Charles River: Environmental Destroyers “Object” to Climate Change

Charles River:   Environmental Destroyers “Object” to Climate Change

I. Introduction.
II. Our latest letter, responding to Cambridge City Council “Concerns” about Climate Change.
1. Introduction.
2. MicroCenter Owner Repairs Government Destruction.
3. The Cambridge City Council should give us honesty in government.


I. Introduction.

The world in Cambridge, MA, is a fairy tale world when it comes to the environment.

The Cambridge City Council, its bedmate, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the machine created by the three prior Cambridge City Managers, live in a world where the Cambridge population wants responsible government.

The pols who run this world have contempt for the environment.  They are very destructive of it, but they want to stay in office.  So they lie, overwhelmingly by yelling at the other guy and doing their own terrible actions as secretly as possible.

They are great at YELLING AT THE OTHER GUY.  They are also great at standing abreast with fellow scoundrels and FALSELY praising each other.

This is a very major reason for the outrage on the Charles River, but it is a House of Cards.  It is only as good as the machine which keeps lying about reality in the City of Cambridge.  It is very much at risk of an electorate which demands responsible government and stops listening to the lying machine.

The relatively small machine which is the basis of this outrage, and to which a destructive city council panders was created by the prior three Cambridge City Managers, the ones before the current incumbent City Manager.

The machine is plodding along on the momentum of three bad City Managers and a City Council whose election has been highly influenced by the lies coming out of that machine.

There are now three new City Councilors on the nine member City Council, plus there are a bunch of incumbents who could lose their office if the electorate realizes just how bad they are on environmental issues.

The following letter was mailed on March 22, in lieu of hand carrying in bad weather to meet a deadline for Monday presentation.

The bad weather turned out not to exist, but the letter was mailed anyway.  The letter will get to the Cambridge City Council at its meeting on April 5,  a week from Monday.  The letter will get to the Cambridge City Manager quite a bit sooner.

The letter is addressed to City Manager and City Council.

One explanation could be of value

The concluding demand is:

* * * *

End the environmental outrages planned by the DCR and Cambridge and reverse, insofar as feasible, the many outrages accomplished by the DCR, Cambridge and related entities from November 1, 1999, to the current date.

* * * *

The first obvious attack on the animals of the Charles River came when Boston University illegally destroyed the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese in November 1999.  This was the first blatant attack on beautiful animals which are cherished by the public.  The love is so great that the DCR had signs up communicating that love and asking for the public to take care for these beautiful animals.

Boston University showed its recognition of its vileness by denying that it did the destruction until six months later when the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned Boston University for the destruction.  Boston University blamed the secretary of its president for six months of lies, but never, to our knowledge, punished her for it.  The pattern of repeated outrages and associated falsehoods fits the pattern set by Boston University in November 1999, outrages followed by lies of sainthood.  The mantra amounts to: “Do not look at what we are destroying.  Look at what we tell you to look at.”


II. Our latest letter, responding to Cambridge City Council “Concerns” about Climate Change.

RE: Charles River:   City Council PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT?  A property owner works to repair an outrage of the Cambridge City Council.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

1. Introduction.
2. MicroCenter Owner Repairs Government Destruction.
3. The Cambridge City Council should give us honesty in government.

1.   Introduction.

We are perplexed by order 6 on March 19, 2018, in which the Cambridge City Council came out against climate change.

The City Council keeps “taking action” which gives a false impression of the side of the issue on which the City Council stands.

Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation just destroyed 150 or so mostly excellent trees on Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.

The Cambridge City Council voted in order 1 of April 24, 2017, to support the DCR’s destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach.

Fake protectors who have fought for these outrages are now rerouting poisons from the Magazine Beach playing fields into the Charles River.

We have given you multiple letters with extensive photos on these subjects and the City Council is consistently on the wrong side of the issues it claims to support in order 6, or is silent with what amounts to a wink and a nod.

To make it worse, we understand a city councilor intends to join a fake group which is associated with the destruction on the Charles River and to share with this destructive entity ideas on saving trees?

The most important thing the City Council can do to save trees is to change to the side the City Council claims to be on.  Above all things, city councilors should not join fake protective groups in what would very clearly be a lie as to which side they are on.  Such falsehoods are simply helping destructive villains destroy more things by fooling voters that the fake group is on the side the fake group tells people it is on.

The City Council claims to be in favor of responsible government.  Responsible governments honestly communicate with the voters about their records.  The key word is “honestly.”

The City Council should be bragging about its record, not joining fellow destroyers in giving people false impressions of protecting the environment on the matters within its jurisdiction which matter the most.

A few subordinate points:

2. MicroCenter Owner Repairs Government Destruction.

Private property owners should not have to repair damage to their property by irresponsible government entities.

But the owner of the MicroCenter lot has apparently done so.

Order 1 of April 24, 2018 [ed:, has not come yet, obviously 2017], gave the DCR a blank check for destruction on the Charles River at Magazine Beach.

Part of the supported proposal included destruction of two trees in front of MicroCenter.  The DCR, implementing the glorious support of the Cambridge City Council outdid themselves.  They also destroyed two trees in front of the shopping center’s parking lot which the owner had been lovingly caring for.
.

The City Council gave them a blank check.  Above, AGAIN is a photo of what the City Council got.

The brown mounds around the HEALTHY stubs of trees are mulch.  The private property was lovingly caring for what the Cambridge City Council destroyed.  As with the outrage of January 2016, it is highly likely that the DCR will leave this outrage as barren land until it accomplishes the rest of the destruction supported by the Cambridge City Council.

The “improvements” put in after January 2016 included far more trees than the 150 wantonly destroyed, trees which a responsible entity would have planted a decade earlier.  But they were planted after a massive outrage to give a false impression (as with that councilor talking to the fake group) of what side this destructive entity is on.

Here are photos from March 15, 2018.

First of all, this is what the City Council created through the DCR.  The trees destroyed by the City Council have not been replaced and will not be “replaced” until AFTER the City Council and the DCR destroy the rest of the 56 mostly excellent trees being destroyed by order 1 of April 24, 2017, just as in 2016.

Here are the saplings planted by the MicroCenter owner on their property, first, alone photographed from the west, and then photographed from the east along with the trees the Cambridge City Council did not destroy.

Yes, the saplings are a lot smaller than the trees which the City Council destroyed.  The two destroyed were identical to the two which were not destroyed.

The fact that saplings are smaller than mature trees is one of the strongest arguments against the very terrible behavior which the Cambridge City Council, its cheerleaders and the DCR are doing.

Mature trees simply cannot be “replaced,” and that is the key lie in the outrage of January 2016 and in the reprehensible order 1 of April 24, 2017.

3. The Cambridge City Council should give us honesty in government.

Stop lying that the City Council is pro environment, or change sides to the side you claim to be on.

To be specific, we request that, consistent with repeated expression of environmental concerns by THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL, the following actions be taken:

A Retract and rescind the City Council’s action on April 24, 2017, in order 1, supporting the destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and related outrages in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

B. Trash the Department of Conservation and Recreation as manager of all properties under its jurisdiction in Cambridge in favor of replacement by the Department of Transportation.

C. End the environmental outrages planned by the DCR and Cambridge and reverse, insofar as feasible, the many outrages accomplished by the DCR, Cambridge and related entities from November 1, 1999, to the current date.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair, Friends of the White Geese

Charles River: Outrages at Magazine Beach become worse.

Charles River:   Outrages at Magazine Beach become worse.

1. Current Situation.
2. Analysis.

1. Current Situation.

Phil Barber reports, on March 8 and 9, 2018: [Paragraphing added.]

I was at Magazine Beach the other day.

Denuding that area has thrown off the water table for the whole area, in my opinion.  The other “swale” is underwater now too (they are connected by a culbert) and there is deep water under the odd little bridge-walkway they put in near the MWRA area.  Never seen water there anywhere as much, especially after a rain.

The hideous black tarps are fraying in the wind, maybe 25% out of kilter now.  What an unsightly mess nature’s pals have wrought.

One nimrod keeps posting how lovely it will be when the area becomes a wildflower meadow.  Apparently he has found meadow flowers that can endure wet roots, and are indigenous to landfill too.

The destroyers cut down a lovely stand of stately Joe Pye Weed I had watched expand there for years.

* * * *

I was there Monday, 3/5, before the newest snow on the ground.  I took my usual tons of digital photos, nothing especially noteworthy but illustrating the abnormal water accumulation.

And I found a poor dead rabbit.  It occurred to me I haven’t seen the resident red-tailed hawk in a while.  I wonder if destroying the habitat of the bunnies and (many, many field mice has adversely affected him (or her) too.

Humans stupidly drop a boulder into a still pond and wander off while the ripples spread and affect all.

2. Analysis.

“MWRA” stands for Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.  They have an environmentally sensitive water clean up plant between the Magazine Beach playing fields and the BU Bridge.  They have been friends.

Here is a blow up of a photo in the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Draft Environmental Impact Report, omitting I90.  Looking at details, I would say this photo is several years old.  Major trees to the left are slated for destruction by the Fake Protectors, the Cambridge City Council and, oh yeah, the villains who initiated the outrage, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The single red line is the poison drainage area which has been denuded of free vegetation and covered over with the tarp.

Here are a couple of photos of the covered area from December 2017:

The first looks from the northern end.  The Charles River is the blue patch above the black tarp.

Here is a closeup taken from the left of the above picture, with the Starvation Wall in the background.

This photo looks at the “other ‘swale’”, taken from pretty close to the location of the first shot of the tarp.  It is marked with three red lines in the MassDOT photo.  To the right in this photo you can see the worn-out area so visible from the MassDOT photo.

Cambridge and the DCR introduced poisons in the 2000's to Magazine Beach to “improve” the situation.  This worn-out area demonstrates how useless is the poison drinking grass.  Their “solution”:  dig it all up and put in more poison drinking grass.

Returning to the responsible grasses of most of the 20th Century and ending poison usage is unthinkable to these destructive people.  Contractors do not make money out of responsible behavior.

The Red Arrow at the right in the MassDOT photo points to the MWRA plant, which is just off the photo.

The two lines show the bridge Phil mentions.  In the MassDOT photo, you see a tiny opening in the starvation wall.  That is the location of the bridge, and is the only  opening in the starvation wall.  There is a massive collection of bushes on the north end of the bridge to prevent the Charles River White Geese from feeding if they use this opening to get through the starvation wall.

Here is a 2014 photo of the opening from the land side taken from the bridge Phil mentions.  It is marked with two red lines in the MassDOT photo.  The figure is an adult woman, overwhelmed by the starvation wall.  The starvation wall is that much larger now.  Now behind the camera are the monstrous bushes installed to keep the Charles River White Geese from feeding.

For greater details of this particular outrage, please see our letter to the Cambridge City Manager and City Council complaining on the subject.  It was one of the first things received by the new City Council on taking office in 2018.  It is posted in city records at:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1875&Inline=True, pages 163 to 167.

Charles River: A Summary of Environmental Outrages by the Cambridge City Council

Charles River:  A Summary of Environmental Outrages by the Cambridge City Council.

The Cambridge City Council recently got “protective” of the Cambridge Common, the open space just north of Harvard Square.  They have also made lovely words about trees. 

There is a distressing tendency when the Cambridge City Council gets “protective.”  That tendency, too often, is on a matter where they have been destructive.

We responded with the following letter which was presented to them at their meeting of March 5, 2017.  It summarizes a lot of the very real problems with the Cambridge City Council.

* * * *

Gentlemen/Ladies:

We have been impressed by the very strong claims of environmental concern in recent City Council meetings.

We request that consistent with this repeated expression of concerns by THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL, the following actions be taken:

1. Retract and rescind the City Council’s action on April 24, 2017, in order 1, supporting the destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and related outrages in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

2. Trash the Department of Conservation and Recreation as manager of all properties under its jurisdiction in Cambridge in favor of replacement by the Department of Transportation.

3 End the environmental outrages planned by the DCR and Cambridge and reverse, insofar as feasible, the many outrages accomplished by the DCR, Cambridge and related entities from November 1, 1999, to the current date.

As one example of such problems with developments initiated by the City of Cambridge / DCR in recent years, from the city council agenda of February, 26, 2018, we note order 10 expressing concern about drainage problems in the Cambridge Common after the massive environmental destruction by the City Council on the Cambridge Common. 

This claim of concern comes after massive destruction of excellent, healthy trees in the portion nearest Harvard Square.  The “explanation” for that destruction was that the trees were blocking the view of a monument.  We have yet to talk with any individual who has any knowledge of the purpose of that monument, or who cares, but people are highly displeased.

After this massive tree destruction, the city council motion seemed surprised there were drainage problems.  One good way to avoid drainage / other  problems is: DO NOT INFLICT MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION.

The outrage on the Cambridge Common directly conflicts with repeated claims of concern for trees.  It is, however, consistent with the environmental outrages on the Charles River and at Alewife.

One reason why we have been doing so much, extended commenting on the record was that we acted discretely prior to and during the last major environmental outrage, the ruthless and heartless destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges in January 2016 by the DCR and the City of Cambridge. 

We sent many email communications to all members of the City Council before and during the time when Cambridge and the DCR destroyed hundreds of excellent trees during January 2016.  The City Council itself responded DURING THE OUTRAGE with strong condemnations of circuses passing through town on the public parkways.  The City Council was deafeningly silent about the outrages on the Charles River.

YELLING AT THE OTHER GUY IS NOT ENOUGH, PARTICULARLY GIVEN TRUE OUTRAGES WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.  But, distressingly, yelling at the other guy is far more common than meaningful actions by the City Council.  The City Council should be standing up to environmental destruction inflicted as part of governmental activities in the City of Cambridge.  IT SHOULD NOT BE LEADING THE DESTRUCTION.

In 2015, the preceding Cambridge City Manager bragged to a public meeting in the main branch of the Cambridge Public Library of the “improvements” Cambridge was creating on the Charles River.  We have documented those “improvements” in two videos, (1) a before and after analysis, the “Destruction of the Charles River, January 2016, Final Cut,” posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o, and (2) an analysis of “improvements” by an international expert, “Nature and Beauty Ripped out on the Charles River,” at https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA.  Mr. Rossi, not Mr. DePasquale, is the target of negative language directed at the Cambridge City Manager in these videos.

In that light comes the current fight of the Cambridge City Council for the destruction of 56 trees on Magazine Beach.  The fight for this destruction  includes a blank check to the DCR, and ongoing / increasing poisoning of the Charles River by the DCR and fake protectors who helped achieve the January 2016 outrage.

Order 1 of April 24, 2017 was voted into place after a rally on the front steps of City Hall in which members of the City Council praised themselves for environmental achievements.  Their self praise did not mention that the City Council was about to vote on the destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and more at Magazine Beach.

Order 1 included the nonsensical description of “dead or dying” with regard to targeted trees.  This nonsensical “explanation” was an apparent expansion of skillful fraud by DCR “planners.”  DCR “planners” played skillful word games.  The City Council motion turned these fraudulent word games into FLAT OUT “TRUTHS” which gave a highly false impression of the environmental outrage the City Council supported.  This was consistent, however, with the outrages of January 2016, and had support by the same highly misleading entities.

We responded to the City Council and City Manager on June 6, 2017 with a 51 page COLOR analysis of every tree in the SUPPORTED destruction area.  The official city record of our document is posted at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249.  Our response strongly debunked the “dead or dying” falsehood.

We reported on the first destruction, on June 22, 2017, to the City Council and City Manager, posted at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=1727&Inline=True.  Our notes say pages 182 to 430.  One of the two numbers is probably correct.

At the August 7, 2017, meeting we reported on destruction on the sidewalk adjacent to the MicroCenter parking lot of two trees which had been lovingly cared for, probably by the property owners.  The property owners have since planted four trees on their side of that sidewalk.  The destroyed trees remain unreplaced.  The casual destruction left with bare ground is consistent with the planting of MANY TREES by the DCR in 2016 WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLANTED 10 YEARS EARLIER.  The planting of those badly overdue trees in no way justifies the outrages of January 2016.  Our communication on this destruction being fought for and being achieved by the City Council order is posted on:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1825&Inline=True, pages 151 to 157.

We have updated our reports in more than one letter by filling in more detail, especially with regard to the most horrible tree destruction supported by the City Council in order 1 of April 24, 2017.

On September 28, 2017, we responded to City Manager reports concerning Magazine Beach.  In these letters, the City Manager declined to inflict the destruction requested by the City Council’s order 1 of April 24, 2017 unless the City Council could redirect moneys to him from funds for elsewhere in the City of Cambridge.

Our letter included an analysis of funds sneaked into a public planning document for further destruction at Magazine Beach.  Apparently, the 20th Century boat dock which is perfectly useable but blocked by environmental outrages may be replaced at a different location with destruction of bordering vegetation which may or may not be part of the massive starvation wall which makes the playing fields no different from being 10 miles inland.  The existing dock may instead be be replaced in place with that concrete monstrosity, in spite of the installed obstacle course preventing use.

The DCR admits that the introduced and very massive vegetation outrage walling off the Charles River from the Magazine Beach playing fields is hated by the public, but the DCR refuses to give an appropriate death to it.  Key supporting the outrage are plans to kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River.  Dying, poisoned bees have been seen on Magazine Beach.  The DCR inflicts heartless animal abuse into pretty much all initiatives which could contain such outrages.  This introduced wall has the value to the DCR and Cambridge “planners” of starving the widely admired Charles River White Geese by blocking off their food and primary residence of most of the last 37 years.

Our communication is reported in city records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1846&Inline=True, pages 153 to 158.

Attached is a photo of a plaque in which fake protectors WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE BRAG OF ANIMAL ABUSE.  A copy of this outrage is attached.  IT WAS POSTED IN A PUBLIC SHOW IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX.

Our letters have repeatedly included photos of the excellent trees whose destruction is supported by order 1 of April 24, 2017, and of related heartless animal abuse.

Fake protectors who have been in the middle of too many outrages started poisoning the Charles River in December under the “supervision” of the DCR.  Increase in poisoning of Magazine Beach is one of the goals of the destruction supported by the City Council in order 1 of April 24, 2017.
We reported these outrages to the city council.  It was one of the first communications received by the new council,
at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1875&Inline=True, pages 163 to 167.

We repeatedly have provided MANY photographs.

We partially summarized heartless destruction and animal abuse planned and accomplished by Cambridge and the DCR in our letter to MEPA concerning the I90 rebuild.  Our letter is posted in city records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, pages 96 to 125.

We very strongly hope that the City Council changes its environmental practices, and that the City Council makes its actions correspond to its repeated lovely words.

Once again, we request the following:

1. Retract and rescind the City Council’s action on April 24, 2017, in order 1, supporting the destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and related outrages in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

2. Trash the Department of Conservation and Recreation as manager of all properties under its jurisdiction in Cambridge in favor of replacement by the Department of Transportation.

3. End the environmental outrages planned by the DCR and Cambridge and reverse, insofar as feasible, the many outrages accomplished by the DCR, Cambridge and related entities from November 1, 1999, to the current date.
Thank you for your kind consideration.

Charles River I90 Proposal: Impact on Animals, Heartless Animal Abuse. DEIR Report 7

Charles River I90 Proposal: Impact on Animals, Heartless Animal Abuse.  DEIR Report 7.

I. Introduction.
II. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.
III. Marked up Index.


I. Introduction.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River in Cambridge, MA for 37 years.  Most of that time, they lived and fed at the playing fields of the Magazine Beach recreation area.  Their habitat was a mile long stretch on the north / Cambridge side of the river centered on the BU Bridge

The Charles River White Geese were loved and admired.  People came from the suburbs to quietly commune with them.  In more recent years, they have been on the receiving end of heartless animal abuse from the City and Regional Governments.

The current issue is that, while they have been on the North Side for 37 years, Interstate Route 90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) has been on the south side for 50 years.  The state has decided I90 needs very major improvements.  Harvard University has decided it wants to move its Medical School to the largest part of the I90 turf on the Boston side.  Harvard owns a former railroad yard and I90 along with its exit ramps, subject to transportation uses.

A more detailed summary of the situation on the ground in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html

The engineers planning the rebuild of I90 (Mass. Pike) have to submit a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to state regulators to satisfy statutory environmental requirements.

We have submitted a detailed response and are in the process of presenting that report on line.

Section III below presents the index to our DEIR comments and shows where we have published those comments on this blog.  This is the last report passing on our comments.

In this report, we go into the heartless animal abuse involved, and place it in a true context.

The submission to the state environmental people is quite good and needs no further analysis.  It is quoted in section II without amendment.


II. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.

5. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A. Direct Application.
B. A terrible record being made worse.

5. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.

A. Direct Application.

DEIR chapter 1, page 13, section 1.5.16, states: “Impact on wildlife will be minimal.”

This statement is false.  Both the Amateur and Architects (ABC) PACKAGES INCLUDE REPLACEMENT OF THE Grand Junction bridge and are targeted at uses which will negatively affect wildlife on the Cambridge side, on both sides of the Grand Junction railroad.  The obvious harm is to the Charles River White Geese.  Less obvious harm is difficult to assess because other wildlife stays alive by being invisible. 

Section 4.b and 6 go into detail on this destruction.  Among other things, it provides the relevant portion of a Cambridge plan and provides an MIT plan to build in the Destroyed Nesting of the Charles River White Geese.  The Davis letter to MassDOT called for construction comparable to these outrages.

In particular, the Architects’ (ABC) package would destroy the Boston bank of the Charles River.  I, personally, have seen resident animals in that river bank.  This diagram is from DEIR, chapter 5, page 21.  Three cross-sections of the throat proposals are presented.

This is the cross section of the Architects’ (ABC) proposal.  We have added an arrow to point out the destruction of the river bank.  The dotted line running diagonally through the arrow is the destroyed river bank.

B. A terrible record being made worse.

The Cambridge Development Department, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their Fake Protectors have contempt for the few animals living on public lands which irresponsible governments have not killed off.  It is a matter of destroying one more and one more piece of habitat.  The Fake Protectors who are currently leading the fight for destruction on the Charles put on a propaganda show under the preceding City Manager in Cambridge’s City Hall Annex.

The show lied about “improvements” being brought by Cambridge, the CDD, and the DCR to the Charles River, claiming sainthood for all involved.

Here is one very telling plaque from that show.

Most animals heartlessly abused on the Charles River are done so secretly.  The Charles River White Geese are an exception to the secrecy because they are so visible and so loved.

Our video analysis of the outrage of January 2016 by Cambridge and the DCR may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o (Memorial Drive Destruction, Final Cut), and at https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA, (Nature and Beauty Ripped out along the Charles River, an analysis of the alleged “improvements” by an international expert).  Reference in these videos to the Cambridge City Manager refer to Mr. Rossi, not to the current City Manager.

Here are photos of some victims who were forced onto the streets of Cambridge in the middle of winter by this outrage.

Here are wild animals expelled from their homes

                                           Photo:  Phil Barber

                                           Photo:  Phil Barber

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the north / Cambridge side of the Charles River since 1981.  During most of that period, their main home was the Magazine Beach playing fields except during bad weather and nesting season.  During bad weather and nesting season, they lived in the Destroyed Nesting Area / Goose Meadow bounded by Memorial Drive, the Grand Junction Railroad, the Charles River and the BU Bridge.

Their habitat extended a total of about a mile along the Charles River centered on the BU Bridge.

In December 1999, the Cambridge City Council voted to subsidize destruction at the Magazine Beach Playing Fields. By order 1 on April 24, 2017, the Cambridge City Council supported DCR plans to destroy 56 more trees in the Magazine Beach recreation area, plus other outrages.

Until the outrages of the 2000's, the Charles River White Geese were beloved tourist attractions at the Magazine Beach playing fields.  Admirers came from the suburbs to share time with them.  They had full access to the length of this area, their home for most of the last 37 years.

Below is a photo of the riverfront at the Magazine Beach playing fields in 2006, and a photo of the Bridge over the pond which was introduced.  The Charles River White Geese loved that pond and went through this area to get food.

                                Photo:  Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

                                Photo:  Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

These photos were provided by a representative of the MWRA at what was a memorial service for Bumpy, the long time leader of the Gaggle.  Bumpy was assassinated five years earlier, apparently by a person who then graduated to rape and murder of a woman at the Destroyed Nesting Area.  He is in jail for the rape and murder.

Friends of the White Geese had begged the Cambridge City Council to stand up to the killing of nesting geese, in the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, probably by that now convicted murderer.  We had warned that animal abusers graduate to humans.  The Cambridge City Council was silent with the equivalent of a wink and a nod. 

After the rape and murder, the Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder.  The Cambridge City Council was silent about where the rape and murder occurred, except for then Councilor Davis.  Davis briefly mentioned the location, swallowed her words, looked around guiltily, and joined the rest of the Council in not wanting to know the location of the rape and murder.


The Department of Conservation and Recreation has a “Charles River Master Plan” which they lie tells people about their plans for this part of the Charles River.  This lying document promised a “lawn to the river.” 

The project was managed by Mr. Rossi before he was appointed Cambridge City Manager.  The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy”conducted a “swim in” to brag about how the improvements being made would improve swimming.

This is what was installed as Cambridge and the DCR’s “lawn to the river,” photographed from the Boston side.

The opening leads to the bridge shown above.

This Starvation Wall makes the playing fields the same as if they were ten miles inland.  The Department of Conservation and Recreation admits it is hated by users of the playing fields. 

The opening is the boat dock of the 20th Century.  Its use was prevented by the installation of the pond and the bridge over it.  The DCR, again with Cambridge money, is proposing to create an expensive new boat dock somewhere, apparently in place of part of the Starvation Wall.  Of interest, even after the massive destruction east of the BU Bridge the DCR claims they are incapable of removing the Starvation Wall, which they got by lying they were putting in a lawn to the river.  Apparently, however, the Make Work for Contractors replacement and more obstructive, boat dock can destroy some of the Starvation Wall.

On the Cambridge side, the following massive bushes were installed.

The brown / black box in the middle of the picture is at the opposite end of the bridge.

The Charles River White Geese had continued feeding at the location where they have lived most of the last 37 years.  That was ended.

The Starvation Wall prevents access to most of the river bank. This bizarre collection of bushes prevents access through the boat dock of the 20th Century.  And, of course, the introduced pond loved by the Charles River White Geese has been destroyed.

In section 6, we analyze the heartless plans of Cambridge for the Destroyed Nesting Area.

To put it succinctly, the Cambridge government and the DCR have been belligerently heartless animal abusers.

The Genesis of the 2000's destruction at Magazine Beach came in a plan of the Cambridge City Manager first publicized by the predecessor to the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” in September 1997.

About the same time as this heartless animal abuse was planned and implemented, there occurred actions which were later described by a trial judge as “reprehensible” behavior by the then Cambridge City Manager, Robert Healy.  An Appeals Court panel mentioned in review of the trial record “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior”.  The jury did their talking with their award. 

For Robert Healy’s destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her working for women’s rights, equal pay for equal work, the jury awarded more than a million dollars actual damages and, to show its flat out contempt for Robert Healy’s behavior, ordered more than three time that in damages, $3.5 million.

The trial judge’s learned opinion in Monteiro v. Cambridge, which included extensive quotes from Mr. Healy, may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.  The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal by issuing an opinion.  Nevertheless, they released what amounted to a non opinion opinion.  It may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

The Cambridge City Council showed what they thought of Healy’s behavior in office, as well.  The Cambridge City Council named the Police Station after him.

At least one then sitting Cambridge City Councilor when the Robert Healy Police Station was named has run around claiming to be a defender of women’s rights.

Once the Charles River White Geese were confined to their Destroyed Nesting Area, they did another terrible thing, they ate.  They had to nerve to cross the on ramp to Memorial Drive next to their ghetto to feed on grass under Memorial Drive.

The DCR took care of that.  They ceased the pretense that the animal habitat at the Goose Meadow was a park. They blockaded this entrance that BU had illegally created in 1999 as part of the very first outrage.  We strongly objected to this opening when it was created.  Now, with all their other food taken from them, blockading this opening is just more heartless animal abuse.

Here are photos of the Destroyed

Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese in 2015.  All of the wasteland is government manufactured.   The massive tree in the first photo is on the destruction plans of the DCR.  Many of the trees in the right of the second picture would be destroyed by current plans of the City of Cambridge under the euphemism of Grand Junction “improvements.”

Railroad workers worked on the Grand Junction next to the Destroyed Nesting Area.  They were too lazy to commute from the area under Memorial Drive through the nesting area to their work.  So they parked in the most precious part of the Destroyed Nesting Area.  And they dumped crushed rock into the land which had been rendered bare by the destruction of Robots of the DCR when the Robots destroyed ground vegetation which had the nerve to be growing without being planted by contractors.

Friends of the White Geese complained to the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  The CCC told the DCR to require responsible parking by the railroad workers.  The DCR told the workers to move out of the tiny part of the Destroyed Nesting Area in the jurisdiction of the Cambridge Conservation Commission and to continue otherwise parking, AND DESTROYING, as they pleased.
When the workers left, “somebody” dumped even more crushed rock into the heart of the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese.

The outrages of January 2016 by Cambridge and the DCR are reported in detail in our videos at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o, (Memorial Drive Destruction, Final Cut) and https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA, (Nature and Beauty Ripped Out along the Charles River, analysis by an international expert).

One of the many very terrible things done by Cambridge and the DCR in January 2016 was destruction of every tree on the banks of the Charles River across from the nearby Hyatt Regency Hotel, destruction which is analyzed in both videos. 

A gentleman we have never met, Eddie Sarno, did a documentary on their middle of the night feeding by the Charles River White Geese across from the Hyatt Regency.  It posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.  The DCR and Cambridge took care of that food. 

This is the shore at the Hyatt Regency in December 2016.

These stones serve the same purpose as the starvation wall.  The Charles River White Geese cannot cross them.

The DCR, in its sanctified Charles River Master Plan, has a goal of killing or driving away all resident animals.

They, and Cambridge, have taken away the last food of the Charles River White Geese from them.

III. Marked up Index.

This is a customary feature, to show where our reports may be found on the Internet which present our submittal of comments concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the I90 rebuild project in Allston, Massachusetts, including its impact on the Charles River, its environment, and its animals.

The total letter to the environmental reviewers has been posted by the City of Cambridge in its official records on line at:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1890&Inline=True, pages 96 to 125.  The associated transmittal letter to the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council has been posted at the same URL, pages 94 and 95.

Here is a break out of the Index to the submittal showing where portions have been posted.

1. Introduction.
A. Maneuvering with maximum secrecy by forces in Cambridge who cannot win in broad daylight.
B. The Issues.
2. Properly planned, the project can reduce traffic on Memorial Drive and elsewhere.

END OF REPORT 1, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river.html.

Summary of the situation in which the project is going forward is presented in REPORT 2:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_11.html

This summary could be of value if you are only checking the official filing, which has been posted by the Cambridge City Clerk.

3. Properly planned, the project can reduce the existing overloading on the Red Line.
A. West Station should be trashed along with the publicly defeated Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction concept.
(1) Introductory.
(2) Trash it on railroad management grounds.
(a) Stations too close together.
(b) Projections for both adjacent stations are so low that delaying long distance commuters makes no sense.
(3) Trash West Station on grounds that it has been sold to well meaning people on an unsound basis.
(4) Statement that the project “does not preclude implementation of rapid transit services” is not true.
(5) Commuter Rail Shuttles from Longwood are Nonsense.
(6) Trash West Station on the grounds that the interests in Cambridge fighting for it are attempting to achieve, basically in secret, a goal they have been PROPERLY denied when their project was presented in light of day.
(a) General.
(b) This Outrageous Goal:  Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.
(i) No value to anybody but Kendall ‒ MassDOT Finding, when they were allowed responsible community input.
(ii) Environmentally destructive because it would block 7 major intersections, create major inconvenience to drivers, and create pollution from vehicle exhaust, waiting for commuter train passage.
(iii) Environmentally destructive because it would devastate the last visible animal habitat on this portion of the Charles River.

Section 3A presented in REPORT 3, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/highway-rebuilding-i90-on-charles-river_13.html.

B. Far superior and far more responsible than Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction would be a new Green Line A Spur running from Commonwealth Avenue and the B.U. Bridge to the main work site in Allston to Harvard Square, which should be enthusiastically supported..
(1) General.
(2) Harvard Square.
(3) Summary.

Section 3B presented in REPORT 4, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/charles-river-responsible-rapid-transit.html


4. Two of the three “throat” options are destructive to the Charles River or to Cambridge.  Cambridge destruction not documented in any analysis.
A. Architects’ (ABC) Proposal ‒ Outrageous Destruction of Boston River Bank.

Section 4A presented in REPORT 5, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/charles-river-i90-proposal-extreme.html.

B. Both non MassDOT Proposals ‒ Massive Destruction in Cambridge, Destruction ignored in DEIR.

Section 4B presented in REPORT 6, with Section 6, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/charles-river-i90-proposal-mits-new.html.

5. Impact on Wildlife / Selected examples of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A. Direct Application.
B. A terrible record being made worse.


6. The Real Game ‒ M.I.T.’s Updated Inner Belt.

Section 6 presented in REPORT 6, with Section 4B, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/charles-river-i90-proposal-mits-new.html