1. Introduction.
2. Fraud in Cambridge creates destruction on the Charles River.
3. The contrast between normal politics and fraud as usual in Cambridge is personified in the destruction of that off ramp.
4. Summary.
5. But there is hope.
(1) Toomey.
(2) Your Editor.
(3) YES.
1. Introduction.
On December 13, 2016, I just posted a report, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/further-attacks-on-north-side-of.html.
In the fine print, I tried to tie this report into the mass destruction which has been going on on the Charles River. However, the connection really deserves more detail.
When I first started these reports, I hinted that the outrage on the Charles River is a spinoff of the sick political situation in Cambridge, MA, I did not go into detail.
Destruction of this ramp goes into that vile distinction.
Here is the key, and tiny detail on the destruction of that off ramp.
In the middle is the Charles River. Cambridge is to the right. Boston is to the left.
The dot with the connected line to the right center is where the ramp is proposed to be destroyed.
The reality, however, is that the numbers of folks fighting for that destruction communicates the sickness in the City of Cambridge compared to a relatively normal situation in Boston.
In Boston, normal people defend Boston.
2. Fraud in Cambridge creates destruction on the Charles River.
In Cambridge, normal people ARE KEPT FROM DEFENDING CAMBRIDGE by a massive, fraudulent organization of “protective groups” which subtly but very really look to the Development Department of the City of Cambridge for orders.
And everything that the Development Department wants destroyed, or the friends of the Development Department want destroyed gets destroyed.
How? There you are getting into the very real fraud which is so many of the supposed “protective groups” in the City of Cambridge.
The fraud goes back to 1974 when James Leo Sullivant was returned to the position of City Manager. Sullivan was fired in the 60s. My guess is that he was fired as the result of activities by truly independent organizations.
Sullivan proclaimed that he would create a system of “neighborhood associations” in the City of Cambridge, and the 42 years since his return has seen a massive system of interlocked “protective groups” which bear the very clear mark of Company Unions.
Key, nowadays, in the fight for destruction of the Charles River is a fake neighborhood association which, among other things, censors ALL COMMENTS NEGATIVE TO THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE and Cambridge’s friends on its Listserv.
This fake group fought for the destruction of those hundreds of trees in true Company Union fashion. It lied that it loved the Charles River and told folks that it was anti Charles River to look at anything else but one historical building. As the DCR was preparing for mass destruction, the fake group went public with its fight for destruction of those hundreds of trees.
A key action came in January 2013 to April 23, 2013. In January 2013, the fake group put on a public meeting concerning its plans for destruction at Magazine Beach. There was a very real probability that its destruction plans would be defeated by a fair vote. So the people who pulled the strings conducted corrupt tactics.
The vote was postponed to the February 2013 meeting which was held on April 23, 2013. They, by that time, had driven away the concerned folks who would have voted them down in January, but that was not enough. They had a stacked house. They deferred action to the last ten minutes, then they dropped a horribly complicated motion which they kept secret before then, and put it to a vote.
The monthly meetings suddenly became every other month, and discussion of the Charles River was postponed EVERY MEETING to the last ten minutes, combined with the predictable prohibition against meaningful discussion of the destruction the core group was fighting for, THOSE HUNDREDS OF TREES WHICH THEY DESTROYED IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY.
Standard company union fraud.
Now the core group has announced, and cosigned a destruction plan which would destroy 52, MOSTLY EXCELLENT, trees, never mentioned in the years before.
They spent three to six years fighting for the destruction that occurred in January - February yelling that people should look at that one building, and that it was anti Charles River to look at the hundreds of trees they were fighting to destroy.
Now the plans which WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFEATED IN 2013 except for corrupt tactics are clearer. The core group is back to yelling, look at our historical building. Do not look at what we are destroying.
But what they are destroying include 30 trees surrounding that historical building, and a total of 52 trees to be destroyed.
And once again, they are telling people not to look at what they are destroying.
3. The contrast between normal politics and fraud as usual in Cambridge is personified in the destruction of that off ramp.
A significant portion of the people yelling to “maximize open space” in Boston FOUGHT TO DESTROY THOSE HUNDRED OF TREES in Cambridge.
They were very visible in all the public sessions crying for the benefit they saw to themselves in destroying those trees. They kept DEAFENINGLY silent about the fact that they lived in Boston.
Now, after achieving this outrage on the Cambridge side, they are seeking to line their pockets at the disadvantage to Cambridge interests.
These are people behaving in a normal manner.
BUT THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT in Cambridge fights to prevent defending the City of Cambridge against such attacks.
The Charles River got caught in the crossfire between normal, and irresponsible, behavior by Boston residents by the outrage of the fake group situation in Cambridge.
Cambridge could not defend the Cambridge side of the Charles River because the fake group system which dominates politics in Cambridge turns so many “protective” groups into FRAUDULENT grounds fighting against the causes for which they claim to stand.
4. Summary.
The off ramp being destroyed would normally be protected by concerned citizens in Cambridge, activism which apparently got James Leo Sullivan fired in the 60s. But the fake group system which has evolved about Sullivan and his three successors prevents the sort of activism which got Sullivan fired.
And pretty much all of the visible people in Cambridge politics are tainted by this outrage.
Activists in Cambridge politics very quickly learn that they must accept the lie that fighting to destroy Cambridge is defending Cambridge, and it gets a lot worse.
5. But there is hope.
A. White Knight?
The hope visibly lies in one person, newly hired City Manager Louis A. DePasquale, although all the new City Manager needs to do is look at the vast majority of folks in the City of Cambridge, as opposed to the fraudulent entity which lies that it is the world in the City of Cambridge.
DePasquale, in contrast to his two preceding City Managers was not the number one assistant to his predecessor. DePasquale is a lifetime Cambridge resident who has expressed interest in doing what “the people” want. He has professed a goal to talk to the “the people” to set his priorities.
B. The Good Guys can Win.
(1) Toomey.
A recent victory organized by City Councilor and nearly former State Representative Toomey over the Development Department domination of Cambridge politics shows there is hope.
This was the City of Cambridge’s fight for passenger traffic on the Grand Junction, a fight which was defeated by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation in response to very real activism in Cambridge.
The Development Department related folks were trying to create a “protective organization” under the usual mantra, “You can’t win, you can’t win, but have we got a deal for you.”
Toomey ignored them. He just won at the forefront of normal human beings outside the control of the fake group system.
(2) Your Editor.
Similarly, for environmental purposes, I have had a hand in writing more of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge.
And
(a) I have won more than I lost, plus
(b) my proposals do what I said they do.
(3) YES.
It is possible for decency to win in Cambridge. But it does take the nerve to stand up to the fraud influenced by a very rotten situation.
