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
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
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.
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
