1. Magazine Beach. ‒ Phil Reports
a. Website reborn.
b. Interesting article on invasives:
c. On the fake “protectors” who are destroying at Magazine Beach and being told they are saints.
d. Dock Project.
2. “Process” or fraud?
a. “Environmental” City Councilor brags.
b. Cambridge Common destruction.
c. Alewife Destruction.
d. Architect wants moneys for RECOGNIZED neighborhood associations.
e. Destructive Passenger Train Service.
f. Reduction of car access to Cambridge by the I90 rebuild.
g. How many years of fighting for destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River while lying about “neutrality.”
1. Magazine Beach ‒ Phil Reports
a. Website reborn.
Phil has been doing a heck of a job cleaning up the Charles River White Geese website.
He reports that the fruits of his labor so far may be seen at: http://focrwg.com
b. Interesting article on invasives:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/25/happy-talk-about-weeds/
c. On the fake “protectors” who are destroying at Magazine Beach and being told they are saints.
The "gardens" they planted aren't faring well. About half the plants seem to be surviving.
The Phrags are pushing up under the tarps that were just laid down, some actually ripping through. makes me think of weeds you see germinating through asphalt. Determined!
As anticipated much uprooting (including wildflowers, not just in the reed area) and new tarps.
The rabbits have found the newly planted flowers, about half are still left uneaten.
Yesterday [ed: several days ago now] at Magazine Beach, I saw they've put in grass seed where the little wading pool was and in several nearby small areas that were damaged by the recent construction vehicle passage. The old Magazine is lit up on the outside at night now, more work of some sort being done inside. I guess they're keeping the small parking area, with the new handicap access curb cut - an SUV was parked blocking it when i was there, no pained markings yet.
d. Dock Project.
That is really outrageous kicking in all that city money for the dock project.
2. “Process” or fraud?
a. “Environmental” City Councilor brags.
At the last gathering of the fake neighborhood association, they had a city councilor speaking who claims to be an environmentalist.
She loudly brags about process.
She refuses to discuss the 56 excellent trees whose destruction she supports on Magazine Beach, or the total lack of process involved in that city council vote.
There were a bunch of City Councilor leading a rally on the Cambridge City Hall steps before the meeting.
They bragged of their environmental sainthood. Then they went inside and voted for the destruction at Magazine Beach.
b. Cambridge Common destruction.
The Cambridge Development Department and self proclaimed environmentalists destroyed the excellent grove at the Harvard Square entrance to the Cambridge Common.
The CDD objected to the excellent grove blocking the view of a monument.
Now I see saplings planted.
My guess is that responsible people were highly offended by the destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council.
c. Alewife Destruction.
Last I heard, city councilors were still talking about the sanctity of the Silver Maple Forest at Alewife, the western end of Cambridge, and keeping as secret as possible (subject to nonsensical bragging) their destruction of 3.4 acres of it.
d. Architect wants moneys for RECOGNIZED neighborhood associations.
The architect who is an elected member of the Cambridge City Council put in a pitch during the budget process for funds for the RECOGNIZED “neighborhood associations.”
I have been close to a number of these fake protective groups.
One allegedly represents the “neighborhood” nearest Alewife.
Most recently, it has been very active at telling people to yell at developers obeying City Council created zoning at Alewife, but IN NO CASE, yell at the City Council responsible for the zoning, and most definitely not to look at Cambridge and the DCR’s destruction of 3.4 acres at Alewife.
I recall ten years of so again, how the same people who complaining that their funding was having problems, and them guessing that the Development Department was unhappy at some of their stands.
Last I heard, I was unable to tell the difference between the two.
They do have a “zoning expert” who brags that his “expertise” is based on going to the Development Department to find out what he thinks.
e. Destructive Passenger Train Service.
Passenger service on the Grand Junction railroad which runs through the last remaining habitat of free animals on this portion of the Charles River was killed a few years ago when people who would be impacted by the blocking of public streets by Commuter Rail in Cambridge.
MassDOT found that Commuter Rail would be of no value to anybody except for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology dominated Kendall Square in Cambridge.
The euphemism for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction this time is “West Station” as part of the rebuild of I90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) on the Boston side across from Magazine Beach. West Station would be a key part of Commuter Rail if passed.
MassDOT asked the Cambridge Development Department who to contact.
The CDD has been fighting for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction for years. TO NO SURPRISE, the CDD told MassDOT not to talk to the people who beat the project, and instead to contact the fake neighborhood association which rammed through destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges (MIT supported, reinforces that part of Memorial Drive as, for all practical purposes, their personal feifdom.)
The “neighborhood” the fake neighborhood association clams to present has no real impact related to the Commuter Rail, except for the majority (but driven away from the group) who are shocked by the environmental destruction.
f. Reduction of car access to Cambridge by the I90 rebuild.
Same thing. The “neighborhood” the fake neighborhood association claims to represent has minimal use of the route being destroying in the project because the route GOES AROUND most of the neighborhood and is on little value to the supposed people represented.
So, naturally, after the CDD representatives on the “advisory” committee supported the destruction, the CDD, also told MassDOT to talk to these controlled folks who do not even meaningfully claim to represent impacted people.
g. How many years of fighting for destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River while lying about “neutrality.”
Now the game is to fight for destruction and to lie by bragging about the little stuff and even lying about their destructive fight, but TOTALLY censoring reality. The local fake protective group put on this supposed City Council environmental to brag about “process.”
As near as I can gather, her idea of process is to listen to people controlled by the CDD, She would not respond when asked about the 56 excellent trees and related excellence which the City Councilor supports destroying.
