Charles River: Reality and the “improvements” to the Magazine Beach boat dock by the bad guys.
Cambridge, MA, USA is a very strange place, particularly if you are pro environment and understand what is going on.
The Cambridge City Council has rubber stamped the reprehensible Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation in the DCR’s fight to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees on Magazine Beach on the Charles River. Plus the Cambridge City council is fighting for other destruction. Plus this outrage is in addition to the hundreds mostly excellent trees recently destroyed east of Magazine Beach on the Charles. Plus there is a lot of nonsense coming out of the proponents, all of whom are self-described and falsely described environmental saints.
One of the most bizarre pieces of nonsense is the Cambridge City Council’s SECRET vote for supposed improvements on the boat dock at Magazine Beach.
I filed the following letter with the Cambridge City Manager on September 12, and with the City Clerk to be delivered to the City Council the following Monday.
It is very detailed and it reflect something unusual when dealing with the Cambridge City Council, the DCR and its friends, It reflects REALITY. One obvious typo has been corrected without noting, inserting a period and space.
* * * *
RE:
Reality behind Cambridge City Council’s Secret Vote on Magazine Beach boat launch renovations, City Manager Agenda Item 2, May 21, 2018.
1.
Two Boat Dock Plans.
A.
Fake Plan.
B.
The Boston Globe on the Charles River White Geese.
C.
Secret Plan.
D.
This City Council funded nonsense serves four primary goals.
E.
Long Term History.
2.
Additional Pattern of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A.
General.
B.
The Starvation Wall.
C.
The destruction of almost all ground vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting Area.
D.
The walling off of their food on the river bank opposite the Hyatt Regency.
E.
The walling off of their food under Memorial Drive.
3.
Our Goals, with abbreviated analysis.
4.
My Record, Abbreviated.
5.
The Record of the City Council’s Specified Absolute Dictator.
6.
Summary
Gentlemen / Ladies:
1.
Two Boat Dock Plans.
A.
Fake Plan.
Here is the only plan for the Magazine Beach boat dock “improvements,” which we are aware of being presented for public consideration. This is the “plan” presented. to the public, to the initial review committee, and to the Cambridge City Council.
Publicly presented plan
THIS PLAN WAS APPROVED AND FUNDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL EVEN AFTER HAVING IT WAS POINTED OUT BY ME THAT THE “PLAN” WAS OBVIOUS NONSENSE.
Subsection C of this section 1 presents reality, the incompetent, destructive and heartless animal abusing SECRET plan, which the City Council did not want to know about.
The City Council does not want to know what it is doing. The City Council has no business blaming the other guy. It was the decision of the Cambridge City Council to go forward based on nonsensical “plans.”
B.
The Boston Globe on the Charles River White Geese.
C.
Secret Plan.
Below is the SECRET plan for “boat dock improvements”, which Phil Barber found on the Internet.
The nicest thing that can be said about the SECRET plan is that it is incompetent.
The proposal supported and funded by the Cambridge City Council was first described as a new dock. Then the claims were changed to claim it to be a remodeling of the existing boat dock.
But it continues the prohibition of use of the boat dock accomplished in the late 2000's by blocking access.
What it does do is ramp up the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
Note the continued presence of bollards, including one directly blocking access to the remodeled bridge. Note also the pinch point which makes the grossly inadequate “bridge,” the only vehicular access, useless.
Always hidden in plans in this part of Cambridge, and kept as secret as possible is the ramping up of heartless animal abuse directed at the 37 year resident Charles River White Geese, especially the “improvements” which ramp up the starvation targeted at them.
In the secret, detailed, plan, I understand that the difference between the grey area at the dock and the blue water is three feet. Thus another wall to continue the heartless starvation of the Charles River White Geese.
The heartless and increasing abuse of the tourist attraction Charles River White Geese is business as usual on the part of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
So, of course, the real plans have been kept secret from the public.
Adding to the nonsense is the incompetence in the design of this project.
The boat dock of the 20th Century was rendered useless by the outrage of the 2000's in which Cambridge and the DCR made it impossible for boat users to use the boat dock for putting their boats in the Charles River.
From 2014, to the left [below] is are photos of the bridge / obstruction in use, preventing docking at the boat dock:
The small figure in the third photo is an adult woman dwarfed even then by the bizarre Starvation Wall. It is clear that the bridge is in reality an obstruction. The blocking / bridge is now called a “board walk.”
Key in the prohibition of use by boat users was the gross inadequacy of the created bridge to allow vehicles to carry boats to the boat dock.
PLUS THE BOLLARDS BLOCK ACCESS TO THE “BRIDGE” IN ANY CASE.
That inadequacy is continued in the current SECRET plans. The inadequacy of the bridge is one reason they have been kept secret.
This is in addition to the ramping up of the heartless animal abuse with the three foot wall at the water’s edge further blocking access by the Charles River White Geese to their food of most of the last 37 years.
Here is an April 2018 photo of the blocking bridge, showing the two different types of introduced wetlands.
Shot is from the west. Blocking Bridge separates the two areas. Note the distance above the introduced wetlands which continues in this shot.
The area NOT CHANGED in the project would be toward the middle. The area on the far side toward the left / parking lot has the construction being widened. The area to the right, toward the Charles has construction widening in the near portion of the introduced wetlands.
The new plan widens the bridge on the parking lot side and on the boat dock side.
But the new plan KEEPS THE BRIDGE WITH ITS EXTREME INADEQUACIES BETWEEN THE TWO WIDENED AREAS.
In the crop to the right [below], the two red arrows point out the continued pinch point.
This is in addition to the bollard blocking access, as marked in the crop below. The black marking lines are in the original. The red arrow points out the continued blocking bollard.
It is also impossible to see in these plans whether there exist meaningful and adequate supports under the blocking / bridge. The 2000's blocking / bridge was obviously too weak and too narrow, and thus incapable of handling vehicles It is silly to simply guess that the proposed bridge is now in any way meaningful. The black line to the right of the added arrow points out the bollards. The black line further right indicates that the existing concrete plaza is continued.
So the City Council, not wanting to know what it is doing, has approved yet another example of destructiveness, incompetence and heartless animal abuse.
D.
This City Council funded nonsense serves four primary goals.
(1)
Through the addition of a three foot wall at the water, it heartlessly increases the abuse of the Charles River White Geese by making it even more difficult for them to feed on their feeding area for most of the last 37 years,
(2)
It continues to prevent use of the 20th Century dock for boat launch.
(3)
It provides a basis for nonsensical propaganda, primarily fighting to distract responsible people from noticing the destruction of those 56 mostly excellent trees for which the Cambridge City Council cannot provide any meaningful explanation for destruction, and
(4)
IT MAKES WORK FOR CONTRACTORS.
The fake boat dock improvement does destroy part of the publicly hated starvation wall, combined with destroying part of the introduced bush barrier to access by the Charles River White Geese.
Destroying this portion of the starvation wall puts the lie to another claim of the DCR. The DCR and Cambridge installed this Starvation Wall outrage which blocks the view of the Charles River from the Magazine Beach playing fields to keep the Charles River White Geese from their feeding grounds of most of the last 37 years. It was promised to be a “lawn to the river” in the supposedly sacred Charles River Master Plan.
The Starvation wall is hated by responsible people because it blocks the view of the Charles by people on these Playing Fields next to the Charles.
Multiple tactics to maximize starvation of the 37 year resident Charles River White Geese were present in the original project.
The starvation tactics did not work AT FIRST. The biggest blockade to the food of most of the last 37 years was the bridge. They would not cross the bridge. BUT the bridge crossed an artificial pond. The Charles River White Geese loved the pond, and they went through the pond to get to, HORRORS, food.
Given the high priority of Heartless Abuse of the Charles River White Geese, this could not be allowed to continue.
So the pond had to go. It was replaced with introduced wetlands and a second barrier of massive bushes was introduced on the land side of the bridge.
The key obstacle to boat users WAS AND REMAINS the bridge. The SECRET changes apparently in this year’s City Council vote widen the bridge on one end and widen the bridge on the other end, but the pinch point continues to exist, the width of the bridge between the two widened areas.
It is silly to assume that the bridge is NOW getting support and the support will hold vehicles. Even so, the bridge is the same width where it counts. Vehicles will still not be able to get to the boat dock to put their boats into the Charles River.
The function serves it most important purpose, however, ramping up the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, and reenforces the reality of an incompetent and irresponsible DCR.
SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS DOING, IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ITEMS IT KNOWINGLY KEEPS SECRET FROM ITSELF.
The City Council strongly does not want to know the added barrier at the water’s edge, the added three foot high wall, and the continued blocking of boat use.
The bridge, in addition to its narrow width, is clearly not strong enough to allow passage of motor vehicles.
E.
Long Term History.
●
September 2004, The start of heartless abuse at the playing fields.
To the right [below] is the Charles River White Geese being fed over this new wall after this first barrier was introduced to keep them from their 37 year food.
This photo was taken at the western end of the playing fields, the tree in the background is almost certainly the excellent willow that nine members of the city council say that they now want to destroy because the lead destroyer is their “kind of activist.”
Notice also the TOTAL LACK OF STARVATION WALL.
So there is no confusion about the real position of members of the Cambridge City Council on trees, here is a recent photo of this excellent willow in the background. It is one of the 56 excellent trees which NINE MEMBERS of the Cambridge City Council are determined to destroy. But they do love to yell at the other guy.
To left of this magnificent and ruthlessly doomed willow is a more recent view of the end of the Starvation Wall. It is generally hated as much as this excellent and doomed Willow is cherished.
People have the odd impression that they can believe city councilors who brag of love for trees. The voters expect concern for trees even when government money is destroying them, and not just “concern” when the money is being spent by the other guy.
Voters also have the odd opinion that they should be able to see the Charles River from its banks. I would anticipate that voters who would settle for “process” would not consider adequate grounds being: “She is my kind of activist.”
●
July 23, 2006
Here are two photos taken by an MWRA [Ed.: Massachusetts Water Resources Agency, owner of the pollution control plant east of the boat dock.] representative during Friends of the White Geese’ fifth anniversary remembrance of the killing of Bumpy, the long time leader of the gaggle.
The situation associated with his killing is distressingly similar to the current “explanation” of nine members of the Cambridge City Council for why they want to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees.
A man ran around killing mother geese nesting on their eggs. He reached a nadir with the killing of Bumpy. Friends of the White Geese begged the City Council to stand up to this heartless animal abuse. We pointed out that animal abusers can graduate to humans. The Cambridge City Council was “neutral” with the equivalent of a wink and a nod.
A person who appears to have been the goose killer is now in jail for rape and murder where he had been killing geese. The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder and did not want to know where it occurred. Councilor Davis mentioned the location, looked around guiltily, swallowed her words and resumed not wanting to know where the rape and murder occurred.
The first photo is a view of the “bridge” which CONTINUES to be part of the plan, crossing the introduced and then destroyed pond. Both then and under the “improvements” the “bridge” prevents vehicular access to the boat dock of the 20th Century.
MWRA
In the above photo of me walking across the blocking / bridge, note the total absence of the bizarre blocking bushes at the parking lot end of the blocking / bridge. Note also the water on both sides.
The second photo is the Starvation Wall on July 23, 2006. Non existent then.
MWRA
This now is the publicly hated Starvation Wall, which nine current City Councilors appear to love.
●
Still from a video marked 2006.
This is taken from the east (MWRA) end of the introduced pond which was subsequently destroyed because it allowed the Charles River White Geese to get to their food, and because they loved it.
The middle part of this blocking bridge is retained in the latest fake dock improvement which does little except exacerbate heartless animal abuse targeted at the Charles River White Geese, and MAKE WORK FOR CONTRACTORS.
●
2012.
From 2012, here is a photo of the introduced wetlands west of the barrier / bridge. The wetlands replaced the introduced pond because the Charles River White Geese loved the pond and because they could access their food of most of the last 37 years.
Note the bushes on the parking lot side. These have been grown into another massive barrier for the Charles River White Geese, keeping them from feeding.
A small amount of bushes east of the bridge have been chopped down as part of the current “improvements” which continue the obstruction of use of the 20th Century boat dock.
The heartless and increasing abuse of the Charles River White Geese is part of a very clear demonstration of incompetence and malfeasance on the part of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
●
Bushes
From 2012, here is a good photo of the inner bushes before they got as thick as they currently are.
These particular bushes have apparently been destroyed as part of the current fake boat dock work.
To the right of the bushes in the photo can be seen the eastern segment of the introduced wetlands, replacing the introduced pond which the Charles River White Geese loved and traversed to get their food of most of the last 37 years.
2.
Additional Pattern of Heartless Animal Abuse.
A.
General.
Hear are the tourist attractions which the highly incompetent DCR is determined to starve and kill.
Additionally, they very clearly are excellent targets for intellectual study about how a gaggle of free geese could remain in habitat for 37 years in the middle of one of the most densely populated city in the country, before the infliction of deliberate starvation on them by unfit managers. Responsible researchers would be highly interested in the reprehensible behavior of the various managers and politicians in their attacks on this clearly valuable gaggle.
\Note all the dirt. The DCR has contempt for ground vegetation and has turned most of the formerly lush Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River White Geese are confined into the DCR’s beloved dirt.
The initial outrage was accomplished by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy.”
This fake conservancy is currently fighting to destroy half a mile of river front on the Boston side of the Charles River across from Magazine Beach.
Business as usual for fake protective groups active in Cambridge, but they sound so great and have such lovely names.
B.
The Starvation Wall.
100% introduced vegetation, all during the outrages of the 2000's.
Destroys the relationship of the Charles River to its banks. Changes the Playing Fields such that they might as well be 20 miles inland.
Construction was in direct violation of the supposedly sacred Charles River Master Plan which promised a lawn to the river.
Phil Barber
Principal purpose: Heartless abuse of the most valuable asset at Magazine Beach ‒ the Charles River White Geese ‒ the proven tourist attraction, child magnet and excellent potential subject of research for their 37 year residency in the middle of one of the most densely populated regions of the United States.
The presence of this outrage clearly demonstrates the lack of fitness of the DCR to manage the Charles River.
This wall is hated by the public, by DCR admission.
The strongest argument the DCR gives for its existence is that they “cannot” destroy it.
That is yet another proven lie, given the destruction of part of the Starvation Wall in the fake Boat Dock project.
C.
The destruction of almost all ground vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting Area.
All pictures are from 2018. Vegetation was initially destroyed by the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” for the DCR.
The crushed stone in core Charles River White Goose habitat was dumped by railroad workers with the very clear support of the DCR manager. The Conservation Commission objected to the destructiveness of the railroaders. The DCR told the railroaders to move back from the CCC jurisdiction.
The wasteland next to the BU Bridge was deliberately planned along with a lot of other crushed stone in that area.
As “mediation” for BU Bridge work which, as planned by the DCR, needlessly destroyed in the Destroyed Nesting Area, bushes were planted. The bushes were irresponsibly low and were not maintained. A lot died and were replaced with the DCR’s beloved dirt.
D.
The walling off of their food under Memorial Drive.
The last remaining food for the Charles River White Geese was under Memorial Drive. They accessed that food as very careful jaywalkers, looking both ways before crossing. Being geese, there were some stragglers. Commuters, with big smiles of admiration, happily waited for them to complete their journey. Again, all 2018 photos. And NOTE THAT THIS GRASS IS NOT DESTROYED, AND VERY CLOSE TO DEVASTATION.
This entrance was illegally created by Boston University for the DCR in November 1999. DCR signs bragging of the beautiful Charles River White Geese were removed.
The DCR very happy with calling this lone remnant of Urban Wild a “park” until they realized that the Charles River White Geese were actually getting some food. Starving the Charles River White Geese is more important to the DCR than lies of parkland.
E.
The walling off of their food on the river bank opposite the Hyatt Regency.
These stones were installed as part of the January 2016 outrage. They are just as effective as the three foot wall being built in the fake boat dock “improvement,” just as effective as the Starvation Wall, just as effective as blocking their food under Memorial Drive, and just as effective as he massive bushes inside the blocking “bridge.”
For a report on reality, please see “White Geese of Cambridge” by Ernie Sarno, posted at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.
Mr. Sarno’s excellent video documents a middle of the night feeding in this location by the Charles River White Geese before the construction of this Starvation Wall.
Reality is so inconvenient.
3.
Our Goals, with abbreviated analysis.
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.
The April 24, 2017 Cambridge City Council action is responded to in detail in our letter of June 6, 2017, with photos of every reservation tree with full tracing to the two OFFICIAL DCR plans for destruction. This is posted at:
http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html.
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.
The predecessor to the DCR was the Metropolitan District Commission. In about 2010, the state legislature destroyed the MDC, in very major part, because of its destructiveness. Its “Planners” moved to the DCR WITH THEIR PLANS. The terrible DCR planners then continued to work with Cambridge’s irresponsible planners to further their shared, and destructive goals.
Cambridge and the DCR have already destroyed hundreds of excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, creating work for contractors (1) to destroy trees which should not have been destroyed and (2) to “replace” those trees which should not have been destroyed with saplings. As part of this outrage, the DCR deferred a larger planting of saplings which should have been planted ten years earlier in vast empty spaces which should not have been left empty. Deferral of planting was targeted to plant all at once, giving a vastly false impression of “achievements.”
Our video on the destruction is posted at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o. The City Manager receiving major negative reviews in this video is the predecessor to the current incumbent.
Our video on an international expert’s evaluation of the most massive individual part of the “replacements” is posted at
https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA.
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.
The first indications of massive environmental destruction on the Charles River came with the presentation in 1997 with the presentation by friends of the Cambridge City Manager of a destruction plan for Magazine Beach drafted by the then Cambridge City Manager. The DCR plan for Magazine Beach was presented to the now Chair of Friends of the White Geese by the lead planner of the DCR in Summer 1999. She noted the minor differences in the DCR plan. (Note: to minimize confusion, MDC work is referred to by its current designation.)
The Charles River White Geese are generally loved, and tourists have regularly come from the suburbs to admire them at their main home for most of the last 37 years at the Magazine Beach playing fields.
They are an excellent subject for academic study given their 37 year residence in one of the most densely populated parts of the United States. The heartless cruelty in recent years of politicians and bureaucrats toward these beautiful and obviously valuable beings, in itself, would be an excellent subject of study for those interested in study of a long pattern of pervese and destructive governmental behavior.
The upgrading of animal abuse to human abuse is of particular interest, given the goose killings, rape and murder, and the heartless destruction of the life of a woman working for women’s equality during the same period by the presiding City Manager. He was condemned by judge, jury and appeals court panel. See Monteiro v. Cambridge. For the trial judge opinion, please see
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. For the Appeals Court panel’s opinion which they refused to call an opinion, please see
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html. A researcher could be interested in analyzing the naming the police station after this person.
At the start of this series of outrages, the habitat of the Charles River White Geese in the Charles River ran for about a mile on the northern side of the Charles River centered on the BU Bridge. The DCR acknowlidged their great popularity by posting highway signs bragging about them.
First destruction was accomplished in their Nesting Area west of the BU Bridge by Boston University in November 1999, thus the 11/1/99 date. Destruction started BEFORE a Cambridge Conservation Commission meeting to consider the proposal, and weeks before time limits specified by law.
Since then, the Charles River White Geese have been deliberately starved and blocked from their feeding grounds at the Magazine Beach playing fields by increasing obstacles. This is most visibly the 16 foot high wall of introduced bushes which the DCR admits is hated by the public because it prevents viewing the Charles River from the banks of the Charles River. This starvation wall was promised as a “lawn to the river.”
Use of poisons were added to the Charles River Playing Fields in the late 2000's.
A significant part of the feeding of the Charles River White Geese was on the banks of the Charles River across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, east of the Destroyed Nesting Area. The outrages of January 2016 resulted in the shoreline being modified by a wall of stones preventing access by the Charles River White Geese.
The Charles River White Geese crossed the on ramp from the BU Bridge Circle to Memorial Drive to get to luscious grass under Memorial Drive. They were careful jaywalkers That access has been destroyed by a blockade of the entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area, additionally proving as a lie any claim of the DCR or Cambridge that the Nesting Area is a public park, rather than the last undestroyed sole animal habitat on this part of the Charles River.
Almost ALL ground vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting Area and in the Wild Area to its west has been destroyed by the DCR and its agents.
So far in 2018, the Cambridge City Council has taken two SECRET votes concerning Magazine Beach. It develops that one of the SECRET votes adds another obstacle to the Charles River White Geese getting to their food of most of the last 37 years.
4.
My Record, Abbreviated.
I keep losing half of this, trying again.
Below on this page is a marked, relevant part of the zoning map including an insert from just north of Harvard Law School. Next page is the translation of my added markings on the map. The presentation is modified from prior attempted submittals to fit this medium.
Other victories are omitted.
Glaring in the omissions is my drafting of the Sheila Cook zoning petition of about 2000 / 2001. This zoning petition caused the return to the environment of the large parking lot formerly located between Alewife Station and Route 2 in Cambridge. This victory is the only citizen victory at Alewife that I am aware of.
[Ed. The original is a truly beautiful table, but it does not translate to this medium. I am doing the best I can.]
Robert J. La Trémouille
Selected Activist Experience, Central Cambridge
I
Maple Avenue Downzoning, C-1 to B
II
Marie Avenue Park. First neighborhood Open Space zoning.
III
Cambridge St, N Side C-2 districts btwn Hospitals changed to C-1. C2B buffer created around
Youville.
IV
Mellen Street Downzoning. The C-2A area and the C-1 which it surrounds were previously
zoned C-3.
V
Cambridge Common. Opposed the destruction of the excellent thick park in Harvard Square
corner .
VI
I90 study I proposed Green Line A spur from Comm. Avenue / BU Bridge to Harvard Medical
to Harvard Station.
Originated idea of connection of Harvard Medical Area to Soldiers Field Road east of BU
Bridge.
VII
JFK Park was laid out so that cut and cover construction of a subway tunnel.
VIII
Harvard Houses district. C-3 Ward changed to C-1.
IX
Area in Harvard Square deleted by Ward petitioners from Ward petition as result of flat out lie.
X
Ward Petition. C-2B and O-2 areas, previously C3 / O3, plus the Harvard Houses area, south side
of Mt. Auburn Street.
XI
Saved the historical building at 10 Mt. Auburn at the Rent Control Board.
Block changed from Business B to Res C-1 by Ward
XII
Personally saved Guffey Park at Arrow Street and Mass. Ave., in front of 2 Arrow Street..
XIII
Kerry Corner. Zoning created here, the balance of the C-1, and the SD14 district were probably
GREATLY influenced by my saving historical 10 Mt. Auburn.
XIV
Corporal Burns Playground. Helped save from Harvard expansion.
XV
La Trémouille Petition as warped by rogue steering committee. Business B became BB-1, BB-
2.
La Trémouille petition downzoned most of Green Street between Hancock and Sellers from Mass. Ave. zoning to neighborhood zoning. There were a number of related clean ups on the boundaries on Green Street.
XVI
Anderson Petition. O-3 to C-2B. Clean ups of Green Street as noted in XV.
XVII
Office to Office 1. Created less dense Office Districts than Office 3.
XVIII
Palmer Street. Objected to destruction of every tree on the street because the trees
“blocked the sunlight.”
5.
The Record of the City Council’s Specified Absolute Dictator.
My report to the Cambridge City Council on the record of the woman described in debate as their “kind of activist” is posted by the City Clerk at:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1958&Inline=True, pages 345 to 351.
The analysis reports both on the imminent outrage and on the accomplished outrage in January 2016. This includes corrupt practices such as the outrageous misbehavior associated with the “authorization” of the supposedly independent group headed by the City Council’s “kind of activist.”
For my video on the outrages accomplished in January 2016, while the City Council was yelling at circuses passing through Cambridge on the public roads, please see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o. Please note that the City Manager referred to in the video is the predecessor to the current City Manager. Before serving as City Manager, he was his predecessor’s number 1 assistant and personally managed the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields.
And here is a plaque in the propaganda show of the City Council’s “kind of activist” and her friends which was presented in City Hall Annex.
Are such presentations allowed if they are found offensive by City of Cambridge?
6.
Summary
And what does all of this have to say about the non stop claims of environmental sainthood coming out of the Cambridge City Council?
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair [Friends of the White Geese]
