I. Introduction.
II. Reality.
III. More background.
IV. Heartless Animal Abuse / environmental outrages from the City of Cambridge communicated to the Cambridge City Council by letter on their agenda, July 28, 2014.
1. Charles River — House Bill H4009.
2. Cambridge Common.
3. Charles River — Underpasses.
4. Charles River — Bicycle Highway, future Massachusetts Turnpike off ramp to Cambridge.
5. Charles River — The Charles River White Geese
6. Alewife.
7. Magazine Beach area.
a. General.
b. Bizarre Wall of Introduced Bushes.
c. Destruction of responsible grass, replacement with poison needing grass.
d. Destruction of playing fields.
8. Danehy Park.
9. Staffing of the Cambridge Development Department.
V. Response to the usual nonsense, in advance.
● The DCR is doing it (or whoever is “responsible”).
● The City of Cambridge has no business governing select matters in the City of Cambridge.
● The Development Department told me to do it.
● General.
● Demonstrable Major Lying.
● Heartless animal abuse.
I. Introduction.
In my last report, I handled the three versions of this report differently.
I was reporting on a report being received by a committee of the Cambridge City Council on Monday, July 28, 2014.
The blog title was:
“Cambridge, MA, City Council considers further abuse of Charles River White Geese: Grand Junction Outrage”
The title on the normally condensed versions on facebook and transmitted in email was:
“Cambridge, MA, City Council: Lt. Governor candidate supports increase in heartless abuse of beautiful Charles River Residents”
The reason for the different titles and different approach was simple.
This report is international in readership. The facebook page runs over 525 friends. Most of them are in Massachusetts. The email report is almost totally to Cambridge residents.
Thus, the locals would have greater interest and appreciate the slightly different emphasis.
II. Reality.
My post here may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/cambridge-ma-city-council-considers.html. The post includes links to the committee report and to a PDF containing, albeit at the end, my letter which was in front of the committee.
My letter goes into great documented detail as to the nature of the outrage.
That letter was in front of the Lieutenant Governor candidate when he unequivocally supported this outrage.
Increased heartless animal abuse, destruction of their environment.
III. More background.
It gets monotonous to keep saying the same stuff when people who do not want to know what they are doing keep on saying the same nonsense.
Also on the agenda for Monday’s Cambridge City Council was a report from an alleged environment committee chaired by Cheung.
The report includes the usual holier than thou nonsense which Cambridge pols spout. This time it was from Cheung proclaiming the environmental sainthood of the government of the City of Cambridge, which includes him.
Additionally on the agenda was my report to the Cambridge City Council on ongoing outrages by the Cambridge City Council.
That report is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/ongoing-outrages-report-to-cambridge-ma.html.
To make certain that nothing is missed, I am repeating this report in sections IV and V. Section IV is the substance. Section V was the beginning of the letter. It responded in advance to the nonsense I could expect from members of the city council and their accomplices.
I am using roman numerals for my general numbering to avoid confusion with the below numbering. I have done some clean up work.
Section 4 parallels the report which Cheung unconditionally supports
IV. Heartless Animal Abuse / environmental outrages from the City of Cambridge communicated to the Cambridge City Council by letter on their agenda, July 28, 2014.
***********
1. Charles River — House Bill H4009.
A senate version of House Bill H4009 has been approved and the mess is going to conference committee.
I have provided this City Council with the DCR’s plans for destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges. When the DCR sought this money in 2009 from the Obama Great Recession efforts, they lied that this destruction was diseased trees. I provided you their plans. There are no diseased trees.
The DCR has bragged about how lovely the area will look in 40 years.
The reality is that this destruction is for the purpose of straightening out Memorial Drive to take off ramp traffic from the Massachusetts Turnpike which is currently being sought under the Bicycle Highway lie.
“Support” has been obtained by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” by lying to people that they were seeking support for “underpasses.” They justified this lie in their announcement of the initial bill, when they called $24 million for this project “incidental” to $4 million for underpasses.
This destruction is an outrage.
The greatest value in it would seem to be as makework for people who make money out of destroying trees and planting saplings.
2. Cambridge Common.
The justification in the ENF with regard to the imminent destruction of the main entrance to the Cambridge Common, and of these excellent trees, shows the contempt for the environment which is the norm of the City of Cambridge. The ENF states that the trees “block the view” of a monument. Trees are the view and frame the monument.
This public contempt for the environment is normal in the government of the City of Cambridge.
3. Charles River — Underpasses.
I defer to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on this. The Cambridge City Council’s public support directly conflicts with the outrage expressed by MassDOT over the environmental destruction and flat out waste of money. Another project of principal value to the individuals being paid to do the work.
The extent of the outrage associated with this project includes the reality that the “support” for it turned out to be “support” for destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.
4. Charles River — Bicycle Highway, future Massachusetts Turnpike off ramp to Cambridge.
The Grand Junction bike highway makes excellent sense ending at Memorial Drive with a very short connection to Vassar Street at the Vassar Street turn. Beyond that point it is highly destructive and is a stalking horse for an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike. Harvard bought its future Medical School home months after the MBTA proved the Grand Junction railroad bridge could be expanded for this purpose.
Fencing would parallel the temporary bike highway between Memorial Drive and the Charles River. This would restrict movement and perhaps kill the free animals the DCR is fighting to kill off or drive away.
This is just another of pretty much non stop techniques of heartless animal abuse furthering the DCR goal of killing or driving away all resident animals on the Charles River, a policy which demonstrates the vileness and incompetence of the DCR, supported by the Cambridge City Council.
Plans call for bizarre Bike Highway construction in the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined in their heartless starvation by the Cambridge City Council and the DCR.
This construction would be much longer and more destructive than connecting the Bike Highway to Vassar Street at the Vassar Street turn. But it would make money for the people paid to do it, and assist the DCR / Cambridge’s heartless animal abuse.
5. Charles River — The Charles River White Geese
In the case of the Charles River White Geese, the heartless confinement, deliberate starvation and constant abuse trashes a very valuable tourist attraction and an irreplaceable scientific gem.
This is a gaggle of free animals whose ancestors were domesticated. This magnificent gaggle has created a viable social structure which has remained intact for 33 years now in spite of corrupt and incompetent governmental entities.
They fed themselves on their own at Magazine Beach until Cambridge and the DCR started to starve them by installing a wall which directly violated constant promises of Cambridge and the DCR.
The heartless attack has constantly been justified by bizarre, corrupt explanations including pretty much non stop lying of “no intent to harm.” Or they simply have been silent and hidden behind groups with connections to the government of the City of Cambridge.
6. Alewife.
Cambridge has destroyed acres of irreplaceable woodlands for protection against 2 year storms. The destruction included a mass pogrom of resident animals.
The area needs protection against 100 year storms. The only way this can responsibly be done is by underground easements for and construction of massive flood protection tanks. Smaller examples are present / being constructed under at least two recent buildings on CambridgePark Drive. Publicly funded and constructed flood storage tanks are needed under all new building in the area in addition to corresponding structures needed for the buildings, and under whatever else can reasonably be used.
Failure to responsibly plan at Alewife leads to certain, perhaps total destruction of all government holdings in this irreplaceable heritage area.
7. Magazine Beach area.
a. General.
Bizarre lies. It is very difficult to understate the outrage funded by the Cambridge City Council here in planning and in implementation led by the current City Manager. The current City Manager also supervised the outrage at Alewife.
Cambridge was promised management rights in the playing fields, but that would involve the City Council reviewing of the destruction accomplished with its money. Management has not been taken.
The situation is so rotten that a miscreant copycatting Cambridge and the DCR’s contempt for wildlife went on a killing spree of resident animals. The public begged the City Council for protection. They reminded the City Council that animal abusers frequently graduate to humans. The Cambridge Chronicle very visibly front paged a memorial for the leader of the gaggle when he was assassinated. It was conducted on top of the MWRA plant.
The Cambridge City Council was “neutral” with a wink and a nod.
The key miscreant graduated to rape and murder in the location where he had been killing the animals this city council had been abusing and has continued to abuse.
The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder and did not want to know where it occurred.
Councilor Davis mentioned the location of the rape and murder. She looked around guiltily, swallowed her words and returned to the lie of non responsibility of the Cambridge City Council.
b. Bizarre Wall of Introduced Bushes.
The DCR destroys bordering vegetation twice a year along the Charles River. It has contempt for the natural world.
Magazine Beach is an exception.
The DCR promised a lawn to the river.
The DCR repeatedly insisted it would only allow water related activities on the banks of the Charles River.
Cambridge and the DCR have walled off Magazine Beach with a bizarre wall which blocks water related usage and which has no purpose except to starve the Charles River White Geese as part of the DCR’s reprehensible policy of killing off or driving away all resident animals. The wall is of introduced vegetation which seems to exist nowhere else on the Charles.
But the wall has a value and its value is consistent with the definition of introduced species.
The wall starves the 33 year resident Charles River White Geese.
c. Destruction of responsible grass, replacement with poison needing grass.
The grass at Magazine Beach survived the better part of a century in an environmentally responsible manner, no poisons. The DCR loves poisons. Cambridge and the DCR destroyed the responsible grass and replaced it with grass requiring poisons to survive.
d. Destruction of playing fields.
One of the most important lies in the Magazine Beach outrage was the “improvement” of the playing fields.
But the DCR loves poisons.
So Cambridge and the DCR destroyed playing fields to drain off poisons needed to keep alive sickly grass which replaced healthy grasses which had been there for the better part of a centure.
8. Danehy Park.
Destruction of grass to replace it with plastic?
9. Staffing of the Cambridge Development Department.
These multiple outrages show a severe problem in the Cambridge Development Department.
There are too many “planners” looking for work and for justification of an overstaffed department including their own jobs.
So destruction, destruction, destruction.
Solution: fire planners.
***********
V. Response to the usual nonsense, in advance.
● The DCR is doing it (or whoever is “responsible”).
Flat out nonsense, The DCR coordinates all destruction with the City of Cambridge and the City of Cambridge pulls whatever connections it can to further the DCR’s destructive paths. There is no meaningful difference. There are paper cons, but no meaningful differences. If there were meaningful differences, the City Manager would be seeking the support of the City Council against whatever the particular outrage is.
● The City of Cambridge has no business governing select matters in the City of Cambridge.
Another cynical piece of nonsense. On the Charles River in particular, past multiple instances in the record of the Cambridge City Council proves this statement to be a cynical lie. Notwithstanding this, it is bizarre nonsense for a city which conducts its own foreign policy to claim it has no responsibility for environment outrages being accomplished by its friends within its own city limits.
● The Development Department told me to do it.
● General.
First of all, you are elected by the voters. It is your job to be standing up to the Development Department when the Development Department is pursuing vile, destructive activities.
● Demonstrable Major Lying.
An excellent example of the corrupt situation in the Cambridge Development Department is the zoning in the southern part of Cambridgeport. A number of new zoning districts were created in the period 2000 to 2005 based on the lie that, with the Urban Ring subway coming in, a stop at Putnam Avenue and the Grand Junction would justify the zoning.
The staff’s preferred Urban Ring alternative is only one of two. The staff lied to the Cambridge City Council that their preferred alternative was only one possible Urban Ring option.
The much more likely alternative, the Kenmore Crossing, was proposed by me in 1986. It was adopted as one of two options by the MBTA in 1991. The Kenmore Crossing option has received state subsidies with regard to the rebuilding in place of Yawkey Station as part of a massive project. The staff preferred alternative (BU Bridge Crossing) needs Yawkey Station to be moved three blocks for its environmentally irresponsible option to approach having any level or reasonableness..
Last I heard (a couple of years ago), this lie continued to be the “truth” supported by the Cambridge Development department some 23 years after this lie was demonstrably a lie.
● Heartless animal abuse.
Nonstop key in so many projects, especially the DCR’s, is contempt for our world. Casual killing off / heartless abuse of free animals is vile.
The DCR has a policy in its Charles River Master Plan of killing off or driving away as many resident animals it can get away with.
Cambridge has repeatedly aided in this outrage in multiple projects on the Charles River and the two killed off massive numbers of animals at Alewife in that continuing, destructive outrage.
