1. Introduction.
2. Censored response on Magazine Beach and the Destroyed Nesting area.
3. Response from George Despotes.
4. The corrupt tactics — Machine’s Corrupt fight for massive fruit tree destruction.
5. “Minka, Cheung, Kelley and environmental destruction, Alewife and the Cambridge Common.
1. Introduction.
One thing which is a very strong constant around the Cambridge Machine is lofty, lovely discussions with machine operatives in the middle looking great but, through omission, frequently fighting for the opposite of that lovely goal.
The Cambridge Machine’s forum has repeatedly seen discussions about the possible planting of fruit trees. Most of the discussion has been responsible. A couple of posts have supported fruit trees on the Magazine Beach playing fields or in the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the 32 year resident Charles River White Geese have been heartlessly confined and starved.
2. Censored response on Magazine Beach and the Destroyed Nesting area.
I submitted the following response to a comment supporting fruit trees on the Magazine Beach playing fields. My response, of course, was censored. Slight correction of typos.
********
There is ample room at the Magazine Beach playing fields for planting of an orchard because of the drainage system built to drain off the poisons needed to keep alive the sickly grass which was introduced in place of the responsible grass which was destroyed that survived the better part of a century.
This sickly grass is scheduled to replace healthy grass on the hillside and in the wetlands behind the swimming pool.
This behavior is so irresponsible that that was the reason for the corrupt tactics in the vote rubber stamping the state bureaucrats, their destructive behavior and their lies of omission.
All that is necessary to reverse this outrage is to spend the money being spent sewing on poisons on sewing responsible grass seed for the grass which was destroyed with no public notice in advance and corrupt tactics to keep it there.
Once responsible grass is put back in place, then the bureaucrats do not need the fancy drainage system to drain off the poisons, and that very large area could be used for an orchard instead.
There also was a suggestion to plant the apple trees in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. That would be fought by the bureaucrats because the heartless abuse furthers their goal of killing off all animals residing in the Charles River Basin.
An excellent spot for a tree or two would be the place where the bureaucrats dumped all that crushed stone after the railroad workers left. The railroad workers were highly irresponsible with their belligerent destruction through parking of the most sensitive part of the Destroyed Nesting Area, the area most beloved by the Charles River White Geese. The bureaucrats then made the situation that much worse.
The problems at Magazine Beach are outrageous and easy to fix. That makes the corrupt tactics being used to keep those problems in place that much more outrageous.
3. Response from George Despotes.
I agree (and “sow” instead of “sew”.)
4. The Cambridge Machine’s Corrupt fight for massive fruit tree destruction.
Buried in the bowels of the outrageous stolen vote on the Charles River was fine print in the fine print supporting the bureaucrats fight to destroy hundreds of trees between the Magazine Beach playing fields and the Longfellow Bridge. This is included in Governor Patrick’s House Bill H-3332
As part of the hundreds of trees being destroyed, the bureaucrats, with the support of the Cambridge Machine, want to destroy pretty much every cherry tree between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.
5. “Minka”, Cheung, Kelley and environmental destruction, Alewife and the Cambridge Common.
Councilor “Minka” is a self proclaimed environmentalist. City Councilors who call themselves environmentalists are the worst members. By being on the city council, they are taking seats which would go to responsible people if it were not for the institutional lying which is normal in the City of Cambridge. “Minka” is one of nine city councilors (out of nine) who support the destruction of 22 excellent trees on the Cambridge Common.
I reported the vote at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/cambridge-city-council-to-consider.html.
She has explained her position to a third party.
Translated into English, her position translates into “The Development Department made me do it.” She, of course, communicated that she was relying on their expertise in tree destruction.
I was discussing her destruction on the Cambridge Common with her in front of a political meeting a few weeks ago. We were in the middle of a bunch of people, and Coiuncilor Cheung passed by.
I loudly asked Councilor Cheung when the destruction of the 22 trees he voted for on the Cambridge Common was about to start. He ignored me.
“Minka” in a public meeting broadly cooed about how she was saving the environment at Alewife. I asked her about the destruction of acres of irreplaceable forest in the exact area she was discussing, and about the imminent destruction of apparently all publicly owned forest at Alewife.
She changed the subject.
I reported a motion by Councilor Kelly on the Cambridge Common destruction at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/environmental-destruction-at-cambridge.html. This motion called for all targeted trees to be marked for the public’s information. The motion passed. Then there was a walk through. The trees have not been marked. I presume the walk through communicated to the councilors just exactly how irresponsible their vote had been.
I reported on the environmental notification form with its admission of massive destruction at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/22-trees-proposed-to-be-destroyed-on.html.
Photos of the planned destruction on the Cambridge Common are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/impending-destruction-cambridge-ma-usa.html.
Caveat: please do not think that these comments on “Minka” and Cheung and Kelley are in any way an endorsement of other Cambridge City Council candidates.
I see no reason yet to think there is any seriously pro environment candidate in the bunch, incumbents or challengers, although I am trying to prod.
