appendix 4 is my point by point notes on the 2006 study.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
Attachments: 3 copied pages and 4 appendices as stated above.
cc:
Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA 02116
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114-2104
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)