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
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)