1. Introduction.
2. Report from person with apparent knowledge.
3. Response, 5/18/14, 12:53 pm
4. Response 2, 5/20, 3:01 pm
5. Summary.
6. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
1. Introduction.
The following exchange has been edited to keep it relevant, hopefully while communicating with accuracy. I have corrected some typos of mine.
I am at a loss as to the courtesies. So I am not identifying the source.
The following long analysis states that the Massachusetts House of Representatives is moving toward approval of bond authorization for destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive, Cambridge, between the BU and Longfellow Bridges. Then could come approval by the Massachusetts State Senate and the Governor’s Office.
At this time of the legislative calendar, with an election coming, things can happen VERY RAPIDLY in the Massachusetts legislature.
Section 6, below provides contact information. I apologize if it is not fully up to date. The Governor contact is up to date.
2. Report from person with apparent knowledge.
The following was sent 5/17/14 at 12:51 pm
************
House Bill 3332 has been renumbered House Bill 4009. It had a hearing before the Bonding Committee a few days ago and, if it is reported favorably upon, it will proceed to the Ways and Means Committee prior to a going to a vote in the House. I do not know if it will be voted upon this session. If you are tracking it, I would use the new number (4009).
I have reviewed the Bill and the Parkways reference. It does not call for or require the destruction of any trees. If the bond bill is authorized with the current language included and the DCR decides to fund that project, there will be an extensive public process regarding the design before changes to the landscape are made.
I understand that there may have been prior preliminary designs to which you reference, but I have not seen them. I know there is no a final design. I don’t support the destruction of trees, but do believe that much could be done to improve the pathways and green space between Memorial Drive and the Charles River. I support securing funds and having a public process to determine the potential improvements to the Cambridge side of the Charles River.
Thanks for your interest.
*************
I have lived with this and tried to follow up. I have not had the time and regret that I must pass this on without the follow up on my own than I would have liked.
3. Response, 5/18/14, 12:53 pm
Thank you very much for the response and for the new number.
The designation as including destruction is based on a Charles River Conservancy report translated into English combined with the belligerent vagueness.
Lies and deception have been the one common thread in the attacks on the Charles River, and the DCR's behavior has been consistently filthy.
I will not go into details. I am trying to avoid overloading you.
They have the money. They have the designation. They have been fighting to destroy those trees for years.
What has varied has been the techniques of lying. Lies and deception have been the norm on the Charles River. Magazine Beach with accumulation of lies and very real destruction combined with the fake group doing its company union thing is reality.
CRC knows the basis of those numbers. CRC bragged of the project being included under the appropriate euphemism.
The last time the DCR sought money to destroy those trees was in 2009 seeking Obama money. They lied the trees were all diseased, a lie, I understand, which was proved by the DCR filing with the Cambridge Conservation Commission. The lie would seem to be proved by the destruction plans I have in my possession.
Those destruction plans are posted at Charles River White Geese Blog: Tree Destruction Plans, Charles River, Mass. House Bill H3332..
The scanning was done on a new machine and was done before I fully understood the workings of the machine. I can improve the quality of the copy and provide a better version should you so wish.
Rewarding a proven irresponsible department with one step more of a blank check is not a good idea.
It rewards very clear deception. The magic words in that name says way too much.
Thank you very much.
4. Response 2, 5/20, 3:01 pm
I just reread your communication and I get very scared.
Cambridge and the DCR decided before the turn of the decade that they want to destroy these trees. The DCR indulged in outrageous lying in public in their fight to get Obama moneys. The lying is similar to 13 years of insisting that they have no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese, the victims of their deliberate starvation in direct violation of their supposedly holy Charles River Master Plan. The changed the supposedly holy plan after the corrupt destruction.
A “public process” on destroying these trees based on the tender sensitivities of this irresponsible entity is comparable to trying to get fair play from the fake neighborhood association on destruction on the Charles River.
The fake neighborhood association’s primary purpose in life is to fool people into looking at everything except for a truly vile reality.
The tactics of the DCR is its fight for destruction on the Charles have varied from flat out lying to going ahead as secretly as possible, to working through fake groups with little ethics but possibly more than the DCR.
As I said, this, and your analysis, I find very scary on looking more closely at your words, especially since the very destructive Charles River “Conservancy” was bragging when the bill was filed that it would do the destruction the DCR has been fighting for.
If you happened to notice, I recently documented 21 years of outrageous lies on the Urban Ring from the Cambridge Development Department concerning the Urban Ring. It sounds like one key document has been republished, so that makes 23 years of flat out lies.
These are not honorable people.
5. Summary.
It is always very difficult to evaluate the difference between friend and foe, especially in Cambridge, MA, where publicly active “environmentalists” have a secret definition of “environmentalism” which excludes protection of that part of the environment Cambridge, MA is in the process of destroying.
As I commented on Councilor Mazen, he is being inundated by con artists using terms which the con artists have used for years. And really, the cons do not change. What changes is the victim to which the cons are addressed. The bad guys meet a person who is new to an outrageous situation, and that person, incorrectly, assumes honor and honesty among the people with whom the newcomer is dealing.
One standard con Councilor Mazen repeated which has been used and used and used is that there is a necessity to get the right members of the Planning Board, then maybe they will be responsible.
Then, according to the lie, it is responsible for the Cambridge elected officials to grant all their authority to these appointees of the Cambridge City Manager.
Sounds great, unless you have the experience to recognize reality. Reality is that Cambridge has a regency of City Managers which has now lasted 40 years. They know who they control. Appointees of the Cambridge City Manager have only to look at the cruelty inflicted on Malvina Monteiro to realize that standing up to irresponsible people is very dangerous in Cambridge, MA, USA.
The bad guys who are needed to correct were appointed by the city manager regency. The newcomers will also be appointed by the city manager regency.
An excellent example of the corruption which exists in the Cambridge City Government is the 33 years of blatant lying on a key details of a regional planning matter, the Urban Ring. These people simply have no shame.
What I know is that we are dealing, in the DCR and Cambridge bureaucracies with people who should not be trusted. Blatant lying has been clearer in the DCR. Sophisticated lying, including controlled groups, is business as usual in the City of Cambridge.
When James Leo Sullivan was returned to the Cambridge City Manager position in 1974, he vowed to create a system of neighborhood organizations. The wording was positive. The reality is a bunch of cheerleading groups which, on big stuff, tend (or worse than tend) to achieve the opposite of what they claim to stand for.
The massive destruction of trees on the Charles River is a situation in which an irresponsible bureaucracy has demanded a blank check and one of the fake groups has filled in the balance. Approval by the Cambridge bureaucrats occurred years ago and the DCR has fought for their common destructive goal.
The plans for destruction which I have posted on this blog, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html, are by no means preliminary. These are from 2009 and were associated with seeking approval from the Cambridge Conservation Commission which has limited jurisdiction. These were prepared in support of the attempt to get Obama moneys and were described to the press with the flat out lie of “diseased.”
And the plans fit the outrages.
6. Contacts, Miscellaneous.
Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituentservices/contact/.
All Massachusetts Legislators’ emails: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/emails-for-all-massachusetts.html.
Cambridge, MA, USA city councilors: Council@cambridgema.gov.
