I need to sit down and put this package into proper context.
The simple part of the story is that Harvard bought rail yards / Mass. Pike (I90)’s exit to Cambridge / Brighton on the south side of Charles River opposite Magazine Beach shortly after the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Company issued a report that the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge under the BU Bridge could be modified to take traffic from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge, MA.
A whole slew of environmental destruction has proceeded / is planned easing the rearrangement, which could allow the Harvard Medical School and related facilities to move, unimpeded, into the rail yard / off ramp.
I have been informed that the rail yard has been vacated. Plans were to move it to Worcester, MA.
The railroad is expanding South Station in Boston to support renewed Commuter Rail to Fall River and New Bedford, MA. They, however, need a place to layover trains during the day. The rail yard Harvard has bought would be ideal for that purpose and has been mentioned as a likely site. This is the Beacon Yards.
Also mentioned in the Environmental Notification Form was expansion of the Reedville yard in the southern extreme of Boston for this purpose.
I have not reviewed the ENF to see if today’s report is the alternate site.
The Governor has proposed straightening out I90 (Mass. Pike) on top of the Beacon Yards. He mentioned that this would open up the area for development. He did not mention that the development would be by Harvard.
The Boston Globe on line reports at http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/28/commuter-rail-company-plans-two-new-facilities/uuP9srUsAPnikQxeliVULJ/story.html that the management company running the commuter rail system is proposing that facilities which had been used as a super market warehouse in the southern tip of Boston be used instead of Beacon Yards.
The story has been picked up by Universal Hub with a report at http://www.universalhub.com/2013/dedham-didnt-want-housing-project-old-stop-shop that goes into good analysis.
The reports comment that the site would involve major environmental issues.
They certainly would. The western boundary of the site abuts the Commuter Rail Reedville line (or an extension thereof). The eastern and southern boundaries abut the states pristine Neponset River Reservation. The site is at the end of Meadow Road.
I am familiar with the location because I worked for several days on the movie R.I.P.D. which shot scenes concerning their Police Station there. I have also driven through the reservation and reviewed Google Maps. The Google Maps satellite view shows the massive size of the Neponset River Reservation which apparently is, at least in part, threatened.
Incredible. The environmental destruction associated with Harvard’s empire building just keeps getting larger.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Cambridge Machine Operative Denies Law of Supply and Demand
0. Update, 12/27/13.
1. Introduction.
2. Law of Supply and Demand.
3. The Machine Operative’s View of Reality.
4. Final say.
0. Update, 12/27/13.
Caveat, however, these people are involved in all sorts of discussions.
Standing up for reality with regard to the Law of Supply and Demand in no way blesses any one of the various pieces of sophistry they are trying to pass on using whatever will sell anything.
All I am doing is putting the Law of Supply and Demand on record.
1. Introduction.
Easily the biggest problem on the Charles River and elsewhere near Cambridge, MA, USA, is the destructiveness of the Cambridge Machine.
Key to the destructiveness is the flat out lying about reality.
The Cambridge Machine simply defines environmentalism as protecting that part of the environment they are not destroying this week.
And the pious nonsense which dominates the world of the Cambridge Machine is very much a key part of the problem.
The Machine commonly has no use for reality.
But they are oh, so pious about it.
2. Law of Supply and Demand.
I will not bother you with the blather I was responding to in an exchange during the past few days.
Fortunately, in this case, at least one member of the Machine (Robert Winters) has his head in reality. Since outright nonsense has not yet been accepted yet as The Truth, this is not a perfect example of the problem.
But the situation has a normal stench, and [the guilty] has gotten away with this stuff in the past. Here is my response, and, following, without further adieu, the next two.
I have censored the name of [the guilty] because that person is not as visible or as active as Robert Winters who also participated in the discussion. Winters' name is included because he is so visible it would be rather silly not to identify him by name, and the report, clearly, is favorable to him.
**************
I am not positive, but I think that, for once, I agree with Robert Winters.
Basic economics indicates that, if you restrict supply, the price will go up. Basically, those who have the money will outspend those who do not have the money to purchase a scarce resource that both need. I.e., if you have a, b, c, and d, and less supply, the price of a, b, c, and d will go up due to people with money outbidding those who have less.
If you expand the supply, those who have money are much more likely to spend their money on the better alternative that is available. Those who have are much less likely to spend their money on the less desirable options because they can have the more desirable options. i.e., if you start with a, b, c, and d, and add e, f, g, and h, with e, f, g, and h being more desirable than a, b, c, d, you are much less likely to be driving up the price of a, b, c, and d; the richer have no more money but they will spend their money wisely and purchase the better option, leaving a, b, c, and d for the buyers with less money.
Saying that adding to the supply raises the prices of that which is already there is counterintuitive, and, in fact, silly.
This analysis, however, does not allow for the increase in traffic, density and blocked sun on a, b, c, and d. Because f, g, h, and I are thus taking resources from a, b, c, and d, the addition of f, g, h and I [ed: obvious error in repeating list] can make a, b,c, and d less desirable and drive DOWN the price of a, b, c, and d. Reality and common sense economics has a result exactly the opposite of the claim being made.
Thank you.
3. The Machine Operative’s View of Reality.
It is surprising that those who want to dispute my musings on a hypothetical future occurrence that might cause more homelessness do so with absolutely no real data at all, but only opinions.
It is commonly assumed that anyone who wants to prove an argument will do so with facts. Neither Bobs offered any facts or quoted any peer reviewed studies or so it seemed. Most journalists, such as those who wrote the Globe articles in my attachment, quote from peer reviewed studies.
Since only opinions were offered, It seems almost certain that the attachment was not read, nor had any attempt been made to do any independent research on the subject before putting forth an opposite argument. I had only a limited amount of time to gather some articles after reading some Globe articles on homelessness. More research could likely further the argument.
Further in-depth analysis of the causes of homelessness can be found in the New Yorker article on Oct. 28, 2013., although the discussion mentions some causes unique to New York City. It could be the beginning of some research for inquiring minds.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
4. Final say.
My "opinion" is based on a number of college studies in economics, very obvious college studies.
[The Guilty] has a record. I have a record.
I informed folks on this list of the intention of Cambridge and its friends to destroy acres of land in Alewife. [The Guilty] went on this list to say there was no such intention.
Cambridge is now bragging of the destruction it is achieved in its irreplaceable woodlands at Alewife, the destruction that [The Guilty] said would not happen. And total destruction seems the goal.
Mr. Winters published Cambridge's puff piece on the first stage destruction with photos.
Cambridge is bragging of irresponsible destruction that [The Guilty] said "would not happen." Now we are hearing of well established and downright basic economic studies being called unfounded.
By the way, the article cited in this series reported that rents are dropping in Cambridge.
Please, let us live in reality.
1. Introduction.
2. Law of Supply and Demand.
3. The Machine Operative’s View of Reality.
4. Final say.
0. Update, 12/27/13.
Caveat, however, these people are involved in all sorts of discussions.
Standing up for reality with regard to the Law of Supply and Demand in no way blesses any one of the various pieces of sophistry they are trying to pass on using whatever will sell anything.
All I am doing is putting the Law of Supply and Demand on record.
1. Introduction.
Easily the biggest problem on the Charles River and elsewhere near Cambridge, MA, USA, is the destructiveness of the Cambridge Machine.
Key to the destructiveness is the flat out lying about reality.
The Cambridge Machine simply defines environmentalism as protecting that part of the environment they are not destroying this week.
And the pious nonsense which dominates the world of the Cambridge Machine is very much a key part of the problem.
The Machine commonly has no use for reality.
But they are oh, so pious about it.
2. Law of Supply and Demand.
I will not bother you with the blather I was responding to in an exchange during the past few days.
Fortunately, in this case, at least one member of the Machine (Robert Winters) has his head in reality. Since outright nonsense has not yet been accepted yet as The Truth, this is not a perfect example of the problem.
But the situation has a normal stench, and [the guilty] has gotten away with this stuff in the past. Here is my response, and, following, without further adieu, the next two.
I have censored the name of [the guilty] because that person is not as visible or as active as Robert Winters who also participated in the discussion. Winters' name is included because he is so visible it would be rather silly not to identify him by name, and the report, clearly, is favorable to him.
**************
I am not positive, but I think that, for once, I agree with Robert Winters.
Basic economics indicates that, if you restrict supply, the price will go up. Basically, those who have the money will outspend those who do not have the money to purchase a scarce resource that both need. I.e., if you have a, b, c, and d, and less supply, the price of a, b, c, and d will go up due to people with money outbidding those who have less.
If you expand the supply, those who have money are much more likely to spend their money on the better alternative that is available. Those who have are much less likely to spend their money on the less desirable options because they can have the more desirable options. i.e., if you start with a, b, c, and d, and add e, f, g, and h, with e, f, g, and h being more desirable than a, b, c, d, you are much less likely to be driving up the price of a, b, c, and d; the richer have no more money but they will spend their money wisely and purchase the better option, leaving a, b, c, and d for the buyers with less money.
Saying that adding to the supply raises the prices of that which is already there is counterintuitive, and, in fact, silly.
This analysis, however, does not allow for the increase in traffic, density and blocked sun on a, b, c, and d. Because f, g, h, and I are thus taking resources from a, b, c, and d, the addition of f, g, h and I [ed: obvious error in repeating list] can make a, b,c, and d less desirable and drive DOWN the price of a, b, c, and d. Reality and common sense economics has a result exactly the opposite of the claim being made.
Thank you.
3. The Machine Operative’s View of Reality.
It is surprising that those who want to dispute my musings on a hypothetical future occurrence that might cause more homelessness do so with absolutely no real data at all, but only opinions.
It is commonly assumed that anyone who wants to prove an argument will do so with facts. Neither Bobs offered any facts or quoted any peer reviewed studies or so it seemed. Most journalists, such as those who wrote the Globe articles in my attachment, quote from peer reviewed studies.
Since only opinions were offered, It seems almost certain that the attachment was not read, nor had any attempt been made to do any independent research on the subject before putting forth an opposite argument. I had only a limited amount of time to gather some articles after reading some Globe articles on homelessness. More research could likely further the argument.
Further in-depth analysis of the causes of homelessness can be found in the New Yorker article on Oct. 28, 2013., although the discussion mentions some causes unique to New York City. It could be the beginning of some research for inquiring minds.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
4. Final say.
My "opinion" is based on a number of college studies in economics, very obvious college studies.
[The Guilty] has a record. I have a record.
I informed folks on this list of the intention of Cambridge and its friends to destroy acres of land in Alewife. [The Guilty] went on this list to say there was no such intention.
Cambridge is now bragging of the destruction it is achieved in its irreplaceable woodlands at Alewife, the destruction that [The Guilty] said would not happen. And total destruction seems the goal.
Mr. Winters published Cambridge's puff piece on the first stage destruction with photos.
Cambridge is bragging of irresponsible destruction that [The Guilty] said "would not happen." Now we are hearing of well established and downright basic economic studies being called unfounded.
By the way, the article cited in this series reported that rents are dropping in Cambridge.
Please, let us live in reality.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Cambridge, MA, USA’s Experience with mandating bikes on sidewalks.
One of the many outrageous cons being forwarded by the City of Cambridge and its friends is that Cambridge is pro bicyclists.
Reality is that bicycle activists are used as a means to readily get support for environmental destruction while Cambridge turns around and stabs bicyclists in their backs.
Cambridge, after telling the bicycle activists that they are the activists’ friends, uses those activists to severely hurt bicyclists by confining bikes to sidewalks.
The only explanation which appears to be real is that confining bicycles to sidewalks has value to an important constituency. The value is that confining bikes to sidewalks provides welfare for contractors.
The following is a link to a year old report on new sidewalk bicycling mandated on Concord Avenue in the western part of Cambridge. The mandated sidewalk bicycling starts about half a mile from the environmental outrage at Alewife.
This report, with photos, was posted on Robert Winters’ blog. This destructive project runs from Alewife Brook Parkway to Belmont.
The report is written (trying to translate the cite) by what would appear to be J.S. Allen.
The cite is: http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=2285.
Reality is that bicycle activists are used as a means to readily get support for environmental destruction while Cambridge turns around and stabs bicyclists in their backs.
Cambridge, after telling the bicycle activists that they are the activists’ friends, uses those activists to severely hurt bicyclists by confining bikes to sidewalks.
The only explanation which appears to be real is that confining bicycles to sidewalks has value to an important constituency. The value is that confining bikes to sidewalks provides welfare for contractors.
The following is a link to a year old report on new sidewalk bicycling mandated on Concord Avenue in the western part of Cambridge. The mandated sidewalk bicycling starts about half a mile from the environmental outrage at Alewife.
This report, with photos, was posted on Robert Winters’ blog. This destructive project runs from Alewife Brook Parkway to Belmont.
The report is written (trying to translate the cite) by what would appear to be J.S. Allen.
The cite is: http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=2285.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Cambridge, MA, USA Elections: Unchanged. I can dream.
The Cambridge Chronicle reports, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/features/x1039479868/Cambridge-election-recount-ends-results-remain-the-same, that the previously announced election results in the Cambridge City Council election remain unchanged after the recount.
My previous analysis is posted at http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=19121262#editor/target=post;postID=1088469206149279966;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=6;src=postname.
To put it succinctly, here is the short form of my analysis.
Decker and Davis did not seek reelection. With regard to Davis it was a strong good riddance. With regard to Decker, the resignation is a shame because she resigned to sit as a state representative where she can do more harm.
Reeves lost, in my opinion, because he was a clear part of the rotten situation in the Cambridge City Council over the past decade plus, both in its environmental and civil rights outrages. He started as a reformer. Reeves' lack of performance over the Monteiro outrage makes him perhaps the second city councilor, after Seidel, to be cleansed out of city government by an electorate which which wants a responsible city government, and which agrees with the Courts up to the Appeals Court panel.
All of the Court decisions in Monteiro gave the Cambridge City Council strong decisions upon which to base a firing of the now retired Cambridge City Manager. The Courts found she was fired for filing a female rights / civil rights complaint. Reeves looks like a civil rights activist. The words: “reprehensible” (Trial Judge) and “ample evidence . . . of outrageous misbehavior” (Appeals Court panel) were not enough. Exactly zero sitting city councilors attempted to fire a Court found malfeasant City Manager.
Minka Y. vanBeuzekom served one term and had the nerve to give the impression she is an environmentalist.
She voted for the destruction of 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common along with the rest of a very bad city council. Her explanation to me was that the staff fighting for destruction told her it is ok. The staff is environmentally reprehensible. Her claim, as an “environmentalist,” that she can destroy a large number of excellent trees in a key location based on staff recommendation and nothing else fits the well established outrageous situation in Cambridge government.
The staff wants to destroy most of those excellent trees because, according to their environmental filing, they are blocking the view.
VanBeuzekom’s record on the Charles River and Alewife is no better than, and possibly worse than, the rest of a unanimously terrible Cambridge City Council.
I could go on and on. I will not.
Three of the new city councilors appear to be no different from the incumbents. One of the three, Marc McGovern, publicly fought for the outrage at Magazine Beach.
One, Mazen, has no record and I know nothing about him.
Mazen is the subject of my dream that at least a shred of responsibility can exist on the Cambridge City Council..
I can dream.
My previous analysis is posted at http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=19121262#editor/target=post;postID=1088469206149279966;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=6;src=postname.
To put it succinctly, here is the short form of my analysis.
Decker and Davis did not seek reelection. With regard to Davis it was a strong good riddance. With regard to Decker, the resignation is a shame because she resigned to sit as a state representative where she can do more harm.
Reeves lost, in my opinion, because he was a clear part of the rotten situation in the Cambridge City Council over the past decade plus, both in its environmental and civil rights outrages. He started as a reformer. Reeves' lack of performance over the Monteiro outrage makes him perhaps the second city councilor, after Seidel, to be cleansed out of city government by an electorate which which wants a responsible city government, and which agrees with the Courts up to the Appeals Court panel.
All of the Court decisions in Monteiro gave the Cambridge City Council strong decisions upon which to base a firing of the now retired Cambridge City Manager. The Courts found she was fired for filing a female rights / civil rights complaint. Reeves looks like a civil rights activist. The words: “reprehensible” (Trial Judge) and “ample evidence . . . of outrageous misbehavior” (Appeals Court panel) were not enough. Exactly zero sitting city councilors attempted to fire a Court found malfeasant City Manager.
Minka Y. vanBeuzekom served one term and had the nerve to give the impression she is an environmentalist.
She voted for the destruction of 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common along with the rest of a very bad city council. Her explanation to me was that the staff fighting for destruction told her it is ok. The staff is environmentally reprehensible. Her claim, as an “environmentalist,” that she can destroy a large number of excellent trees in a key location based on staff recommendation and nothing else fits the well established outrageous situation in Cambridge government.
The staff wants to destroy most of those excellent trees because, according to their environmental filing, they are blocking the view.
VanBeuzekom’s record on the Charles River and Alewife is no better than, and possibly worse than, the rest of a unanimously terrible Cambridge City Council.
I could go on and on. I will not.
Three of the new city councilors appear to be no different from the incumbents. One of the three, Marc McGovern, publicly fought for the outrage at Magazine Beach.
One, Mazen, has no record and I know nothing about him.
Mazen is the subject of my dream that at least a shred of responsibility can exist on the Cambridge City Council..
I can dream.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Environmental Destroyer Harvard condemns Environmental Destruction.
1. WBZ Radio Report.
2. Argentina.
3. Cambridge Common.
4. Destruction on the Charles River.
5. Welcome to new facebook member.
6. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
1. WBZ Radio Report.
WBZ Radio this morning, and, I believe, last night has reported that an environmental disaster is proceeding to happen to our world with all the trees being destroyed by human beings.
This conclusion has been announced after extended analysis by a Harvard researcher.
2. Argentina.
We reported on Harvard’s massive destruction in Argentina yesterday, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/organizing-against-harvard.html.
3. Cambridge Common.
The City of Cambridge is in the process of destroying 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common which Harvard claims as Harvard open space on campus maps.
Cambridge claims Cambridge is improving the view.
It is inconceivable that such an outrage would be occurring in this location without the consent of Harvard.
Here are a few photos of endangered trees.
I reported on this outrage with more photos at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/impending-destruction-cambridge-ma-usa.html.
Last spring, the Cambridge City Council voted to mark the trees they were destroying, after they voted to destroy them. Then they took a tour. The trees were never marked.
4. Destruction on the Charles River.
In about 2004, Harvard bought the train yards and I90 (Mass. Pike) off ramp on the north side of the Charles River opposite Magazine Beach.
About four months earlier, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority demonstrated that the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge running under the BU BRidge could be used for an off ramp from I90 to Cambridge.
House Bill H3332 sponsored by Governor Patrick includes a bond request for the destruction of hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, two bridges east of the BU Bridge. This destruction is being fought for under the lie “underpasses”. The Patrick moneys include $2 to $4 million for the “underpasses” and about $22 million for associated “pathways” which very clearly include that destruction. The leader of the most visible group fighting for the destruction, a falsely named “Conservancy” has oozed at the brilliance of all that destruction.
Multiple projects on the Cambridge side are preparing Cambridge for receipt of this traffic. This destruction would straighten out Memorial Drive east of the new off ramp to allow faster movement more consistent with the expectations of folks using Harvard’s off ramp.
The governor has announced plans to straighten out I90 / the Mass. Pike in the yards / current off ramp area. The maneuvering rather clearly indicates long range plans to move the Harvard Medical School there to allow expansion of Longwood Medical Area hospitals. Harvard has proposed a spur off the rapid transit Red Line starting at Porter Station (next stop after Harvard Station), running through Harvard Station, and the new Harvard Medical School, connecting to a supposed bus tunnel to serve the Harvard Medical Area through a stop at Longwood Avenue and Louis Pasteur.
The bus tunnel is nonsense. The expense would be much more justified by an Orange Line spur through the tunnel to Kenmore / Fenway Park as first phase on a circumferential rapid transit line.
I have done many reports on this.
One example is: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-hospital-by-harvard-university-at.html.
Here is a space / aerial photo showing the lay of the land.
This photo is from 2006. At the far left is the rail yard / future Harvard Medical School. In the middle on the river is Magazine Beach. The bridge is the BU Bridge. Then comes the Destroyed Nesting Area. Barely under the BU Bridge can be seen the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The Grand Junction Railroad is the black line white extends up and to the right in a straight line from the Railroad Bridge. The white swath running from the rail yard below the Charles River to the BU Bridge is I90 / the Mass. Pike.
The trees being destroyed in the H3332 project start at the railroad on the upper side of the Charles River and follow the river to the bridge beyond the bridge at the right side of the photo.
I have been informed that the railroad yard has been emptied. Operations were planned to be moved to Worcester.
Here is a blow up of the area without the targeted trees.
Here are some photos of a group of smaller trees slated to be destroyed.
This excellent grove consists of about 104 trees about half a mile east of the BU Bridge at the Memorial Drive split. More than 80 of its trees are slated for destruction.
I repeat, most of the other trees being destroyed are larger than the ones in this grove. The trees are so thick that it is impossible to do photos of them which communicate the depravity.
5. Welcome to new facebook member.
Sam Wohns of Harvard who is very visible in the fight against the Argentine outrage has been kind enough to friend the Charles River White Geese on Facebook.
6. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituentservices/contact/.
State environmental people, DES Hotline: ESF.Hotline@state.ma.us.
MassDOT Accelerated Bridges Program: 857-368-8904 or Stephanie.Boundy@state.ma.us.
All Massachusetts Legislators’ emails: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/emails-for-all-massachusetts.html.
Cambridge, MA, USA city councilors: Council@cambridgema.gov.
**********
For people listening to Boston Sierra Club endorsements of environmentally destructive members of and candidates for the Cambridge City Council, you should be aware that
(1) using the world’s definition of “environmentalism,” there are no environmentally responsible members of the Cambridge City Council; Cambridge’s definition is that environmentalists protect that which Cambridge does not feel like destroying; the Cambridge pols are oh, so pious using their secret, fraudulent definition;
(2) the school committee member running for Cambridge City Council fought for the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields;
(a) his indignant explanation is that he claims to be only responsible for the good stuff;
(b) that explanation is combined with exactly no demonstration of any meaningful opposition whatsoever to the outrages; and
(c) as is usual in Cambridge, his claims of “improvements” are belied by reality. The playing fields have been decreased in size by his project!!!!! This is to drain off the poisons being dumped to keep alive sickly introduced grasses which replaced healthy grass that survived the better part of a century without poisons; and
(3) there are Cambridge Machine activists very visible and apparently very active in the Boston Sierra Club.
If you are talking to a person associated with the Boston Sierra Club, do a credibility check. Ask if they are familiar with the “Urban Ring” rapid transit proposal. This is a subway proposal designed to link the existing subway spokes. I have been working on it since 1985. Cambridge raised the project in a comment to an environmental Impact Statement a few months ago.
If the Boston Sierra Club “expert” answers “yes,” that he / she is familiar with the Urban Ring rapid transit proposal, ask how many rail options there are. If the answer is “one,” you are getting the flat out lie put out by the City of Cambridge.
Cambridge’s flat out lie is that, of the TWO rail options, the only one that exists is the environmentally destructive streetcar option which the City of Cambridge supports. This option would be highly destructive to the environment near the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The reality is that THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SUBSIDIZED THE OTHER OPTION, the responsible Orange Line / heavy rail option, the Kenmore crossing. The state legislature has subsidized the expansion of Yawkey Station as part of the massive Fenway Park area project which has gotten recent press.
Cambridge’s nonsensical proposal would move Yawkey Station three blocks. The Cambridge proposal would not work without moving Yawkey Station. The Kenmore Crossing uses the now subsidized and being expanded Yawkey Station as part of a brilliant megastation.
You should immediately respond to such nonsense from a Sierra Club “expert” by having nothing more to do with this person. Whether the person is stupid or venal is irrelevant, the person has no credibility and is not worthy of your time.
It is frequently difficult to pin these irresponsible people down in general. The deviant behavior in my test is extreme. They are pious in their demands that, if you are politically correct and pro environment, you have to rubber stamp them. Please do not waste your time arguing about destruction they can try to wiggle around.
Turn your back on them and walk away fast.
2. Argentina.
3. Cambridge Common.
4. Destruction on the Charles River.
5. Welcome to new facebook member.
6. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
1. WBZ Radio Report.
WBZ Radio this morning, and, I believe, last night has reported that an environmental disaster is proceeding to happen to our world with all the trees being destroyed by human beings.
This conclusion has been announced after extended analysis by a Harvard researcher.
2. Argentina.
We reported on Harvard’s massive destruction in Argentina yesterday, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/organizing-against-harvard.html.
3. Cambridge Common.
The City of Cambridge is in the process of destroying 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common which Harvard claims as Harvard open space on campus maps.
Cambridge claims Cambridge is improving the view.
It is inconceivable that such an outrage would be occurring in this location without the consent of Harvard.
Here are a few photos of endangered trees.
I reported on this outrage with more photos at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/impending-destruction-cambridge-ma-usa.html.
Last spring, the Cambridge City Council voted to mark the trees they were destroying, after they voted to destroy them. Then they took a tour. The trees were never marked.
4. Destruction on the Charles River.
In about 2004, Harvard bought the train yards and I90 (Mass. Pike) off ramp on the north side of the Charles River opposite Magazine Beach.
About four months earlier, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority demonstrated that the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge running under the BU BRidge could be used for an off ramp from I90 to Cambridge.
House Bill H3332 sponsored by Governor Patrick includes a bond request for the destruction of hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, two bridges east of the BU Bridge. This destruction is being fought for under the lie “underpasses”. The Patrick moneys include $2 to $4 million for the “underpasses” and about $22 million for associated “pathways” which very clearly include that destruction. The leader of the most visible group fighting for the destruction, a falsely named “Conservancy” has oozed at the brilliance of all that destruction.
Multiple projects on the Cambridge side are preparing Cambridge for receipt of this traffic. This destruction would straighten out Memorial Drive east of the new off ramp to allow faster movement more consistent with the expectations of folks using Harvard’s off ramp.
The governor has announced plans to straighten out I90 / the Mass. Pike in the yards / current off ramp area. The maneuvering rather clearly indicates long range plans to move the Harvard Medical School there to allow expansion of Longwood Medical Area hospitals. Harvard has proposed a spur off the rapid transit Red Line starting at Porter Station (next stop after Harvard Station), running through Harvard Station, and the new Harvard Medical School, connecting to a supposed bus tunnel to serve the Harvard Medical Area through a stop at Longwood Avenue and Louis Pasteur.
The bus tunnel is nonsense. The expense would be much more justified by an Orange Line spur through the tunnel to Kenmore / Fenway Park as first phase on a circumferential rapid transit line.
I have done many reports on this.
One example is: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-hospital-by-harvard-university-at.html.
Here is a space / aerial photo showing the lay of the land.
This photo is from 2006. At the far left is the rail yard / future Harvard Medical School. In the middle on the river is Magazine Beach. The bridge is the BU Bridge. Then comes the Destroyed Nesting Area. Barely under the BU Bridge can be seen the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The Grand Junction Railroad is the black line white extends up and to the right in a straight line from the Railroad Bridge. The white swath running from the rail yard below the Charles River to the BU Bridge is I90 / the Mass. Pike.
The trees being destroyed in the H3332 project start at the railroad on the upper side of the Charles River and follow the river to the bridge beyond the bridge at the right side of the photo.
I have been informed that the railroad yard has been emptied. Operations were planned to be moved to Worcester.
Here is a blow up of the area without the targeted trees.
Here are some photos of a group of smaller trees slated to be destroyed.
This excellent grove consists of about 104 trees about half a mile east of the BU Bridge at the Memorial Drive split. More than 80 of its trees are slated for destruction.
I repeat, most of the other trees being destroyed are larger than the ones in this grove. The trees are so thick that it is impossible to do photos of them which communicate the depravity.
5. Welcome to new facebook member.
Sam Wohns of Harvard who is very visible in the fight against the Argentine outrage has been kind enough to friend the Charles River White Geese on Facebook.
6. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituentservices/contact/.
State environmental people, DES Hotline: ESF.Hotline@state.ma.us.
MassDOT Accelerated Bridges Program: 857-368-8904 or Stephanie.Boundy@state.ma.us.
All Massachusetts Legislators’ emails: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/emails-for-all-massachusetts.html.
Cambridge, MA, USA city councilors: Council@cambridgema.gov.
**********
For people listening to Boston Sierra Club endorsements of environmentally destructive members of and candidates for the Cambridge City Council, you should be aware that
(1) using the world’s definition of “environmentalism,” there are no environmentally responsible members of the Cambridge City Council; Cambridge’s definition is that environmentalists protect that which Cambridge does not feel like destroying; the Cambridge pols are oh, so pious using their secret, fraudulent definition;
(2) the school committee member running for Cambridge City Council fought for the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields;
(a) his indignant explanation is that he claims to be only responsible for the good stuff;
(b) that explanation is combined with exactly no demonstration of any meaningful opposition whatsoever to the outrages; and
(c) as is usual in Cambridge, his claims of “improvements” are belied by reality. The playing fields have been decreased in size by his project!!!!! This is to drain off the poisons being dumped to keep alive sickly introduced grasses which replaced healthy grass that survived the better part of a century without poisons; and
(3) there are Cambridge Machine activists very visible and apparently very active in the Boston Sierra Club.
If you are talking to a person associated with the Boston Sierra Club, do a credibility check. Ask if they are familiar with the “Urban Ring” rapid transit proposal. This is a subway proposal designed to link the existing subway spokes. I have been working on it since 1985. Cambridge raised the project in a comment to an environmental Impact Statement a few months ago.
If the Boston Sierra Club “expert” answers “yes,” that he / she is familiar with the Urban Ring rapid transit proposal, ask how many rail options there are. If the answer is “one,” you are getting the flat out lie put out by the City of Cambridge.
Cambridge’s flat out lie is that, of the TWO rail options, the only one that exists is the environmentally destructive streetcar option which the City of Cambridge supports. This option would be highly destructive to the environment near the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The reality is that THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SUBSIDIZED THE OTHER OPTION, the responsible Orange Line / heavy rail option, the Kenmore crossing. The state legislature has subsidized the expansion of Yawkey Station as part of the massive Fenway Park area project which has gotten recent press.
Cambridge’s nonsensical proposal would move Yawkey Station three blocks. The Cambridge proposal would not work without moving Yawkey Station. The Kenmore Crossing uses the now subsidized and being expanded Yawkey Station as part of a brilliant megastation.
You should immediately respond to such nonsense from a Sierra Club “expert” by having nothing more to do with this person. Whether the person is stupid or venal is irrelevant, the person has no credibility and is not worthy of your time.
It is frequently difficult to pin these irresponsible people down in general. The deviant behavior in my test is extreme. They are pious in their demands that, if you are politically correct and pro environment, you have to rubber stamp them. Please do not waste your time arguing about destruction they can try to wiggle around.
Turn your back on them and walk away fast.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Organizing against Harvard Environmental Destruction
Organizing against Harvard Environmental Destruction.
The following is from Sam Wohns of Harvard University.
In addition to being a prime beneficiary of the multiple acts of environment destruction on the Charles River, Harvard is apparently destroying the environment in Argentina.
*************
Harvard owns two industrial timber plantations in northern Argentina that are degrading the Iberá Wetlands and endangering thousands of farmers.
After several communities sent a letter to President Faust, the provincial government seized thousands of hectares of their land. Last week, community leaders protested the land grab in the provincial capital.
On Tuesday, join a rally outside Massachusetts Hall to demonstrate our solidarity with the community members in Argentina.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Read the report on the Oakland Institute's website: http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/harvard-ibera
Pledge your support for affected communities in Argentina: http://eepurl.com/GuSg5
Check for updates on twitter: https://twitter.com/HarvardsMoney
************
--
*Samuel F. Wohns*
Cell: +1 (616) 334-8343 | Skype: swohns
Twitter: @samwohns |
Email: wohns@college.harvard.edu
The following is from Sam Wohns of Harvard University.
In addition to being a prime beneficiary of the multiple acts of environment destruction on the Charles River, Harvard is apparently destroying the environment in Argentina.
*************
Harvard owns two industrial timber plantations in northern Argentina that are degrading the Iberá Wetlands and endangering thousands of farmers.
After several communities sent a letter to President Faust, the provincial government seized thousands of hectares of their land. Last week, community leaders protested the land grab in the provincial capital.
On Tuesday, join a rally outside Massachusetts Hall to demonstrate our solidarity with the community members in Argentina.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Read the report on the Oakland Institute's website: http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/harvard-ibera
Pledge your support for affected communities in Argentina: http://eepurl.com/GuSg5
Check for updates on twitter: https://twitter.com/HarvardsMoney
************
--
*Samuel F. Wohns*
Cell: +1 (616) 334-8343 | Skype: swohns
Twitter: @samwohns
Email: wohns@college.harvard.edu
Monday, December 09, 2013
Grief: The Charles River White Geese, Dogs, Elephants and Others
1. Background.
2. The Charles River White Geese.
A. General.
B. Starvation.
C. Killings.
(1) The poor Charles River White Geese and a City Council Copycat.
(2) The Cambridge Machine.
3. Neighbor dogs mourn for Niketa.
1. Background.
I have been catching up on my reading.
Normally I do things chronologically, but, to my surprise I found two very old copies of Time which I had not read.
The April 15, 2013 edition includes an article which contains a thoughtful analysis of grief in varying types of animals: elephants, crows, horses and others.
2. The Charles River White Geese.
A. General.
This comes as no surprise on the Charles River because the 32 year resident Charles River White Geese have an excellent family structure with great closeness among relatives.
B. Starvation.
One of the more shocking photos in my files came when the City of Cambridge and their friends at the state started deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese.
This is the sort of corruption the fraudulent Cambridge Machine is trying to hide by lies of concern for the Charles River which translate as “do not look at the important stuff, look the building nobody has used for 80 years.”
Standard con, standard fraud, con games, corruption and lies. This is the Cambridge Machine.
The following is a photo of the day these reprehensible people started starving the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese have been valuable, treasured residents of the Charles River for more than 32 years, cherished by those familiar with them. So they have been isolated and deliberately starved by the Cambridge Machine and its friends.
For most of the 32 years, the Charles River White Geese have fed at Magazine Beach. The reason the Cambridge Machine lies that the only thing of importance is that unused building is that the people pulling their strings have done major work there with no important results except for destruction.
So they lie that they love the Charles River, just look at that old building which has not been in use for 80 years.
The days these reprehensible people started their destructive project, the Charles River White Geese came to feed as they had for decades. They were met by a wall of plastic. Here is a photo of that morning and women feeding them over the plastic.
[file shot]
The photo in The Boston Sunday Globe was a photo of one of the geese overwhelmed by the earth moving equipment.
Right next to the photo, The Boston Sunday Globe quoted the key manager at the state level lying: “We have no intention to harm” the Charles River White Geese. This report dominated the front page of their City Section.
That corrupt manager kept up this flat out lie for more than ten years. The Cambridge Machine’s corrupt vote of April 13, 2013 was to implement further destruction he is fighting for. And they treated this lying destroyer like a responsible member of society.
C. Killings.
(1) The poor Charles River White Geese and a City Council Copycat.
Cambridge and the DCR had their copycats. One such copycat started beating to death nesting mother geese on their nests.
The Cambridge City Council was begged to stop this outrage. They did not want to know about it.
One day, the rotter killed Bumpy the leader of the gaggle, and attacked and maimed many others.
My first understanding of the enormity of the crime came, in the Destroyed Nesting Area, when I looked at my feet and saw Junior, a gosling whose mother had been killed as part of early nest destruction associated with the state / its friends.
Junior was orphaned after his mother “disappeared” (i.e. was killed) after her nest was destroyed. She obviously defended her nest.
Junior’s father went crazy with grief when his mate was killed by these rotters.
Junior was adopted by Bumpy’s son and the son’s mate. Bumpy acted as baby sitter. The three of them, as is goose practice, created a polite wall, but a very real wall as they walked Junior to familiarize him with the world. Nobody could get close to Junior. Also part of goose practice with goslings.
And Junior was standing at my feet without protection. And the gaggle was distraught.
“Where is Bumpy?”
Bumpy’s beaten body was found by the river after an extended search.
Junior had been orphaned a second time in a very young life. And the gaggle was distraught.
The memorial service of Friends of the White Geese dominated the front page of the Cambridge Chronicle. The Cambridge City Council did not want to know about it.
The rotter apparently graduated to the rape and murder of a young woman where he had been killing geese.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour pontificating about the rape and murder. The Cambridge City Council did not want to know where she was raped and murdered.
(2) The Cambridge Machine.
At the City Council discussion of the rape and murder at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Councillor Davis briefly stated where the rape and murder had occurred. She swallowed her words, looked around guiltily and joined the rest of a rotten Cambridge City Council in not mentioning where the rape and murder occurred.
The murderer / goose killer is now serving a long sentence.
Davis is retiring. Good riddance.
But Davis’ friends continue to lie that the love the Charles River, but don’t look at the important stuff. And do not look at House Bill H332 which contains money to destroy hundreds of trees and animal habitat which they fight for (and included in the fine print of the fine print in the corrupt vote of April 23, 2013 and elsewhere) calling the destruction “underpasses”.
And they show just how much of a lie their “concern” is for that building which has not been used for 80 years.
They do that by destroying the environmentally responsible parking lot needed for access. It is also needed for the picnic area and for access for the little guys. The Cambridge Machine lies of love for the picnic area while destroying its responsible parking lot as well.
But the Cambridge Machine proclaims its love for the Charles River, just do not look at the problems they and their friends have created and are expanding. And they love that building that has not been used for 80 years. Just do not look at their fight to destroy its parking lot, “supported” by the corrupt vote of April 23, 2013. But don’t look at reality there either.
3. Neighbor dogs mourn for Niketa.
For quite awhile, I frequently walked my brother’s Golden Retriever, Niketa.
One of her favorite stops was a farm down the street which had dogs in its farm yard.
They would happily nuzzle through the woven fence and do happy barking.
Niketa passed away from cancer at 10.
A week or so after her death, I walked to the farm yard to say “hello” to the dogs.
One dog, a black short hair named Jack, kept barking at me in a loud but conversational tone. A Collie named Blue was friendly to me.
I left and came back a few days later after I realized what Jack was barking about. So I returned to respond to his communication.
This time both Blue and Jack kept barking.
I told them “Niketa is dead. She had cancer.”
Both immediately stopped barking and walked away, in mourning.
2. The Charles River White Geese.
A. General.
B. Starvation.
C. Killings.
(1) The poor Charles River White Geese and a City Council Copycat.
(2) The Cambridge Machine.
3. Neighbor dogs mourn for Niketa.
1. Background.
I have been catching up on my reading.
Normally I do things chronologically, but, to my surprise I found two very old copies of Time which I had not read.
The April 15, 2013 edition includes an article which contains a thoughtful analysis of grief in varying types of animals: elephants, crows, horses and others.
2. The Charles River White Geese.
A. General.
This comes as no surprise on the Charles River because the 32 year resident Charles River White Geese have an excellent family structure with great closeness among relatives.
B. Starvation.
One of the more shocking photos in my files came when the City of Cambridge and their friends at the state started deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese.
This is the sort of corruption the fraudulent Cambridge Machine is trying to hide by lies of concern for the Charles River which translate as “do not look at the important stuff, look the building nobody has used for 80 years.”
Standard con, standard fraud, con games, corruption and lies. This is the Cambridge Machine.
The following is a photo of the day these reprehensible people started starving the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese have been valuable, treasured residents of the Charles River for more than 32 years, cherished by those familiar with them. So they have been isolated and deliberately starved by the Cambridge Machine and its friends.
For most of the 32 years, the Charles River White Geese have fed at Magazine Beach. The reason the Cambridge Machine lies that the only thing of importance is that unused building is that the people pulling their strings have done major work there with no important results except for destruction.
So they lie that they love the Charles River, just look at that old building which has not been in use for 80 years.
The days these reprehensible people started their destructive project, the Charles River White Geese came to feed as they had for decades. They were met by a wall of plastic. Here is a photo of that morning and women feeding them over the plastic.
[file shot]
The photo in The Boston Sunday Globe was a photo of one of the geese overwhelmed by the earth moving equipment.
Right next to the photo, The Boston Sunday Globe quoted the key manager at the state level lying: “We have no intention to harm” the Charles River White Geese. This report dominated the front page of their City Section.
That corrupt manager kept up this flat out lie for more than ten years. The Cambridge Machine’s corrupt vote of April 13, 2013 was to implement further destruction he is fighting for. And they treated this lying destroyer like a responsible member of society.
C. Killings.
(1) The poor Charles River White Geese and a City Council Copycat.
Cambridge and the DCR had their copycats. One such copycat started beating to death nesting mother geese on their nests.
The Cambridge City Council was begged to stop this outrage. They did not want to know about it.
One day, the rotter killed Bumpy the leader of the gaggle, and attacked and maimed many others.
My first understanding of the enormity of the crime came, in the Destroyed Nesting Area, when I looked at my feet and saw Junior, a gosling whose mother had been killed as part of early nest destruction associated with the state / its friends.
Junior was orphaned after his mother “disappeared” (i.e. was killed) after her nest was destroyed. She obviously defended her nest.
Junior’s father went crazy with grief when his mate was killed by these rotters.
Junior was adopted by Bumpy’s son and the son’s mate. Bumpy acted as baby sitter. The three of them, as is goose practice, created a polite wall, but a very real wall as they walked Junior to familiarize him with the world. Nobody could get close to Junior. Also part of goose practice with goslings.
And Junior was standing at my feet without protection. And the gaggle was distraught.
“Where is Bumpy?”
Bumpy’s beaten body was found by the river after an extended search.
Junior had been orphaned a second time in a very young life. And the gaggle was distraught.
The memorial service of Friends of the White Geese dominated the front page of the Cambridge Chronicle. The Cambridge City Council did not want to know about it.
The rotter apparently graduated to the rape and murder of a young woman where he had been killing geese.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour pontificating about the rape and murder. The Cambridge City Council did not want to know where she was raped and murdered.
(2) The Cambridge Machine.
At the City Council discussion of the rape and murder at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Councillor Davis briefly stated where the rape and murder had occurred. She swallowed her words, looked around guiltily and joined the rest of a rotten Cambridge City Council in not mentioning where the rape and murder occurred.
The murderer / goose killer is now serving a long sentence.
Davis is retiring. Good riddance.
But Davis’ friends continue to lie that the love the Charles River, but don’t look at the important stuff. And do not look at House Bill H332 which contains money to destroy hundreds of trees and animal habitat which they fight for (and included in the fine print of the fine print in the corrupt vote of April 23, 2013 and elsewhere) calling the destruction “underpasses”.
And they show just how much of a lie their “concern” is for that building which has not been used for 80 years.
They do that by destroying the environmentally responsible parking lot needed for access. It is also needed for the picnic area and for access for the little guys. The Cambridge Machine lies of love for the picnic area while destroying its responsible parking lot as well.
But the Cambridge Machine proclaims its love for the Charles River, just do not look at the problems they and their friends have created and are expanding. And they love that building that has not been used for 80 years. Just do not look at their fight to destroy its parking lot, “supported” by the corrupt vote of April 23, 2013. But don’t look at reality there either.
3. Neighbor dogs mourn for Niketa.
For quite awhile, I frequently walked my brother’s Golden Retriever, Niketa.
One of her favorite stops was a farm down the street which had dogs in its farm yard.
They would happily nuzzle through the woven fence and do happy barking.
Niketa passed away from cancer at 10.
A week or so after her death, I walked to the farm yard to say “hello” to the dogs.
One dog, a black short hair named Jack, kept barking at me in a loud but conversational tone. A Collie named Blue was friendly to me.
I left and came back a few days later after I realized what Jack was barking about. So I returned to respond to his communication.
This time both Blue and Jack kept barking.
I told them “Niketa is dead. She had cancer.”
Both immediately stopped barking and walked away, in mourning.
Friday, December 06, 2013
Case Study: Cambridge, MA, USA Rent Control killed by conning a key rent control supporter?
1. Introduction.
2. Standard type con of the Cambridge Machine.
3. The history of P.
4. Summary.
1. Introduction.
In Cambridge, MA, it is now normal for large scale conning / dishonesty to be used to fool good people into destroying the causes for which they stand.
Cambridge, MA had Rent Control from the 60s to the 90s. It was supported by a majority of the city’s residents but killed in a 90s statewide referendum in which Cambridge voted to keep rent control and the rest of the state, by a very narrow margin, outvoted Cambridge and destroyed Rent Control.
I kept out of the statewide organizing group because I saw two Cambridge residents very visible in it who had long, destructive, records in tenant circles. I feared that they would be as destructive in the statewide organization as they were locally in Cambridge.
So I became a director in the Massachusetts Tenants Organization, a prime creator of the statewide effort against the referendum. I tried to neutralize the destructive two through outflanking them. I was not successful.
The report I got from a person who had been active in the statewide organization was that destructive behavior from the Cambridge ranks could have kept the organization from organizing at the level of effort which it could have achieved without the destructiveness of the Cambridge folks. My source was concerned that, because of the closeness of the vote, the destructive behavior in the statewide organization could have been enough to kill the tenant efforts.
For years, I have quietly blamed the destructive duo for the possible killing of rent control by preventing the statewide organization from functioning, a task comparable to their record and their behavior in Cambridge.
2. Standard type con of the Cambridge Machine.
A normal tactic of members of the Cambridge Machine is to talk well meaning folk into destroying their own cause through “minor” actions which are anything but minor. The “minor” actions commonly use misleading words which sound great but which, in reality, are exactly the opposite. This tactic is part of the usual lies through omission.
Rent Control was found legal by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the 1970s. It was found legal as a consumer protection measure intended to place both landlords and tenants on an equal footing, and to prevent landlords from unduly large profits based on the housing shortage of the time. Rent Control was a logical response to a group abusing a group monopoly.
The key finding of the Court in the 70s was that, as a consumer protection measure concerning a scarce resource with undue bargaining power on the landlords, rent control was legal. The Court clearly communicated that, the minute Rent Control could be proven to be a subsidy of tenants at the expense of landlords rather than a protection against a group monopoly, rent control would be illegal and would be thrown out by the Courts.
So naturally, the landlords ran around yelling “:subsidy.”
Sometime prior to the rent control referendum, a key person, P, got conned into adopting the landlords’ position that rent control was a subsidy taking money from landlords for the benefit of tenants.
3. The history of P.
P was a radical (euphemism for Communist, also applicable to group members in Communist influenced organizations). P was a radical in the 60s when P helped the passage of rent control. P probably continues to be a radical to this day.
While rent control was in effect P continued to work to continue rent control in place for the benefit of the needy.
Since the death of Rent Control, P has written and co-led two referenda to reinstate rent control as a subsidy for tenants. With those subsidy clauses in the petitions, the petitions were blatantly illegal, but if they had passed, that might not have been determined for five or ten years until the Court resolved the issue. Given the apparent lack of competence shown by city legal staff in the Monteiro case, that rent control case could, also have been fought beyond the limit of reason. And the efforts fighting for the lost cause could have worn out tenants.
I became aware of the illegal provision when it was included in the latter of the two reinstatement referenda. I strongly objected to the inclusion of this destructive position in the referenda. I pointed out to P and to others in the effort the illegality of the provision and thus of the entire referendum based on the 70s Supreme Judicial Court decision.
In recent years, P has commented to me that my position had been the same position taken by the two Cambridge activists whom I had feared as destructive in the anti 90s referendum effort.
It turns out that P, during the anti 90s referendum effort, had tried to get the anti 90s referendum people including those two to adopt the “subsidy” position of the landlords which had been condemned by the Supreme Judicial Court as illegal.
P, additionally, has a strong tendency to beat points to death in meetings and to force meetings to discuss and discuss and discuss his issue at the expense of doing constructive work.
And he admitted to pushing for adoption of the “subsidy” issue in the meetings of the anti 90s referendum people.
And my contact in the anti 90s referendum group was clearly distressed that destructive behavior in the Cambridge delegation during the anti 90s referendum organizing could have been sufficiently important to swing the extremely close vote on the statewide referendum to the other side. My contact was concerned that the Cambridge delegation had kept the core part of the organization from functioning.
P helped get rent control adopted in the 60s. P worked for rent control during its existence P tried to reinstate rent control in two referenda after the 90s vote.
P may have prevented the anti 90s referendum organization from functioning with his fight for the “subsidy” position in meetings of the anti 90s referendum group. My contact clearly was distressed that actions in the Cambridge delegation kept the group from functioning to the harm of the cause.
4. Summary.
A week or so ago, in an email exchange, I pointed out to P that P had fought for the landlord position that rent control was a subsidy for tenants. P indignantly denied ever taking such a position.
A big difference between my comment and his fight was that I explicitly and accurately described P’s position as the landlord anti-tenant position. P never described his position as the landlord position in the anti-90s referendum group although P was aware that the other two did oppose P’s position for that reason, and that the two clearly opposed P’s position because it was destructive to Rent Control as a result of the 70s Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing Rent Control.
P just was fighting for a position P had called fair play. P had gotten conned into fighting for a position destructive to a cause P had fought for for 30 years. Destructive because of undisclosed fine print.
This sort of dirty tricks is now normal in Cambridge. P could have cost Cambridge Rent Control by beating to death statewide meetings and by forcing the landlord position into the discussions of the anti 90s referendum group in its key meetings, a position which he had been conned into taking.
Whoever did the con job on P simply walked away and let P run with P’s conned self destructive cause. P did all the work. The string puller was nowhere to be seen.
And the other two? Well, their years of destructive behavior created an odor in the tenant movement which should not have been there. Those two well deserve to be condemned for their part in the destruction of rent control, actions which came close to getting them thrown out of the tenant movement a few years before the 90s referendum. However, those two were on the correct side in fighting P’s initiative during the effort to defeat the 90s referendum.
That is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA, USA.
This business is business as usual in the rotten politics of the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, now. It dominates Cambridge politics. That outright domination of the political system did not exist in the 90s. Well meaning people are now regularly conned into fighting to hurt their own causes by the Cambridge Machine and its manipulations.
2. Standard type con of the Cambridge Machine.
3. The history of P.
4. Summary.
1. Introduction.
In Cambridge, MA, it is now normal for large scale conning / dishonesty to be used to fool good people into destroying the causes for which they stand.
Cambridge, MA had Rent Control from the 60s to the 90s. It was supported by a majority of the city’s residents but killed in a 90s statewide referendum in which Cambridge voted to keep rent control and the rest of the state, by a very narrow margin, outvoted Cambridge and destroyed Rent Control.
I kept out of the statewide organizing group because I saw two Cambridge residents very visible in it who had long, destructive, records in tenant circles. I feared that they would be as destructive in the statewide organization as they were locally in Cambridge.
So I became a director in the Massachusetts Tenants Organization, a prime creator of the statewide effort against the referendum. I tried to neutralize the destructive two through outflanking them. I was not successful.
The report I got from a person who had been active in the statewide organization was that destructive behavior from the Cambridge ranks could have kept the organization from organizing at the level of effort which it could have achieved without the destructiveness of the Cambridge folks. My source was concerned that, because of the closeness of the vote, the destructive behavior in the statewide organization could have been enough to kill the tenant efforts.
For years, I have quietly blamed the destructive duo for the possible killing of rent control by preventing the statewide organization from functioning, a task comparable to their record and their behavior in Cambridge.
2. Standard type con of the Cambridge Machine.
A normal tactic of members of the Cambridge Machine is to talk well meaning folk into destroying their own cause through “minor” actions which are anything but minor. The “minor” actions commonly use misleading words which sound great but which, in reality, are exactly the opposite. This tactic is part of the usual lies through omission.
Rent Control was found legal by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the 1970s. It was found legal as a consumer protection measure intended to place both landlords and tenants on an equal footing, and to prevent landlords from unduly large profits based on the housing shortage of the time. Rent Control was a logical response to a group abusing a group monopoly.
The key finding of the Court in the 70s was that, as a consumer protection measure concerning a scarce resource with undue bargaining power on the landlords, rent control was legal. The Court clearly communicated that, the minute Rent Control could be proven to be a subsidy of tenants at the expense of landlords rather than a protection against a group monopoly, rent control would be illegal and would be thrown out by the Courts.
So naturally, the landlords ran around yelling “:subsidy.”
Sometime prior to the rent control referendum, a key person, P, got conned into adopting the landlords’ position that rent control was a subsidy taking money from landlords for the benefit of tenants.
3. The history of P.
P was a radical (euphemism for Communist, also applicable to group members in Communist influenced organizations). P was a radical in the 60s when P helped the passage of rent control. P probably continues to be a radical to this day.
While rent control was in effect P continued to work to continue rent control in place for the benefit of the needy.
Since the death of Rent Control, P has written and co-led two referenda to reinstate rent control as a subsidy for tenants. With those subsidy clauses in the petitions, the petitions were blatantly illegal, but if they had passed, that might not have been determined for five or ten years until the Court resolved the issue. Given the apparent lack of competence shown by city legal staff in the Monteiro case, that rent control case could, also have been fought beyond the limit of reason. And the efforts fighting for the lost cause could have worn out tenants.
I became aware of the illegal provision when it was included in the latter of the two reinstatement referenda. I strongly objected to the inclusion of this destructive position in the referenda. I pointed out to P and to others in the effort the illegality of the provision and thus of the entire referendum based on the 70s Supreme Judicial Court decision.
In recent years, P has commented to me that my position had been the same position taken by the two Cambridge activists whom I had feared as destructive in the anti 90s referendum effort.
It turns out that P, during the anti 90s referendum effort, had tried to get the anti 90s referendum people including those two to adopt the “subsidy” position of the landlords which had been condemned by the Supreme Judicial Court as illegal.
P, additionally, has a strong tendency to beat points to death in meetings and to force meetings to discuss and discuss and discuss his issue at the expense of doing constructive work.
And he admitted to pushing for adoption of the “subsidy” issue in the meetings of the anti 90s referendum people.
And my contact in the anti 90s referendum group was clearly distressed that destructive behavior in the Cambridge delegation during the anti 90s referendum organizing could have been sufficiently important to swing the extremely close vote on the statewide referendum to the other side. My contact was concerned that the Cambridge delegation had kept the core part of the organization from functioning.
P helped get rent control adopted in the 60s. P worked for rent control during its existence P tried to reinstate rent control in two referenda after the 90s vote.
P may have prevented the anti 90s referendum organization from functioning with his fight for the “subsidy” position in meetings of the anti 90s referendum group. My contact clearly was distressed that actions in the Cambridge delegation kept the group from functioning to the harm of the cause.
4. Summary.
A week or so ago, in an email exchange, I pointed out to P that P had fought for the landlord position that rent control was a subsidy for tenants. P indignantly denied ever taking such a position.
A big difference between my comment and his fight was that I explicitly and accurately described P’s position as the landlord anti-tenant position. P never described his position as the landlord position in the anti-90s referendum group although P was aware that the other two did oppose P’s position for that reason, and that the two clearly opposed P’s position because it was destructive to Rent Control as a result of the 70s Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing Rent Control.
P just was fighting for a position P had called fair play. P had gotten conned into fighting for a position destructive to a cause P had fought for for 30 years. Destructive because of undisclosed fine print.
This sort of dirty tricks is now normal in Cambridge. P could have cost Cambridge Rent Control by beating to death statewide meetings and by forcing the landlord position into the discussions of the anti 90s referendum group in its key meetings, a position which he had been conned into taking.
Whoever did the con job on P simply walked away and let P run with P’s conned self destructive cause. P did all the work. The string puller was nowhere to be seen.
And the other two? Well, their years of destructive behavior created an odor in the tenant movement which should not have been there. Those two well deserve to be condemned for their part in the destruction of rent control, actions which came close to getting them thrown out of the tenant movement a few years before the 90s referendum. However, those two were on the correct side in fighting P’s initiative during the effort to defeat the 90s referendum.
That is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA, USA.
This business is business as usual in the rotten politics of the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, now. It dominates Cambridge politics. That outright domination of the political system did not exist in the 90s. Well meaning people are now regularly conned into fighting to hurt their own causes by the Cambridge Machine and its manipulations.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Cambridge, MA, USA: Games being played to obscure Civil Rights defeat of Cambridge.
1. Motion on Monteiro.
2. Original Motion on Monteiro.
3. Reality and the motion.
1. Motion on Monteiro.
The Cambridge City Council may or may not be playing games on the Civil Rights Case of Monteiro v. Cambridge. As near as I can figure out, they are split between playing games and pretending nothing happened. And, as far as I am concerned, pretending nothing happened is just another game.
In the last Cambridge City Council meeting, the Council apparently decided in favor of pretending nothing happened.
I have done a number of reports on this case.
To put it succinctly, judge, jury and appeals court panel reviewed this case and issued very clear communications that the Cambridge City Manager committed malfeasance in orrice by destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro, the former head of the Police Review Board.
The entities rather clearly communicated to the Cambridge City Council that retired City Manager Robert Healy could be fired at the will of the Cambridge City Council for his “reprehensible” behavior (Judge) in a matter in which was demonstrated “ample evidence of. . . outrageous misbehavior” by Healy.
**************
The following comes from the City Clerk’s report on the November 18, 2013, City Council meeting. Thank you to R. Winters for pointing it out. R.Winters communicates what could be a Cambridge Machine position: do not look at highly angered judge, jury and appeals court panel. This is no big thing. That is what former City Councilor Samuel Seidel said before he was fired by the voters.
If you want to skip the complicated technicalities, please jump to section 3, below.
**************
City Council Calendar, Charter Right, item number 1.
That the City Manager is requested to appoint a special committee, to be comprised of both City Councillors and of Cambridge residents, to take up the work of holding monthly conversations about the lessons learned from the Malvina Montiero lawsuit, and about how the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters as an employer, beginning as of the start of the next calendar year. Charter Right exercised by Vice Mayor Simmons on Order Number Eight of November 4, 2013.
> View Policy Order Resolution from November 4, 2013 POR 2013 #351 View History PLACED ON FILE UNDER RULE 19
2. Original Motion on Monteiro.
This information is provided solely for completeness. If you are not worried about the history of the motion, ignore this paragraph.
************
This is an amended version of Order 8 on November 4, which read
VICE MAYOR SIMMONS
1. WHEREAS: Over the course of the past several months, the Civic Unity Committee has been holding regular meetings, at the rate of about once every six weeks, to discuss the lessons that can be learned from the Malvina Monteiro lawsuit, the ways in which the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters, and the ways in which the City can strive to meet the ideals that we expect of all employers in this community; and
WHEREAS: There had long been great demand for these discussions, and the Civic Unity Committee Chair has been receiving a tremendous degree of positive feedback, and encouragement from those who wish to see these discussions continue and for true progress to be achieved; and
WHEREAS: The Chair of the Civic Unity Committee is appointed at the pleasure of the Mayor, as is the case with all committee chairs, and there is no guarantee that the Chair of the Civic Unity Committee for the 2014-2015 City Council term will be the same as the Chair of the 2012-2013 term. It is hoped that the next Civic Unity Committee Chair, whomever it may be, will continue to hold these most important discussions at regular intervals, but in the interest of ensuring that this matter does not rest at the conclusion of this calendar year, it would be wise for the City to place this specific conversation into a more stable forum; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint a special committee, to be comprised of both City Councillors and of Cambridge residents, to take up the work of holding monthly conversations about the lessons learned from the Malvina Montiero lawsuit, and about how the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters as an employer, beginning as of the start of the next calendar year.
3. Reality and the motion.
Basically, a black female councilor, Vice Mayor Simmons, went through the motions of concern about the Monteiro case.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean female who filed a complaint alleging mistreatment because she is female. Judge, jury and appeals court panel are strongly in agreement that Malvina Monteiro was fired and her life destroyed because of her filing of this complaint.
This black female city councilor wants the matter put into committee with regular reports on the lessons learned from the case.
As has been the norm in the case, there is exactly zero statement that the Cambridge City Council should have implemented the directions of judge, jury and appeals court which gave the Cambridge City Council clear authorization to fire Healy for malfeasance in office.
It appears to me that the voters have removed two Cambridge City Councilors, Seidel and Reeves, for failure to do their duty in this case, Seidel last election, Reeves this election, but the City Council still does not want to know nothing.
The impact of the action on the amended motion is to put the motion strongly into limbo.
The Cambridge City Council, once again, has affirmed that it does not want to do the most silly, most basic, handling of this outrage. The City Council’s nonfeasance in office puts the lie to claims of civil rights sainthood by the Cambridge Machine and by members of the Cambridge City Council.
The most important thing from the Cambridge City Council is that it wants its voters to know nothing.
This is one con game which is not working, just look at the voters’ firing of Samuel Seidel last time and Kenneth Reeves this time.
But we keep getting the games.
2. Original Motion on Monteiro.
3. Reality and the motion.
1. Motion on Monteiro.
The Cambridge City Council may or may not be playing games on the Civil Rights Case of Monteiro v. Cambridge. As near as I can figure out, they are split between playing games and pretending nothing happened. And, as far as I am concerned, pretending nothing happened is just another game.
In the last Cambridge City Council meeting, the Council apparently decided in favor of pretending nothing happened.
I have done a number of reports on this case.
To put it succinctly, judge, jury and appeals court panel reviewed this case and issued very clear communications that the Cambridge City Manager committed malfeasance in orrice by destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro, the former head of the Police Review Board.
The entities rather clearly communicated to the Cambridge City Council that retired City Manager Robert Healy could be fired at the will of the Cambridge City Council for his “reprehensible” behavior (Judge) in a matter in which was demonstrated “ample evidence of. . . outrageous misbehavior” by Healy.
**************
The following comes from the City Clerk’s report on the November 18, 2013, City Council meeting. Thank you to R. Winters for pointing it out. R.Winters communicates what could be a Cambridge Machine position: do not look at highly angered judge, jury and appeals court panel. This is no big thing. That is what former City Councilor Samuel Seidel said before he was fired by the voters.
If you want to skip the complicated technicalities, please jump to section 3, below.
**************
City Council Calendar, Charter Right, item number 1.
That the City Manager is requested to appoint a special committee, to be comprised of both City Councillors and of Cambridge residents, to take up the work of holding monthly conversations about the lessons learned from the Malvina Montiero lawsuit, and about how the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters as an employer, beginning as of the start of the next calendar year. Charter Right exercised by Vice Mayor Simmons on Order Number Eight of November 4, 2013.
> View Policy Order Resolution from November 4, 2013 POR 2013 #351 View History PLACED ON FILE UNDER RULE 19
2. Original Motion on Monteiro.
This information is provided solely for completeness. If you are not worried about the history of the motion, ignore this paragraph.
************
This is an amended version of Order 8 on November 4, which read
VICE MAYOR SIMMONS
1. WHEREAS: Over the course of the past several months, the Civic Unity Committee has been holding regular meetings, at the rate of about once every six weeks, to discuss the lessons that can be learned from the Malvina Monteiro lawsuit, the ways in which the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters, and the ways in which the City can strive to meet the ideals that we expect of all employers in this community; and
WHEREAS: There had long been great demand for these discussions, and the Civic Unity Committee Chair has been receiving a tremendous degree of positive feedback, and encouragement from those who wish to see these discussions continue and for true progress to be achieved; and
WHEREAS: The Chair of the Civic Unity Committee is appointed at the pleasure of the Mayor, as is the case with all committee chairs, and there is no guarantee that the Chair of the Civic Unity Committee for the 2014-2015 City Council term will be the same as the Chair of the 2012-2013 term. It is hoped that the next Civic Unity Committee Chair, whomever it may be, will continue to hold these most important discussions at regular intervals, but in the interest of ensuring that this matter does not rest at the conclusion of this calendar year, it would be wise for the City to place this specific conversation into a more stable forum; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint a special committee, to be comprised of both City Councillors and of Cambridge residents, to take up the work of holding monthly conversations about the lessons learned from the Malvina Montiero lawsuit, and about how the City can improve upon its internal handling of race and class matters as an employer, beginning as of the start of the next calendar year.
3. Reality and the motion.
Basically, a black female councilor, Vice Mayor Simmons, went through the motions of concern about the Monteiro case.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean female who filed a complaint alleging mistreatment because she is female. Judge, jury and appeals court panel are strongly in agreement that Malvina Monteiro was fired and her life destroyed because of her filing of this complaint.
This black female city councilor wants the matter put into committee with regular reports on the lessons learned from the case.
As has been the norm in the case, there is exactly zero statement that the Cambridge City Council should have implemented the directions of judge, jury and appeals court which gave the Cambridge City Council clear authorization to fire Healy for malfeasance in office.
It appears to me that the voters have removed two Cambridge City Councilors, Seidel and Reeves, for failure to do their duty in this case, Seidel last election, Reeves this election, but the City Council still does not want to know nothing.
The impact of the action on the amended motion is to put the motion strongly into limbo.
The Cambridge City Council, once again, has affirmed that it does not want to do the most silly, most basic, handling of this outrage. The City Council’s nonfeasance in office puts the lie to claims of civil rights sainthood by the Cambridge Machine and by members of the Cambridge City Council.
The most important thing from the Cambridge City Council is that it wants its voters to know nothing.
This is one con game which is not working, just look at the voters’ firing of Samuel Seidel last time and Kenneth Reeves this time.
But we keep getting the games.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Cambridge Machine Stood Up by government official? A possible explanation.
1. Guest of Honor Missing?
A. Introduction.
B. Real position.
C. Thursday.
D. Side event to the “celebration.”
2. Reality.
A. Introductory.
B. July 23, 2006.
C. April 14, 2012.
D. The Destroyed Nesting Area the Day of the “Celebration.”
3. Summary.
4. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
[2012, 05-07, 18 Thicket, walk, bushes]
[453]
1. Guest of Honor Missing?
A. Introduction.
The Cambridge Machine had a celebration on Thursday, November 14, in which the announced guest of honor, the lieutenant governor, did not show up.
He was talking about resigning. Since he is reported to have resigned on June 3, 2013, that seems to be a reasonable explanation.
The Governor had other commitments. He was in Cambridge about a mile away signing a housing bill at the elderly apartments at 2 Mt. Auburn Street which in turn is about two blocks as the crow flies from the Charles River. See the Cambridge Chronicle at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1565410381/Patrick-signs-1-4B-housing-bill-in-Cambridge.
Nevertheless, there are good reasons why nobody higher than the head of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) showed up.
B. Real position.
The Cambridge Machine has a very much non stop mantra: Do not look at what we are destroying. Look at how great we sound as we are “achieving” something much less.
On the Charles River, they are fighting
a. For destruction of hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge,
b. For continued and accelerating abuse of the 32 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese,
c. For the continued walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles River, and starving the Charles River White Geese by taking away their food from them at Magazine Beach,
d. For the continued dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles River to keep alive sickly grass which has replaced healthy grass which, for the better part of a century, survived without poisons,
e. For the continued reduction of the size of the Magazine Beach playing fields to install expensive drainage to drain off the poisons.
f. For the continued destruction of the boat dock on the Charles River from Magazine Beach.
g. And they have showed their pride by the corrupt vote and tactics they have used in their fight to expand the outrage.
And, of course, the real fight is to get an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) to Cambridge over the rail bridge under the BU Bridge, and the very big next step could be the announced plans to straighten out the Mass. Pike on the Boston side of the Charles River. Now would it be that difficult to change the location of the off ramps while you are straightening out the Mass. Pike?
All of these efforts and more were achieved or are being fought for in secret, frequently in direct violation of the stated goals on the Charles River by Cambridge, MA / its friends in the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
So, of course, in the spirit of these corrupt policies, the Cambridge Machine says not to look at the outrages they support and are expanding through the corrupt vote and smoke screens, look at a building which has not been used for 80 years that they want to renovate.
And the Governor, in House Bill H3332, is seeking $26 million in bond authorization which would be used to destroy hundreds of trees from Magazine Beach to the Longfellow Bridge. That would straighten out Memorial Drive to take the traffic from the new off ramp.
The euphemism varies. The latest lie is “underpasses” under the next three bridges. The words in the bill talk about “Historic Parkways”. In the sick world of the governments of Cambridge, MA, USA and its friends, they celebrate history (Historic Parkways) with massive environmental destruction of the Historic Parkway.
C. Thursday.
On Thursday, November 14, 2013, the guy heading the agency responsible for so much destruction showed up by himself.
The Cambridge Machine and the DCR were celebrating money for the contractors in this latest item of welfare for contractors, and the latest smoke screen.
I did not stay for the celebration. I have since noticed an email in which the Cambridge Machine bragged about the celebration, and about the DCR head being there.
D. Side event to the “celebration.”
Interesting side feature. Very prominent in the “celebration” was the environmentally sensitive small parking lot needed to support the results of the “renovation.” The Cambridge Machine supported the DCR’s plans to destroy that parking lot in the corrupt “vote” of April 23, 2013. The Cambridge Machine showed exactly how important the “renovation” is by destroying the parking lot which supports their supposed great achievement.
The parking lot was overflowing. It could not handle the small number of folks at the “celebration”. So the DCR and the Cambridge Machine are destroying it.
Why?
How dare you ask that. It is politically incorrect to ask such questions. This is a matter being fought for as secretly as possible.
2. Reality.
A. Introductory.
Here are a few photos of the outrage inflicted on the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach.
One of the key problems over the past 13 years of outrage has been flat out lying by the DCR.
One of their most important lies was called the Charles River Master Plan. The Charles River Master Plan lied that the plans for feeding area of the Charles River White Geese were for a lawn to the Charles River. Naturally, they did exactly the opposite and changed the supposedly sacrosanct “Charles River Master Plan” from the lie to reality.
Here are a series of photos of the riverfront area of Magazine Beach, the area where the Charles River White Geese fed for most of the last 32 years.
The photos were taken, first in 2006 after phase 1 of the construction, and then in April of 2012 after phase 2. This is how the DCR’s “lawn” to the Charles River was implemented as and which the Cambridge Machine is fighting to keep by telling people to look at everything else, using their own belligerent corruption in the process.
It is highly likely that the expansion supported by the Corrupt “vote” of April 23, 2013, will expand this wall to the west of the Magazine Beach playing fields beyond the building the Cambridge Machine insists is the only thing people who love Magazine Beach should look at.
The most important difference in technique between the DCR and the Cambridge Machine is that the DCR relies much more on flat out lying. The Cambridge Machine uses sophisticated lying, such as the corrupt vote of April 23, 2013.
The ONLY explanation ever given for this outrageous wall is a belligerent claim of incompetence. The DCR and the Cambridge Machine insist that the DCR does not know how to chop down bushes. Strange. In most other parts of the Charles River Basin, they know very well how to chop down bushes. The bragged of incompetence is very selective.
B. July 23, 2006.
The photos in this section were taken by and provided by a representative of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority which owns the area between Magazine Beach and the BU Bridge.
They were taken at a memorial event for Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle who was assassinated five years earlier by a person clearly implementing the contempt for animals expressed by Cambridge and the DCR. Environmentalists begged the Cambridge City Council to stop his beating to death of nesting geese. The Cambridge City Council maintained the silence of consent. The killer graduated to killing Bumpy and multiple other attacks on that day. A few months later, he seems to have graduated to rape and murder where he had been beating mother geese to death.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder but did not want to know where it happened. Davis (leaving and good riddance) briefly stated the location, swallowed her words and looked around guiltily.
The goose killer who graduated to rape and murder is now surviving a long sentence. The Cambridge Machine has kept the people he emulated in office and is expanding on the destruction while lying of sainthood.
[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06218]
The bridge was constructed in phase 1 of the destruction.
[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06219]
[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06228]
Compare the last panorama of a vaguely normal LAWN TO THE CHARLES RIVER to the current outrage which is being kept as secret as possible. Look at the building which has not been used in 80 years. How dare you look at the destruction inflicted by our friends.
It was easy for the Charles River White Geese to regain access to their food after phase 1. The massive bushes in the below pictures were constructed in phase 2 to correct this defect from the point of view of the heartless.
C. April 14, 2012.
[2012, 05-07, 18 Thicket, walk, bushes]
[2012, 05-07, 21 Bench, Thicket, walk]
[2012, 05-07, 12 04-14-12, former boat dock]
[2012, 05-07, 13 04-14-12, Impenetrable Thicket from former boat dock]
[2012, 05-07, 15 04-14-12, Bridge to former Boat Dock]
This is the opposite view of the second prior photo. It is exactly the same shot as the first photo in this series, 6 years earlier.
The DCR did not obviously bar access to the boat dock. They created, first a pond a few feet from the Charles River. That pond shows in the 2006 photo. Then when the Charles River White Geese loved the pond, the DCR destroyed the pond in favor of artificial wetland. The bridge, constructed in the first phase, prevented access to the boat dock by the vehicles which used to back onto the boat dock and lower their small craft into the river. The bridge is very much too small for the traffic. Besides, both photos show barriers preventing driving on the bridge.
The new bushes block access by the Charles River White Geese while giving the appearance of access.
As I said, the “explanation” is first to rewrite the Charles River Master Plan after the fact, and secondly to claim incompetence. The poor dears do not understand how to chop down bushes although they do an excellent job chopping down bushes elsewhere on the Charles River Basin.
D. The Destroyed Nesting Area the Day of the “Celebration.”
I took the following pictures of the outrage in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, to which the gaggle has been confined since the outrage at Magazine Beach commenced. It is a few hundred feet east of the area in which they fed of their barred feeding area, just on the other side of the BU Bridge crossing the Charles River.
Here is a photo of the Charles River White Geese next to the BU Bridge walking through crushed stone dumped to create parking lot near the entrance of their Destroyed Nesting Area. They have been made reliant on decent human beings to counteract the starvation attacks the machine supports and is fighting to continue and make worse through two new highways.
[453]
This is the Charles River under the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The Grand Junction is slated to be turned into an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90)so that Harvard University can move its Medical School to the current exit to Brighton and Cambridge, an exit which has been sold by the state to Harvard.
The white figure among the mallards is one of the Charles River White Ducks. The Charles River White Ducks were dumped at Magazine Beach in 2006 as babies. They were so naive, they did not know what the blue water was for. They have survived in spite of the outrages supported by the Cambridge Machine.
[454]
Here is the latest outrage. Railroad workers used the most sensitive part of the Destroyed Nesting Area for parking for work on the railroad rather than readily available parking a few feet away. The dumped crushed stone into the previously untouched area and, when they left, most crushed stone was dumped.
The vegetation in the background is the very small amount of native vegetation which was not destroyed by the state during the various outrages.
[455]
Here are two of the Charles River White Geese walking through this outrage.
[460]
Here is the new highway of which this crushed stone is an extension. The orange structure at the top is another starvation wall to keep the Charles River White Geese from accessing grass under Memorial Drive.
[462]
This photo is taken from pretty much the same location as the previous, but puts a lot in perspective.
[461]
On the left you can see the gaggle of the hungry Charles River White Geese. Behind them is the BU Bridge. To their right is the parking lot irresponsibly built. Slightly closer is the western of the two highways constructed as suppose repairs for the damage done in the BU Bridge repairs. This links to the governor’s bill to destroy all those trees. Nearest the camera is the western highway shown in the immediately prior photo. This links to the north bike “highway” which is the convenient lie to widen the underpass under Memorial Drive to make room for the relocated Mass. Pike exit.
The area to the right rear is next to the now closed entrance. It seems to be intended to grow and grow. The area in the middle of the view was introduced bushes unfit for the area. Thus an excuse for whatever outrage they want to do. Remember that this area, before destruction, was filled with the extremely health native bushes in photo [455] above.
3. Summary.
Naturally none of the outrages are publicly acknowledged. And blatantly corrupt behavior is considered normal as well.
The position of the Cambridge Machine: Don’t look at our outrages. Look at our celebration of welfare for contractors.
But thank you to the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor or whomever for not participating.
Unfortunately, House Bill H3332 with its proposed bond authorization for even greater massive destruction is reality.
Reality supported through blatant corrupt behavior.
4. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituentservices/contact/.
State environmental people, DES Hotline: ESF.Hotline@state.ma.us.
MassDOT Accelerated Bridges Program: 857-368-8904 or Stephanie.Boundy@state.ma.us
All Massachusetts Legislators’ emails: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/emails-for-all-massachusetts.html.
Cambridge, MA, USA city councilors: Council@cambridgema.gov.
**********
For people listening to Boston Sierra Club endorsements of environmentally destructive members of and candidates for the Cambridge City Council, you should be aware that
(1) using the world’s definition of “environmentalism,” there are no environmentally responsible members of the Cambridge City Council; Cambridge’s definition is that environmentalists protect that which Cambridge does not feel like destroying; the Cambridge pols are oh, so pious using their secret, fraudulent definition;
(2) the school committee member apparently elected to Cambridge City Council fought for the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields;
(a) his indignant explanation is that he claims to be only responsible for the good stuff;
(b) that explanation is combined with exactly no demonstration of any meaningful opposition whatsoever to the outrages; and
(c) as is usual in Cambridge, his claims of “improvements” are belied by reality. The playing fields have been decreased in size by his project!!!!! This is to drain off the poisons being dumped to keep alive sickly introduced grasses which replaced healthy grass that survived the better part of a century without poisons; and
(3) there are Cambridge Machine activists very visible and apparently very active in the Boston Sierra Club.
If you are talking to a person associated with the Boston Sierra Club, do a credibility check. Ask if they are familiar with the “Urban Ring” rapid transit proposal. This is a subway proposal designed to link the existing subway spokes. I have been working on it since 1985. Cambridge raised the project in a comment to an environmental Impact Statement a few months ago.
If the Boston Sierra Club “expert” answers “yes,” that he / she is familiar with the Urban Ring rapid transit proposal, ask how many rail options there are. If the answer is “one,” you are getting the flat out lie put out by the City of Cambridge.
Cambridge’s flat out lie is that, of the TWO rail options, the only one that exists is the environmentally destructive streetcar option which the City of Cambridge supports. This option would be highly destructive to the environment near the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The reality is that THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SUBSIDIZED THE OTHER OPTION, the responsible Orange Line / heavy rail option, the Kenmore crossing. The state legislature has subsidized the expansion of Yawkey Station as part of the massive Fenway Park area project which has gotten recent press.
Cambridge’s nonsensical proposal would move Yawkey Station three blocks. The Cambridge proposal would not work without moving Yawkey Station. The Kenmore Crossing uses the now subsidized and being expanded Yawkey Station as part of a brilliant megastation.
You should immediately respond to such nonsense from a Sierra Club “expert” by having nothing more to do with this person. Whether the person is stupid or venal is irrelevant, the person has no credibility and is not worthy of your time.
It is frequently difficult to pin these irresponsible people down in general. The deviant behavior in my test is extreme. They are pious in their demands that, if you are politically correct and pro environment, you have to rubber stamp them. Please do not waste your time arguing about destruction they can try to wiggle around.
Turn your back on them and walk away fast.
A. Introduction.
B. Real position.
C. Thursday.
D. Side event to the “celebration.”
2. Reality.
A. Introductory.
B. July 23, 2006.
C. April 14, 2012.
D. The Destroyed Nesting Area the Day of the “Celebration.”
3. Summary.
4. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
[2012, 05-07, 18 Thicket, walk, bushes]
[453]
1. Guest of Honor Missing?
A. Introduction.
The Cambridge Machine had a celebration on Thursday, November 14, in which the announced guest of honor, the lieutenant governor, did not show up.
He was talking about resigning. Since he is reported to have resigned on June 3, 2013, that seems to be a reasonable explanation.
The Governor had other commitments. He was in Cambridge about a mile away signing a housing bill at the elderly apartments at 2 Mt. Auburn Street which in turn is about two blocks as the crow flies from the Charles River. See the Cambridge Chronicle at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1565410381/Patrick-signs-1-4B-housing-bill-in-Cambridge.
Nevertheless, there are good reasons why nobody higher than the head of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) showed up.
B. Real position.
The Cambridge Machine has a very much non stop mantra: Do not look at what we are destroying. Look at how great we sound as we are “achieving” something much less.
On the Charles River, they are fighting
a. For destruction of hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge,
b. For continued and accelerating abuse of the 32 year resident gaggle of the Charles River White Geese,
c. For the continued walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles River, and starving the Charles River White Geese by taking away their food from them at Magazine Beach,
d. For the continued dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles River to keep alive sickly grass which has replaced healthy grass which, for the better part of a century, survived without poisons,
e. For the continued reduction of the size of the Magazine Beach playing fields to install expensive drainage to drain off the poisons.
f. For the continued destruction of the boat dock on the Charles River from Magazine Beach.
g. And they have showed their pride by the corrupt vote and tactics they have used in their fight to expand the outrage.
And, of course, the real fight is to get an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) to Cambridge over the rail bridge under the BU Bridge, and the very big next step could be the announced plans to straighten out the Mass. Pike on the Boston side of the Charles River. Now would it be that difficult to change the location of the off ramps while you are straightening out the Mass. Pike?
All of these efforts and more were achieved or are being fought for in secret, frequently in direct violation of the stated goals on the Charles River by Cambridge, MA / its friends in the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
So, of course, in the spirit of these corrupt policies, the Cambridge Machine says not to look at the outrages they support and are expanding through the corrupt vote and smoke screens, look at a building which has not been used for 80 years that they want to renovate.
And the Governor, in House Bill H3332, is seeking $26 million in bond authorization which would be used to destroy hundreds of trees from Magazine Beach to the Longfellow Bridge. That would straighten out Memorial Drive to take the traffic from the new off ramp.
The euphemism varies. The latest lie is “underpasses” under the next three bridges. The words in the bill talk about “Historic Parkways”. In the sick world of the governments of Cambridge, MA, USA and its friends, they celebrate history (Historic Parkways) with massive environmental destruction of the Historic Parkway.
C. Thursday.
On Thursday, November 14, 2013, the guy heading the agency responsible for so much destruction showed up by himself.
The Cambridge Machine and the DCR were celebrating money for the contractors in this latest item of welfare for contractors, and the latest smoke screen.
I did not stay for the celebration. I have since noticed an email in which the Cambridge Machine bragged about the celebration, and about the DCR head being there.
D. Side event to the “celebration.”
Interesting side feature. Very prominent in the “celebration” was the environmentally sensitive small parking lot needed to support the results of the “renovation.” The Cambridge Machine supported the DCR’s plans to destroy that parking lot in the corrupt “vote” of April 23, 2013. The Cambridge Machine showed exactly how important the “renovation” is by destroying the parking lot which supports their supposed great achievement.
The parking lot was overflowing. It could not handle the small number of folks at the “celebration”. So the DCR and the Cambridge Machine are destroying it.
Why?
How dare you ask that. It is politically incorrect to ask such questions. This is a matter being fought for as secretly as possible.
2. Reality.
A. Introductory.
Here are a few photos of the outrage inflicted on the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach.
One of the key problems over the past 13 years of outrage has been flat out lying by the DCR.
One of their most important lies was called the Charles River Master Plan. The Charles River Master Plan lied that the plans for feeding area of the Charles River White Geese were for a lawn to the Charles River. Naturally, they did exactly the opposite and changed the supposedly sacrosanct “Charles River Master Plan” from the lie to reality.
Here are a series of photos of the riverfront area of Magazine Beach, the area where the Charles River White Geese fed for most of the last 32 years.
The photos were taken, first in 2006 after phase 1 of the construction, and then in April of 2012 after phase 2. This is how the DCR’s “lawn” to the Charles River was implemented as and which the Cambridge Machine is fighting to keep by telling people to look at everything else, using their own belligerent corruption in the process.
It is highly likely that the expansion supported by the Corrupt “vote” of April 23, 2013, will expand this wall to the west of the Magazine Beach playing fields beyond the building the Cambridge Machine insists is the only thing people who love Magazine Beach should look at.
The most important difference in technique between the DCR and the Cambridge Machine is that the DCR relies much more on flat out lying. The Cambridge Machine uses sophisticated lying, such as the corrupt vote of April 23, 2013.
The ONLY explanation ever given for this outrageous wall is a belligerent claim of incompetence. The DCR and the Cambridge Machine insist that the DCR does not know how to chop down bushes. Strange. In most other parts of the Charles River Basin, they know very well how to chop down bushes. The bragged of incompetence is very selective.
B. July 23, 2006.
The photos in this section were taken by and provided by a representative of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority which owns the area between Magazine Beach and the BU Bridge.
They were taken at a memorial event for Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle who was assassinated five years earlier by a person clearly implementing the contempt for animals expressed by Cambridge and the DCR. Environmentalists begged the Cambridge City Council to stop his beating to death of nesting geese. The Cambridge City Council maintained the silence of consent. The killer graduated to killing Bumpy and multiple other attacks on that day. A few months later, he seems to have graduated to rape and murder where he had been beating mother geese to death.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder but did not want to know where it happened. Davis (leaving and good riddance) briefly stated the location, swallowed her words and looked around guiltily.
The goose killer who graduated to rape and murder is now surviving a long sentence. The Cambridge Machine has kept the people he emulated in office and is expanding on the destruction while lying of sainthood.
[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06218]
The bridge was constructed in phase 1 of the destruction.
[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06219]
[07-23-06, MWRA, Bumpy + 5, DSC06228]
Compare the last panorama of a vaguely normal LAWN TO THE CHARLES RIVER to the current outrage which is being kept as secret as possible. Look at the building which has not been used in 80 years. How dare you look at the destruction inflicted by our friends.
It was easy for the Charles River White Geese to regain access to their food after phase 1. The massive bushes in the below pictures were constructed in phase 2 to correct this defect from the point of view of the heartless.
C. April 14, 2012.
[2012, 05-07, 18 Thicket, walk, bushes]
[2012, 05-07, 21 Bench, Thicket, walk]
[2012, 05-07, 12 04-14-12, former boat dock]
[2012, 05-07, 13 04-14-12, Impenetrable Thicket from former boat dock]
[2012, 05-07, 15 04-14-12, Bridge to former Boat Dock]
This is the opposite view of the second prior photo. It is exactly the same shot as the first photo in this series, 6 years earlier.
The DCR did not obviously bar access to the boat dock. They created, first a pond a few feet from the Charles River. That pond shows in the 2006 photo. Then when the Charles River White Geese loved the pond, the DCR destroyed the pond in favor of artificial wetland. The bridge, constructed in the first phase, prevented access to the boat dock by the vehicles which used to back onto the boat dock and lower their small craft into the river. The bridge is very much too small for the traffic. Besides, both photos show barriers preventing driving on the bridge.
The new bushes block access by the Charles River White Geese while giving the appearance of access.
As I said, the “explanation” is first to rewrite the Charles River Master Plan after the fact, and secondly to claim incompetence. The poor dears do not understand how to chop down bushes although they do an excellent job chopping down bushes elsewhere on the Charles River Basin.
D. The Destroyed Nesting Area the Day of the “Celebration.”
I took the following pictures of the outrage in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, to which the gaggle has been confined since the outrage at Magazine Beach commenced. It is a few hundred feet east of the area in which they fed of their barred feeding area, just on the other side of the BU Bridge crossing the Charles River.
Here is a photo of the Charles River White Geese next to the BU Bridge walking through crushed stone dumped to create parking lot near the entrance of their Destroyed Nesting Area. They have been made reliant on decent human beings to counteract the starvation attacks the machine supports and is fighting to continue and make worse through two new highways.
[453]
This is the Charles River under the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The Grand Junction is slated to be turned into an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90)so that Harvard University can move its Medical School to the current exit to Brighton and Cambridge, an exit which has been sold by the state to Harvard.
The white figure among the mallards is one of the Charles River White Ducks. The Charles River White Ducks were dumped at Magazine Beach in 2006 as babies. They were so naive, they did not know what the blue water was for. They have survived in spite of the outrages supported by the Cambridge Machine.
[454]
Here is the latest outrage. Railroad workers used the most sensitive part of the Destroyed Nesting Area for parking for work on the railroad rather than readily available parking a few feet away. The dumped crushed stone into the previously untouched area and, when they left, most crushed stone was dumped.
The vegetation in the background is the very small amount of native vegetation which was not destroyed by the state during the various outrages.
[455]
Here are two of the Charles River White Geese walking through this outrage.
[460]
Here is the new highway of which this crushed stone is an extension. The orange structure at the top is another starvation wall to keep the Charles River White Geese from accessing grass under Memorial Drive.
[462]
This photo is taken from pretty much the same location as the previous, but puts a lot in perspective.
[461]
On the left you can see the gaggle of the hungry Charles River White Geese. Behind them is the BU Bridge. To their right is the parking lot irresponsibly built. Slightly closer is the western of the two highways constructed as suppose repairs for the damage done in the BU Bridge repairs. This links to the governor’s bill to destroy all those trees. Nearest the camera is the western highway shown in the immediately prior photo. This links to the north bike “highway” which is the convenient lie to widen the underpass under Memorial Drive to make room for the relocated Mass. Pike exit.
The area to the right rear is next to the now closed entrance. It seems to be intended to grow and grow. The area in the middle of the view was introduced bushes unfit for the area. Thus an excuse for whatever outrage they want to do. Remember that this area, before destruction, was filled with the extremely health native bushes in photo [455] above.
3. Summary.
Naturally none of the outrages are publicly acknowledged. And blatantly corrupt behavior is considered normal as well.
The position of the Cambridge Machine: Don’t look at our outrages. Look at our celebration of welfare for contractors.
But thank you to the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor or whomever for not participating.
Unfortunately, House Bill H3332 with its proposed bond authorization for even greater massive destruction is reality.
Reality supported through blatant corrupt behavior.
4. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituentservices/contact/.
State environmental people, DES Hotline: ESF.Hotline@state.ma.us.
MassDOT Accelerated Bridges Program: 857-368-8904 or Stephanie.Boundy@state.ma.us
All Massachusetts Legislators’ emails: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/emails-for-all-massachusetts.html.
Cambridge, MA, USA city councilors: Council@cambridgema.gov.
**********
For people listening to Boston Sierra Club endorsements of environmentally destructive members of and candidates for the Cambridge City Council, you should be aware that
(1) using the world’s definition of “environmentalism,” there are no environmentally responsible members of the Cambridge City Council; Cambridge’s definition is that environmentalists protect that which Cambridge does not feel like destroying; the Cambridge pols are oh, so pious using their secret, fraudulent definition;
(2) the school committee member apparently elected to Cambridge City Council fought for the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields;
(a) his indignant explanation is that he claims to be only responsible for the good stuff;
(b) that explanation is combined with exactly no demonstration of any meaningful opposition whatsoever to the outrages; and
(c) as is usual in Cambridge, his claims of “improvements” are belied by reality. The playing fields have been decreased in size by his project!!!!! This is to drain off the poisons being dumped to keep alive sickly introduced grasses which replaced healthy grass that survived the better part of a century without poisons; and
(3) there are Cambridge Machine activists very visible and apparently very active in the Boston Sierra Club.
If you are talking to a person associated with the Boston Sierra Club, do a credibility check. Ask if they are familiar with the “Urban Ring” rapid transit proposal. This is a subway proposal designed to link the existing subway spokes. I have been working on it since 1985. Cambridge raised the project in a comment to an environmental Impact Statement a few months ago.
If the Boston Sierra Club “expert” answers “yes,” that he / she is familiar with the Urban Ring rapid transit proposal, ask how many rail options there are. If the answer is “one,” you are getting the flat out lie put out by the City of Cambridge.
Cambridge’s flat out lie is that, of the TWO rail options, the only one that exists is the environmentally destructive streetcar option which the City of Cambridge supports. This option would be highly destructive to the environment near the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The reality is that THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SUBSIDIZED THE OTHER OPTION, the responsible Orange Line / heavy rail option, the Kenmore crossing. The state legislature has subsidized the expansion of Yawkey Station as part of the massive Fenway Park area project which has gotten recent press.
Cambridge’s nonsensical proposal would move Yawkey Station three blocks. The Cambridge proposal would not work without moving Yawkey Station. The Kenmore Crossing uses the now subsidized and being expanded Yawkey Station as part of a brilliant megastation.
You should immediately respond to such nonsense from a Sierra Club “expert” by having nothing more to do with this person. Whether the person is stupid or venal is irrelevant, the person has no credibility and is not worthy of your time.
It is frequently difficult to pin these irresponsible people down in general. The deviant behavior in my test is extreme. They are pious in their demands that, if you are politically correct and pro environment, you have to rubber stamp them. Please do not waste your time arguing about destruction they can try to wiggle around.
Turn your back on them and walk away fast.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
Cambridge, MA, USA Election Results — Voter Revolt Against Environmental / Civil Rights Outrages?
1. Introduction.
2. Actual Vote.
3. Update, Direct Quote, November 10 Cambridge Day.
4. Analysis.
A. General.
B. Benzan v. Reeves — Monteiro?
C. Environmental analysis. Civil rights generally. Finally, a decent human being?
D. Updated analysis.
1. Introduction.
It is impossible to exactly analyze an election in Cambridge, MA, USA. You can guess and guess and guess. Whether you are right is impossible to say, but you try.
The vote is a floating at large election stacked so that each winning candidate is awarded exactly the minimum number of votes to win and their “excess” is transferred to other candidates until enough of those candidates get up to the needed amount. The same applies to losers. If they cannot win, their votes are transferred to other candidates whose accumulated total has not reached the needed minimum. This is done in a series of transfers.
Before computerization, the “count” took more than a week every year.
Right now, the bottom line is that an incumbent city councilor is on the wrong end of a final count by seven votes and is demanding a recount. According to the Cambridge Chronicle, in the key transfer seven votes separated losing incumbent Minka Y. vanBeuzekom from apparent winner Nadeem A. Mazen.
Two incumbents did not seek reelection. These were Henrietta Davis and recently elected State Representative Marjorie Decker.
Two incumbents were apparently defeated. These were Minka Y. vanBeauzekom and Kenneth Reeves. Reeves came in 11th with 9 candidates elected to City Council. Also of interest is that Samuel Seidel came in 12th. Seidel is a former city councilor who lost in the last election.
2. Actual Vote.
Persons elected to the Cambridge City Council, taken from Robert Winters report of the preliminary results, which the Cambridge Chronicle says did not change, were as follows, in order of election success:
Leland Cheung, Incumbent
David P. Maher, Incumbent
Dennis A. Benzan, Challenger
Timothy J. Toomey (also State Representative)
E. Denise Simmons, challenger
Dennis J. Carlone, challenger
Craig A. Kelley, incumbent
Nadeem A. Mazen, challenger, and
Marc C. McGovern, challenger
Minka Y. vanBeuzekom, incumbent.
Kenneth Reeves, incumbent
Samuel Seidel, former incumbent.
The reason for a different order such that Mazen wound up 8th rather than 9th, with vanBeuzekom 10th is the result of transfers from vanBeuzekom after she was declared loser and her votes transferred. Saying that is as far as I will go. That final transfer has no real meaning because all the recipients have already won.
3. Update, Direct Quote, November 10 Cambridge Day.
After Wednesday’s hand count of auxiliary ballots, which are the ballots polling-place machines didn’t accept and count Tuesday, only six transfer voters lay between vanBeuzekom and council newcomer Nadeem Mazen. Thirteen votes separate vanBeuzekom and Dennis Carlone, another council newcomer, and 20 separate her from returning incumbent Craig Kelley. All three are considered vulnerable to losing a seat from the redistribution of votes that can result from a recount under Cambridge’s proportional representation form of balloting.
4. Analysis.
A. General.
The new councilors are Dennis A. Benzan, Dennis J. Carlone, Nadeem A. Mazen and Marc C. McGovern.
I know nothing about Mazen. Benzan has run for city council or state representative many times in the last 10 years or so. This is his first win. He has not been friendly. McGovern supported destruction at Magazine Beach, bragging that it would improve recreational uses. The exact opposite is true. The fourth new city councilor, Carlone, has a long record on the wrong side of development issues. He is squarely Cambridge Machine.
B. Benzan v. Reeves — Monteiro?
Looking at the overall numbers, it would appear that one key result is that Benzan and Reeves seem to be courting the same votes and Benzan won this time.
Seidel made a comment in the last election that the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro by former Cambridge City Manager Healy was no big thing. By contrast, the court system up to the Appeals Court rather clearly gave the Cambridge City Council strong power to fire Healy for cause. The big issue would have been whether Healy could be stripped of his pension as part of the firing.
Healy was civilly found guilty of firing Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a women’s right / civil rights complaint. The trial judge’s opinion can be summarized in one word: “reprehensible.” The appeals court refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal decision: “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.” The technical term is “malfeasance in office,” one of the listed grounds under which the Cambridge City Council can fire the Cambridge City Manager.
Exactly zero members of the Cambridge City Council made any attempt to meaningfully implement the Court Decisions. None of them voted to fire Healy or to initiate the firing of Healy.
A supporter of vanBeauzekom publicized Siedel’s no big thing comment in the appropriate circles during the 2011 election. Seidel lost. VanBeuzekom won.
In the months building up to the 2013 election, Cambridge’s irresponsible City Council tried to get votes on the Monteiro issue. They conducted public meetings on the lessons to be learned from the Monteiro case. I did not bother attend this obvious whitewash. However, those meetings could very well have backfired. Reeves was supposedly a reformer, a civil rights activist. It is entirely possible that enough folks simply got disgusted with him and voted for Benzan.
C. Environmental analysis. Civil rights generally. Finally, a decent human being?
VanBeuzekom has the nerve to include a graphic of a tree leaf on her signs. She was part of the unanimous city council which voted to destroy 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common, many because they blocked the view. She explained her vote to me saying that the city staff proposing the destruction told her that destroying those trees was ok.
Cambridge has had a unanimously rotten city council on environmental issues.
On the real votes on civil rights, there was one member wishy washing about funding the Monteiro defense outrage. I forget which way that member finally went. He certainly did not vote to fire.
Environmentally, Carlone is worse than either of the losing incumbents. It is a tossup whether he is worse than Davis who falsely ran as an environmentalist and was very, very destructive of the environment. Decker, unfortunately, is still in state office. She and Davis were the worst members environmentally and very difficult to praise. Decker ran for city council based on congressional issues and ran for state representative based on congressional issues.
Net result: I would be interested in seeing which way Mazen falls. I have no reason to anticipate he is a responsible person, but I can dream.
Eight rotters versus one responsible city councilor? I can dream. And in Cambridge, MA, USA, one environmentally responsible member of the Cambridge City Council is a dream.
D. Updated analysis.
Incumbent Craig Kelley can possibly replace vanBeuzekom on the chopping block.
Kelley got elected as an environmentalist. Another flat out lie using the definitions of the real world.
He is worse than vanBeuzekom as city councilors tend to be worse. There is no meaningful difference on the environment among the nine when it comes to votes. Davis and Decker were for practical purposes the worst, but that is not on votes, that is on aggressiveness. Kelly is worse than vanBeauzekom because he has been around longer and has had a chance to do more harm. Kelley also has his base in North Cambridge. The crucial Alewife reservation is very important to North Cambridge, and he is destroying it.
Good riddance to either, but it would be nice to get a replacement worthy of environmental respect.
2. Actual Vote.
3. Update, Direct Quote, November 10 Cambridge Day.
4. Analysis.
A. General.
B. Benzan v. Reeves — Monteiro?
C. Environmental analysis. Civil rights generally. Finally, a decent human being?
D. Updated analysis.
1. Introduction.
It is impossible to exactly analyze an election in Cambridge, MA, USA. You can guess and guess and guess. Whether you are right is impossible to say, but you try.
The vote is a floating at large election stacked so that each winning candidate is awarded exactly the minimum number of votes to win and their “excess” is transferred to other candidates until enough of those candidates get up to the needed amount. The same applies to losers. If they cannot win, their votes are transferred to other candidates whose accumulated total has not reached the needed minimum. This is done in a series of transfers.
Before computerization, the “count” took more than a week every year.
Right now, the bottom line is that an incumbent city councilor is on the wrong end of a final count by seven votes and is demanding a recount. According to the Cambridge Chronicle, in the key transfer seven votes separated losing incumbent Minka Y. vanBeuzekom from apparent winner Nadeem A. Mazen.
Two incumbents did not seek reelection. These were Henrietta Davis and recently elected State Representative Marjorie Decker.
Two incumbents were apparently defeated. These were Minka Y. vanBeauzekom and Kenneth Reeves. Reeves came in 11th with 9 candidates elected to City Council. Also of interest is that Samuel Seidel came in 12th. Seidel is a former city councilor who lost in the last election.
2. Actual Vote.
Persons elected to the Cambridge City Council, taken from Robert Winters report of the preliminary results, which the Cambridge Chronicle says did not change, were as follows, in order of election success:
Leland Cheung, Incumbent
David P. Maher, Incumbent
Dennis A. Benzan, Challenger
Timothy J. Toomey (also State Representative)
E. Denise Simmons, challenger
Dennis J. Carlone, challenger
Craig A. Kelley, incumbent
Nadeem A. Mazen, challenger, and
Marc C. McGovern, challenger
Minka Y. vanBeuzekom, incumbent.
Kenneth Reeves, incumbent
Samuel Seidel, former incumbent.
The reason for a different order such that Mazen wound up 8th rather than 9th, with vanBeuzekom 10th is the result of transfers from vanBeuzekom after she was declared loser and her votes transferred. Saying that is as far as I will go. That final transfer has no real meaning because all the recipients have already won.
3. Update, Direct Quote, November 10 Cambridge Day.
After Wednesday’s hand count of auxiliary ballots, which are the ballots polling-place machines didn’t accept and count Tuesday, only six transfer voters lay between vanBeuzekom and council newcomer Nadeem Mazen. Thirteen votes separate vanBeuzekom and Dennis Carlone, another council newcomer, and 20 separate her from returning incumbent Craig Kelley. All three are considered vulnerable to losing a seat from the redistribution of votes that can result from a recount under Cambridge’s proportional representation form of balloting.
4. Analysis.
A. General.
The new councilors are Dennis A. Benzan, Dennis J. Carlone, Nadeem A. Mazen and Marc C. McGovern.
I know nothing about Mazen. Benzan has run for city council or state representative many times in the last 10 years or so. This is his first win. He has not been friendly. McGovern supported destruction at Magazine Beach, bragging that it would improve recreational uses. The exact opposite is true. The fourth new city councilor, Carlone, has a long record on the wrong side of development issues. He is squarely Cambridge Machine.
B. Benzan v. Reeves — Monteiro?
Looking at the overall numbers, it would appear that one key result is that Benzan and Reeves seem to be courting the same votes and Benzan won this time.
Seidel made a comment in the last election that the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro by former Cambridge City Manager Healy was no big thing. By contrast, the court system up to the Appeals Court rather clearly gave the Cambridge City Council strong power to fire Healy for cause. The big issue would have been whether Healy could be stripped of his pension as part of the firing.
Healy was civilly found guilty of firing Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a women’s right / civil rights complaint. The trial judge’s opinion can be summarized in one word: “reprehensible.” The appeals court refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal decision: “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.” The technical term is “malfeasance in office,” one of the listed grounds under which the Cambridge City Council can fire the Cambridge City Manager.
Exactly zero members of the Cambridge City Council made any attempt to meaningfully implement the Court Decisions. None of them voted to fire Healy or to initiate the firing of Healy.
A supporter of vanBeauzekom publicized Siedel’s no big thing comment in the appropriate circles during the 2011 election. Seidel lost. VanBeuzekom won.
In the months building up to the 2013 election, Cambridge’s irresponsible City Council tried to get votes on the Monteiro issue. They conducted public meetings on the lessons to be learned from the Monteiro case. I did not bother attend this obvious whitewash. However, those meetings could very well have backfired. Reeves was supposedly a reformer, a civil rights activist. It is entirely possible that enough folks simply got disgusted with him and voted for Benzan.
C. Environmental analysis. Civil rights generally. Finally, a decent human being?
VanBeuzekom has the nerve to include a graphic of a tree leaf on her signs. She was part of the unanimous city council which voted to destroy 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common, many because they blocked the view. She explained her vote to me saying that the city staff proposing the destruction told her that destroying those trees was ok.
Cambridge has had a unanimously rotten city council on environmental issues.
On the real votes on civil rights, there was one member wishy washing about funding the Monteiro defense outrage. I forget which way that member finally went. He certainly did not vote to fire.
Environmentally, Carlone is worse than either of the losing incumbents. It is a tossup whether he is worse than Davis who falsely ran as an environmentalist and was very, very destructive of the environment. Decker, unfortunately, is still in state office. She and Davis were the worst members environmentally and very difficult to praise. Decker ran for city council based on congressional issues and ran for state representative based on congressional issues.
Net result: I would be interested in seeing which way Mazen falls. I have no reason to anticipate he is a responsible person, but I can dream.
Eight rotters versus one responsible city councilor? I can dream. And in Cambridge, MA, USA, one environmentally responsible member of the Cambridge City Council is a dream.
D. Updated analysis.
Incumbent Craig Kelley can possibly replace vanBeuzekom on the chopping block.
Kelley got elected as an environmentalist. Another flat out lie using the definitions of the real world.
He is worse than vanBeuzekom as city councilors tend to be worse. There is no meaningful difference on the environment among the nine when it comes to votes. Davis and Decker were for practical purposes the worst, but that is not on votes, that is on aggressiveness. Kelly is worse than vanBeauzekom because he has been around longer and has had a chance to do more harm. Kelley also has his base in North Cambridge. The crucial Alewife reservation is very important to North Cambridge, and he is destroying it.
Good riddance to either, but it would be nice to get a replacement worthy of environmental respect.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Deferral on Reporting of Toomey maneuvering on support of Harvard University's Off Ramp to Cambridge
Cambridge, MA, USA City Councilor / State Representative Toomey has posted an outrageous ad supporting the conversion of the Grand Junction Railroad nearest the Charles River on the Cambridge side to the Mass Pike off ramp that Harvard is maneuvering for.
I have been deferring on whether to provide a report.
I defer until after the election because it would be silly to distinguish between him and the rest of the bad guys.
I have been deferring on whether to provide a report.
I defer until after the election because it would be silly to distinguish between him and the rest of the bad guys.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Boston, MA, USA City Council / Mayor Candidates
I try to keep the facebook pages directly on point with regard to environmental matters.
The only big problem member who has not been thrown off the list is a woman whom I think is a legislator. She has several times put in posts which I have immediately deleted as irrelevant.
She has posted the following notice which I have not deleted.
I have posted the following comment of explanation:
********
I am leaving this posted because, I see exactly zero candidates running for Cambridge City Council in whom I have any environmental confidence.
All incumbents plus one school committee member running for city council have filthy hands on environmental matters, period.
In contrast, at least, the outgoing Mayor of Boston is a person for whom I have a lot more respect than any of the Cambridge incumbents.
That is not to say that I do not have major concerns about the empire building in the Allston neighborhood of Boston, but, oddly, the worst of the stuff has been transplanted to the Cambridge side.
I think, in part, that the situation is directly influenced by the massive organization in place in Cambridge using totalitarian techniques to lie to the voters that very bad people are worthy of respect.
ADDENDUM:
On reading this posting, I note that the sponsors do not include the Sierra Club. The Boston Sierra Club is clearly heavily influence by the very destructive Cambridge Machine, and have repeatedly endorsed irresponsible people for Cambridge City Council.
I have also been aware of people representing the Sierra Club regurgitating a key flat out lie put out by the City of Cambridge concerning route options in the mass transit proposal known as the Urban Ring.
The Boston Sierra Club has made itself part of the problem.
The only big problem member who has not been thrown off the list is a woman whom I think is a legislator. She has several times put in posts which I have immediately deleted as irrelevant.
She has posted the following notice which I have not deleted.
I have posted the following comment of explanation:
********
I am leaving this posted because, I see exactly zero candidates running for Cambridge City Council in whom I have any environmental confidence.
All incumbents plus one school committee member running for city council have filthy hands on environmental matters, period.
In contrast, at least, the outgoing Mayor of Boston is a person for whom I have a lot more respect than any of the Cambridge incumbents.
That is not to say that I do not have major concerns about the empire building in the Allston neighborhood of Boston, but, oddly, the worst of the stuff has been transplanted to the Cambridge side.
I think, in part, that the situation is directly influenced by the massive organization in place in Cambridge using totalitarian techniques to lie to the voters that very bad people are worthy of respect.
ADDENDUM:
On reading this posting, I note that the sponsors do not include the Sierra Club. The Boston Sierra Club is clearly heavily influence by the very destructive Cambridge Machine, and have repeatedly endorsed irresponsible people for Cambridge City Council.
I have also been aware of people representing the Sierra Club regurgitating a key flat out lie put out by the City of Cambridge concerning route options in the mass transit proposal known as the Urban Ring.
The Boston Sierra Club has made itself part of the problem.
Update at Harvard Medical School Relocation: Container Yard Abandoned?
1. Rail Yard Abandoned?
2. Photos of the Rail Yard a year ago.
3. Summary.
4. Exchange on facebook.
1. Rail Yard Abandoned?
The situation is getting much more clear in the relocation of Harvard Medical School to the off ramps and rail yard at the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90)’s exit in Allston.
We now have word that the container yard facility in the rail yard has no containers for shipment, a definite indication that the yard has moved to Worcester, MA, which was the plan of the railroad.
The exchange came in response to my last post on this blog which, in abridged form, was published on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page. That exchange is below.
2. Photos of the Rail Yard a year ago.
A year ago, I posted photos of the rail yard and its maintenance yard, from Memorial Drive, which is north of the facility.
I have now repeatedly published the following photo taken from the Harvard Gazette report, of the tracks south of the facility.
None of these photos show the container yard itself which is the subject of the communications. I am sorry about that. I hope to get some myself and would love to get and publish correct photos, as I did on the Longfellow Bridge destruction, from folks who beat me to the area and get photos.
3. Summary.
In my last report, I passed on Massachusetts Governor Patrick’s announcement of the straightening of the Mass. Turnpike (I90) with a resultant release of significant acreage for development. He neglected to mention (they always neglect to mention) that the only beneficiary is Harvard University. Please see http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/massachusetts-governor-announces-first.html.
I have repeatedly reported on Patrick’s efforts to destroy hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive on the north side of the Charles River to accept passenger vehicle traffic currently going through the Mass. Pike exit owned by Harvard University. Details are in that report along with links to state legislative emails.
In my next report, hopefully, I will go into part of the efforts of Cambridge pols to assist in the destruction. This is of Councilor / State Rep Toomey’s bragging of part of it in the lie of a bike path which will very quickly (not mentioned of course) be replaced in the key, Charles River, portion by the relocated off ramp.
4. Exchange on facebook.
This is edited. The reporter is a friend from my professional acting efforts. He, and I, improperly went into a movie I auditioned for last week.
The reporter is James Tighe:
************
[October 24, 7:56 pm]
I went by the rail yards the other day and wondered what happened to the rail yards.......
************
[Your editor, October 24, 9:13 pm:]
Thanks. You are raising a good point and, apparently are more up to date on the yards than I am.
Harvard bought them on condition that Massachusetts may continue to use them for transportation uses.
Straightening the Mass. Pike out with that language from the Governor sounds deadly.
The railroad plans were to move the yard function to Worcester. Perhaps they have gone forward.
I post these reports on three sites. I have intended another subject for the next post but, as I said, you are raising an excellent point.
The other ongoing issue is whether the yards would be used for daytime storage of trains going in to South Station. The governor's announcement clearly says no, but could yards be fit in with straightening? Highly unlikely, based on the governor's comment.
Thank you.
***********
[James, October 24, 9:12 pm:
There are no rail cars there and the tracks look rusted.
***********
[editor, 10/24, 9:16 pm]
Wow. I guess I need to go by there.
There are at least two sets of yards. North of the Mass. Pike is the functional yards, storage of cars. South of the Mass. Pike is a repair yard. I do not have full knowledge of the layout. I know there were other tracks in the area.
**************
[James, 9:16 pm]
I also remember when the Seaport area was nothing but rail yards. I went to see a "rolling" display of Titanic stuff on a rail car there. I hadn't been married long so it had to be the late '70s the yards were still there
*************
[editor, 9:18 pm]
Yes. Very clearly the South Boston yards are gone.
The Boston cop drama showed those very heavily and the change is dramatic. Now there are still tracks there but they make big noises to the extent they are using them
***********
[James, 9:19 pm]
The ones I saw Bob were in the bend of the MASS Pike and served to load and un load containers. And put them on tractor trailers. That yard is empty now.
***********
[James and I got side tracked on acting, with a confused comment from a third friend of the Charles River White Geese. I apologized and summarized as follows.]
James is a friend from acting and he went off the subject. I will selectively delete the off subject posts, but I first want to record things.
He is presenting very valuable input on related matters.
The real game on the Charles River is that the environment is being destroyed for the benefit of Harvard's expansion in Allston. The governor's announcement admitted helping Harvard's without mentioning Harvard.
Harvard owns the Mass. Pike exit in Allston and plans to move its Medical School there.
A very key part of the move is to move the Mass. Pike off ramps to Cambridge by the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge which runs through the home of the Charles River White Geese which the powers that be have been heartlessly attacking.
A further key part is the destruction of hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, straightening out Memorial Drive to take the traffic from the Mass. Pike.
James' most important point was that it looks like the rail yard is empty of rail yard use. The plan was to move the facility to Worcester to open it up for Harvard. Apparently it has been moved.
2. Photos of the Rail Yard a year ago.
3. Summary.
4. Exchange on facebook.
1. Rail Yard Abandoned?
The situation is getting much more clear in the relocation of Harvard Medical School to the off ramps and rail yard at the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90)’s exit in Allston.
We now have word that the container yard facility in the rail yard has no containers for shipment, a definite indication that the yard has moved to Worcester, MA, which was the plan of the railroad.
The exchange came in response to my last post on this blog which, in abridged form, was published on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page. That exchange is below.
2. Photos of the Rail Yard a year ago.
A year ago, I posted photos of the rail yard and its maintenance yard, from Memorial Drive, which is north of the facility.
I have now repeatedly published the following photo taken from the Harvard Gazette report, of the tracks south of the facility.
None of these photos show the container yard itself which is the subject of the communications. I am sorry about that. I hope to get some myself and would love to get and publish correct photos, as I did on the Longfellow Bridge destruction, from folks who beat me to the area and get photos.
3. Summary.
In my last report, I passed on Massachusetts Governor Patrick’s announcement of the straightening of the Mass. Turnpike (I90) with a resultant release of significant acreage for development. He neglected to mention (they always neglect to mention) that the only beneficiary is Harvard University. Please see http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/massachusetts-governor-announces-first.html.
I have repeatedly reported on Patrick’s efforts to destroy hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive on the north side of the Charles River to accept passenger vehicle traffic currently going through the Mass. Pike exit owned by Harvard University. Details are in that report along with links to state legislative emails.
In my next report, hopefully, I will go into part of the efforts of Cambridge pols to assist in the destruction. This is of Councilor / State Rep Toomey’s bragging of part of it in the lie of a bike path which will very quickly (not mentioned of course) be replaced in the key, Charles River, portion by the relocated off ramp.
4. Exchange on facebook.
This is edited. The reporter is a friend from my professional acting efforts. He, and I, improperly went into a movie I auditioned for last week.
The reporter is James Tighe:
************
[October 24, 7:56 pm]
I went by the rail yards the other day and wondered what happened to the rail yards.......
************
[Your editor, October 24, 9:13 pm:]
Thanks. You are raising a good point and, apparently are more up to date on the yards than I am.
Harvard bought them on condition that Massachusetts may continue to use them for transportation uses.
Straightening the Mass. Pike out with that language from the Governor sounds deadly.
The railroad plans were to move the yard function to Worcester. Perhaps they have gone forward.
I post these reports on three sites. I have intended another subject for the next post but, as I said, you are raising an excellent point.
The other ongoing issue is whether the yards would be used for daytime storage of trains going in to South Station. The governor's announcement clearly says no, but could yards be fit in with straightening? Highly unlikely, based on the governor's comment.
Thank you.
***********
[James, October 24, 9:12 pm:
There are no rail cars there and the tracks look rusted.
***********
[editor, 10/24, 9:16 pm]
Wow. I guess I need to go by there.
There are at least two sets of yards. North of the Mass. Pike is the functional yards, storage of cars. South of the Mass. Pike is a repair yard. I do not have full knowledge of the layout. I know there were other tracks in the area.
**************
[James, 9:16 pm]
I also remember when the Seaport area was nothing but rail yards. I went to see a "rolling" display of Titanic stuff on a rail car there. I hadn't been married long so it had to be the late '70s the yards were still there
*************
[editor, 9:18 pm]
Yes. Very clearly the South Boston yards are gone.
The Boston cop drama showed those very heavily and the change is dramatic. Now there are still tracks there but they make big noises to the extent they are using them
***********
[James, 9:19 pm]
The ones I saw Bob were in the bend of the MASS Pike and served to load and un load containers. And put them on tractor trailers. That yard is empty now.
***********
[James and I got side tracked on acting, with a confused comment from a third friend of the Charles River White Geese. I apologized and summarized as follows.]
James is a friend from acting and he went off the subject. I will selectively delete the off subject posts, but I first want to record things.
He is presenting very valuable input on related matters.
The real game on the Charles River is that the environment is being destroyed for the benefit of Harvard's expansion in Allston. The governor's announcement admitted helping Harvard's without mentioning Harvard.
Harvard owns the Mass. Pike exit in Allston and plans to move its Medical School there.
A very key part of the move is to move the Mass. Pike off ramps to Cambridge by the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge which runs through the home of the Charles River White Geese which the powers that be have been heartlessly attacking.
A further key part is the destruction of hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, straightening out Memorial Drive to take the traffic from the Mass. Pike.
James' most important point was that it looks like the rail yard is empty of rail yard use. The plan was to move the facility to Worcester to open it up for Harvard. Apparently it has been moved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)