1. Introduction.
A. Thanks to the Editors of Time Magazine.
B. Regrets to Phil Barber
2. The boat dock.
A. Phil’s Analysis.
B. Phil’s photos.
C. The Plans.
D. Your editor’s analysis.
A. The Riverfront at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
B. The situation at this part of the Construction Site.
C. Summary.
3. Our publication condemned from the podium of the Cambridge City Council by its Presiding Officer.
4. Crazy Rich Asians.
1. Introduction.
A. Thanks to the Editors of Time Magazine.
On the cover of Time Magazine’s December 24 / December 31, 2018 issue, the Editors of Time identified as their Person of the Year: “the GUARDIANS and the WAR ON TRUTH.”
In association with listing specific honorees on page 45, Daniel Felsenthal state:
* * * * *
They are representatives of a broader fight by countless others around the world . . . who risk all to tell the story of our time.
* * * *
As the next to last section of this report, we republish the fact sheet which caused us to be condemned from the podium of the Cambridge City Council by its presiding officer using words too reminiscent of words of the Liar in Chief of the United States of America.
Our fact sheet fits a long tradition of communications of truth. It has been distributed, so far, to the homes of thousands of voters of the City of Cambridge who keep being told that the Cambridge City Council is a bunch of environmental saints.
In addition to this fact sheet which is still being distributed, our press amounts to this Blog, which has been read in hundreds of countries around the world, our Facebook page which receives condensations of these reports, mostly to persons in the Southern New England area, but which also has international distribution , and to our email distribution of condensations to folks mostly in the City of Cambridge and otherwise concerned about the Charles River, plus to yet a smaller smattering of the broader population..
B. Regrets to Phil Barber.
The principal purpose of this report is Phil’s report on the status of boat dock improvements by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation with assistance, as in too many other things, by the Cambridge City Council.
This report has been delayed because, in addition to the fact sheet, I have spent a lot of time trying to put this action into context. I am giving up on that presentation. It is taking too much time. So my response is much smaller.
2. The boat dock.
A. Phil’s Analysis.
According to Phil, it looks like the work on the boat dock is done.
“The new gravel bed kayak launch goes right down into the water. It is very large gravel which might be hard on water birds' feet, can't say for sure.
“The access is clear down that weird bridge right to the water, plus those odd little triangular extensions, presumably some sort of design enhancements as they don't seem to have a practical use. I would assume the barriers were put there to keep people from backing their cars onto the bridge when launching boats and collapsing it. There are new barriers in place, or they may be the original ones. “
Phil also has seen a vehicle which apparently was driven on the bridge, with aesthetic damage.
B. Phil’s photos.
12/22
12/3
C. The Plans.
Here are the plans as found on the Internet by Phil.
I realize that the Presiding Officer of the Cambridge City Council is rather offended that we use government plans to understand government activities. He seems to consider that use is some form of lying. Definitely unfair, it would appear, from his point of view.
From the point of view of responsible people, we are dealing with governmental entities with
(1) Destructive records;
(2) A very strong tendency to brag when they have something to brag about
(3) A very strong tendency to keep maximum secrecy when they have something to be ashamed of. Secrecy is very clearly the name of the game on the Charles River RIGHT NOW.
The plans are on record. At minimum, they constitute the maximum destruction publicized by highly irresponsible entities. It would thus be highly stupid to ignore what these destructive entities have placed on record in favor of meaningless platitudes from the same entities / their controlled supporters WHILE MAINTAINING MAXIMUM SECRECY. We are not stupid.
(4) Your editor’s analysis.
A. The Riverfront at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
We have reported on the outrage of January 2016, with foreboding of the current outrages, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
They Hyatt Regency Hotel is about a block east of the ghetto which is the last not totally destroyed part of the habitat of the 38 year resident Charles River White Geese. EVERY tree on the banks of the Charles River at the hotel was destroyed in the January 2016 outrage.
Ernie Sarno (whom we have never met) did an excellent video in 2009 of the Charles River White Geese feeding on that riverbank in “White Geese of Cambridge” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.
And here is what the DCR and Cambridge did to that riverbank as part of the outrages of January 2016:
Needless to say, this construction cannot be distinguished from a solid wall if you are trying to walk from the water to the riverbank on webbed feet.
B. The situation at this part of the Construction Site.
Here are the Magazine Beach Playing Fields as presented in part of a photo by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation published earlier this year. It was concerning work under consideration on I-90 (the Mass. Pike), on the Boston / southern side of the Charles River, across from Magazine Beach:
The massive trees viewed in this photo include very major destruction planned in the plans which include the boat dock. The tiny brown opening next to the Charles River at the bottom right is the location of the boat dock.
Our analysis of June 6, 2017, to the Cambridge City Council, of these plans as given a blank check in Order 1 of the April 24, 2017 meeting may be read at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html.
Here is a photo of the same wall of introduced vegetation from the Boston side taken several years ago:
This thick wall of introduced vegetation was sold to the public as a “lawn to the river.” The lie was so major that one of the fake protective groups celebrated it with a “swim in” in the Charles River next to the banks which were replaced with this outrageous wall.
The honest name for the mile long (?) wall is Starvation Wall. It serves no significant purpose more than to starve the Charles River White Geese by keeping from their home / feeding grounds for most of the last 38 years.
Here is a photo from the day the barriers came up starving the Charles River White Geese from blocking their access to their home of most of the last 38 years.
Here are some photos taken from stills of a video at the dock site before that outrage.
A child in what is now the opening in the Starvation Wall.
A shot of the still existing, but modified bridge. It was then behind the opening (and the child). It is taken from the east. Phil has photos of it from the same direction now, above.
The DCR and Cambridge filled in this artificially created pond. The Charles River White Geese loved it, and went through it to get to their food of most of the last 38 years. Two reasons to destroy the pond and replace it with impenetrable vegetation. In addition to the unpenetretable wetlands vegetation, the DCR and Cambridge added a wall of large introduced vegetation on the north end of the barrier bridge. (Note: there was a reorganization / destruction of a predecessor organization. We will not quibble. One name or another, it is the same destructive “planners.”)
C. Summary.
As Phil says, we cannot be certain that the new infill blocks FURTHER the Charles River White Geese from their food of most of the last 38 years.
Deliberate starvation has been the tactic. Those stones are large enough to be of concern. Looking at the slope of the ramp, it looks to me as if it could be too steep for them.
The outrages of the 2000's rendered useless the vibrant boat dock of the 2000's by blocking the established boat dock from access.
That blocking bridge still exists in spite of the pretty affectations. It could be too weak to carry vehicles. It clearly is too narrow for such a use. It is clearly blocked by vertical barriers, called bollards in the plans.
3. Our publication condemned from the podium of the Cambridge City Council by its Presiding Officer.
We would be pleased to provide the PDF master, in black and white OR IN COLOR.
Email boblat@yahoo.com.
4. Crazy Rich Asians.
In real life, I am a Union movie actor.
At this time of the year, I am regularly swamped with viewing major motion pictures to evaluate them for my vote on the SAG Awards.
The opening sequence of “Crazy Rich Asians” is excellent and is exactly on point.
* * * SPOILER ALERT * * *
Twenty years ago, in the middle of a drenching rain storm, an elegant Asian woman and her three well dressed young children enter the lobby of a fine hotel. They and three staff members are the only people we see in the lobby.
She asks for the keys to the suite she has reserved. She is informed by the desk clerk that they have no reservation for her and no vacancies. This is confirmed by the manager. She asks to use their phone to arrange accommodations. Cut to a phone booth in the middle of the drenching rain, with the hotel in the background. She is on the phone. We next see her in the lobby with her children and the staff.
The hotel elevator door opens. Out comes a distinguished looking elderly gentleman, the owner of the hotel. He informs the staff to show the Asian lady to the suite she had reserved. He also informs the staff that, while on the phone with her, they had done some business.
“As of Tuesday, her family will own this hotel.”
Cut to the faces of the three staff members.
Not that long ago in Cambridge, there was a Court case in which three levels of the Court system roundly condemned the behavior of the then Cambridge City Manager over his outrageous firing, and destruction of the life of, a department head, Malvina Monteiro, a black Cape Verdean woman. The Court findings were that her life was destroyed because she was working for women’s rights in association with the terms of her employment.
This outrage, at minimum, cost Cambridge more than $10 million in Court,
The City Council named the police station for the roundly Court condemned City Manager.
The roundly Court condemned City Manager, in the ordinary course of business, honorably retired.
In related action, one and perhaps two members of the Cambridge City Council were then unelected by the Cambridge voters.
At least with regard to the first, it was highly clear that he lost his job over the Monteiro outrage.
Now there is a very major matter of 56 mostly excellent trees being destroyed at Magazine Beach on the Charles River, and there are a number of City Councilors loudly claiming to be concerned about trees . . .
And the electorate is highly concerned about trees.
Close up?
