Thursday, May 29, 2014

Mass. Pike: Victory for the good guys; Cambridge Machine Ramps Up the Con; Please write to defend the trees and animals.

Mass. Pike: Victory for the good guys; Cambridge Machine Ramps Up the Con; Please write to defend the trees and animals.

1. Protection against destruction
2. Mass. Pike: Victory for the Good Guys; Cambridge Machine Admits Control?  Yet another con.
A. Victory for the Good Guys.
B. Mass. Pike Relocation History.
3. Protect against destruction.

1. Protection against destruction.

Please look at the end for information on contacts if you have not contacted yet.  Concerning Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Governor Patrick's outrageous pending destruction on the Charles River and the Cambridge Common.

2. Mass. Pike: Victory for the Good Guys; Cambridge Machine Admits Control?  Yet another con.

A. Victory for the Good Guys.

The plans for the relocated Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) shows a train station between the relocated highway and the Allston Neighborhood.

The Cambridge Machine through the usual lies of “protection” fought for passenger service through Cambridge on the Grand Junction Railroad, connecting to North Station.  The lie was “You can’t win.  You can’t win.  But have we go a deal for you.”

MassDOT saw the characters and saw the lack of value in their fake “compromise”.  MassDOT rejected the passenger route.

What is surprising reading yesterday’s report in the Boston Globe is that the Cambridge Machine had sneaked in a Grand Junction route for that station.  All that was publicly communicated was that the passenger station would be on the main line from South Station to Worcester.  It comes as an incredible surprise to see Grand Junction service.

The station was killed as an “economy”.

The reality, however, is that this change bodes very well for the Green Line A route to Commonwealth Avenue Green Line B and then to Kenmore and the Harvard / Longwood Medical Center.

It is a cheap solution and does the job.

And we are dealing with a responsible agency, not the City of Cambridge, and not the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

B. Mass. Pike Relocation History.

There was a clear pattern in the April 10, 2014 and May 1, 2014 Massachusetts Department of Transporation presentations on the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) work. 

On April 10, 2014, the meeting was in Boston’s Allston neighborhood.

A batch of the usual pious and demanding Cambridge Machine folks with Massachusetts Institute of Technology connections showed up and mouthed pious, demanding destruction and overload.  

I publicized their connections in these reports, and these “Cambridge” activists did not show up for the May 1, 2014 meeting in Cambridge City Hall.

C. Cambridge Machine admits City Control.

Among the missing were the head of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” and a law school graduate who has a long record of yelling about the meaningless and having contempt for meaningful protections.

She made a very big thing about demanding voting representation for the fake neighborhood association on the MassDOT advisory committee.

MassDOT has a long experience with the destructiveness of these fake protectors and refused to give the fake group voting membership.

The woman has crowed that “we” now have representation.

Their “representation” is the Cambridge Development Department.  Thus MassDOT can talk to their controllers instead of intermediaries.

D. “Environmental” Protection?

Noise from the Massachusetts Turnpike has been highly obvious on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, especially toward the river’s edge.  I90 is close to and is raised above the Charles River.  The traffic noise creates a constant but not overly loud background noise.

The plans would, in all aspects, either keep things unchanged or drastically reduce noise.  The off ramps to Brighton and Cambridge would be drastically reduced.  That portion of the highway would be moved toward the Allston neighborhood and lowered to ground level rather than raised way up.

The portion near the BU Bridge would be lowered to the ground insofar as possible.  Smart construction would rebuild it all on the ground, and raise the Grand Junction above it along with Green Line A.

And this Cambridge Machine activist is complaining there would still be “too much” noise?

She has long had contempt for meaningful protection of the Charles.  She yells about building design lying that she is an environmental protector.

Here, the Cambridge Machine is fighting for massive destruction of trees, expansion of the outrage at Magazine Beach’s playing fields, heartless animal abuse, destruction of the little guy’s parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street, and two bike highways on the Charles, destroying, destroying, destroying.

So she is yelling that 40 years of background noise is not reduced enough.

Just another con game.  Do not look at the destruction we are fighting for.  Look at how pious we are on next to meaningless items.

3. Protect against destruction.

I have repeatedly reported on the outrages being inflicted on the Charles River and the Cambridge Common.

I included in the letter to the Cambridge City Council objecting to its imminent outrages on the Cambridge Common my objections to House Bill H4009 initiated by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.  This will destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, and ALL such destruction is coordinated with the City of Cambridge.  Passage could be imminent.

I summarized many other ongoing and recently accomplished environmental outrages for the City Council of the City of Cambridge has filthy hands.

The imminent target of destruction is the excellent common just north of Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA, USA.

If you would like to be recorded opposing to these outrages, please send an email to  That will get your email to Donna Lopez, the City Clerk.  As part of your email, ask that your email be forwarded to the Cambridge City Council and included in their Communications for the next meeting.

Support of my letter opposing the destruction on the Cambridge Common and the destruction in H4006 concerning multiple destruction of trees and animals on the Charles River would be helpful.

Of greater value in opposing the outrages on the Charles River would be communications to state officials as follows:

Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form:

The list of legislators’ emails is set up so that you can copy and paste them into addresses on your email, either original addressees or, better, blind copies.  Please do not miss the addendum at the beginning in which I list the local State Representative who was recently elected.