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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)