2. George Despotes, following up on the Dana Street destruction.
a. Comment
b. Response.
3. Shelley Patterson.
a. Fencing off the Destroyed Nesting Area from the adjacent wild area.
(1) Comment.
(2) Response.
(a) General, to Shelly.
(b) Supplement. General.
(c) Specific.
b. Dana Street tree destruction.
(1) Comment.
(2) Response.
c. Mass. Pike (I90) Changes.
(1) Introduction.
(2) Comment.
(3) Response.
(a) Mostly short term, connections to Soldiers Field Road east bound.
(b) Long Term. The off ramp to Cambridge from I90 (Mass. Pike).
1. Introduction.
A few days ago, I published photos of the remnants of destroyed street trees in Cambridge, which fits a distressing pattern.
I have gotten a number of responses, and published one from Dale Appel already.
Dale has given a constructive response.
In the meantime, I have several other good inputs which I have not yet passed on. I have spent a lot of time responding and little time posting.
I am going to try to pass on good ones in the order I received them, and then come back to Dale’s second comment.
I am swamped personally, and I do not want to swamp the folks who are receiving these communications, so I am doing what I can do. It is rather frustrating spending a lot of time responding to good points and then not having the time to post the good points.
My responses may or may not have been previously transmitted to the contributor either in whole or in part.
Additionally, my apologies to folks tuning in for the first time, my responses are fairly long without going into the real details of the issues. I regret that I just cannot fully explain each issue.
And really, the size of this report shows the reason why this entire package is delayed.
2. George Despotes, following up on the Dana Street destruction.
a. Comment
Clearly the trees reduce the temperature on hot summer days; there are costs to air conditioning!:
Trees certainly create a sense of relaxation which I think is important for all of us.
b. Response.
One of the greatest horror in Cambridge, MA, USA, is the nonstop lying of sainthood on environmental and animal abuse matters. Both are defined as standing up to the other guy and how dare you object to the reprehensible record of the Cambridge City Council.
If it were not for the lying and the massive organization backing up the lies, the incumbents lying the loudest about sainthood would be replaced by responsible people, and the multiplying nightmare would not exist.
The same outrage exists for folks concerned about civil rights and women’s rights (Monteiro v. Cambridge and the total lack of even considering firing a city manager condemned by judge, jury, and appeals court panel for destroying the life of a black Cape Verdean woman heading the Police Review department).
The councilor who almost certainly was fired by the voters over Monteiro failed again last time. The second councilor who could have been fired over Monteiro has a FOR SALE sign up. He was fired in the next election. It is quite certain, I would think, that the Monteiro outrage was part of the reason for firing.
3. Shelley Patterson.
Shelley had four good comments. Unfortunately, I can only find three. The horror is the amount of time I have spent responding to the three.
a. Fencing off the Destroyed Nesting Area from the adjacent wild area.
This concerns the highway construction on the Grand Junction. Here is the map from the key plans. The J is in the middle of the destroyed nesting area. The plans call for a fence to divide animal areas on the Charles River next to the Charles River. The fence would parallel the new highway.
This excellent tree towers over the Destroyed Nesting Area and its highway. It would be destroyed by the $20 million from the Governor and the legislature for massive tree destruction with fake “neutrality” from the reprehensible Cambridge City Council.
(1) Comment.
This is probably too much to ask of the city, but if the city wins and cannot be stopped from implementing their plan, perhaps they would agree to build a little bridge in the bike route, with a passage under it for the geese, so that the geese could still at least reach the wild area?
(2) Response.
(a) General, to Shelly.
This is a political matter with the focal points a whole bunch of fake groups, which run in lock step with the City Manager and his friends.
The city council would not dream of a humane exemption to that fence and the geese would not use it anyway. The city council gets what credit for "decency" it wants simply by lying. The geese would be horrified by the confinement of an exemption to the fence.
Plus that highway in the Destroyed Nesting Area is just one more step at total destruction of all resident animals, which the goal of the DCR as spelled out in their beloved document.
Expecting decency out of these reprehensible people is demonstrated at a silly expectation because the corrections needed at the playing fields are so minor. The starvation wall is the only place on the Charles River where the bank is deliberately blocked off from the river. The poisons they are sewing can readily be corrected by sewing responsible grass seed instead.
So the Cambridge Machine is using corrupt tactics to expand the outrage after a public meeting in which they should have lost, except for belligerent corruption on their part.
MassDOT is helping the cause as far as responsible behavior goes.
(b) Supplement. General.
The reality is that running the highway south of Memorial Drive is inexcuseable.
Here, once again, is the location where the bike highway should be connected to Vassar Street at the Vassar Street turn, and then to Memorial Drive which is on the other side of the building south of the sensible connection.
The only building between the responsible connection and Memorial Drive can be seen on the left of the second photo.
The state bureaucrats, with the aggressive assistance of the Cambridge City Council have a goal of killing off or driving away all animals on the Charles River basin.
The outrage follows a normal tactic: first destroy this part of the habitat, then destroy another part, and finally you kill all the animals off.
The outrage is that much more vile because the destruction of the food and primary residence of the Charles River White Geese at the Magazine Beach playing fields for most of the last 33 years is so easy to fix.
They are walled off from their food and home by an introduced wall of bushes which do not exist anywhere else on the Charles River Basin. Everywhere else, the bureaucrats and their agents destroying bordering vegetation twice a year. This has simply been allowed to grow.
The poisoning of the grass at Magazine Beach is just an excellent example of belligerent incompetence destructive of the Charles River, and demonstrating total lack of fitness for managing the environment. A responsible agency would stop spending money on poisons to keep alive sickly grass they introduced. A responsible agency would spend the money on seed for the excellent grass they destroyed.
The sickness get worse because the bureaucrats are fighting to expand the outrage, assisted by constant corruption of the fake neighborhood association. The fake neighborhood association conducted on real meeting on the Charles River nearly two years ago.
They could not win, so it has been nonstop corruption, abuse of power and abuse of agenda, with the clear intent of suppressing reality and lying of a false reality while expanding an outrage that was created in secret.
And, by the usual Company union corrutption, fighting for all destruction supported by their friends by lying of concern and preventing discussion of their outrages they are fighting for.
MassDOT has vetoed a highway on the Grand Junction railroad bridge. The bad guys swear they will fight again in three years. And, as usual, sound so sweet.
The fence in the plans without a crossing looks like it would go up to the bridge anyway.
(c) Specific.
The latest report of the city council committee on this matter included a gorgeous portfolio by the Cambridge Development Department.
The portfolio has a page of samples of bikes next to railroad tracks. There are six pictures. Four of the pictures clearly lack the fence the Development Department is fighting for. One looks like it has a fence and the last one is uncertain.
b. Dana Street tree destruction.
(1) Comment.
Are there any lawyers in your group? Violation of a city ordinance should be punishable?
(2) Response.
First of all, the Cambridge Machine loves lawsuits. They keep trouble makers out of trouble.
The ordinances are tools by which a municipality protects the municipality. They are not written as tools to protect the world from a municipality.
The most "protection" that exists for street trees is a decision of a bureaucrat which is unreviewable. This is in a city where a department head, black, Cape Verdean, woman bureaucrat had her life destroyed for filing a civil rights / women's rights complaint. Judge, jury and appeals court panel gave the Cambridge City Council full power to fire the preceding city manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension because of the Court outrage over his behavior. The Cambridge City Council saw nothing wrong with the behavior of the city manager and "did not notice" the very strong Court condemnations. One and possibly two city councilors have been fired by the voters over this outrage.
That sends a very strong message to all persons subject to the whim of the Cambridge City Manager. The City Council's stench has not changed in the slightest.
The City of Cambridge has a massive organization lying that the Cambridge City Council is holier than thou, and the Cambridge City Council supports their non stop outrages by yelling at the other guy, usually on matters not within the jurisdiction of the Cambridge City Council. That major hypocrisy is business as usual.
c. Mass. Pike (I90) Changes.
(1) Introduction.
Here is the MassDOT map of the area they are working on, outlined in orange.
At the top is the Charles River.
My comments on new connections being built by MassDOT to Soldiers Field Road are in the top left.
The new connecting roads are two.
The traffic coming traveling east to the Mass. Pike would, generally, follow the near vertical line in the far left and the near horizontal line below it. The new east bound ramp would connect to Soldiers Field Road at some point in the curve of the Orange Line at the top.
The intersection whose traffic would no longer see the relocated traffic is at the intersection of the Orange Line at the top and the River Street Bridge, which crosses the Charles River at the far left.
At the very top on the right is the BU Bridge. Running under it to the top corner of the Orange Line is the Grand Junction railroad bridge.
(2) Comment.
Re Harvard: Might voters speak out if they are made aware of the potential increase in traffic which this plan would bring to Allston, Cambridge, etc.?
(3) Response.
There are two aspects to the Mass. Pike Changes, Short Term and Long Term.
(a) Mostly short term, connections to Soldiers Field Road east bound.
This is MassDOT. MassDOT are the good guys.
By killing the highway over the Grand Junction bridge, they have at least delayed major destruction, and harm to the animal population.
The changes MassDOT are doing are very competent, very effective good work, and will likely improve the Mass. Pike impact.
The traffic problems come in two parts, neither from the MassDOT actions in this project.
First, Harvard bought the Mass. Pike exit / railroad yard area several months after the MBTA proved a Mass. Pike off ramp to Cambridge was feasible over the Grand Junction, and a whole bunch of destructive things, including the $20 million project to destroy hundreds of trees are part of it.
Secondly, there will be major traffic impact but the impact is from Harvard's project.
The construction now going up at North Harvard and Western is Harvard Square density plus.
The Mass. Pike area owned by Harvard exceeds the size of the Back Bay. It very clearly is intended to be a relocation of the Harvard Medical Area's scholastic facilities, including but very much not limited to Harvard Medical School. Build at the same density as at North Harvard and Western, and you have major traffic impact.
The MassDOT plans would include a good rearrangment of traffic currently feeding to the intersection which includes the River Street Bridge (next to the west from the BU Bridge).
Currently all traffic coming from the west to the Mass. Pike and coming from the Mass. Pike to go to the east go through that intersection.
The plans call for traffic coming from the west to be relocated to a new intersection south of this intersection, spreading out traffic impact.
The plans call from traffic coming from the Mass. Pike and going east to be funneled to the local boulevard (Soldiers Field Road) by a new on ramp east of that intersection, keeping that traffic out of the intersection.
Regretfully, the improvements can only impact traffic on the eastbound side of Soldiers Field Road. There is simply not enough room to make significant improvement to the westbound traffic.
(b) Long Term. The off ramp to Cambridge from I90 (Mass. Pike).
This is the off ramp to Cambridge over the Grand Junction bridge. The bad guys are sworn to get their con games in order. Their fight is for various tools to put the off ramp in place through one subterfuge or another.
MassDOT has stood up to them, but Harvard thinks in centuries. Harvard gets one thing this decade and another thing next decade.
The destruction of those hundreds of trees in the $20 million supported by Governor Patrick and the legislature is designed to straighten out Memorial Drive, the boulevard north of the Charles River, to receive the traffic from that off ramp.
