Charles River Destruction Report, Destruction of Memorial Drive, January - February 2016

Charles River Destruction Report, Destruction of Memorial Drive, January - February 2016.

I have received the following message from Lily Bouvier, Programming Director, Cambridge Community Television, concerning my commentary / slide show video, “The Destruction of Memorial Drive, January - February 2016.”

It gives before / after reports between the BU Bridge and the Mass. Ave. Bridge, and middle of destruction reports between the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, all with destruction plans and maps from the state agency doing the actual destruction.

The report will probably be improved upon.

Please note that persons who cannot get Cambridge Cable have internet access on the provided URL.

* * *

Hi Bob,

This message is to let you know that your production The Destruction of Memorial Drive is going to begin playing on the CCTV channels this coming week. So far it's scheduled for broadcast on Channel 8, Sunday 4/3 and Tuesday 4/5 at 5pm, and Wednesday 4/6, Thursday 4/7, and Friday 4/8 at 9am.

Folks can tune in via Cambridge cable TV, or through the live streams on our website, at www.cctvcambridge.org/channel08.

Hope you get a chance to watch, and to let others know as well!

Thanks,

Lily

Charles River, Bizarre Tactics from the Cambridge Machine

Charles River, Bizarre Tactics from the Cambridge Machine

I have been trying to upload the video I have prepared on the destruction of Memorial Drive to YouTube.  I have not been successful.

We have been leafleting, as convenient, meetings of the Cambridge City Council, telling folks about the environmental destruction of the City of Cambridge.  We have leafleted folks as they approach the city council meeting room.

This sort of communication is unthinkable in Cambridge.  In Cambridge, you do not talk reality around the Cambridge City Council.  The only thing thinkable is to praise the sainthood of the City of Cambridge.

The trouble is that the City of Cambridge is the opposite of saintly.

You start with the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River during January and February 2016.  The actors were contractors of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, but the City of Cambridge blessed it, and their cheerleaders aggressively fought for it, lying all the way that they love the Charles River.

This follows on the destruction of the Cambridge Common.

Both follow on the destruction of more than 3.4 irreplaceable acres of the Alewife reservation.

And then there is the outrage on the Magazine Beach playing fields and in the destroyed nesting area in the 2000s.  This last outrage is not mentioned in the fliers.  You can only get so much into an 8 ½ x 11 piece of paper.

Friends of the White Geese have had the nerve to tell people about the real record of the City of Cambridge.

While leafleting folks coming up the staircase to the most recent meeting, I could be wrong, but I got the impression that a Machine operative was bragging that the City Council was out to get me.  Could that Machine operative have been suggesting retaliation for communicating reality?

The City Council has already placed themselves clearly in favor of corrupt tactics by the City of Cambridge.  An agent of the City of Cambridge was bragging of environmental saintliness on the city trees at a public meeting.  She was shocked that we leafleted reality.  She threatened our  counter leafleting with reality with a $25 fine per leaflet.

I complained to the City Council.  The City Council responded with a very loud silence.  The usual support by silence with a wink and a nod.

What the Machine operative could have been talking about at that most recent meeting, if he / she were talking about anything, could be a motion by the city council at that meeting to look into regulating people lobbying the city council.

Regulation impacting the Friends of the White Geese would be downright bizarre.  Lobbyists regulated routinely are folks getting paid for the effort.  Friends of the White Geese has no paid lobbyists.  We deliberately communicate to folks about the vile record of the City of Cambridge with the hope that reality might possibly reverse the impact of the lies being put out about Cambridge’s saintliness.

No money to lobbyists.  We have not even directly talked to the City Council in something like ten years.  We are on record with written communications, and written communications, and written communications.  We do encourage people to talk with the city council.

The BIG problem with us talking directly, as opposed to very clear written communications, is the fake world the City Council and its cheerleaders live in.  “Environmental destruction by the City of Cambridge” translates in their language to “praiseworthy environmentalism” or “improvements.”  You keep on talking and you are talking to a stone wall.

However, if a lot of people talk to the stone wall, then a lot of people can get a better impression of the very vile reality in the City of Cambridge.  The only responsible evaluation has to be “You can’t possibly be so stupid.”

ALL our reports on the destruction of those hundreds of trees on the Charles River starting with preliminary reports in September 2015 have gone, in condensed version, to the general email address which gives individual copies to each member of the Cambridge City Council.  The new member was added to the list of recipients of the email condensations in the middle of the campaign, along with most of the other candidates.

The City Council has supported the outrage on the Charles River through silence in circumstances which call for outrage, English translation: support with a wink and a nod..

All we are asking now from politically powerful people is

1.  to get rid of Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation in favor of Massachusetts’ Department of Transportation, insofar as is possible, and

2.   to fire the Cambridge City Manager.  As far as we are concerned, Cambridge has had one City Manager since 1974, with three different faces.  In this regency, each city manager has passed the torch to the next City Manager, and that is what face number 3 is trying to do.  Face number 3 has designated his principal assistant to be his replacement, just as the preceding two faces did when they retired.

We think the responsible thing to do is to fire the City Manager, not just face number 3, but to prevent face number 4.  The continuing outrage of this interlocked City Manager position has amassed tremendous power and a whole bunch of fake groups.

The fake groups certainly look like a lot of them loudly proclaim their independence.  But they then turn around and cheerlead for Cambridge and its friends' irresponsible behavior and for expanding the power of the government of the City of Cambridge.

We think that, if the City Council has not hired an outside person as city manager by #3's retirement at the end of June, the City Council should hire as temporary City Manager the City Clerk, a person who is highly respected, and has clean hands.  She has had nothing to do with the outrages.

Then hire a responsible outsider as City Manager.

City Manager face #4 proposed by City Manager face #3 has been the head of the department responsible for the hands on work of the City of Cambridge.  I do not know exactly how filthy her hands are, but, since that position, she has been the second in command of the City of Cambridge during the regime of City Manager face #3.  Thus, it is rather silly to assume she is free of problems.  And as #4, she would clearly get the reflexive loyalty of a lot of cheerleaders, and the power associated with this massive machine.

The clean hands of the City Clerk could disqualify the City Clerk for selection, unfortunately.  Saintliness is the non stop lie.  She has not been part of the non stop lies.

Reality is something which is unacceptable in the City of Cambridge.  HOW DARE YOU COMMUNICATE REALITY!!!!

But they do love to brag of supposed saintliness.

Charles River: Public Dispute with Cambridge Machine

Charles River: Public Dispute with Cambridge Machine.

The reality of the situation in Cambridge is that, at the start of this now 42 year situation, the first regent in the City Manager operation, James Leo Sullivan expressed a desire to create “neighborhood associations.”

Sullivan had been fired in the 60s and rehired in 74, with this very strong goal in mind.  As usual when dealing with this one city managership with 3, perhaps 4 faces, the words sound so nice and the reality is so different.

A whole bunch of interlocked groups have “appeared.”  Trouble is that the true, most important function of so many of these groups is cheerleading for the City of Cambridge.

Over the years, I have seen a lot of lying, and a lot of corrupt behavior, a lot of which, in reality, acts to implement the goals of the city government.

This, however, is the first time I have been able to get into a published spat with a key member of the machine which is the combination of those cheerleading groups.

The exchange is at:  http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20160311/rossi-to-retire-as-cambridge-city-manager-in-june#loadComment.

The relevant part is not the news story, but the comments on the news story.

Probably the most visible and perhaps the nastiest of the cheerleaders is Robert Winters. 

Talking with the machine is like talking to a scripted responder.  The words commonly deviate markedly from reality, but the basic pitch normally can be described with the comment “You cannot possibly be that stupid.”

In this case, Winters strongly disputed my position that Cambridge has been very destructive.

Winters claimed to have no knowledge of destruction at Alewife, the Cambridge Common or on the Charles River.

The following is a photo published on his blog.  This photo was transmitted by the City of Cambridge as part of a puff piece bragging of Cambridge’s destruction of more than 3.4 acres of irreplaceable woodlands AT ALEWIFE.  

Winters claimed, in his printed comment, that he had no knowledge of destruction at Alewife.  The trees lining the edges of this photo formerly filled the entire area.

It is very difficult to plead stupidity when you have published a report which calls you a liar.

Winters also claimed stupidity on the destruction of the Charles River.  He gave the impression of lack of knowledge of massive destruction.  I referred him to the Charles River White Geese facebook page with its condensations of the blog reports, some photos, and links to the big reports on this blog.

Winters explained the destruction of the Cambridge Common using another standard pitch: difference of opinion.  The people he talks to think it is an improvement.  But the people he talks to have major lack of concern for reality.  

Normal people when faced with the reality of the explanation of why Cambridge destroyed the 22 tree excellent grove at the Harvard Square entrance to the Cambridge Common sneer at Cambridge’s explanation.  

Cambridge explanation in the first full paragraph of page 4 of the Environmental Notification Form was that those excellent, beautiful trees, were blocking the view of the monument.

Here is the environmental notification form.  Double clicking brings each page up to a good size.  Read the first full paragraph on 4.  The words I just used are the real English translation of the bureaucratize.

Interestingly, after really nasty words, Mr. Winters does not seem to have responded to my replies.  You can only go so far with falsehoods, and unsupported nastiness, even when you couch the language so as to give yourself deniability.

This mentality is the foundation for the group which really is the foundation of the destructiveness of the City of Cambridge.  Winters is the most visible member, the supposed intellect in the organization.

But usually, they do not put their nonsense in print.

Here are before and after pictures at the Cambridge Common.

This outrage, of course, has been turned into a pittance on the Charles River, but it is a very visible outrage, an outrage very important and very familiar to a lot of people.  The Cambridge Machine cannot lie their way around this.


I am in the process of posting a 20 minute video on YouTube concerning the outrages of January and February on Charles River with a great deal of reality as opposed to what comes out of the Cambridge Machine.....

Charles River, words from the Cambridge Arborist

Charles River, words from the Cambridge Arborist.

1. Introduction.
2. The problems.
3. Kendall and Harvard Squares, in context.
4. Malvina Monteiro and the Robert Healy Police Station.
5. Alewife, Cambridge Common, Charles River.
6. Alewife.
7. Cambridge Common.
8. Charles River.
9. Summary.


1. Introduction.

Tuesday evening, the fake neighborhood association presented the City of Cambridge’s arborist.  The presentation was an improvement because the words I heard in the prior meeting was that there would be a discussion of how to pay off this destructive group with the joy of choosing saplings to replace trees they should not have destroyed.

Friends of the White Geese leafleted with reality and the point person in the outrage on the Charles left the meeting before the featured speakers.

This analysis will communicate reality, not the sales pitches.  Whether the sales pitches are believed or not is irrelevant.  The sales pitches are designed to communicate falsely that Cambridge has a responsible government.

2. The problems.

The presentations totally emphasized plantings and did not mention destruction.  In the lie which is environmental protection in Cambridge, the City Arborist is held up as an independent protector of ALL the city’s trees.  The reality is very much different.

I pointed out to the arborist the destruction of 3.4 acres at Alewife, the destruction of the magnificent grove at the Cambridge Common, the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River with more coming, the destruction of approximately 50 trees at Kendall, and the destruction, perhaps not done yet, of an entire block of magnificent trees in Harvard Square to please Harvard.

3. Kendall and Harvard Squares, in context.

The answers with regard to Kendall and Harvard fit the party line in Cambridge.  And I repeat, I am translating into English, not quoting lovely words.

In the Cambridge establishment, existing magnificent trees have no value because nobody has earned money off them in recent years.  Destroyed trees with replacements mean bucks to contractors.

In civilized parts of the world, the approach to mature trees is: “What can I do to save” them?  In Cambridge, the approach is: “Do I have an excuse to destroy” them.  And that was what we got.

4. Malvina Monteiro and the Robert Healy Police Station.

This one person, by no means should not be held out as a terrible individual.  This one person could very easily have been hired as an employee thinking he would be working for a government which clearly communicates, and lies, that it is holier than thou.  He could have learned the hard truth too late.

That is where the Monteiro case comes in.  A columnist for the Boston Globe commented that Cambridge fought the Monteiro case way beyond reason.  But that analysis assumes a responsible city government.  Cambridge’s fighting the Monteiro case way beyond reason sent a message to those who would stand up to the Cambridge city government.  That message could very easily have been communicated to the City Arborist when it was too late.

Malvina Monteiro was a black, Cape Verdean, female Department Head.  She made the mistake of listening to Cambridge’s lovely words about civil rights and women’s rights.  She filed a complaint alleging bias in employment practices because she is a woman.

City Manager Robert Healy fired her in retaliation.  His actions were roundly condemned by jury, judge and appeals court panel.  The language was such that the Cambridge City Council had ample grounds and ability to fire him for malfeasance in office without fear of a meaningful law suit.  The only real question would have been whether the Cambridge City Council could have stripped him of his pension.  Five of that nine are still sitting.

The Cambridge City Council named the police station after Robert Healy.

5. Alewife, Cambridge Common, Charles River.

On the destruction at Alewife, the Cambridge Common, and the Charles River, the city arborist used another standard con.  Blame the other guy.  Don’t look at me.  The words were very carefully presented.  They did not go into the reality of the situation.  They strictly spoke to his individual blame.

He blamed the state in all cases.

6. Alewife.

The fact that the current City Manager, Rossi, took personal credit for managing the Alewife outrage was not mentioned.  The fact that Cambridge has publicly bragged of the destruction at Alewife about the destruction through a puff piece press release bragging of the destruction was not mentioned.

Here is a picture the Cambridge government used in its puff piece.  See the massive trees on the outside?  They were everywhere before the 3.4 acres were destroyed.  Interestingly, the Cambridge Chronicle suppressed the puff piece, to protect the guilty.  It was published by Mr. Winters, a well established member of the cheerleaders.  The Cambridge Chronicle does a better job of hiding reality in the City of Cambridge than do the cheerleaders.

7. Cambridge Common.

On the Cambridge Common, not mentioned was the fact that the Development Department worked on these plans for years, made the presentations, and then fought to get state money.

All that was mentioned in the response by the City Arborist at that meeting was the state money.  None of his business.  State money.

Before and after pictures follow.

8. Charles River.

On the Charles River, we are dealing with a situation in which Cambridge started the ball rolling with the destruction plans at Magazine Beach.  Before that, the state was bragging of the Charles River White Geese, their most visible victims.

When I got a copy of the key plan for Magazine Beach and the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese from the lead state “planner” in 1999, she pointed out to me the difference between the city’s plan and what she was going with.  It was very clear where the project started.

The hundreds of trees which were just destroyed on the Charles River, with much more coming, were extensively discussed with and blessed by the City of Cambridge.

The Cambridge City Manager, now Rossi, put on a show and tell in 2015 bragging about plans for the Charles River.

The standard pitch in Cambridge is lies of omission.  Rossi almost certainly bragged about the Charles River without mentioning the hundreds of trees being destroyed, and, for that matter, he quite certainly kept secret the outrages being accomplished at Magazine Beach.

Here is another before and after pair from January 2015.  This is only one pair of very many.

Here are photos of trees still under threat by those plans.

9. Summary.

Yes, the City Arborist gave the usual skilled presentation.  Evaluated in reality, he put a forceful lie to the party line that the trees of the City of Cambridge are protected by an independent review by him.

But the Monteiro case forcefully proves that the City Arborist, like all other “independent” appointees of the City of Cambridge had better spout the party line.

The Monteiro case sends a very strong message to people who can be destroyed by the City Manager.

Never forget Malvina Monteiro and the Robert Healy Police Station when you are given a pitch about the protection of the City of Cambridge, MA, by “independent” city appointees.

Charles River: A selected before and after of the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees.

Charles River: A selected before and after of the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees.

Before and after, Charles River, January 2016.

The City of Cambridge, the Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their cheerleaders call this environmentalism.

The Cambridge City Council is considering whether or not to rehire the Cambridge City Manager.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation is considering whether the DCR should manage open space being created in its rebuild of I90 (Mass. Pike) on the Allston side of the Charles River from Magazine Beach.

The DCR is proposing more destruction at Magazine Beach on the Charles River, and proposes the destruction of hundreds more trees.

Driving down Storrow Drive on the Boston side of the Charles River, I admired the magnificent trees on the Esplanade and thought what was unthinkable before the outrages of January.  Those excellent trees would make magnificent paydays for the same contractors who destroyed the magnificence of Cambridge side.

The sick mentality which destroyed the Cambridge side and stands ready to do more destruction was exactly what the legislature was trying to protect the Charles from when the legislature replaced the Metropolitan District Commission with the DCR and MassDOT.

However, the MDC planners and their sick mentality went to DCR.  MDC should be finally destroyed by destroying the DCR on the Charles River.

MassDOT has stood up to DCR and Cambridge.  The need for MassDOT in place of DCR is obvious.  There is too much more to destroy.

And, of course, the Cambridge City Manager should be fired.

Need I say more?


PS: The facebook post got a response of a figure with head bowed and the following:

The after photo looks awful. What is their reasoning?


My Response:

That is just a tiny part of the outrage.

Please look at my blog post during the middle of their destruction of magnificence next to the main MIT Campus, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/charles-river-logging-destruction.html.

They change the “reason” in accordance with what the audience will swallow.  In this report, I spend the equivalence of two typewritten pages debunking excuse after excuse after excuse.  You are looking at the archetype of Make work for Contractors.

This report also provides background information and ON SITE PHOTOS of the horror.  Plus it provides a list of 34 reports with before pictures and destruction pictures.

Here is a selected photo from the report.  The destruction vehicle is hoisting the destroyed trunk of one of a row of nine identical and destroyed trees.  Compare its size to the size of the worker.  It was alive and excellent half an hour earlier.

Charles River: The Charles River White Geese at the Beginning of Spring

Charles River:  The Charles River White Geese at the Beginning of Spring

Here is a photo of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese today.  The Charles River White Geese are spread about as they normally are at the beginning of their nesting season.

This is an excellent example of an environmental creation of the Department of Conservation and Recreation working with the City of Cambridge.  You know them, they are the pair who just destroyed hundreds of trees between this location (at the BU Bridge) and the Longfellow Bridge, with the usual lovely promises.

In March 2000, the Charles River White Geese returned to their Destroyed Nesting Area after it had been destroyed for the first time, by Boston University.

BU lied for six months that BU had not done it, until they were condemned for the destruction by the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  Then BU started bragging.

The DNA then was a lot better than it is now.

Here it was today.  In normal years, the Charles River White Geese would be returning from the Magazine Beach playing fields, to have a nesting season.  Now they have no place else to go.  The Magazine Beach, playing fields to the west, their home for most of the last 36 years, is barred to them by a bizarre 16 foot high wall of introduced vegetation.  To the east is the former lush riverbank which was destroyed by the DCR and Cambridge in January, with booms blocking access.

The Destroyed Nesting Area has since gone through a series of outrages.  The falsely named Charles River Conservancy destroyed as much ground vegetation as it could outside of the area which had been set aside by the Dept. of Conservation and Recreation for work on the BU Bridge.  The CRC destruction is most of the area above the line of vegetation to the right.

Irresponsible railroad workers, with the blessing of the DCR, used the area that the CRC had destroyed for a parking lot when parking was readily available under and next to the Memorial Drive overpass.  They added to the destruction, plus dumped crush stone on pristine land.

The blue at the top right is the Charles River.  The black line immediately below the Charles River is the Grand Junction railroad track.  The hillside below the track was lush with vegetation until it was destroyed by the CRC and made worse by the railroad workers.

The grouping of geese below that hillside is in the area which has been the favorite of the Charles River White Geese in spite of the destructiveness.  Some green moss disrupts the artificially created dirt habitat.

There is quite a bit of native vegetation between that group of geese and the DCR introduced vegetation.  As Spring approaches, it will be excellent and it has been stretching out into the destruction zone where that group of geese is.  This is the only ground vegetation not destroyed by the DCR itself or its representatives or in accordance with its plans.

The rest of the area was destroyed by the DCR as part of the DCR’s overkill in remodeling of the BU Bridge.  The DCR got it going and the legislature fired the DCR’s predecessor, the Metropolitan District Commission.  The Massachusetts Department of Transportation took over the bridges and the BU Bridge project.  The planners of the MDC went to the DCR along with the riverbanks.  The legislature was trying to destroy the MDC, but the transfer of the planners and managers made it just a name change for the riverbanks.

It was necessary to destroy up to a 100 feet from the BU Bridge for the work on the BU Bridge, and the photo is taken from the BU Bridge.  The DCR needlessly, as usual, destroyed most of the area in the photo.  The area to the right is the 100 foot line.  The destruction went into the good habitat through the vegetation in the middle.  The adjacent hillside was destroyed as part of the work.

The overpass under and next to which the rail workers should have parked is toward the top left.  First you see the former Ford Plan, now owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Then you see the overpass, which sticks out as an extended brick triangle.  The grey strip under the overpass is the on ramp from the BU Bridge to Memorial Drive.  The grass between the on ramp and the overpass extends to the left and goes under the overpass, plenty of room to park.

The orange barrel is part of a more recent outrage.  Supposedly this area is a public park.  The trouble was that, when BU tried to turn it into a campus / public park, nobody used the public park except the animals whose homes BU destroyed.

When the DCR and Cambridge walled off the Magazine Beach playing fields to starve the Charles River White Geese, that placed them as wards of responsible members of the public who, as the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative, have fed them to replace the food they have had taken from them at Magazine Beach.

It came to the attention of the DCR that the Charles River White Geese had the nerve still to eat.  They would walk, very carefully, across the on ramp to grass under the overpass.  They would gather on the sidewalk next to the ramp and wait for an opening in traffic.  The trouble was that, after being highly responsible jaywalkers, once they started crossing, they behaved liked geese.  Many of them dawdled.  The commuters, like normal decent humans, loved them.  They happily waited while the geese got around to crossing the on ramp.

The DCR does not want the Charles River White Geese feeding.  They, not the commuters, objected to the Charles River White Geese crossing the on ramp.  So the DCR blocked off the entrance illegally created by BU to the left of the picture.  And the DCR put the lie to the claims that this is a public park because the public is forced to use a staircase beyond the bare land which used to be a heavily vegetated hillside.

The hillside was destroyed as part of the BU Bridge project by the DCR plans.  There was no attempt to recreate the grasses and native vegetation which were destroyed.  Fancy introduced stuff which would turn into a thick impenetrable wall was planted.  Most of the introduced “improvements” died.

There were a good number of Charles River White Geese in the introduced vegetation at the foot of the hillside which has not died.

All the crushed stone is other DCR “improvements”.  There are two highways from the now blocked entrance toward either end of the undestroyed area under the railroad tracks.

The big mess near the camera was intended as a parking area for workers, and there is a work area / door under the BU Bridge.

The triangular piece of dirt was created by the DCR’s BU Bridge renovation plans, totally unnecessary destruction.  The bushes to the left in that triangle were planted throughout the triangle.  Their death is a mixed blessing because they, like the hillside bushes, were designed to be impenetrable.  Green ground coloration is moss.

The vegetation at the bottom left carries to the now block entrance which was illegally created by Boston University.

To the right of the camera is an apparently deliberate bare nearly 100 foot worker access strip against the BU Bridge.  More of the introduced vegetation follows it, and is paralleled by native, thicker vegetation.

You can see a subgroup of the Charles River White Geese in the brown dirt triangle.  There were other, smaller numbers elsewhere in the Destroyed Nesting Area, on the rail area, and in the Charles River.

The orange figure to the left of the Charles River is in the Wild Area, which is doomed to be totally destroyed except for one tree according my understand of lying plans of the DCR.

I have a comparable photo from today of the Charles River and that portion of the Destroyed Nesting Area.  I have talked too long for this report.