Govt Agency Expanding Poison Usage on the Charles River
The Department of Conservation and Recreation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a preliminary hearing on its latest destruction plans for Memorial Drive on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA, USA. The hearing was September 26, 2016 before the Cambridge Conservation Commission. It concerned yet another outrage at Magazine Beach between the Charles River and Memorial Drive.
I received a copy of the proposal from the CCC, and have published the destruction maps on the Charles River White Geese Blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-latest-magazine-beach.html.
The DCR team very visibly included that staffer who has been the most destructive force on the Charles River for the past more than a decade and a half.
Under direct questioning, he and his team did not bothering denying that the project includes yet more use of poisons on the Charles River, in spite of the fact that the poison drinking grass they introduced in the 2000s has been a failure.
The question spun off yet another Make Work for Contractor project. The DCR wants to dump more of their beloved poisons on Magazine Beach after destroying responsible grass which has survived the better part of a Century. The poisons would be dumped on introduced poison drinking grass. In turn, the Contractors would be paid to build fancy systems to drain away poisons the DCR should not be using in the first place.
Poison use introduced in the 2000s was at the Magazine Beach playing fields. Expansion will be to the top of the hill west of the playing fields and behind the swimming pool further west.
The plans show more, significant tree destruction. The DCR loves poison use and loves tree destruction. Doomed trees are indicated on the destruction plans by an O with an X on top of it.
The DCR should be replaced on the Charles River by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, without transferring planners or managers to MassDOT.
I am still reviewing the publication.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Charles River: Latest Magazine Beach Destruction Plans Published
Charles River: Latest Magazine Beach Destruction Plans Published
1. Introductory.
2. Overview.
3. Here are the plans.
1. Introductory.
Last night, September 26, 2016, the Cambridge Conservation Commission had a preliminary meeting with the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the DCR’s latest plans for destruction on Magazine Beach.
The CCC provided us with a copy of the plans, and I am passing the key plans on to you.
2. Overview.
In order to better understand what we are dealing with, here are three overviews of the Magazine Beach area.
The first is a map published by the City of Cambridge in 2010. Running from the narrowness at the far left, first you have the western end. Then (see the green rectangle) you have the swimming pool area. Then you have the hill area between the Swimming Pool and the playing fields. The connected lines are paths in the hill area. The open area is the playing fields, followed by their parking lot and then the state's sewerage treatment plant, most of which is covered with grass. The line open area at the far right is the BU Bridge. The crescent shape above it are ramps to and from Memorial Drive. The green area to the far right is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. At the bottom is the Charles River. At the top are buildings in the built up part of Cambridge, the Cambridgeport neighborhood.
I have spent a lot of time discussing the future home of the Harvard Medical School on the south side of the Charles. Here is a portion of a map of the plans there imprinted on a satellite photo. In this photo, Magazine Beach runs diagonally from lower left (west / left above) to the sewerage treatment plant at the upper right, with the Charles, again, below.
The orange line at the bottom right is the border of the highway (Mass. Pike, I-90) study area which includes the Harvard Medical School.
Here is the corresponding satellite photo from the destruction plans.
3. Here are the plans.
The DCR has broken the destruction area into four parts, the Western Area, the Swimming Pool Area, the hill between the Swimming Pool and the Playing Fields, and the Playing Fields. These run from west to east. The playing fields are nearest the BU Bridge and the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The playing fields were the principal home and feeding grounds of the Charles River White Geese for most of the last 35 years until the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge walled them off from the Charles River to starve the Charles River White Geese.
Here is a source map from the destruction plans showing the division of the area into the four parts.
Because of limitations on my scanner, I have divided each part of the plan in half, west and then east or left and right. The earlier / western two plans did not cover as much area as the later two, eastern plans, so the two halves the first two parts show the diagram of the respective area, and then notes. The bottom part of the note page shows a diagram of the combined 4 parts indicating which of the 4 parts of the destruction plans this particular one is.
In each instance, trees slated for destruction are marked with a 0 with an X over it.
The latter two plans were too wide to put each on one page so there is a division with an area duplicated in the middle.
1. Introductory.
2. Overview.
3. Here are the plans.
1. Introductory.
Last night, September 26, 2016, the Cambridge Conservation Commission had a preliminary meeting with the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the DCR’s latest plans for destruction on Magazine Beach.
The CCC provided us with a copy of the plans, and I am passing the key plans on to you.
2. Overview.
In order to better understand what we are dealing with, here are three overviews of the Magazine Beach area.
The first is a map published by the City of Cambridge in 2010. Running from the narrowness at the far left, first you have the western end. Then (see the green rectangle) you have the swimming pool area. Then you have the hill area between the Swimming Pool and the playing fields. The connected lines are paths in the hill area. The open area is the playing fields, followed by their parking lot and then the state's sewerage treatment plant, most of which is covered with grass. The line open area at the far right is the BU Bridge. The crescent shape above it are ramps to and from Memorial Drive. The green area to the far right is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. At the bottom is the Charles River. At the top are buildings in the built up part of Cambridge, the Cambridgeport neighborhood.
I have spent a lot of time discussing the future home of the Harvard Medical School on the south side of the Charles. Here is a portion of a map of the plans there imprinted on a satellite photo. In this photo, Magazine Beach runs diagonally from lower left (west / left above) to the sewerage treatment plant at the upper right, with the Charles, again, below.
The orange line at the bottom right is the border of the highway (Mass. Pike, I-90) study area which includes the Harvard Medical School.
Here is the corresponding satellite photo from the destruction plans.
3. Here are the plans.
The DCR has broken the destruction area into four parts, the Western Area, the Swimming Pool Area, the hill between the Swimming Pool and the Playing Fields, and the Playing Fields. These run from west to east. The playing fields are nearest the BU Bridge and the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The playing fields were the principal home and feeding grounds of the Charles River White Geese for most of the last 35 years until the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge walled them off from the Charles River to starve the Charles River White Geese.
Here is a source map from the destruction plans showing the division of the area into the four parts.
In each instance, trees slated for destruction are marked with a 0 with an X over it.
The latter two plans were too wide to put each on one page so there is a division with an area duplicated in the middle.
Western End
Swimming Pool Area
Hill, between Swimming Pool and Playing Fields
Playing Fields
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Charles River: Clarification on Cambridge City Manager Candidates.
Charles River: Clarification on Cambridge City Manager Candidates.
1. Introduction.
2. DePasquale.
3. Ash and Fetherston.
4. Summary.
1. Introduction.
In my analysis of September 22, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-city-of-cambridge.html, I attempted to evaluate the candidates for Cambridge City Manager from an environmental point of view.
2. DePasquale.
My first and foremost evaluation is that the terrible 42 year reign of the Cambridge City Manager Machine must end. That is DePasquale. He is brilliantly qualified from a financial point of view. The financial point of view using a skillfully influenced Machine has done severe damage to the environment of the City of Cambridge and the Charles River over the 42 years of its existence..
The Cambridge City Manager machine must end.
Both Ash and Fetherston are significantly better than anybody who has been part of this terrible entity.
3. Ash and Fetherston.
The reality is that the environmental destruction lobby in Cambridge is well organized, highly dishonest and very persuasive. Key in the lobby is too many “groups” which too often achieve the opposite of what they claim to stand for. They rope well meaning people into fighting against their own goals.
Either candidate could have trouble with them. It is the nature of stepping into a very terrible situation.
Ash has a step up on Fetherston in that a new City Manager would be expected to put in his own team in the key spots. Fetherston has clearly rejected the option of replacing existing management. He has said he would keep the status quo. That is a real negative for Fetherston because the Development Department is the core of the environmental problem. Then again, Fetherston has been in more city management organizations that Ash, but no other organization can be imagined as destructive / well organized as the organization one will step into.
As far as Ash goes, Ash is probably an ideal candidate for a strong City Manager for Cambridge. Period.
The big problem with Ash is that, after 42 years of the Strong, and deceptive and destructive, Cambridge City Manager Machine, Cambridge really does not need another strong City Manager.
Fetherston fits in with the Cambridge City Council in the mold of an excellent city administrator who would consider himself exactly that, the top administrator with the City Council setting policy. His presentation was perfect in that mold. He did a great job of presenting both sides of issues and saying he would go with City Council Direction.
Very much not to knock Ash. Ash is top notch as a strong City Manager candidate. The difference is the word “strong.”
Then again, the organizational situation cannot be ignored. Fetherston keeping the Development Department in place is a negative. The Development Department and their cheerleaders have been deceptive. The Development Department and their cheerleaders have been destructive. The Development Department and their cheerleaders are very skilled at giving false impressions.
So you go back to Ash. But, I should hope that Fetherston has sufficient skill to stand up to the Cambridge outrage, I would hope.
My analysis of the 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine gets worse when I add Civil Rights issues to the table.
The REAL environmental record and the REAL civil rights record of the 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine are both far beneath normalcy in people who believe in progressive principles. Add to that the very real influence the City Government has over supposedly independent “protective groups” in Cambridge. That influence includes influence over at least one entity which has been instrumental in the Charles River destruction.
The vileness of the influenced groups stands out with this victoriously destructive entity’s claim to be representing the neighborhood and bragging of their supposed duty to censor comments negative to the City Government and its friends on its Listserv, plus their continuing fight to make things worse on the Charles River. If you are defending the Charles River, you are not neutral on its destruction.
Fresh blood from either person could clean things up, or the fresh blood could be fooled. And the possibility of being fooled REALLY is the rub.
Both persons have a lot of experience, whether that experience includes the outrages which are normal in Cambridge, MA, USA, is, of necessity, unknown, and unlikely.
Going further at this time would have no value to this analysis.
Either Ash or Fetherston would be one Heck of an improvement over the 42 year Cambridge City Manager machine. Normal humans do not stoop as low as the situation in the City of Cambridge.
4. Summary.
So I say “maybe” to both Ash and Fetherston, and “no” to DePasquale.
At the same time, I realize that this analysis has been evolving in my attempts to communicate. I apologize to my readers and to Messrs. Ash and Fetherston for any confusion I have communicated in my attempts to be prompt and to be properly communicative.
1. Introduction.
2. DePasquale.
3. Ash and Fetherston.
4. Summary.
1. Introduction.
In my analysis of September 22, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-city-of-cambridge.html, I attempted to evaluate the candidates for Cambridge City Manager from an environmental point of view.
2. DePasquale.
My first and foremost evaluation is that the terrible 42 year reign of the Cambridge City Manager Machine must end. That is DePasquale. He is brilliantly qualified from a financial point of view. The financial point of view using a skillfully influenced Machine has done severe damage to the environment of the City of Cambridge and the Charles River over the 42 years of its existence..
The Cambridge City Manager machine must end.
Both Ash and Fetherston are significantly better than anybody who has been part of this terrible entity.
3. Ash and Fetherston.
The reality is that the environmental destruction lobby in Cambridge is well organized, highly dishonest and very persuasive. Key in the lobby is too many “groups” which too often achieve the opposite of what they claim to stand for. They rope well meaning people into fighting against their own goals.
Either candidate could have trouble with them. It is the nature of stepping into a very terrible situation.
Ash has a step up on Fetherston in that a new City Manager would be expected to put in his own team in the key spots. Fetherston has clearly rejected the option of replacing existing management. He has said he would keep the status quo. That is a real negative for Fetherston because the Development Department is the core of the environmental problem. Then again, Fetherston has been in more city management organizations that Ash, but no other organization can be imagined as destructive / well organized as the organization one will step into.
As far as Ash goes, Ash is probably an ideal candidate for a strong City Manager for Cambridge. Period.
The big problem with Ash is that, after 42 years of the Strong, and deceptive and destructive, Cambridge City Manager Machine, Cambridge really does not need another strong City Manager.
Fetherston fits in with the Cambridge City Council in the mold of an excellent city administrator who would consider himself exactly that, the top administrator with the City Council setting policy. His presentation was perfect in that mold. He did a great job of presenting both sides of issues and saying he would go with City Council Direction.
Very much not to knock Ash. Ash is top notch as a strong City Manager candidate. The difference is the word “strong.”
Then again, the organizational situation cannot be ignored. Fetherston keeping the Development Department in place is a negative. The Development Department and their cheerleaders have been deceptive. The Development Department and their cheerleaders have been destructive. The Development Department and their cheerleaders are very skilled at giving false impressions.
So you go back to Ash. But, I should hope that Fetherston has sufficient skill to stand up to the Cambridge outrage, I would hope.
My analysis of the 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine gets worse when I add Civil Rights issues to the table.
The REAL environmental record and the REAL civil rights record of the 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine are both far beneath normalcy in people who believe in progressive principles. Add to that the very real influence the City Government has over supposedly independent “protective groups” in Cambridge. That influence includes influence over at least one entity which has been instrumental in the Charles River destruction.
The vileness of the influenced groups stands out with this victoriously destructive entity’s claim to be representing the neighborhood and bragging of their supposed duty to censor comments negative to the City Government and its friends on its Listserv, plus their continuing fight to make things worse on the Charles River. If you are defending the Charles River, you are not neutral on its destruction.
Fresh blood from either person could clean things up, or the fresh blood could be fooled. And the possibility of being fooled REALLY is the rub.
Both persons have a lot of experience, whether that experience includes the outrages which are normal in Cambridge, MA, USA, is, of necessity, unknown, and unlikely.
Going further at this time would have no value to this analysis.
Either Ash or Fetherston would be one Heck of an improvement over the 42 year Cambridge City Manager machine. Normal humans do not stoop as low as the situation in the City of Cambridge.
4. Summary.
So I say “maybe” to both Ash and Fetherston, and “no” to DePasquale.
At the same time, I realize that this analysis has been evolving in my attempts to communicate. I apologize to my readers and to Messrs. Ash and Fetherston for any confusion I have communicated in my attempts to be prompt and to be properly communicative.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Charles River: City of Cambridge Replacing City Manager
Charles River: City of Cambridge Replacing City Manager
1. Introduction.
2. Finalists.
3. Analysis.
A. General.
B. DePasquale.
C. Ash.
D. Fetherston.
E. Summary.
4. Conclusion.
This report has been clarified / expanded by the next posting, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-clarification-on.html.
* * * * *
1. Introduction.
I have, as much as possible, avoided internal Cambridge, MA, USA politics. Unfortunately, the City of Cambridge, along with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation are the two most destructive entities on the Charles River.
Cambridge adds to the mix a massive organization of “protective groups” with very clear connections to the City Manager’s people, especially the Development Department. The "protective groups" look like a Company Union operation.
The Cambridge City Council has scheduled three key meetings in their search for a replacement for the current Cambridge City Manager.
I have attended the two which have been conducted so far, a meeting emphasizing public questions and a meeting in front of the Cambridge City Council answering written questions, but with opportunity for follow up by the councilors.
The only remaining scheduled meeting is an anticipated final vote of the Cambridge City Council at Cambridge City Hall, September 29, 2016, at 5:30 pm
2. Finalists.
The three finalists, taken from the announcement of the City Council related entity organizing the recruitment process. They are:
Robert “Jay” Ash Jr. - Mr. Ash is currently the Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Previously, he served in a variety of roles in the City of Chelsea, including fourteen years as City Manager. Mr. Ash also served as a legislative aide to Representative Richard Voke. He is a graduate of Clark University.
Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/ash%20resume.pdf
Louis A. DePasquale - Mr. DePasquale is the City’s Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs in Cambridge. Prior to taking on that assignment, he was the City’s Budget Director, and also worked in other capacities in the City’s Budget and Treasury Departments. Mr. DePasquale is a graduate of Boston State College and received his MPA from Northeastern University.
Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/depasquale%20resume.pdf.
Paul J. Fetherston - Mr. Fetherston is currently the Assistant City Manager in Asheville, NC. He has previously served as Deputy City Manager in Boulder, CO, and has held a variety municipal management positions in Connecticut. He is a graduate of Trinity College, CT, and received his J.D. from Western New England School of Law.
Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/fetherston%20resume.pdf.
3. Analysis.
A. General.
Two candidates, Ash and DePasquale, communicated the intent to be strong City Managers. Fetherston clearly communicated that it is his goal to function as the implementer of the policy decisions of the City Council.
B. DePasquale.
The 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine has emphasized finance to the detriment of the environment, among other things. DePasquale’s employment by the City of Cambridge slightly predates the 1974 commencement of the City Manager Machine.
DePasquale has had a key part in the financial brilliance of the Cambridge City Manager Machine. He has excellent knowledge of the City of Cambridge, and made a magnificent presentation at the first, public presentation. I did not stay for his presentation to the Cambridge City Council. I would hope that he would remain in his current valuable function under Ash or Fetherston.
The reality is that the 42 year Cambridge City Manager machine has been very destructive to the environment, and has amassed a massive organization influenced by its wishes. The destruction is outrageous and is likely to continue under DePasquale. A video of the outrage on the Charles this year is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
It is inconceivable that he can be meaningfully considered separate from the outrages of the Cambridge City Manager Machine of which he has been a high level part. That him unacceptable from my point of view.
C. Ash.
Mr. Ash is a Leading Man type with more than a decade experience as the City Manager of the City of Chelsea, MA. Chelsea is about 40,000 in population in contrast to about 110,000 in Cambridge. Chelsea is heavily blue collar with major heavy industry. This is clearly associated with its direct access to the port of Boston and to Boston’s Logan Airport.
During the past year, Ash has served as one of the Cabinet Members, Secretary, Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development to Governor Baker.
He has major State House experience in addition to the current Secretariat position.
Ash is the one candidate whom I recall making a substantive comment on open space achievements. He reported that he had created a number of small parks in Chelsea during his regime.
He is personally impressive, significantly taller than 6 feet, very well proportioned. He looks like a Leading Man and has the demeanor of a Leading Man.
He looked the part and communicated a very great ability to make an excellent impression on behalf of the City of Cambridge.
D. Fetherston.
Mr. Fetherston’s relevant experience is completely in municipal government, four positions in Connecticut municipalities, one in Boulder, CO, one in North Carolina. He has functioned, clearly, as top level management under the latter two City Managers.
Ash likely has some more experience. The time difference, off the top of my head, could be his legislative years. "Cambridge Day" reports Ash as 53 and Fetherston as 50.
Fetherston is medium height and weight. The personal impression he gave at the public gathering was wonkish.
Fetherston SHONE AT THE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION.
He was extremely comfortable surrounded by the members of the Cambridge City Council in their official chambers. He was business like and communicative. He spoke in an appropriately forceful but not excessive manner, while maintaining a normal tone of voice. He consistently communicated as a person intending to step in, do the job well while deferring FULLY to the City Council on policy matters.
Ash responded in detail as to his intentions on a string of policy matters.
Fetherston responded to the same questions by clearly communicating understanding of all sides of the issues. He gave no specific intentions as to resolution of the issues. His position was that it is his job to fully gather and present information for the City Council to allow the City Council to make significant decisions on policy matters.
Fetherston made it clear that it would be his intent to learn the city and its government without any intent to disrupt a well functioning entity.
E. Summary.
One of the many real horrors of the Cambridge City Manager Machine is repeated lies of omission on stuff of which they have reason to be ashamed. The really terrible stuff has to be dragged out of the City Manager, AND OUT OF THE WHOLE BUNCH of cheerleading groups which clearly look to his machine for direction, directly or indirectly.
This lying by omission constitutes lack of fitness for office, as far as I am concerned, another reason to end the Machine now.
Normal competent managers would not behave that way. It is likely that Mr. Ash behaves in an open manner. I do not personally know. It is likely that Mr. Fetherston behaves in an open manner. He most definitely made it very clear, in his business like, reporting, manner, that such is his stock in trade.
At one point, a member of the City Council unsuccessfully inquired into Mr. Ashe’s salary expectations, citing a possibly high number. Fetherston made himself one of the group. To Ashe it was a question directed to a Leading Man making a solid presentation. To Fetherston, the question was unthinkable. He was part of the group.
I have a lot of victories on major issues in the City of Cambridge. My victories almost universally came as victories in which the Cambridge City Council chose my side over that of the City Manager and / or his friends.
I have had at least one victory on a zoning matter in Harvard Square in which the City Manager, after the City Council vote, destroyed a tiny city owned park to use it for the expansion of an adjoining business which could not expand under the zoning vote the City Manager had just lost to me.
I raised Hell. The City Manager rebuilt that tiny park magnificently, clearly communicating by his actions an apology to the City Council.
It is comforting that Mr. Ash clearly spoke good words on open space. That definitely is a plus.
I was in an excellent position to hear all of Mr. Fetherston’s comments in front of the Cambridge City Council. I was not in as good a position in the public meeting, nor was I as able to catch all of Mr. Ash’s comments to the City Council. There were no open space questions by the Cambridge City Council.
The reality is that normal human beings do not behave like the Cambridge City Manager Machine. The reality is that normal human beings do not behave as do the Cambridge City Manager Machine and their friends.
I would certainly prefer words on topic from Mr. Fetherston. I could have missed them. The reality is that, in accordance with his so many answers, the key part of the question probably would be answered as one of policy for the City Council.
Fetherston is a professional. He is not a Leading Man. He is a skillfully communicative manager who would be one Heck of an improvement over the terrible situation of the last 42 years.
My very big fear is that the environmental vileness is very well established, both in the Development Department and in its influenced “activists.” The dominant nature of the organization is overwhelming to an average human being who does not understand reality. It is possible that Featherston or Ash could be conned from lack of REAL knowledge of the situation. The organization really is not large, but it is well located and it claims it is large.
4. Conclusion.
One no, two impressive maybes.
Comments? Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com.
My video on the first stage of the latest Charles River outrage may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
Thank you.
1. Introduction.
2. Finalists.
3. Analysis.
A. General.
B. DePasquale.
C. Ash.
D. Fetherston.
E. Summary.
4. Conclusion.
This report has been clarified / expanded by the next posting, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-clarification-on.html.
* * * * *
1. Introduction.
I have, as much as possible, avoided internal Cambridge, MA, USA politics. Unfortunately, the City of Cambridge, along with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation are the two most destructive entities on the Charles River.
Cambridge adds to the mix a massive organization of “protective groups” with very clear connections to the City Manager’s people, especially the Development Department. The "protective groups" look like a Company Union operation.
The Cambridge City Council has scheduled three key meetings in their search for a replacement for the current Cambridge City Manager.
I have attended the two which have been conducted so far, a meeting emphasizing public questions and a meeting in front of the Cambridge City Council answering written questions, but with opportunity for follow up by the councilors.
The only remaining scheduled meeting is an anticipated final vote of the Cambridge City Council at Cambridge City Hall, September 29, 2016, at 5:30 pm
2. Finalists.
The three finalists, taken from the announcement of the City Council related entity organizing the recruitment process. They are:
Robert “Jay” Ash Jr. - Mr. Ash is currently the Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Previously, he served in a variety of roles in the City of Chelsea, including fourteen years as City Manager. Mr. Ash also served as a legislative aide to Representative Richard Voke. He is a graduate of Clark University.
Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/ash%20resume.pdf
Louis A. DePasquale - Mr. DePasquale is the City’s Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs in Cambridge. Prior to taking on that assignment, he was the City’s Budget Director, and also worked in other capacities in the City’s Budget and Treasury Departments. Mr. DePasquale is a graduate of Boston State College and received his MPA from Northeastern University.
Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/depasquale%20resume.pdf.
Paul J. Fetherston - Mr. Fetherston is currently the Assistant City Manager in Asheville, NC. He has previously served as Deputy City Manager in Boulder, CO, and has held a variety municipal management positions in Connecticut. He is a graduate of Trinity College, CT, and received his J.D. from Western New England School of Law.
Résumé minus personally sensitive information posted at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/citycouncil/citymanagersearch/fetherston%20resume.pdf.
3. Analysis.
A. General.
Two candidates, Ash and DePasquale, communicated the intent to be strong City Managers. Fetherston clearly communicated that it is his goal to function as the implementer of the policy decisions of the City Council.
B. DePasquale.
The 42 year Cambridge City Manager Machine has emphasized finance to the detriment of the environment, among other things. DePasquale’s employment by the City of Cambridge slightly predates the 1974 commencement of the City Manager Machine.
DePasquale has had a key part in the financial brilliance of the Cambridge City Manager Machine. He has excellent knowledge of the City of Cambridge, and made a magnificent presentation at the first, public presentation. I did not stay for his presentation to the Cambridge City Council. I would hope that he would remain in his current valuable function under Ash or Fetherston.
The reality is that the 42 year Cambridge City Manager machine has been very destructive to the environment, and has amassed a massive organization influenced by its wishes. The destruction is outrageous and is likely to continue under DePasquale. A video of the outrage on the Charles this year is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
It is inconceivable that he can be meaningfully considered separate from the outrages of the Cambridge City Manager Machine of which he has been a high level part. That him unacceptable from my point of view.
C. Ash.
Mr. Ash is a Leading Man type with more than a decade experience as the City Manager of the City of Chelsea, MA. Chelsea is about 40,000 in population in contrast to about 110,000 in Cambridge. Chelsea is heavily blue collar with major heavy industry. This is clearly associated with its direct access to the port of Boston and to Boston’s Logan Airport.
During the past year, Ash has served as one of the Cabinet Members, Secretary, Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development to Governor Baker.
He has major State House experience in addition to the current Secretariat position.
Ash is the one candidate whom I recall making a substantive comment on open space achievements. He reported that he had created a number of small parks in Chelsea during his regime.
He is personally impressive, significantly taller than 6 feet, very well proportioned. He looks like a Leading Man and has the demeanor of a Leading Man.
He looked the part and communicated a very great ability to make an excellent impression on behalf of the City of Cambridge.
D. Fetherston.
Mr. Fetherston’s relevant experience is completely in municipal government, four positions in Connecticut municipalities, one in Boulder, CO, one in North Carolina. He has functioned, clearly, as top level management under the latter two City Managers.
Ash likely has some more experience. The time difference, off the top of my head, could be his legislative years. "Cambridge Day" reports Ash as 53 and Fetherston as 50.
Fetherston is medium height and weight. The personal impression he gave at the public gathering was wonkish.
Fetherston SHONE AT THE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION.
He was extremely comfortable surrounded by the members of the Cambridge City Council in their official chambers. He was business like and communicative. He spoke in an appropriately forceful but not excessive manner, while maintaining a normal tone of voice. He consistently communicated as a person intending to step in, do the job well while deferring FULLY to the City Council on policy matters.
Ash responded in detail as to his intentions on a string of policy matters.
Fetherston responded to the same questions by clearly communicating understanding of all sides of the issues. He gave no specific intentions as to resolution of the issues. His position was that it is his job to fully gather and present information for the City Council to allow the City Council to make significant decisions on policy matters.
Fetherston made it clear that it would be his intent to learn the city and its government without any intent to disrupt a well functioning entity.
E. Summary.
One of the many real horrors of the Cambridge City Manager Machine is repeated lies of omission on stuff of which they have reason to be ashamed. The really terrible stuff has to be dragged out of the City Manager, AND OUT OF THE WHOLE BUNCH of cheerleading groups which clearly look to his machine for direction, directly or indirectly.
This lying by omission constitutes lack of fitness for office, as far as I am concerned, another reason to end the Machine now.
Normal competent managers would not behave that way. It is likely that Mr. Ash behaves in an open manner. I do not personally know. It is likely that Mr. Fetherston behaves in an open manner. He most definitely made it very clear, in his business like, reporting, manner, that such is his stock in trade.
At one point, a member of the City Council unsuccessfully inquired into Mr. Ashe’s salary expectations, citing a possibly high number. Fetherston made himself one of the group. To Ashe it was a question directed to a Leading Man making a solid presentation. To Fetherston, the question was unthinkable. He was part of the group.
I have a lot of victories on major issues in the City of Cambridge. My victories almost universally came as victories in which the Cambridge City Council chose my side over that of the City Manager and / or his friends.
I have had at least one victory on a zoning matter in Harvard Square in which the City Manager, after the City Council vote, destroyed a tiny city owned park to use it for the expansion of an adjoining business which could not expand under the zoning vote the City Manager had just lost to me.
I raised Hell. The City Manager rebuilt that tiny park magnificently, clearly communicating by his actions an apology to the City Council.
It is comforting that Mr. Ash clearly spoke good words on open space. That definitely is a plus.
I was in an excellent position to hear all of Mr. Fetherston’s comments in front of the Cambridge City Council. I was not in as good a position in the public meeting, nor was I as able to catch all of Mr. Ash’s comments to the City Council. There were no open space questions by the Cambridge City Council.
The reality is that normal human beings do not behave like the Cambridge City Manager Machine. The reality is that normal human beings do not behave as do the Cambridge City Manager Machine and their friends.
I would certainly prefer words on topic from Mr. Fetherston. I could have missed them. The reality is that, in accordance with his so many answers, the key part of the question probably would be answered as one of policy for the City Council.
Fetherston is a professional. He is not a Leading Man. He is a skillfully communicative manager who would be one Heck of an improvement over the terrible situation of the last 42 years.
My very big fear is that the environmental vileness is very well established, both in the Development Department and in its influenced “activists.” The dominant nature of the organization is overwhelming to an average human being who does not understand reality. It is possible that Featherston or Ash could be conned from lack of REAL knowledge of the situation. The organization really is not large, but it is well located and it claims it is large.
4. Conclusion.
One no, two impressive maybes.
Comments? Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com.
My video on the first stage of the latest Charles River outrage may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
Thank you.
Friday, September 16, 2016
Charles River: Update on Cambridge, MA, City Hall Area Destruction.
Charles River: Update on Cambridge, MA, City Hall Area Destruction.
Here are updates of the photos I posted yesterday, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-cambridge-extends-tree.html.
Today, the sun was better for shots.
The photos run in the same direction. I just started with a better shot of the surviving tree and then, on the sidewalk by the surviving tree, turned to my right to photograph City Hall.
Here are updates of the photos I posted yesterday, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-cambridge-extends-tree.html.
Today, the sun was better for shots.
The photos run in the same direction. I just started with a better shot of the surviving tree and then, on the sidewalk by the surviving tree, turned to my right to photograph City Hall.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Charles River: Cambridge Extends Tree Destruction to City Hall
Charles River: Cambridge Extends Tree Destruction to City Hall
* * * * *
Supplement: Better photos are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-update-on-cambridge-ma.html.
* * * * *
When talking about the City of Cambridge or the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, or their Cheerleaders, it is always a mistake to think “They cannot get lower.”
I have reported on the outrageous destruction on the Cambridge Common and at Alewife. The recent outrage on the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, with brief comment on Magazine Beach is summarized in the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
I have reported on plans to make the Charles River worse.
I have reported on the 50 trees destroyed in Kendall Square, and on needless destruction associated with the Longfellow Bridge repairs.
I have refrained from discussing the repeated wasting of entire blocks of street trees by the City of Cambridge simply because this aspect of Cambridge’s vileness really is not relevant to the Charles River, whereas truly major destruction fits in the pattern..
I have refrained until now.
The City of Cambridge has extended its destructiveness to the lap of City Hall, again. Cambridge, not that long ago destroyed significant, excellent vegetation on the front of City Hall and in its lawn, converting the front of city hall from a beautiful, magnificently adorned building to a relative wasteland.
This time, the destruction is on the side street adjacent to the Central Square Post Office, a magnificent building across from City Hall.
The destruction is on the east side of the Post Office building on Pleasant Street. They have destroyed every tree but one in the block between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street. The first photo is taken with my back to Mass. Ave. and City Hall in sight to my right.
These trees were excellent trees, approaching maturity, planted perhaps 20 years ago.
The only tree not destroyed in this block is the one nearest to Massachusetts Avenue. I can think of two possible explanations for it being saved:
1. They did not get around to destroying it yet.
2. They were perpetuating the lie that the City of Cambridge is environmentally responsible. Since this tree is the closest to Mass. Ave., it is the one most visible to folks on this main city street. Refraining from destroying it drastically reduces the impact of Cambridge’s destructiveness that the average person is aware of.
Cambridge has an electorate which wishes to be enlightened. Cambridge and its cheerleaders go through a lot of bother fooling the electorate as much as is practical.
I repeat.
The destruction must stop.
The City Manager Machine which has perpetuated itself, its destructiveness and its cheerleader tactics since 1974, must be ended with the end of the employment of Richard Rossi. Rossi must not be allowed to designate his principal assistant as his successor which has been done by every City Manager since the City Manager Machine was created in 1974.
The vile Department of Conservation and Recreation must be replaced on the Charles with the adult in the room, the Department of Transportation. MassDOT is not perfect. Cambridge and the DCR approach being perfect in the wrong direction.
* * * * *
Supplement: Better photos are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-update-on-cambridge-ma.html.
* * * * *
When talking about the City of Cambridge or the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, or their Cheerleaders, it is always a mistake to think “They cannot get lower.”
I have reported on the outrageous destruction on the Cambridge Common and at Alewife. The recent outrage on the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, with brief comment on Magazine Beach is summarized in the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
I have reported on plans to make the Charles River worse.
I have refrained from discussing the repeated wasting of entire blocks of street trees by the City of Cambridge simply because this aspect of Cambridge’s vileness really is not relevant to the Charles River, whereas truly major destruction fits in the pattern..
I have refrained until now.
The City of Cambridge has extended its destructiveness to the lap of City Hall, again. Cambridge, not that long ago destroyed significant, excellent vegetation on the front of City Hall and in its lawn, converting the front of city hall from a beautiful, magnificently adorned building to a relative wasteland.
This time, the destruction is on the side street adjacent to the Central Square Post Office, a magnificent building across from City Hall.
The destruction is on the east side of the Post Office building on Pleasant Street. They have destroyed every tree but one in the block between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street. The first photo is taken with my back to Mass. Ave. and City Hall in sight to my right.
These trees were excellent trees, approaching maturity, planted perhaps 20 years ago.
The only tree not destroyed in this block is the one nearest to Massachusetts Avenue. I can think of two possible explanations for it being saved:
1. They did not get around to destroying it yet.
2. They were perpetuating the lie that the City of Cambridge is environmentally responsible. Since this tree is the closest to Mass. Ave., it is the one most visible to folks on this main city street. Refraining from destroying it drastically reduces the impact of Cambridge’s destructiveness that the average person is aware of.
Cambridge has an electorate which wishes to be enlightened. Cambridge and its cheerleaders go through a lot of bother fooling the electorate as much as is practical.
I repeat.
The destruction must stop.
The City Manager Machine which has perpetuated itself, its destructiveness and its cheerleader tactics since 1974, must be ended with the end of the employment of Richard Rossi. Rossi must not be allowed to designate his principal assistant as his successor which has been done by every City Manager since the City Manager Machine was created in 1974.
The vile Department of Conservation and Recreation must be replaced on the Charles with the adult in the room, the Department of Transportation. MassDOT is not perfect. Cambridge and the DCR approach being perfect in the wrong direction.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Charles River: Environmentally Destructive State Rep Fired by the Voters
Charles River: Environmentally Destructive State Rep Fired by the Voters
1. The Cambridge Chronicle on line report.
2. Charles River Outrage Key?
3. The use of the Grand Junction railroad for Commuter Rail.
4. Further destruction proposed on the Charles River.
1. The Cambridge Chronicle on line report.
The Cambridge Chronicle report, on line, Posted 9/8/16 at 11:28 pm, updated 9/9/16 at 1:55 pm.
* * * * *
Cambridge activist and attorney Mike Connolly unseated longtime state representative and Cambridge city Councilor Tim Toomey by just 400 votes Thursday night in the 26th Middlesex District democratic race, according to unofficial results provided by the Cambridge and Somerville election commissions.
Connolly pulled in 2042 votes, or 52 percent, in Cambridge to Toomey’s 1828. While Somerville cast 704 ballots for Toomey and 884 for Connolly.
Toomey conceded shortly after 9:30 p.m. with a Facebook post congratulating his opponent.
* * * * *
Ed: This was the Democratic primary. However, in this part of the world, the Democratic primary is the only election which counts.
2. Charles River Outrage Key?
Connolly’s victory, according to the Chronicle, was by 400 votes in a State Representative District which is includes adjacent parts of Cambridge and Somerville. Connolly won by 214 votes in Cambridge, and by 180 in Somerville. My calculation of their numbers puts the victory margin at 394.
Toomey has filthy hands on the destruction of Memorial Drive both as a State Representative and as a City Councilor. For a view of Toomey’s reminder to the voters of Toomey’s bad record, please see our video on the destruction of Memorial Drive, posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
There is way too much in the video to repeat once again the many photos in the YouTube report, almost all of which were also published in this blog.
It would greatly understate the outrage on the Charles for me to pick out one or two photos from this report. Please view the report.
This view presented in this report faced the voters constantly from the time of destruction to the time of election.
My sum of the Chronicle numbers indicates a total of 5,458 votes cast for one candidate or the other.
Obtaining 394 votes against Toomey, given the very major outrage that Toomey is a part of, is nothing.
I very strongly hope that Representative Elect Connolly will respect the decision of the voters and get rid of the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s responsibilities with regard to the Charles River.
3. The use of the Grand Junction railroad for Commuter Rail.
Toomey has been a shining light in the environmentally reprehensible Cambridge political machine.
Toomey stands out from the rest of the Cambridge City Council because of his leadership in fighting against the environmental outrage associated with the Grand Junction commuter rail proposal in which commuter trains would inflict damage on the Charles River and on city pollution counts by blocking traffic on at least six Cambridge streets, four of the six MAJOR city streets. I do not know how much destruction it would inflict on the Somerville part of his State Representative district.
Toomey was the light in the middle of darkness, forcing responsible behavior out of the Cambridge City Council on this matter.
The trouble is that the massive destruction of the environment which centers on the Cambridge City Council is so major that while Toomey’s excellence on the Grand Junction is commendable, the destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council simply overwhelms the decency of Toomey’s great behavior on the Grand Junction.
The fine print in the expansion project at South Station, however, appears to force future commuter traffic from the West to Boston onto the Grand Junction.
I strongly hope that Representative Elect Mike Connolly corrects the situation. Toomey has, to the best of my knowledge, been silent on the impact of the South Station expansion project on the Grand Junction commuter rail plans.
4. Further destruction proposed on the Charles River.
Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and the Cheerleaders are by no means done destroying on the Charles River. The number of trees to be destroyed by this outrage which were admitted by Cambridge and the DCR are at least 100 below the destruction clear from the DCR destruction plans on the work which is ongoing.
The video goes into this secret destruction in detail.
Further massive destruction and heartless animal abuse are planned by the Cambridge City Council as secret parts of the Cambridge City Council Grand Junction Proposal.
I strongly hope the entire bunch learns from the firing of State Representative Toomey.
Furthermore, Cambridge, the DCR and the cheerleaders are fighting for the following at Magazine Beach. They want to:
● Destroy even more Street Trees.
● Destroy trees around the hill parking lot west of the playing fields.
● Prohibit parking in the hill parking lot and reduce the number of spaces there.
● Continue the failed dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach. They want to destroy the proven failed poison drinking grass introduced in the 2000s and replace the failures with more poison drinkers.
● Destroy the responsible grasses on the top of the hill and behind the swimming pool. EXPAND Poison usage to the top of the Hill and to behind the pool by introducing MORE poison drinking grass in place of the responsible grass there.
● Continue the failed 16 ft high wall of introduced bushes blocking off the Charles from Magazine Beach introduced in the 2000s. They refuse to provide the LAWN TO THE RIVER they promised. They built that outrageous wall instead.
● Continue prohibiting private boat docking by continuing the blocking of the boats by the 16 foot high wall of bushes.
● Continue starving the 35 year resident Charles River White Geese with the 16 foot high introduced wall.
● Increase destruction of the last remaining home of the Charles River White Geese east of the BU Bridge.
● Continue the Poisoning of FREE ANIMALS if they eat the poison drinking introduced grasses.
● Charge people to use boats off Magazine Beach INSTEAD OF FREE BOAT DOCKING. Introduce other retail.
I hope that Connolly and the Cambridge City Council learn from the voters and end this outrage.
1. The Cambridge Chronicle on line report.
2. Charles River Outrage Key?
3. The use of the Grand Junction railroad for Commuter Rail.
4. Further destruction proposed on the Charles River.
1. The Cambridge Chronicle on line report.
The Cambridge Chronicle report, on line, Posted 9/8/16 at 11:28 pm, updated 9/9/16 at 1:55 pm.
* * * * *
Cambridge activist and attorney Mike Connolly unseated longtime state representative and Cambridge city Councilor Tim Toomey by just 400 votes Thursday night in the 26th Middlesex District democratic race, according to unofficial results provided by the Cambridge and Somerville election commissions.
Connolly pulled in 2042 votes, or 52 percent, in Cambridge to Toomey’s 1828. While Somerville cast 704 ballots for Toomey and 884 for Connolly.
Toomey conceded shortly after 9:30 p.m. with a Facebook post congratulating his opponent.
* * * * *
Ed: This was the Democratic primary. However, in this part of the world, the Democratic primary is the only election which counts.
Connolly’s victory, according to the Chronicle, was by 400 votes in a State Representative District which is includes adjacent parts of Cambridge and Somerville. Connolly won by 214 votes in Cambridge, and by 180 in Somerville. My calculation of their numbers puts the victory margin at 394.
Toomey has filthy hands on the destruction of Memorial Drive both as a State Representative and as a City Councilor. For a view of Toomey’s reminder to the voters of Toomey’s bad record, please see our video on the destruction of Memorial Drive, posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
There is way too much in the video to repeat once again the many photos in the YouTube report, almost all of which were also published in this blog.
It would greatly understate the outrage on the Charles for me to pick out one or two photos from this report. Please view the report.
This view presented in this report faced the voters constantly from the time of destruction to the time of election.
My sum of the Chronicle numbers indicates a total of 5,458 votes cast for one candidate or the other.
Obtaining 394 votes against Toomey, given the very major outrage that Toomey is a part of, is nothing.
I very strongly hope that Representative Elect Connolly will respect the decision of the voters and get rid of the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s responsibilities with regard to the Charles River.
3. The use of the Grand Junction railroad for Commuter Rail.
Toomey has been a shining light in the environmentally reprehensible Cambridge political machine.
Toomey stands out from the rest of the Cambridge City Council because of his leadership in fighting against the environmental outrage associated with the Grand Junction commuter rail proposal in which commuter trains would inflict damage on the Charles River and on city pollution counts by blocking traffic on at least six Cambridge streets, four of the six MAJOR city streets. I do not know how much destruction it would inflict on the Somerville part of his State Representative district.
Toomey was the light in the middle of darkness, forcing responsible behavior out of the Cambridge City Council on this matter.
The trouble is that the massive destruction of the environment which centers on the Cambridge City Council is so major that while Toomey’s excellence on the Grand Junction is commendable, the destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council simply overwhelms the decency of Toomey’s great behavior on the Grand Junction.
The fine print in the expansion project at South Station, however, appears to force future commuter traffic from the West to Boston onto the Grand Junction.
I strongly hope that Representative Elect Mike Connolly corrects the situation. Toomey has, to the best of my knowledge, been silent on the impact of the South Station expansion project on the Grand Junction commuter rail plans.
4. Further destruction proposed on the Charles River.
Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and the Cheerleaders are by no means done destroying on the Charles River. The number of trees to be destroyed by this outrage which were admitted by Cambridge and the DCR are at least 100 below the destruction clear from the DCR destruction plans on the work which is ongoing.
The video goes into this secret destruction in detail.
Further massive destruction and heartless animal abuse are planned by the Cambridge City Council as secret parts of the Cambridge City Council Grand Junction Proposal.
I strongly hope the entire bunch learns from the firing of State Representative Toomey.
Furthermore, Cambridge, the DCR and the cheerleaders are fighting for the following at Magazine Beach. They want to:
● Destroy even more Street Trees.
● Destroy trees around the hill parking lot west of the playing fields.
● Prohibit parking in the hill parking lot and reduce the number of spaces there.
● Continue the failed dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach. They want to destroy the proven failed poison drinking grass introduced in the 2000s and replace the failures with more poison drinkers.
● Destroy the responsible grasses on the top of the hill and behind the swimming pool. EXPAND Poison usage to the top of the Hill and to behind the pool by introducing MORE poison drinking grass in place of the responsible grass there.
● Continue the failed 16 ft high wall of introduced bushes blocking off the Charles from Magazine Beach introduced in the 2000s. They refuse to provide the LAWN TO THE RIVER they promised. They built that outrageous wall instead.
● Continue prohibiting private boat docking by continuing the blocking of the boats by the 16 foot high wall of bushes.
● Continue starving the 35 year resident Charles River White Geese with the 16 foot high introduced wall.
● Increase destruction of the last remaining home of the Charles River White Geese east of the BU Bridge.
● Continue the Poisoning of FREE ANIMALS if they eat the poison drinking introduced grasses.
● Charge people to use boats off Magazine Beach INSTEAD OF FREE BOAT DOCKING. Introduce other retail.
I hope that Connolly and the Cambridge City Council learn from the voters and end this outrage.
Tuesday, September 06, 2016
Charles River: More Reports on the Charles River White Geese
1. Introduction and Correction.
2. White Geese of Cambridge by Ernest Sarno.
3. Historic Pages: The Charles River White Geese.
4. The destruction of Memorial Drive . . . 2016, Final Cut.
1. Introduction and Correction.
Yesterday, I posted a couple of links to appreciations on line of the Charles River White Geese.
I just discovered I posted the same link twice for different reports. I have corrected the link in the post, but, for the record, here is the correct link for Charles River Geese by Maud Dillingham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM.
And here are a couple of others. There are MANY posts on the Charles River White Geese.
2. White Geese of Cambridge by Ernest Sarno.
This report was created in November 2009. It is a loving job.
It commences with an evening video of the Charles River White Geese feeding across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, in an area which has since been destroyed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation supported by Cambridge, along with EVERY TREE.
The film may include an area slightly east of the Hyatt, apparently showing a portion destroyed by Cambridge on behalf of the DCR in the name of sewer work.
The middle of the film shows the construction zone created by the DCR in the Destroyed Nesting Area for BU Bridge work. Part of the destruction was necessary. The portion shown by the film was not necessary, just part of the destructiveness of this terrible agency.
The latter part shows the Charles River White Geese in Destroyed Nesting Area, in the area where the ground vegetation was destroyed by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” acting as agent for the DCR. This was before the situation was made even worse by railroad workers with DCR blessing.
This good report may be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM.
They put in a good word for Friends of the White Geese, as well.
3. Historic Pages: The Charles River White Geese.
These are beautiful photographs created and well displayed by Phil Barber, a Cambridgeport resident who has for many years recorded the Charles River.
http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.
4. The destruction of Memorial Drive . . . 2016, Final Cut.
The pits so far by the state bureaucrats with the support of the City of Cambridge, with Cambridge, the DCR and Cheerleaders fighting to make things even worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
1. Introduction and Correction.
2. White Geese of Cambridge by Ernest Sarno.
3. Historic Pages: The Charles River White Geese.
4. The destruction of Memorial Drive . . . 2016, Final Cut.
1. Introduction and Correction.
Yesterday, I posted a couple of links to appreciations on line of the Charles River White Geese.
I just discovered I posted the same link twice for different reports. I have corrected the link in the post, but, for the record, here is the correct link for Charles River Geese by Maud Dillingham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM.
2. White Geese of Cambridge by Ernest Sarno.
This report was created in November 2009. It is a loving job.
It commences with an evening video of the Charles River White Geese feeding across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, in an area which has since been destroyed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation supported by Cambridge, along with EVERY TREE.
The film may include an area slightly east of the Hyatt, apparently showing a portion destroyed by Cambridge on behalf of the DCR in the name of sewer work.
The middle of the film shows the construction zone created by the DCR in the Destroyed Nesting Area for BU Bridge work. Part of the destruction was necessary. The portion shown by the film was not necessary, just part of the destructiveness of this terrible agency.
The latter part shows the Charles River White Geese in Destroyed Nesting Area, in the area where the ground vegetation was destroyed by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” acting as agent for the DCR. This was before the situation was made even worse by railroad workers with DCR blessing.
This good report may be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM.
They put in a good word for Friends of the White Geese, as well.
3. Historic Pages: The Charles River White Geese.
These are beautiful photographs created and well displayed by Phil Barber, a Cambridgeport resident who has for many years recorded the Charles River.
http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.
4. The destruction of Memorial Drive . . . 2016, Final Cut.
The pits so far by the state bureaucrats with the support of the City of Cambridge, with Cambridge, the DCR and Cheerleaders fighting to make things even worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
Destruction of the Charles River, Cambridge, MA: Records of the past.
RE: Destruction of the Charles River, Cambridge, MA: Records of the past.
1. Introduction.
2. 2007, Maude Dillingham.
3. 2010 video of a young gaggle, Kathy Podgers.
1. Introduction.
Here are some older films of the Charles River White Geese in their Nesting Area.
2. 2007, Maude Dillingham.
A 2007 shoot shows them feeding, shudder, across the on ramp to Memorial Drive. The Department of Conservation and Recreation, in their fight to drive away or kill all resident animals, has now added to their starvation wall a wall blocking the entrance / exit to the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Vegetation, shudder, can actually be seen in the Destroyed Nesting Area. This is before the really bad destruction other than from the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM
Starvation is the goal. This food has been since been taken away from them.
This was long before the most recent outrage / destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat, as seen in our report posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
3. 2010 video of a young gaggle, Kathy Podgers.
The destruction of ground vegetation by the falsely named Charles River "Conservancy" is distressingly clear.
But the parents are showing their babies the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDAdqpKqzv8
1. Introduction.
2. 2007, Maude Dillingham.
3. 2010 video of a young gaggle, Kathy Podgers.
1. Introduction.
Here are some older films of the Charles River White Geese in their Nesting Area.
2. 2007, Maude Dillingham.
A 2007 shoot shows them feeding, shudder, across the on ramp to Memorial Drive. The Department of Conservation and Recreation, in their fight to drive away or kill all resident animals, has now added to their starvation wall a wall blocking the entrance / exit to the Destroyed Nesting Area.
Vegetation, shudder, can actually be seen in the Destroyed Nesting Area. This is before the really bad destruction other than from the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM
Starvation is the goal. This food has been since been taken away from them.
This was long before the most recent outrage / destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat, as seen in our report posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
3. 2010 video of a young gaggle, Kathy Podgers.
The destruction of ground vegetation by the falsely named Charles River "Conservancy" is distressingly clear.
But the parents are showing their babies the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDAdqpKqzv8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)