I. Editor’s Introduction.
II. Letter to Cambridge City Council / City Manager.
III. Additional Links.
I. Editor’s Introduction.
On May 21, 2018, the Cambridge City Council took a destructive vote whose reality was and continues to be supposedly secret from them and definitely secret from their voters.
The situation in the City of Cambridge is that when actions are kept secret there is PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS a good reason. If the reason is publicly stated, it is a responsible reason, or it is an irresponsible reason FOR WHICH A GOOD SOUNDING LIE HAS BEEN CONCOCTED. If the reason is kept secret, don’t be so stupid as to think it is a responsible action.
Additionally, in this situation, six of the nine City Councilors support destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and other outrages in the Magazine Beach recreation area. There is a tradition with regard to such SHARED outrages with the vile Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. The tradition is that funds get allocated to comport with the lies the City Councilors are putting out that members of the City Council are politically correct (possible caveat on three new members). Nominally responsible expenses on shared projects get allocated to the Cambridge City Council. The dirty stuff goes to the DCR. It is all one project and thus REALLY one fund, but Cambridge voters demand that the members of their City Council be politically correct in their behavior. So it really is all one package, but it gets constructed to allow the City Council to lie about themselves.
This is the basis for the vote of May 21, 2018. Politically correct supposedly, but with no meaningful details, and it allows exactly the same amount of money to be allocated by the DCR for tree destruction and other obvious outrages.
Almost certainly the money for the “dock” work is for heartless animal abuse. WHY ELSE WOULD IT BE SECRET? Especially since the vote is based SOLELY on a “dock” plan which most definitely does not look like a dock, but which looks like just another starvation barrier to continue starving the Charles River White Geese.
THE SUPPOSED DOCK IS IN THE ONLY OPEN PART OF THE STARVATION WALL which, in turn, is admitted by the DCR to be hated by the public. But it has value. It blocks off Magazine Beach from their food for most of the last 37 years on the Charles River. The Starvation Wall has been in place since the last outrages at Magazine Beach during the 2000's.
THIS TINY OPEN PART, THEORETICALLY, ALLOWS THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE THROUGH TO GET THEIR FOOD OF MOST OF THE LAST 36 YEARS. In reality, there is yet another wall inside the opening to ensure their starvation.
THE NATURE OF WORK ON THE CHARLES RIVER IS ROUTINELY KEPT SECRET. HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE IS ROUTINELY STUCK INTO EVEN APPARENTLY RESPONSIBLE PROJECTS. IT IS QUITE STUPID TO THINK A SECRET PROJECT AT THIS LOCATION HAS ANY SEMBLANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY.
Besides, at best, it is just another juggling of money to lie that the Cambridge City Council has nothing to do with the massive destruction at Magazine Beach PUBLICLY supported by at least six members. That vote came almost immediately after city councilors led a rally declaring the environmental sainthood of the Cambridge City Councilors who voted for that particular outrage..
The following is my response letter to this vote. The letter will be received by the Cambridge City Council on June 4. It was received by the Cambridge City Manager on May 31.
The letter was finished with very little time for detailed editing while making the deadline to get it to the City Council on Monday, June 4. As a result, there were a number of obvious typos. As many of the typos as I could catch are corrected in this publication.
II. Letter to Cambridge City Council / City Manager.
RE: Charles River: Reality of the vote on City Manager Agenda Item 2, May 21, 2018.
1. Analysis
2. Photos.
a. The CDD and fake protectors bragging of heartless animal abuse.
b. The most visible victims in their foodless, government destroyed, ghetto.
c. The official photograph / plan of whatever the City Council voted for.
d. Some of my photographs of May 31, 2018, of the rear of the recently renovated 80 year unused building, striking similar to the fake dock plans..
e. The Starvation Wall, sold under the lie “lawn to the river.”
f. Blocking of the poison drainage system by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors.”
g. Algae accumulation created by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors” blocking the poison drainage system.
h. Two street trees lovingly nursed by the MicroCenter’s owners ‒ after destruction by the DCR and by six incumbent Cambridge City Councilors.
i. Magnificent Grove overhanging the Magazine Beach Playing Fields ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
j. Magnificent Willow ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors. Western end of the public’s hated Starvation Wall also shows.
k. Excellent park at the top of the Magazine Beach hill, across from Magazine Street ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
l. Seven ADMITTEDLY excellent trees across from the MicroCenter parking lot ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
m. Our Mark up of DCR Destruction Plans to show rearrangement of driveways (and tree destruction) to speed up traffic coming from MIT’s private exit for I90 (Mass. Pike).
n. Temporary chopping of Starvation Wall around the 20th Century boat dock which was made useless in the 2000's outrages.
3. A partial record of my experience.
1. Analysis
There is a pattern in the behavior of Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and fake and very destructive “protectors” they designate as a claim to “process.”
I get the impression that one or more members of the Cambridge City Council are not interested in whether or not they are environmentally responsible. They just want to blame it on process. The reality is that one woman with a terrible environmental record is running around lying about what she is doing and keeping her terrible actions as secret as she can. She has a strong record of major destruction, and is implementing that record. That is irrelevant to the City Council.
What is relevant is that she is rubber stamping a Cambridge Development Department with a terrible record, and she has a record of a rubber stamp. WHILE KEEPING THE VERY TERRIBLE THINGS SHE HAS DONE AND IS FIGHTING FOR AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE.
To NO SURPRISE WHATSOEVER, THE CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT is very fond of and recommends this woman rubber stamping the Cambridge Development Department.
That is “process”.
The reality of whatever has been voted in in City Manager’s Agenda Item Number 2 of May 21, 2018 is that, in the location where the SECRET work is being performed, Cambridge, the Cambridge Development Department and the Department of Conservation and Recreation, have a well established record of heartless animal abuse.
The outrages at Magazine Beach rather clearly prevent access by the Charles River White Geese to their home and food at Magazine Beach of most of the period since 1981. That starvation wall was implement in direct violation of public promises of a “lawn to the river” and is public hated, according to admissions of the DCR.
The apparent location of the “boat dock” almost certainly is an exacerbation of the starvation campaign. A photo of the beloved (by the bureaucrats) and hated (by the public, according to the clear admissions of the reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation) starvation wall is attached.
I, as I constantly do, am trying to communicate to the Cambridge City Council what the Cambridge City Council is doing. I call the Cambridge City Council’s kind of “process” exactly the opposite of environmentalism. I consider it fraud on the voters.
Below is the complete photo which is the only substantive explanation for City Manager Agenda Item 2, May , 21, 2018, except for it being constatnly called a ‘NEW’ or a renovated Boat Dock, a claim which the City Manager has corrected by calling it a renovation. Use of renovation (or whatever) / NEW varies. A renovation would be to the boat dock rendered useless as part of the 2000's outrage which installed the hated Starvation Wall based on outright lies. A NEW boat dock as promised could be anywhere.
This project MAY BE in the only opening in the Starvation Wall.
This bizarre plan was apparently the TOTAL SUPPORT for $25,000 allotted by a bunch of people who did not have the slightest idea what they were doing, but it sounded nice. And the “process” buried the possible destructiveness of the proposal from being visible TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. The amount of other items concerned lovely “process” which, as usual, buried the important, potentially destructive stuff.
The City Manager has stated the supposed boat dock as being in the eastern part of the Magazine Beach playing fields, although the plan which is the TOTAL SUPPORT for the $25,000 certainly looks similar to construction behind the recently renovated building which has not been used for 80 years. Photos from May 30 attached.
This latest vote, on May 21, was an added $44,000 with, again, no meaningful public process, except that it was added for discussion the day the budget was voted on FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR with NO REAL PROCESS, and no real communication to anybody, it would appear, of what is happening.
I recall a City Councilor claiming to be pro environment who would not discuss the mostly excellent 56 trees plus at Magazine Beach which six members, including her, of the Cambridge City Council voted to destroy.
The vote she was keeping secret in that meeting came as Order 1 following a rally on City Hall front steps on April 24, 2017 in which councilors loudly called themselves environmental saints. But while she would not discuss the destruction, she then spent a lot of time bragging about process. I have repeatedly provided the City Council with multiple communications debunking the flat out lie of April 24, 2017, “dead or dying” describing the mostly excellent trees and other excellence those six city councilors voted to destroy. Order 1, NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PROCESS.
Debunking of this nonsense is on the public record at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, page 198 to 249. There have been multiple follow ups.
Recently, a bunch of well intended folks followed directions of fake protectors and TEMPORARILY chopped down part of the publicly hated starvation wall which makes the Magazine Beach playing fields, for all practical purposes, ten miles from the Charles River. The TEMPORARILY chopped down this part of the PUBLIC HATED starvation wall is located around the location of the boat dock of the 20th Century which was made useless by the outrages of the 2000's paid in part by the Cambridge City Council. The Starvation Wall was installed in direct violation of the very formal lie which promised a “lawn to the river.” Photo below.
As near as I can gather from surmise and public statements, this part of the Magazine Beach destruction project is slated to occur in the eastern part of the Magazine Beach playing fields. This project is of value to the Cambridge City Council because it follows on the environmentally destructive vote of the Cambridge City Council on April 24, 2017. That vote rapidly followed the self deification of many councilors on City Hall steps as environmental saints.
The April 24, 2017 vote was for major destruction at Magazine Beach based on the flat out lie, “dead or dying.” I proved that flat out lie a flat out lie in great detail in my 51 page letter which I wrote on June 6, 2017 which was delivered to City Council and City Manager, City URL above.
Part of the outrage voted on April 24, 2017, has already occurred, and it is consistent with the very terrible record of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and of the Cambridge Development Department.
Two street trees have already been destroyed which were lovingly cared for by the shopping center owner at MicroCenter. The loving care handed to those excellent, DESTROYED, trees is another party debunking the “dead or dying” lie in order 1 of April 24, 2016. Photo below. NOTE THE MULCH AROUND THE STUBS of the destroyed, lovingly care for, trees.
The only meaningful description of the dock project that I am aware of is one plan which does not look like a dock. I posted that key photo, the City Council’s TOTAL FORMAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOAT DOCK PROJECT, among other places, on the Facebook page for the Charles River White Geese.
George E. Despotes responded on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page. He made a very intelligent question. He asked what this photo was all about. My response did not make it into the record, but I have recently returned to the Facebook page, and double clicked the photo to get a better view.
The photo which has been presented as what the City Council is now paying $69,000 for, WITH NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PROCESS, is strikingly different from a boat dock. This photo is strikingly similar to the wall behind the recently renovated building which has not been used for 80 years.
This recently renovated 80 year unused building is the item which fake protectors for years told people was the only thing they should look at on the Charles River. This pitch was major in the fake protector’ fight for and victory in the destruction of hundreds of mostly excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.
Part of the fake protectors’ fight for destruction featured the fake protectors lying that they were meaningfully defending the Charles River. The technical term is “Company Union.”
This recently renovated 80 year unused building is southwest of the magnificent grove which overhangs the Playing fields from the Magazine Beach hill, that six or more City Councilors want to destroy.
There are ten trees in this doomed grove of which less than a third cannot be saved. The DCR plays a lot of word games. Their word games were converted into “dead or dying.” The word games in this case state that the DCR and SIX OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL are “only” destroying three trees, not the ten which normal humans would count.
This recently renovated 80 year unused building is directly west of the magnificent willow which six city councilors voted to destroy on April 24, 2017, photo attached.
This recently renovated 80 year unused building is at the southern end of the magnificent park in the middle of the Magazine Beach recreation area which six or more City Councilors want to destroy. Attached is a photo of this excellent and doomed park from the Memorial Drive side. Much more detail is provided in my June 6, 2018 letter which shows AND EVALUATES every tree in the Magazine Beach recreation area. The URL for this analysis is provided above. Greater detail is provided in follow ups.
The photo which is the total basis for the $69,000 now voted by the Cambridge City Council is strikingly similar to the rear of this recently renovated location with its 80 year unused building, a location which is west of the western end of the playing fields and which most definitely is not a boat dock.
Attached are my photos of the same NON BOAT DOCK area.
The City Council has $69,000 on a pig in a poke.
No meaningful description of the project has ever been provided. The DCR and Cambridge do have a history of HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE on the Charles River, and pretty much every recent project on the Cambridge side of the Charles has included HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE.
The City Council has based this money on a photo which does not even portray the supposed boat dock. But Cambridge and its fake protectors commonly brag about that which the voters would love, and keep as secret as possible that which would earn the Cambridge City Council derision by the voters.
This pattern of outrage is highly consistent with one of the reasons why the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission, routine irresponsible destruction of public property. The irresponsible planners, with their plans, went to the DCR, and, with Cambridge’s irresponsible Development Department and the CDD’s rubber stamps are implemented these terrible plans.
2. Photographs.
a. The CDD and fake protectors bragging of heartless animal abuse.
b. The most visible victims in their foodless, government destroyed, ghetto.
c. The official photograph / plan of whatever the City Council voted for.
d. Some of my photographs of May 31, 2018, of the rear of the recently renovated 80 year unused building, strikingly similar to the fake dock plans..
e. The Starvation Wall, sold under the lie “lawn to the river.”
f. Blocking of the poison drainage system by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors.”
g. Algae accumulation created by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors” blocking the poison drainage system.
h. Two street trees lovingly nursed by the MicroCenter’s owners ‒ after destruction by the DCR and by six incumbent Cambridge City Councilors.
i. Magnificent Grove overhanging the Magazine Beach Playing Fields ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
j.Magnificent Willow ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors. Western end of the public’s hated Starvation Wall also shows.
k. Excellent park at the top of the Magazine Beach hill, across from Magazine Street ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
Exact analysis in our June 6, 2017 letter, URL above.
l. Seven ADMITTEDLY excellent trees across from the MicroCenter parking lot ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
m. Our Mark up of DCR Destruction Plans to show rearrangement of driveways (and tree destruction) to speed up traffic coming from MIT’s private exit for I90 (Mass. Pike).
n. Temporary chopping of Starvation Wall around the 20th Century boat dock which was made useless in the 2000's outrages.
3. A partial record of my experience.
IN SHARP CONTRAST TO THE CDD’Ss proclamation of rubber stamps to be inserted as “process” which is anything but, a PARTIAL record of my experience, with map may be found in the City Clerk’s records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1928&Inline=True, pages 99 to 103.
IN SHARP CONTRAST to the rubber stamps proclaimed as defenders, ALL my record is on the side I claim to be on.
III. Additional Links.
a, Official City of Cambridge of this communication as submitted to the City Council:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1933&Inline=True, Pages 103 to 114.
b. The newly upgraded website of Friends of the White Geese.
http://focrwg.com.
a, Official City of Cambridge of this communication as submitted to the City Council:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1933&Inline=True, Pages 103 to 114.
b. The newly upgraded website of Friends of the White Geese.
http://focrwg.com.
