Thursday, May 10, 2018

Charles River: The Con Game at Magazine Beach

Charles River:   The Con Game at Magazine Beach

The following letter was submitted to the City Manager on April 18, 2018, and received by the Cambridge City Council on April 23, 2018.

I have been decidedly tied up with other matters and not able to publish this, rather skillful analysis of the situation and the outrages at Magazine Beach.

Nevertheless, given the posts since this letter was submitted to City Manager and (for the City Council) City Clerk on April 18, 2018, public presentation at this time is timely.

The official publication of this letter is at:, pages 248 to 257.

The letter’s organization is a major part of its effectiveness, so I would suggest review of the official record.

[copy of WordPerfect master in the file, modified to work in the blog]

* * * *

April 18, 2018, Addressed to Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council

RE: Charles River:   Fake Protectors and “Professionals” Ramp up the Flim Flam.

1. Fake Protectors and “Professionals” Ramp up the Flim Flam.
2. What the Cambridge City Council should be doing.
3. Limited samples of outrages being hidden.
4. The latest flim flam - a “new” boat dock which is just another lie..
5. The latest fear - the start of reprehensible destruction.
6. What should the Cambridge City Council be doing?

1. Fake Protectors and “Professionals” Ramp up the Flim Flam.

The real, under lying purpose of flim flam from the Fake Protectors and worse is to get the rubes looking at everything except for what is important.  So we will discuss the important stuff first, and eventually get on to the flim flam.  DCR stands for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

2. What the Cambridge City Council should be doing.

This is the most important stuff for the Fake Protectors to keep secret from the rubes.  So we will do it first.

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 it claims 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.

3. Limited samples of outrages being hidden.

The Fake Protectors on behalf of the DCR and Cambridge

are rerouting poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach
into the Charles River. They are doing this by blocking
up the drainage system created to allow introduction of
those poisons onto Magazine Beach on the banks of the
Charles by keeping those poisons which should not even
be used on the banks of the Charles out of the Charles.
New poisoning scheduled to last for two years. City
Council silent when informed (with a wink and a nod). 

Standard flim flam technique: story keeps changing.

This magnificent grove of 10 trees in the hill area dominates
the western view from the playing fields. A tiny percentage of
the 10 trees are dead. The DCR and City Council play games
with numbers. Only safe interpretation: ALL are doomed.
Standard lie: DCR claims only 3 in the grove, not 10 trees. So
by destroying what normal human beings would call 10 trees
the DCR lie with secret definition claims “ONLY 3" being
destroyed. In reality, 2 or 3 of the 10 might be responsibly

The City Council, DCR and friends want to destroy this

magnificent willow at the southwest end of the playing
fields and the southeast end of the hill west of the
playing fields.

The bulk of the 56 mostly excellent trees being destroyed are in

the magnificent park on the hill in the middle of the Magazine
Beach Recreation Area. At the end of this report, are presented
reduced copies of the 19 pages in our 6/6/17 letter which analyze
the Magazine Beach hill. There are “poor confused” people who
just “cannot recognize” the existence of that 51 pager.  

The DCR admits that ALL of the SEVEN excellent

trees across from the MicroCenter parking lot are
healthy and excellent. They claim they are doing a
benefit by moving the parking lot on top of the trees.  

The Magazine Beach recreation area is at the upper

right. I90, the Mass. Turnpike, is at the upper left.
The real prize is to build a ramp from I90 to the
Grand Junction Railroad Bridge (lower of the 2
bridges) and then provide a personal I90 exit to the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (off photo, to
bottom right), with exit ramps to Memorial Drive
(showing on far right). Remaining goose habitat,
WITHOUT FOOD, is at bottom right.  

This DCR destruction plan is marked with blue dots to

indicate entrances to Recreation Area being rearranged to
speed up traffic. The not stated purpose is to improve speed
for traffic from the I90 off ramp. The two dots in the center
are at either end of the little guys parking lot being destroyed
as part of the destruction of the park. The dot to the left of
them is the current entrance to another parking lot which
would be moved on top of the 7 excellent trees to create a
new curb cut across from the right of the two upper curb cuts
of the MicroCenter shopping center parking lot.  

The Magazine Beach playing fields from I90 photo, a few

years ago. The doomed willow is the massive tree just to
the left of the playing fields on the river. The hill park is
the thick tree grouping toward the top and slightly left of
center. The Starvation Wall lines pretty much all of the
river front.  

The 16 foot high Starvation Wall from the Boston side. Main purpose: Keep Charles River White Geese

from feeding at their home for most of the last 37 years at Magazine Beach. Current flim flam cuts down a few
bushes on either side of the TINY opening before letting the bushes grow again. The Starvation Wall is hated
by the public. The public thinks it should be possible to see the Charles River from the banks of the Charles
River. So a few bushes are cut to lie to the public that DCR / Cambridge are behaving responsibly.  

The Charles River White Geese admire the Charles

River from their foodless ghetto.  

Opposite corner of Goose Meadow. Blocked to prevent

Charles River White Geese from feeding on grass under
Memorial Drive at opposite side of entrance ramp to left.  

Jan 2016: Stones placed at river edge across
from Hyatt Hotel prevent access by Charles
River White Geese to food. ALL TREES
across from Hyatt Destroyed, and the grass.  

Jan. 2016: Every tree across from Hyatt (sign on left)

Jan. 2016: Western end of destroyed,
magnificent Cherry Grove at Memorial Drive
split. Hyatt is probably building slightly left of
and above center to the left of the MIT high rise.  

Jan. 2016, Contractor destroying magnificent Cherry Grove.
To the left is his, and the DCR and Cambridge’s devastation of
the formerly magnificent Cherry Grove at the river.
During the Jan 2016 outrage. The Cambridge City Council was
INDIVIDUALLY given four or more times weekly email
updates of the destruction with photos. These emails followed
months of build-ups with photos, comparable to the current
City Council showed its position on the massive destruction
and heartless animal abuse by yelling at circuses passing by
Cambridge on city highways, claiming animal abuse.  

Our video on the outrage on January 2016, WITH DETAILS on individual tree destruction, BEFORE AND AFTER, is posted at The following photos and the preceding 5 photos present but a tiny portion of photos in the video.  The video includes more than 100 graphics with before and after pictures, and MARKINGS IDENTIFYING DESTRUCTION.  VAST EMPTY SPACES in the pictures presented on these pages WERE FORMERLY EXCELLENT TREES. Hundreds of mostly excellent trees were destroyed.  An after analysis by an international expert is posted at  Negative comments in the video against the City Manager refer to the preceding City Manager, the third member of the destructive three member City Manager regency which dated back to 1974.

4. The latest flim flam - a “new” boat dock which is just another lie.

The latest big lie about money was sneaked past well intentioned people in a “public process.”  That lie was that Cambridge, the DCR and friends were creating a “NEW DOCK” on the Charles River.  In responding, we must recognize that we are listening to yet more lies from people with long histories of lies, so we may not yet fully understand the scope of this latest fraud.

The most cynical part of the recent outrages was the use of well meaning people who were proud of defending the environment, but, in reality those average folks were lied to as to what they were doing so what they did was just part of yet another con game.

Here is the boat dock in 2006, with an excellent view of
the BU Bridge. The black border on this and other
photos indicates that they are stills from the same video.  

Here is the introduced pond behind the little girl in the 20th
Century boat dock. The Charles is to the left, then the boat
dock, then the bridge / blockade.  

From 2012, here was the view behind the boat dock of the 20th
Century. Yet another fraudulent “creation.” This is a better
view of the bridge claimed to connect the parking lot to the boat
dock, but it prevented use of the boat dock with the obstructions
at the parking lot, and with the fact that it was not wide enough
and apparently not strong enough to hold vehicles.  

Here is an adult woman overwhelmed by the
Starvation Wall in 2012 or thereabouts.
Note the difference in vegetation.
.years of growth created this monster.  

Photo courtesy of Phil Barber.  

Here, from a few days ago, is the work that volunteers did to clean up vegetation from around the “NEW DOCK.”

Usual flat out lie from the DCR, Cambridge Development Department and the Fake Protectors.  They conned well meaning people into work with the lie that they were doing something good for the environment.

Clearly, all these great sounds are lying that bringing back the boat dock of the 20th Century IS CREATING A NEW BOAT DOCK.  The scary thing, however is that the DCR ALWAYS includes terrible things attacking resident animals.  What terrible thing this time?  It will be accomplished with maximum secrecy until it is “too late.”

It is always so difficult to straighten out and respond to the ever present lies.  The LOWERING of the publicly hated Starvation Wall may TEMPORARILY recreate the view of the BU Bridge.  The walling off of the Charles River from resident animals is not impacted.

Here is the official depiction, apparently shown to everybody who voted for funds.

First of all, realizing that the “NEW” boat dock is just the usual flat out lie, this structure looks like it could be yet another major obstacle.

The area with LOWERED Starvation Wall does not seem to be this large.  And it is highly likely that the DCR will not remove the roots.  However, given all the lying, the DCR could possibly be removing the roots.

It the DCR does remove the roots, that will prove yet another lie as a flat out lie.  This particular lie is the constant proclamation that the DCR cannot do anything about the hated starvation wall.

If they do not remove the roots, the lie is that this place will be open as presented.  Given another six years (the time between the earlier photos from 2006 and 2012/13), the hated Starvation Wall will be back, even blocking the view of the Charles in this TINY portion of the massive Starvation Wall.  The Starvation Wall was constructed based on the promise that it would be a “LAWN TO THE RIVER.”  Just more lies.

The first change in this series of outrages created the bridge over the introduced pond, .  The Charles River White Geese loved the pond and went through it to get to their home and feeding grounds of most of the past 37 years.  So that “had to go.”  After all, the DCR, WITH CAMBRIDGE SUPPORT has a policy of killing off or driving away all resident animals from this part of the Charles River.

The introduced pond was replaced with an introduced wetland.

It would appear from the depiction on page 7 [ed: immediately previous photo] AND THE REALITY ON THE GROUND TO DATE that the Development Department / DCR / CITY COUNCIL are working to destroy the introduced wetland.  And get rid of the introduced bridge.

City Council is included because:  IF it is an outrage, and YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING, YOU DID IT.

So, unless there is something we are unaware of, the lies about a “NEW BOAT DOCK” are, as usual, lies.

[Ed:  The Cambridge City Manager, in his 2019 fiscal year budget, commented that the dock construction is a renovation.]

The Starvation Wall should be destroyed including the roots, from the MWRA property to the excellent Willow that the City Council and DCR want to destroy.  Anything less is unacceptable and typical Cambridge corrupt practices.

The DCR admits that the Starvation Wall is hated by a public which expects to see the Charles River from the banks of the Charles River.

The Starvation Wall has no meaningful purpose except to the keep the beloved Charles River White Geese from their home and food of most of the last 37 years

* * * * *

City of Cambridge staff and Fake Protectors bragging about the City
Manager Machine (three prior City Managers) policy of heartless animal
abuse in a recent propaganda show in City Hall Annex.
But the Cambridge City Council yelled at circuses on the public highway
for animal abuse during the January 2016 outrage.
It is nutty for anybody to think the Cambridge City Council is on the side
of victim animals when they shouted down reality with their YELLING
AT THE OTHER GUY during the Jan. 2016 outrage. Once again,
YELLING AT THE OTHER GUY while silent on the governmental
outrages is rather clear fraud.

* * * * *
The same Fake Protectors who fight for and achieve so much harm, are the people who have been abusive of the well intentioned people who got conned into this work.

The same Fake Protectors who led this project, are dumping the poisons into the Charles River.

The same Fake Protectors run a Company Union operation, along with more direct actions, by which they helped destroy hundreds of trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

The same Fake Protectors are fighting for the next massive destruction using Company Union tactics including flat out lying about what they are fighting for, and censorship, insofar as possible, of the terrible things they, and the Cambridge City Council, are now working for.

The same Fake Protectors, after the love fest on the stairs of Cambridge City Hall on April 24, 2017, bragged to, those around them that they were fighting for order 1 of April 24, 2017, and encouraged well intended people to support that outrage.

Naturally, these same Fake Protectors kept the very terrible reality of Order 1 secret from these latest rubes, and from the well intentioned rubes they suckered into supporting communications to the Cambridge City Council.

Company Union fraud, dirty tricks, censorship, and whatever other corrupt behavior works.  That is the game in this community.  This community demands a responsible government but honest communication of incumbent behavior can get incumbents unelected.  Failure of reelection was the fate of at least one and perhaps two city councilors who named the Cambridge Police Station after that City Manager condemned by three levels of court for destroying the life of a Black, Cape Verdean Female Department Head because she had the nerve to fight for Women’s Rights in front of a municipal government which loudly proclaims its support for women’s rights1.

5. The latest fear - the start of reprehensible destruction.

The Cambridge City Council, in order 1 of April 24, 2017, voted to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach, more than half them in the excellent park on the hill.  The description in the whereas’s took skillful word game fraud from the DCR and turned it into an absolute “TRUTH,” in reality, a massive lie, “dead or dying,” as demonstrated in detail in our June 6, 2017, 51 page letter with over a hundred graphics.

That analysis is posted by the Cambridge City Clerk at, pages 198 to 249.  Individual copies were provided to the City Manager by DVD and to each member of the City Council by DVD.

For the benefit of the confused, whether in reality or by sham,  here are copies of the 19 pages (of the 51 pages in total) which concern the park which is targeted for most of this massive and irresponsible destruction, and for which we have had particular concern in recent weeks.

We would be pleased to further provide DVD’s of the original letter for those City Councilors who wish.

[Ed.  It was possible to fill three pages with JPEG copies of the 19 pages, and it makes an excellent impression.  In this milieu, you would get 19 straight PDF's which would simply take up room.  The pages which were reproduced for the Cambridge City Council are included in the immediately preceding citation.]

The balance of the 51 page letter plus subsequent communications elaborated and clarified the outrage supported by Order 1 of April 24, 2017.  And Order 1 followed on City Councilors leading a rally for their own supposed environmental sainthood on the stairs of City Hall.  The silence since our June 6, 2017 letter, combined with non stop yelling at the other guy, reaffirms the outrage, especially when observed in conjunction with that self-proclamation of environmental sainthood.

6. What should the Cambridge City Council be doing?

See Section 2, above.


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


1. For the learned judicial opinions in Monteiro v. Cambridge, please see, Trial Judge’s opinion with extensive quotes from the testimony of Robert Healy; and, formal comments of the Appeals Court panel.  The Appeals Court panel showed its contempt for the situation in Cambridge by refusing to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion.  So the latter is a judicial opinion specifically called not a judicial opinion.