1. Introduction.
2. Grand Junction.
3. On line master.
4. What You Can Do.
A. Introductory.
B. General.
C. The Institutions.
D. FRIEND THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE ON FACEBOOK.
1. Introduction.
On September 11, 2017, the Cambridge City Council returned to work after their summer break, with one meeting in the middle. Councilor / former Representative Timothy Toomey proposed and got passed a motion in the mid summer meeting to which we responded by a letter received on September 11, 2017.
This initiative concerned bike highway “improvements” on the Grand Junction railroad running from the Goose Meadow through the eastern part of the city and then to Somerville and eventually North Station.
The initiative has been innocuous, concentrating on the Somerville end of the path. The Toomey motion was ambiguous as to whether it concerned the Charles River end.
The constant language from the city council has given the false impression that the innocuous part of this package was the entire package, lying by omission that the Charles River end was responsible.
We responded to the Toomey initiative in a detailed analysis presented at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/09/charles-river-cambridge-grand-junction.html.
The City Manager replied to Councilor Toomey in the second of the three comments on which we responded as posted by the City Clerk at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1846&Inline=True, pages 153 to 158.
The response made it clear that the route was targeted to the Grand Junction railroad bridge although expenditures would end halfway between Memorial Drive and Mass. Ave.
2. Grand Junction.
Our response to the Grand Junction portion in part two of our letter received October 2 read:
* * *
This write up is from the Cambridge Development Department.
The record of MassDOT is of great value.
The last time the Cambridge Development Department and its influenced “activists” fought for commuter rail on the Grand Junction, influenced “activists” announced yet another lovely sounding entity which based its grounds for creation on the usual “You can’t win” mantra. Followed by the totally predictable “But have we got a deal for you.”
Fortunately, responsible residents of Cambridge scorned the creation of that particular fake group.
MassDOT listened to responsible people and studied.
MassDOT found Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction to lack any redeeming value except for Kendall Square (/MIT). MassDOT rejected the nonsense coming from friends of the Cambridge Development Department including its influenced “activists.”
Here are the MassDOT areal photo of the area, and MIT’s alternate AND MUCH MORE DIRECT bike highway, with our proposed connection. The more direct bike highway alternatives clearly are much more convenient for bicyclists, cost less money and much less destructive. Such considerations should be overwhelming, IF THE REAL PURPOSE IS BIKE HIGHWAY.
The City of Cambridge has also recently received a letter from MassDOT in which MassDOT expressed willingness to work with the City of Cambridge. Included in that letter was MassDOT’s affirmation of support for the findings of a joint committee which studied transportation possibilities on the Charles River.
That report flatly and simply rejected the stalking horse “bike” highway over the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The stalking horse, of course, would widen the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge by adding one lane, supposedly for the stalking horse bike highway.
The bike highway would, of course, disappear the minute MIT could get away with converting the widened Grand Junction Bridge to make it a very crucial part of their beloved private exit ramp from the Mass. Pike.
The history of the MBTA study which found that private highway exit to MIT viable might be of interest. The MBTA studied the possibility of running an express bus from Newton to MIT (referred to as Cambridgeport).
The cost of the project made the finding obviously way out of wack with the supposed purpose of the study, a bus running two or three times a day each way. But the exorbitant cost of the project was obvious from the beginning. The MBTA noticed the funding absurdity as part of the report, after the study.
3. On line master.
The Cambridge City Clerk has published, unedited, our letter at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1846&Inline=True, pages 153 to 158.
This is a 6 page document in a combined city document running hundreds of pages. It is a long download. We would be pleased to provide an email sized PDF copy of our portion in response to your request to boblat@yahoo.com.
4. What You Can Do.
A. Introductory.
What we need is:
● End the accelerating Charles River destruction by the DCR and by Cambridge.
● Give DCR duties, powers & funds on the Charles River to MassDOT. Trash the bizarre bush wall walling off Charles. End poison use on the Charles’ banks.
● Tell the Cambridge City Council and new City Manager Louis DePasquale to end the destruction, the fake groups and the 42 year long 3 City Manager Machine.
There are two general categories of possible assistance.
B. General.
There are two entities who are a waste of time, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Cambridge Development Department.
These entities as they have existed for the last 42 years (counting the prior entity which was replaced by the DCR) need to be destroyed, not talked to.
The Cambridge City Manager needs to clean house. A much more detailed analysis is in my letter of welcome to him, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/charles-river-trust-cambridge-ma-usas.html.
Here are the key contacts. I hope you can make them. I apologize that a lot of contacts are given through yet another link. The reason for the additional link for legislators is that that gives me only one place to change rather than trying to change every document.
Governor Charles Baker (DCR): 617-725-4005, email form: http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office
Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale, 617-349-4300, ldepasquale@cambridgema.gov
Legislators: 617-722-2000, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/201304/emails-for-all massachusetts.html
Cambridge City Council. Call them at 617-349-4280, or
Email your comments care of the Cambridge City Clerk. Request that the City Clerk present your entire message to the Cambridge City Council at their next meeting. The Email address is: dlopez@cambridgema.govTalk to the City Council Challengers.
C. The Institutions.
Since 2011, these reports have been read in 107 countries, at last count. It is reasonable to assume that such vast a variety of reading may be by people with contacts in the three key institutions.
The three key institutions involved are:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is fighting for its personal exit from I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in a situation where meaningful activists previously defeated a super highway going through pretty much the same area. So fraud is normal. Similarly, most of Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge has been and is being turned into an area which is effectively the personal enclave of MIT.
Boston University. This is turf which BU has started to claim for itself. BU did the first destruction as part of its seeking to make this more clearly its turf. A lot of the fine print makes the key areas more hospital to BU. Boston University has conducted graduation activities in the Magazine Beach recreation area.
Harvard University. Harvard is turning the Boston side of the Charles River even more into its private domain with its impending relocation of Harvard Medical School and other facilities into an area in Boston visible from the Cambridge side of the Charles River.
Anybody with contacts with MIT, BU and Harvard knows the contacts better than we do.
Please contact.
D. FRIEND THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE ON FACEBOOK.
The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River since 1981. They are beautiful and loved, a very real tourist attraction. Having lived so long so close to densely populated cities, they well deserved to be studied and praised, not destroyed piece by piece. Their habitat can and should be returned. The barriers to their long time home and food should be removed.
Where they live, other much less visible but very real free animals also live.
Cambridge and the DCR are heartlessly abusing free animals on the Charles River. The DCR PUBLICLY states a desire to kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. Cambridge and the DCR are unfit to manage the environment. They, particularly the Cambridge City Council, combine their lack of fitness with non stop lies of environmental sainthood.
In the fine print is that proposed off ramp from I90 to MIT in a location where Cambridge brags a super highway was killed by MEANINGFUL PROTECTIVE GROUPS 50 years ago, as opposed to highly visible but fake protective groups with connections to the Cambridge government which have been carefully created and nurtured in the decades since that victory. The replacement highway is having its grounds set through stalking horses, deception and multiple outrages. Naturally, the replacement highway would destroy areas most valuable to free animals.
Here is a plaque which was included in a propaganda show about the Charles River conducted over an extended period in the Cambridge City Hall Annex.
Animals should not be driven off the face of our earth. It is outrageous that these reprehensible government entities, lying about themselves, want to destroy what little sanctuaries free animals have left. Their sanctuaries should be cherished and returned to the status quo of the beginning of this Millennium.
It is reprehensible that, lurking behind the government destructions, are institutions which proclaim themselves throughout the world as enlightened.
The Charles River White Geese are a very visible and beloved symbol of what should be cherished, not destroyed.
The list of friends on Facebook is a very visible show of decency standing up to truly vile government entities and their related “non profit” institutions.
