Sunday, August 18, 2019

Charles River: Govt. Poisons, Algae Blight related to poisons, persist.

Charles River:   Govt. Poisons, Algae Blight related to poisons, persist.


1. Damnable “protective” entities persist in destruction.  Stage 1.
2. Damnable “protective” entities persist in destruction.  Stage 2.
3. The legislature tries to protect the Charles River from the vile MDC.
4. Damnable “protective” entities persist in destruction.  Stage 3.
5. Technical details to follow, one photo.


1. Damnable “protective” entities persist in destruction.  Stage 1.

Over the past month or so, there has been considerable “concern” expressed over the dead situation on the Charles River, a massive presence of algae.

The algae blight stems back to the first year the “right kind of people” conducted a “Charles River Swim.”

The “right kind of people” persist in constant nonsensical proclamations along with assisting very major destruction.

The biggest problem on the Charles River are destructive state and Cambridge governmental agencies patting each other on the back and sharing in making things worse.

These entities see nothing wrong with dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River.

The algae blight stems back to their beloved poisons.  Before these destructive people started poisoning Magazine Beach, the Metropolitan District Commission / Department of Conservation and Reservation got frustrated with the failure of its beloved poisons at Ebersol Fields on the Boston side of the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital.

The MDC / DCR addressed their problem.  They dumped more poisons on Ebersol Fields.  These poisons were marked “Do not use near water.”

THE NEXT DAY, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge.  The Mass. Ave. Bridge is the second bridge outbound from Ebersol Fields and the bridge before the BU Bridge.  The BU Bridge is next to the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, and just before the REPEATEDLY attacked Magazine Beach.

As predicted at the time of the first algae infestation, the Algae infestation recurred annually, a day at a time.

2. Damnable “protective” entities persist in destruction.  Stage 2.

In the 2000's, the MDC / DCR along with the City of Cambridge, “improved” Magazine Beach.  Key parts of the “improvements” directly violated their beloved “Charles River Master Plan.”  The violations were heartless abuses of the Charles River White Geese, designed to starve them and to poison them.

For the first time, poisons beloved to the MDC / DCR and the City of Cambridge were dumped on the banks of the Charles River at Magazine Beach.

These destructive people had a solution.  They spent money putting in drainage pits (swails) to drain off poisons they should not be using on the banks of the Charles River.  These drainage facilities, in addition to providing money for contractors, drained off poisons which should not even be used on the banks of the Charles River.

3. The legislature tries to protect the Charles River from the vile MDC.

The legislature destroyed the MDC and split its responsibilities on the Charles River with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Department of Transportation.

The “planners” the legislature were trying to protect the Charles River from moved to the DCR with their vile plans.

They, together with the City of Cambridge, have done terrible things on the Charles River.

The Department of Transportation has been the adult in the room.  It has stood up to the vile DCR and Cambridge on key attempted outrages.

4. Damnable “protective” entities persist in destruction.  Stage 3.

There are a lot more outrages than the one which is the subject of this post.  To avoid writing a book, this post is primarily concerned with the ongoing poisoning of the Charles River.

The DCR, Cambridge and friends blocked the drainage pits.  The key person is constantly praised by the Cambridge City Council.  She has been called their “kind of activist” from the floor of the City Council.  She has a very bad record of telling people not to look at outrages.  She, in fact, has a pattern of praising outrages WHILE KEEPING THE DESTRUCTIVENESS SECRET.

With regard to the poisoning of the Charles, she has managed the blocking of the poison drainage using “volunteers” apparently supplied by the DCR.  Decent people assuming that vile entities who are praised for the opposite of their record, are responsible people.

And they assume that the praisers are also worthy of respect.  After all, do they not run around bragging about their sainthood.

So the poisons which were being drained off by the EXPENSIVELY CREATED drainage pits have been blocked from the drainage pits.

There is only one place for the poisons to go, the Charles River.

And the Charles River is now dead for something like a month, poisoning living beings who drink from it.

5. Technical details to follow, one photo.

Here is a photo of the blocking of the poison drainage WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.  PHOTOS CAN BE PROVIDED of Cambridge assistance, and I believe I have seen the assistance documented by the City Manager to the City Council.

This photo was taken on December 7, 2017.  The time this added outrage took to destroy the Charles River seems proportional.

Nature stands up to outrages as much as it can, even from people falsely calling themselves environmental saints.  Nature does not listen to nonsensical propaganda, but nature can only withstand so much destruction.



Saturday, August 10, 2019

Cambridge MA, USA, City Council increases support of pending Charles tree destruction from 59 to more than 159.

Cambridge MA, USA, City Council increases support of pending Charles tree destruction from 59 to more than 159.

1. The Latest Cambridge City Council Action.
2. The legislature’s Intention on the Charles River Should be Fulfilled.
3. The Latest Outrage.
4. Part of the Record of Cambridge City Council Outrages.
5. The Plans.
6. Some of the Victims.
7. Subway Maneuverings.  Another bizarre project which has lost, but which is part of the latest outrage, anyway..
8. MassDOT is standing up to the Cambridge “Planners” and Friends.
9. Green Line A.


1. The Latest Cambridge City Council Action.

Members of the Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council constantly present themselves as environmental saints.

All nine City Councilors, by passing Order 24 on July 30, 2019, have increased currently pending tree destruction supported by them on the Charles River from 59 to more than 159.  But there are members who still call themselves environmental saints.

This ongoing destruction  is, of course, in addition to the outrage of January 2016, in which more than 150 mostly excellent trees were destroyed between the BU and Longfellow Bridges by Cambridge and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.  The DCR has bragged that this destruction was for bike highway construction.  That DCR statement has been called a lie from the City Council chair by the City Council’s presiding officer.  The presiding officer has insisted that NO TREES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED for gilded highway construction on the Charles River and, at minimum, gave the impression that none will be.

This blog report is based on a letter I have delivered for presentation to the Cambridge City Council at its next meeting.  It follows on and provides more detail on my verbal objections at the July 30, 2019 Cambridge City Council meeting.

The only other comment on order 24 at the July 30 meeting responded to my objections against tree destruction..  That comment said all that needs to be said in response to the nonsense from the City Council’s presiding officer that bike highways do not destroy trees.  It was from a destructive bike activist.

Order 24 concerned the next phase in Charles River destruction.  It is called Phase III of Memorial Drive work by the DCR.  The key resolved paragraph  in Order 24 reads as follows:

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in support of:
• Increasing the amount of dedicated space along the entire project area that is allocated
to sustainable modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling, and micromobility
devices, so it is more in balance with other modes
• Protecting and preserving all healthy, mature trees along Memorial Drive
• Planting as many new trees as possible; and be it further

The key part of this nonsense is “preserving . . . healthy, mature trees.”

This language supports destruction of the thick woods between the Grand Junction railroad and the BU Boathouse.  This language defines this thick woods as lacking “mature” trees.  Therefore nine City Councilors supported the destruction of this excellent woods minus one tree, in accordance with the DCR January 2016 outrage plans, as copied below, AND THE PUBLICLY PRESENTED PLANS OF THE DCR THIS YEAR.

That destruction would be done as part of the continuing environmental destruction on the Charles River to create gold plated highways of one sort or another, and the resolve supports all such nonsense no matter how destructive with VERY LIMITED SUPPOSED EXCEPTIONS.

2. The legislature’s Intention on the Charles River Should be Fulfilled.

The construction supported by NINE CITY COUNCILORS exactly fits one reason for the legislature’s destruction of the DCR’s predecessor, the Metropolitan District Commission.  The latest outrage is clearly supported by the language of the resolve.

The responsible alternative to this outrage is to implement the vote of the legislature when it tried to protect the Charles River from the destructive “planners” of the Metropolitan District Commission.  When the legislature destroyed the MDC, the legislature split the responsibility for the Charles River between the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

The MDC “planners” hated by so many state legislators wound up in the DCR with their vile plans, and the Cambridge City Council is a very destructive bedfellow.   MassDOT has been the adult in a room standing up to the destructive Cambridge City Council and the DCR.

A responsible Cambridge City Council would implement the legislature’s sound intentions when it destroyed the MDC.  A responsible Cambridge City Council would tell the legislature to finish the job it started when it wiped out the MDC.  The Cambridge City Council should be telling the legislature to getting rid of the DCR on the Charles River and give its powers there to MassDOT.

3. The Latest Outrage.

Here is a photo from several years ago of the excellent woods whose destruction nine city councilors support.  The woods is excellent, but it is NOT GOLD PLATED.



It is thick.  There are so many trees that there is no room for “mature trees.”  The Cambridge City Council has taken the position that this situation makes it commendable to destroy every one of them.  DCR plans, as presented below, would destroy all those trees but one.

The white figures in front of the doomed woods of the Wild Area are the 38 year resident and tourist loved Charles River White Geese.  They, in addition to this SECRET motion, are being directly  attacked by two SECRET Cambridge City Council motions with funding for outrages targeted at them along the Magazine Beach playing fields shoreline.  The older funding has achieved that vile goal.  The more recent funding has started destroying trees there.

All three votes have been worded to keep the vileness of the actions secret from the voters.

An accelerating series of outrages have reduced the habitat of the Charles River White Geese on the Charles River from a mile long stretch centered on the Boston University Bridge to pretty much just their Destroyed Nesting Area.

Looking carefully, Memorial Drive can be seen in this picture above the railroad tracks and between the woods.  The trees on the left are in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.  The thick woods to the right is the wild area whose destruction (minus one tree) the Cambridge City Council has just supported.  The building in this picture is the Boston University Boathouse.

This excellent tree in the Goose Meadow, is called for destruction by the plans for the January 2016 outrage, which are now to be implemented WITH THE BLESSING OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL.  Until destroyed by the DCR and the Cambridge City Council, it dominates the view from the BU Bridge.



Naturally the destruction of this excellent tree will simply be “not noticed,” by members of the Cambridge City Council.  They also will “not notice”the destruction of this last habitat of free animals on the Charles River. Habitat destruction throughout would be accomplished by trucks carrying away the soil and trees of the Wild Area.  Habitat will be destroyed by the Cambridge City Council’s beloved gold plated pathways.  These plans are reproduced below.

EXACTLY ZERO PROTECTIONS are supported by nine City Councillors against further destruction of this last wild habitat on the Charles River.

Those gold plated highways which will go through this area will further destroy a wild area which was pristine before the Cambridge City Council, DCR / MDC and their friends started all the destruction.

4. Part of the Record of Cambridge City Council Outrages.

The situation is not that much different from the Cambridge City Council’s destruction of 3.4 acres in the Alewife reservation in the far west of Cambridge.  The Silver Maple Forest in Alewife subjected to the destruction has been called “irreplaceable” by the Cambridge City Council.

Their yelling was directed AT PRIVATE DEVELOPERS in the Silver Maple Forest who had the nerve to OBEY MUNICIPALLY CONTROLLED ZONING.

Another highly visible AND COMPARABLE outrage was the destruction BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL of the thick woods on the Cambridge Common nearest Harvard Square.

The pattern is clear and does not stop.

And nine City Councilors will be oh, so shocked or, more likely, simply “not notice” while proclaiming their environmental sainthood.  The voters listen to the lies.  The contractors listen to the gold plated contracts.

5. The Plans.

Here are two stills from our video on the outrage of January 2016 based on those DCR / Cambridge plans.

Nine city councilors have just supported destruction here. 

I presume the presiding officer continues to proclaim looking at the documentation to be “lies.”

The first still is of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

The areas now being destroyed by the DCR and by the Cambridge City Council are the last portion of the 38 year long habitat of the Charles River White Geese which has not yet been destroyed, although very real damage has been inflicted even on this formerly lush area.


The video from which these stills were taken may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Here are the January 2016 outrage’s plans for destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area and the Wild Area.


Note that tree 535 in the DCR plans is the only tree in the Wild Area whose destruction is not proposed.  The tree whose photo is presented with the photo of the Wild area and shown above is pointed out in this slide.

Then again, the outrage which the Cambridge City Council, the DCR and their friends are creating at Magazine Beach has been presented to them from the records of the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  These were filed along with photos of the excellence which they are destroying.  This presentation was publicly called “lies” by their presiding officer.  Those OFFICIALLY FILED CITY COUNCIL PRESIDING OFFICER PROCLAIMED “LIES” are posted at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html.

These plans call for destruction of 54 trees.  That number has been increased to more than 159 and who knows how much larger the destruction will get.

But then, plans and a record of massive destruction, and contradiction of lovely language by the representative of the lobby fighting for destruction is not only “irrelevant,” but the word “lie” has been used to describe comments based on published plans.

Here are the relevant slides presented by the DCR as part of a public presentation of its latest plans concerning the project praised and supported by the Cambridge City Council.  These plans are taken from the state website.

No environmental destruction is mentioned even though the “public meeting” is supposed to allow meaningful input.


The area corresponding to the above plans is to the right.

The Wild Area is at the extreme right.  The wider portion between there and the BU Bridge (projecting at the bottom) is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

But then, as near as I can gather, the City Council’s presiding officer considers it a lie to base analyses on the public positions of destroyers.

How dare anybody hold government “planners” to their public positions!!!!!



Once again, even thought the destruction is kept secret, the DCR will lie that they have publicized their destruction, and claim these pablum filled presentations justify massive environmental destruction.

6. Some of the Victims.

And here are the tourist and resident beloved 38 year resident Charles River White Geese.

As is the norm in this fraudulent world, environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse are kept secret.


Heartless animal abuse is allowed as convenient by self proclaimed environmental saints of the Cambridge City Council.  The most visible victims, but most definitely not the only victims, are the Charles River White Geese.

A lying picture, according to the Presiding Officer of the Cambridge City Council.  I personally think the lie is coming from the Presiding Officer in his fight for these terrible things combined with denials of reality.

Hungry turkeys wandering through a residential neighborhood near Central Square in one of the most densely developed cities in the United States.


7. Subway Maneuverings.  Another bizarre project which has lost, but which is part of the latest outrage, anyway..

A key driving force behind the Wild Area destruction is the Cambridge “planner” supported BU Bridge Crossing route in the Urban Ring subway planning.  The “planners,” by doing the destruction now, are freeing themselves from justifying the destruction in a formal environmental review.  Destruction now frees them from justifying it as part of a certain to lose scheme they hope to get later.

The Cambridge “planners” and their friends have publicly claimed that their BU Bridge Crossing route is the only Urban Ring subway crossing under consideration.

This Cambridge “planner” position is proven total  nonsense by the responsible Kenmore Crossing route alternative in the Urban Ring.

The Kenmore Crossing route is not only under consideration, it looks like the probable winner of the two options.

The near certain coming victory of the Kenmore Crossing route over the Cambridge “planner” supported BU Bridge Crossing route was made pretty much certain by the reconstruction of the Yawkey Station (photo below) on the Commuter Rail in place.  The Cambridge “planners” are apparently still fighting for the BU Bridge Crossing’s demand to move Yawkey Station about half a mile to the north to  a block from Boston University’s Marsh Chapel.

This is Yawkey Station after being rebuilt by the legislature.


Part of this certainly dead Cambridge “planner” pushed proposal requires the destruction of the Wild Area.

The City Manager / “planners” support for the BU Bridge Crossing route outrage was reaffirmed in the Rossi letter to the state concerning the expansion of South Station.  That letter, of course, only mentioned the Urban Ring. The letter was not so silly as to specify the nonsensical position of Cambridge “planners” in their support for the silly AND DESTRUCTIVE BU Bridge Crossing alternative.

The silence of the City Manager letter on this nonsensical alternative says exactly how credible the position is.

I have been working on the Urban Ring since 1985.  The Kenmore Crossing route has been supported by the transit people as an alternative since 1991.  I proposed it in 1986.

Yawkey Station, under the Kenmore Crossing route will, along with the Urban Ring subway and three Green Line routes, create a major transportation hub at Kenmore Square.  The Kenmore Crossing route would directly connect to downtown Boston without changing seats because it constitutes an Orange Line spur coming out of Ruggles Station coming to / from the Orange Line.

The BU Bridge Crossing route is a patchwork mess.  The BU Bridge Crossing route features Green Line technology directly connecting to nothing at its ends.

In the early 2000's. I participated in a presentation at the Red Sox’ Fenway Park of the major project which is now going in across the street from Fenway Park.  It would feature major connections to Yawkey Station.

At that presentation, I individually spoke with the lead developer.  I gave him his first knowledge that Cambridge wants to move Yawkey Station.  And that Cambridge could care less about the harm to his project.

Not long after our discussion (as these things go), the legislature funded the rebuilding of Yawkey Station in place, an expenditure which would be trashed if Cambridge succeeded in moving Yawkey Station by a BU Bridge Crossing route.

But Cambridge and the Cambridge City Council are still involved in their destructive pipe dreams with the same old heartless abuse of beautiful valuable animals who are obvious tourist attractions..

8. MassDOT is standing up to the Cambridge “Planners” and Friends.

I will not go into, yet again, the machinations being secretly attempted by Cambridge “planners” and friends as part of the I90 rebuild across the Charles River from Magazine Beach.

So far MassDOT, with my support, has stood up to yet more destructive dirty tricks.

One of the two key improvements in the I90 rebuild planning, however, was my idea.

9. Green Line A.

This concept is provided yet again, on general principles, based on fifty years of experience.  It would provide transportation needed for the new area created in Allston (a relocated Harvard Medical School among other things), and would provide transportation badly needed by the North Allston residential neighborhood.

Most importantly to Cambridge, it would free up significant space on Red Line trains between Park Street and Harvard by giving Back Bay traffic an alternate route between Back Bay and Harvard Station, through the I90 rebuild area.  It would also give Harvard Square business better transportation for their customers.

The other change than mine of the two major changes already made in I90 rebuild planning makes this very major possible improvement even more viable.


Saturday, July 27, 2019

Update from the Magazine Beach playing fields.

Update from the Magazine Beach playing fields.


1. Phil’s Report.
2. Response to “Defending against Invasives.”
3. Photos from the file:



1. Phil’s Report.

Phil reports on the destruction on the playing fields from a few days ago:

I went over there today, now that it’s finally cooler. They’re working on the patio around the Magazine, don’t see any further tampering with the greenery.

The reeds are lush and full, seven feet high now, and the playing fields are dry, with the reeds at work sucking up the moisture. I notice what I think is yet another unintended consequence of last year’s reed destruction. By turning the denuded swale into a bog they created the perfect environment for Purple Loosestrife, which prefers marshy soils. This is considered a major “invasive” (though in fact it’s a handsome tall wildflower with spikes of purple flowers) and I’ve been on the lookout for it for years. Until now there were just a few of them here and there but now there are dense stands where the waterlogged areas were. I image the seeds from the few plants took root well and have spread.

The rabbits are also back in the swale now that it is dry again.

* * * *

Here is Phil’s most recent photo:



2. Response to “Defending against Invasives.”

The con artists’ biggest lie in support of their destruction is that they are destroying “invasives”.

Here is Phil’s summary of relevant reports:

* * * * *

The Troubles of “Invasive” Plants: Collateral Damage, Monsanto, and the Tragedy of Pinyon-Juniper eradication it's at
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/04/108319/

And another

Environmental activists claim “misguided war” on invasive plants is big business for Monsanto, glyphosate
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/19/environmental-activists-claim-misguided-war-invasive-plants-big-business-monsanto-glyphosate/

One more

Ending The Toxic, Costly and Unnecessary War On Invasive Plants: Who Does The War Serve?
https://gathervictoria.com/2015/09/28/ending-the-toxic-costly-and-unnecessary-war-on-invasive-plants-who-does-the-war-serve/

This is also interesting in a horrifying way:

Monsanto Roundup Is Used on Wildlands, but No One Knows How Much http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/07/08/monsantos-roundup-being-sprayed-willdlands-too/
Monsanto's herbicide incorporates a known carcinogen that is banned in the EU and elsewhere

California jury hits Bayer with $2 billion award in Roundup cancer trial
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/california-jury-hits-bayer-with-2-billion-award-in-roundup-cancer-trial-idUSKCN1SJ29F

3. Photos from the file:

Here is the situation when the Cambridge City Council’s “kind of activist” inflicted the destruction that is now regrown.



And here is algae growth from blocking the drainage. [Phil Barber]



Thursday, July 25, 2019

Comments on Memorial Drive, “Phase III.” Give us responsible behavior. Replace the DCR with MassDOT.

Comments on Memorial Drive, “Phase III.”  Give us responsible behavior.  Replace the DCR with MassDOT.

In the middle of destruction on Magazine Beach, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation is holding “hearings” on how they should destroy further on Memorial Drive.

A few restrictions.

No mention of the ongoing outrage on Magazine Beach and no mention of the destruction they will inflict as part of this plan.  They want the public’s “input” and that will be called hearings on the destruction.  The basis for the “input” is saccharine coated descriptions of the outrage to date.

And, oh yeah, they keep secret the area where the greatest destruction will be inflicted.

“Comments” on the public hearing are due July 25, 2019.  No attachments / graphics are allowed.

Here is the comment I filed on July 24, 2019.  Together with relevant graphics which can only be included by reference in the “comments”

* * * *

This change package reenforces the need to replace the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the Charles River with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

Grounds can be most concisely communicated as:

1. Destructiveness and.

2. Dishonesty.

The dishonesty of the DCR is excellently demonstrated by its most basic description of the project.

Quoting from the on line description:

* * * *

Memorial Drive Greenway Improvements, Phase III

DCR is undertaking the redesign of the Memorial Drive Greenway between the B.U Bridge and the Eliot Bridge.

* * * *

Elsewhere, it describes the outrage of Phase II as stopping at the BU Boathouse.

Thus the general description of the destruction being organized omits the animal habitat between the BU Boathouse and the BU Bridge.

Pages 43 to 49 of the slides presented at the June 25, 2019, meeting prove that statement yet another lie.

The slides and related analysis bring the project to the BU Boathouse.

The destruction plans from the January 2016 outrage are thus included:

Our video on the January 2016 outrage posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o, debunks the bizarre description of the January 2016 outrage included in the DCR slides.  Massive outrageous and totally unnecessary destruction is fluffed over.

[Key description from the DCR   Note the first sentence of the fine print.]


The slides from the June 25, 2016 [presentation], at pages / slides 43 to 49 belie the lie that the latest project ends at the BU Bridge. 

The slides clearly show work proceeding past the Destroyed Nesting area at the BU Bridge, past the Grand Junction and past the thick woods, the Wild Area, between the Grand Junction [and the BU Boat House]..

Our video on the December 2016 outrage, at 3:53 minutes into the video present the destruction plans for this area with analysis.  The DCR AND CAMBRIDGE want to destroy hundreds of trees in the Wild Area.  The plans show EXACTLY one tree NOT DESTROYED, number 535.


[and the slides]




[and here is a photo of the area to the far right in these SECRET graphics, followed by a shot from the area showing in the slides.]



[Of the 38 year resident Charles River Fine Print, they have been destroying in fine print since the 2000's, the most visible of the free animals forced into this last remaining wild area in this part of the world.]





                           

[photo from the BU Bridge.  The Grand Junction is visible on its bridge  BU Bridge is barely visible in lower left corner.]














[and of the magnificent tree which dominates the view from the BU Bridge, and which is on the plans to destroy (see above)]                     

                          

[Here is a view of the on ramp which shows in the plans.  The entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area is immediately to the right.  The doomed and excellent tree is a little bit up the ramp.  Straight ahead in the picture is the Memorial Drive overpass.   Remember, however, that the DCR commonly destroys things kept secret and THEY ARE KEEPING ALL DESTRUCTION SECRET.]


[and a view of the Grand Junction from the on ramp / secret work area.  The Destroyed Nesting Area is to the right.  The Wild Area is to the left.  Straight ahead is the bridge and the Charles River.]









[Also remember, graphics are not allowed in comments.]

More destruction is admitted in the last remnants of the 38 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese which, of necessity will be used to truck all that destruction from the Wild Area, with significant harm to the animal habitat which remains in the Wild Area and to the Animal Habitat in the Destroyed Nesting Area, the final remnants of the Charles River White Geese’ habitat, along with untold less visible animals who have been crowded into this last vestige of wild life, along with whatever else gets in the way.

So the answer, the explanation, is to lie that the project starts at the BU Bridge.

For other examples of the outrages from the DCR and the City of Cambridge, please see our analysis of the DCR’s destruction plans for Magazine Beach, presented to the Cambridge City Council on June 6, 2017, posted at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html

The 54 mostly excellent trees doomed in these plans were increased to 56, then 58 and now, apparently 59.  Our analysis of the latest part of this outrage is posted at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/recent-photos-from-secret-destruction.html

I could keep on going, and going, and I have in multiple communications to the City of Cambridge / Cambridge City Council.  Poisons are being rerouted into the Charles River by blocking drainage which was designed to keep the poisons out of the Charles when those poisons were introduced into the playing fields as part of the 2000's outrages.  Further obstacles are being built at the Magazine Beach playing fields to keep the Charles River White Geese from their food there of most of the last 38 years, plus, of course, the poisons.

And the nonstop lies of environmental sainthood.

There is so much very terrible behavior which is normal from the DCR and the City of Cambridge that it is silly here to attempt to go into it all. 

One bright spot in this outrage has been MassDOT.  The legislature tried to protect the Charles River from the Metropolitan District Commission’s destructiveness by splitting the Charles River between the DCR and MassDOT.  MassDOT has done its job.  MassDOT has been the adult in the room standing up to a lot of outrages from DCR and Cambridge.  The MDC’s “planners” went to the DCR with their irresponsible plans and have been basing outrages on those plans.

MassDOT should replace the DCR on the Charles River.  The nonsense from the DCR and the City of Cambridge on the Charles River should be ended, not expanded through vague Pablum which includes the false assumption that the DCR is a responsible entity.

The DCR’s “explanation” is nonsensical claims which give the false impression of professionalism

Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair, Friends of the White Geese
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA   02139


Attachments are not allowed.  This comment will be posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/, along with full supporting documentation.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Recent photos from SECRET destruction on Magazine Beach, courtesy Cambridge (MA, USA) City Council and friends..

Recent photos from SECRET destruction on Magazine Beach, courtesy Cambridge City Council and friends.

1. Prelude.  An environmentally destructive Cambridge City Council proves more lies at Magazine Beach.
2. Introduction.
3. Phil’s reports.
4. Addendum.


1. Prelude.  An environmentally destructive Cambridge City Council proves more lies at Magazine Beach.

This report has been posted by evolution.  Hopefully, this is the final stage of the evolution.

The Cambridge City Council has gone forward with its second SECRET destruction vote on the Charles River, directly and through praised destruction by its companion in environmental outrage, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recretation.

In the process, it seems to have increased the ongoing count of the outrageous tree destruction at Magazine Beach on the Charles River from 58 to 59.

Here is the most recent destruction by the Cambridge City Council, the DCR, and the fake protectors who hold down voters with their own corrupt tactics.  Details as presented by Phil Barber are in Section 3.

Here are the two trees of which we recently showed the stubs.  These have been marked by coloring by Phil Barber from an older photo.  These are UNDISCLOSED trees 57 and 58 in the plans which started with the DCR filing of plans with the Cambridge Conservation Commission to destroy 54 at Magazine Beach.  Those destruction plans were presented to the Cambridge City Council by our letter of June 6, 2017.  That report is posted at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html.

Our continuing disclosure of these EXPANDING plans has been called “lies” by the presiding officer of the Cambridge City Council, another lie.  At the same time, the Cambridge City Council has lied about its own sainthood by yelling at constituents for tree destruction.  Most of constituents being yelled are far less irresponsible than the Cambridge City Council and its friends.

The before picture of those two trees, photo marked up by and taken by Phil Barber:




The second SECRET Cambridge City Council vote to directly fund destruction on the Charles has destroyed one ornamental next to the 80 year unused bathhouse at Magazine Beach.

Here is a photo of it from the photos which I took in preparing the 6/6/17 letter.  This doomed tree was, SURPRISE, included in the Cambridge Conservation Commission filing.

,

And here is tree 59 of the 54 announced by the DCR to the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  This is a magnificent Mulberry photograph from Phil Barber’s files.  The DCR filing is confusing.  I do not think this now destroyed mulberry is in the filing.  This destroyed tree is the one at the right in the photo, with many trunks.  The apparent failure to include this tree in the DCR filling with the Conservation Commission is failure to inform of destruction of a tree within the CCC responsibility and thus yet would appear to be another violation.

I remember the walkaround in which the DCR showed off its outrageous plans to the CCC.  I do not remember this tree being pointed out.  It is highly visible on the rise above the Charles River between the doomed and magnificent willow and the 80 year abandoned bathhouse.  So the apparent failure to include would not be just the usual carelessness.  My memory could be confused by a major disagreement on whether the TEN trees in the nearby threatened excellent grove were TEN or THREE as claimed by the DCR.

Have I missed an amendment to the filing?  Possibly.  I try to be on the mailing list for CCC meetings.  I may have not received an announcement of consideration, or it could have been the usual vague description.


Plus our YouTube report is another part of the reality which the presiding officer of the Cambridge City Council from his podium has called “Lies.”  There are many before and after pictures in that report demonstrating who is the liar.

This is our report on the internet on the hundreds of mostly excellent trees destroyed by Cambridge and the DCR in January 2016 on the Charles River between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.  This report includes its own prequil to the current ongoing outrage by the loudly and falsely claiming tree “protectors” of the Cambridge City Council.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

2. Introduction.

Phil Barber has followed up on the following destruction by the Cambridge City Council and friends on Magazine Beach on the Charles River.

a. destruction by the Cambridge City Council in its second SECRET funding vote on the Charles river, and on

b. destruction blessed by the Cambridge City Council by not wanting to know what the project it is praising is doing, including in the area allocated for destruction by Department of Conservation and Recreation funds.

First of all, here is the formerly SECRET plans by the DCR and the fake “protectors” saying which area will be paid for by the other of the scoundrels.

The SECRET funding allocation was presented in one map by the City Council’s “kind of activist.”  To, hopefully, minimize confusion, I have divided it into three parts, two of which are being destroyed by the two Cambridge City Council SECRET votes this year.

The first third which I am showing (of the three parts) is the middle of the Magazine Beach destruction zone.  Area 1 seems to be the SECRET implementation of two votes this year.  Area 4 is DCR funding.  Thus, WHILE CONSTANTLY PRAISING DCR plans, the City Council claims to have no responsibility for the destruction it is praising.

I do not believe that area 3 has lifted the veil of SECRECY yet.  Since it includes the destruction of all but one of the trees in the little guys’ park, presumably this is destruction being praised by the Cambridge City Council while claiming to have no responsibility for the destruction it is praising.


Here is the eastern third of the Magazine Beach Destruction area.



The first SECRET vote paying for destruction on the Charles River at Magazine Beach funded heartless animal abuse as the destroyed boat dock at the far right marked "0".

This boat dock was originally destroyed during the 2000's to starve the Charles River White Geese by blocking access to their food of most of the last 38 years while retaining the boat dock.  Blocking access through the Boat Dock blocked the only access left by the construction of the outrageous Starvation Wall blocking the rest of the shore from the Magazine Beach playing fields, their home and food for most of the last 38 years.

This outrage was based on public promises by a governmental sanctified “Charles River Master Plan” and a “swim in” by one of the usual fake groups claiming that the construction would improve swimming.  The “improvement” blocked access and view of the Charles River from its banks along with the heartless starvation.  The Starvation Wall has been admitted by the DCR to be hated by users of Magazine Beach.

This latest machination of the project was repeatedly described as a new boat dock.  The City Council vote was based on an artist rendering which was obvious nonsense.

It is not a new boat dock.  What that project is doing is tossing money at the blockade from feeding which is targeted at the 37 year resident Charles River White Geese while making access worse.

The second SECRET vote would destroy part of the Starvation Wall while apparently putting in a new physical blockade at ground level to continue starvation just as effectively.

The SECRET changes that I recently identified with regard to the public plans brought destruction up to 58 trees (photos below).  I will have to compare this latest destruction.

This report has been delayed a few days as it is.  I am getting it out and will see the level to which this latest destruction is SECRET from previously announced (and hidden as much as possible) plans or not.  Phil's words are as stated.

I have edited Phil's July 8 and July 10 emails in together/  The edit includes one omission from his emails because it was away from the current City Council SECRET destruction, and I am doing way too much explaining as it is.

This publication of this report includes additional thinking going beyond the original presentation.

3. Phil’s reports.

Here's some pix from 7/7/19. The first one is the roots of the torn up ornamental we've corresponded about.


* * * * *

[Ed: A file photo of the ornamental from the photos I took for the 6/6/17 communication to the Cambridge City Council.  This destruction is in the second SECRET destruction paid for by the Cambridge City Council.  This destruction was in the area used for celebration of destruction several months ago.  More than half the participants / destruction funders denied that trees are being destroyed.

]

* * * * *

Second is the stump of the largest tree they took down at the river's edge, a large multi-trunked old mulberry. I suspect is was not "esthetic enough" to fit the "new & improved" park


* * * * *

[Ed: This is also part of the Cambridge’s City Council’s second SECRET funded destruction.  I asked Phil for more detail.  This was his response in his second email]

What a lot of weasels

I did find a photo of the destroyed mulberry. It's the big spreading one to the right



[Ed: I do not think this tree is in the 54 trees which the DCR informed the Cambridge Conservation Commission it intends to destroy.  This is the package which was the basis of my June 6, 2017 letter to the Cambridge City Council.  If not in this package, this destruction brings the Magazine Beach destruction up to 59, in addition to the hundreds destroyed between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.]

* * * * *

Equipment near the Magazine

                          


Tree and brush removal near the Magazine

                           

Just a general view of the reeds growing tall and very lush, unmolested so far. Did I send you the link to an article that suggests that Monsanto was behind recent campaigns to remove so-called invasives, to sell more of their carcinogenic herbicide?

* * * * *

[Phil provided me the following links with regard to the ongoing poisoning of the banks of the Charles River by the DCR and Cambridge:

OK, here's the info

The Troubles of “Invasive” Plants: Collateral Damage, Monsanto, and the Tragedy of Pinyon-Juniper eradication it's at
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/04/108319/

And another

Environmental activists claim “misguided war” on invasive plants is big business for Monsanto, glyphosate 
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/08/19/environmental-activists-claim-misguided-war-invasive-plants-big-business-monsanto-glyphosate/

One more

Ending The Toxic, Costly and Unnecessary War On Invasive Plants: Who Does The War Serve?
https://gathervictoria.com/2015/09/28/ending-the-toxic-costly-and-unnecessary-war-on-invasive-plants-who-does-the-war-serve/

This is also interesting in a horrifying way:

Monsanto Roundup Is Used on Wildlands, but No One Knows How Much http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/07/08/monsantos-roundup-being-sprayed-willdlands-too/
Monsanto's herbicide incorporates a known carcinogen that is banned in the EU and elsewhere

California jury hits Bayer with $2 billion award in Roundup cancer trial
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/california-jury-hits-bayer-with-2-billion-award-in-roundup-cancer-trial-idUSKCN1SJ29F

* * * * *
 
             

[Ed:   This type of vegetation was destroyed by the Cambridge City Council’s “kind of activist” with associated relocation of poisons to the Charles River.  The vegetation was and is part of a drainage system installed in the late 2000's destruction to drain off poisons first introduced on Magazine Beach as part of THAT outrage.

[Hopefully, the folly of her destruction will result in the drainage pit being reestablished.  IF CAMBRIDGE HAD A RESPONSIBLE CITY GOVERNMENT, the poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach would be ended and a responsible ecosystem restored.

[Instead we get these additional destructive SECRET projects and a city council lying it is saving trees by yelling at private owners almost all of whom are destroying much less than the trees Cambridge and the state are destroying and have destroyed on the Charles River.]

I believe these are the first two large trees I told you were cut down, when I sent photos of the mulch circles and wood chips. The leaning tree to the left is still standing so I am confident these highlighted in red are the ones.


[Ed:  Here is Phil's after photo, previously published.  The Magazine / Bath House he mentions above is in the right rear.  The two photos are taken from opposing sides of the destruction.  The buildings in the rear of the above photo are a Cambridge public school on the far side of Memorial Drive.


[This was the subject of a recent report.  This destruction is in the state funding area and, apparently SECRET from the destruction filing with the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  This increases destruction to 58 with the Cambridge City Council doing non stop self congratulations on “saving” trees while being part of the outrage on the Charles River.]

4. Addendum.

Phil’s report ONLY includes activity to date.

Plans filed with Cambridge Conservation Commission show destruction of the magnificent Willow at southwest corner of playing field, southeast corner of central park.  This is now apparently designated to the Cambridge City Council, unless the DCR and friends decide to defer that and do it by the DCR.



Please see our 6/6/17 letter for much more destruction.

That is at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html.  It is the baseline and will CONSISTENTLY BE IGNORED BY THE Cambridge City Council as they lie (to use the word of their chair) lie that they are environmental saints.

They do not want to know what they are doing on the Charles River, and other inconvenient locations, except when they ram through destruction as fast and as secretly as possible.

But then again, potential destruction has gone from 54 to 56 to 58 to 59.  Plus the hundreds previously destroyed between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

Sunday, June 30, 2019

Charles River: MassDOT stands up to the bad guys again. Cambridge Commuter Rail deservedly hurt.

Charles River: MassDOT stands up to the bad guys again.  Cambridge Commuter Rail deservedly hurt.

1. General.
2. The latest meeting.  MassDOT’s project.
3. The latest published plan possibly modified.
4. The reality of the bizarre passenger proposal.
A, Passenger Service on the Grand Junction Railroad.
B. A private and highly hated exit from I90 for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
C. Summary.
5. West Station under the latest MassDOT proposal.
6. A responsible alternative.  A rapid transit connection between BU Bridge / Commonwealth Avenue and Harvard Square.


1. General.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has a problem.

They have an Interstate highway (I90) on the Boston side of the Charles River from Magazine Beach which they think needs to be rebuilt.  At the same time, a change in toll taking technology has rendered the existing exit outmoded.  The changes have created the major possibility of straightening out and thus speeding up the Interstate plus getting rid of a large amount of asphalt.

That work should not be unusually difficult.  However, Harvard University has purchased the underlying land and Harvard University wants a private stop added to the passenger railroad line running through the area.

The situation is further complicated by the usual games from activists in Cambridge.  They want major changes in a railroad track going through the eastern part of Cambridge.  They want to add passenger service in a manner which would mess up traffic on five already overloaded Cambridge local streets.

They thus want to use technology which has been outmoded for more the better part of a Century.  Their “improvement” would create passenger train service running across those city streets and creating the sort of mess which railroaders have avoided and have been undoing for the last Century.

These scornful statements about railroading coming from me are coming from a person with two years railroading experience at a low labor management level including six months actual on the ground experience.

Neither of these goals really has much to do with the needed rebuilding of the Interstate.  But, in the background is a plan for a private off ramp from the Interstate to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  The private off ramp is strikingly close to being a destructive highway route which was defeated forty years ago by Cambridge activists.  This private exit is an update of what was then called the “Inner Belt.”.

The lovely plans would devastate the last remaining animal habitat in this part of the Charles River, including the one remaining undestroyed part of the formerly mile long habitat of the 38 year resident Charles River White Geese.

2. The latest meeting.  MassDOT’s project.

On June 20, 2019, I attended the Advisory Group meeting on the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s rebuilding of I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) on the Boston side of the Charles River.

Here is an official photo of I90 showing Magazine Beach on the Cambridge Side, to the right.  This is one area in which the Cambridge City Council and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation are in the process of massively destroying trees and animal habitat while the Cambridge City Council spouts non stop lies of environment sainthood.


Pretty much all of the highway running from the bottom up to the left is being torn down and rebuilt.  The highway next to it, Soldiers Field Road, is a state limited access boulevard which is being rebuilt as part of the I90 work.

To more efficiently use the area, I90 is being rebuilt at ground level with Soldiers Field Road and various train tracks above it.


3. The latest published plan possibly modified.

The latest thinking of MassDOT presented at the June 20, 2019 meeting was not passed out in hard copy and does not seem to be available on line yet.

Here is the version passed out in April cropped to the area most directly impacting the Charles River.

The area shown in the above photograph is the straight area running diagonally from the lower right between the bends in the highway.


4. The reality of the bizarre passenger proposal.

A, Passenger Service on the Grand Junction Railroad.

The passenger service which the bad guys are trying to sneak in after strongly losing in public discussions would follow the route of the Grand Junction railroad.  Here is a MassDOT map of the Grand Junction marked up by me to show the major streets which would be devastated by the Commuter Rail suddenly crossing those highways at grade..


Such addition of grade crossings on major city streets is more than a Century out of date.  A lot of money has been spent replacing grade crossing with overpasses and underpasses.

The connections to the I90 construction area are in the bottom left of this plan and the bottom right of the project plan.

B. A private and highly hated exit from I90 for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Here is that area of the April 19 map of the project plan, blown up.


The Grand Junction Railroad connection to the I90 area is shown in the lower left of the Grand Junction map.   That connection is shown on the bottom right of the I90 plan.

One biggest part the bad guys are trying to sneak in is a rebuild of this railroad as it crosses the Charles River.  THIS WORK IS NEVER PUBLICLY MENTIONED.  THE WORK IS A POLITICAL PARIAH IN CAMBRIDGE.  People are proud of beating the Inner Belt 40 years ago along pretty much the same route.

Rebuilding that bridge is key to building the updated “Inner Belt.”

The updated Inner Belt / personal exit to MIT was first proposed by the area transit agency (the Massachusetts  Bay Transit Authority) in 2003 as part of a study with a nonsensical explanation.

The study proved that an updated Inner Belt could be built OVER THIS BRIDGE if the bridge were rebuilt.  It would connect to the bridge from I90 through ramps going eastbound (right) from the east bound ramps of I90, bottom right, looping up and connecting to the rebuilt bridge.  Connection would be made for traffic to I90 west in a fairly straight forward manner.  Given the space available, access to and from the West is the only possibility.

C. Summary.

At the June 20, 2019 meeting, the bad guys reenforced their fight for rebuilding of this bridge to the MassDOT presenter.  MassDOT has repeatedly fought to keep the I90 project restricted to work in Boston, the south / Boston side of the Charles River.  The Charles River is the dark gray area showing in these maps. 

The rebuttal of the speaker to a bad guy this time was the strongest, clearest communication of the situation I have seen.  What the bad guys try to sneak through as minor was described as a highly expensive project which would require separate approval.

SEPARATE APPROVAL WOULD REMOVE THE SECRECY IN THE CURRENT EFFORTS.

End of that dirty trick, under whatever euphemism used.

5. West Station under the latest MassDOT proposal.

The key part of the discussion involves “West Station,” another major change politically sneaked through as a necessary beauty, “no big thing.”

The relevant part of the reduced map crop in section 3 shows about a third of the way up on the right.

Here is the west station portion of the April 2019 plan.


Never mentioned in the fight for this PERSONAL station for Harvard on the east-west railroad is the close proximity of the rather new Boston Landing station.  Boston Landing is NOT THAT FAR OFF THE PLANS TO THE LEFT / West.

The Brown / Reddish structure in the middle of these plans in West Station.

The top two tracks connect to the Grand Junction and also to rail storage as part of the South Station Commuter Rail system.  Note how they narrow to one track in either direction.

The bottom two tracks would be above and below a platform in the middle of the east-west main line.

The change proposed on June 20 would run the last two tracks, without the platform, along the bottom of the construction area to allow maximum speed for through trains.  That would comply with the needs of suburban commuters and Western Massachusetts traffic.

A fifth track and platform would be added between these two tracks and the two tracks showing above them in the April plans.  This siding would allow passenger service to West Station.  The fifth track creates a terminal for shuttle service from Boston Landing Station, half a mile or so to the left of the area on the main map.

This change is major.  It makes excellent sense if you are running a railroad.  The service to and from the west needs to be as fast as possible to satisfy the needs of long distance rail transportation.

The change also reflects the reality of the situation.

MassDOT has been forced to provide a private station for Harvard.  But that station makes no operational sense as a major part of a railroad.  The Boston Landing station is so close that a second station in the area is silly.

The ridership projections are so low that, actually, neither station makes any operational sense, singly or combined.  But the politics are such that the project will include West Station, no matter how stupid.

West Station’s supposed greatness is its access to that new route through Cambridge.  But, they will have to get the money AND PUBLIC SUPPORT.  That route will not come for about a decade after the rest of the project, and the route is nonsensical.

MassDOT has PUBLICLY studied the route glorified by the bad guys.  MassDOT found that the route makes no sense for anybody outside of Cambridge / MIT’s Kendall Square development area, and (see below) a new rapid transit line could be more functional without being destructive like the nonsensical Ground Junction commuter rail.  Plus, of course, the Century out of date road crossings would make already bad traffic in Cambridge that much worse.  Very significantly the environmental outrages in the animal habitat on the Charles River are inexcusable.

6. A responsible alternative.  A rapid transit connection between BU Bridge / Commonwealth Avenue and Harvard Square.



This would provide the MEANINGFUL rapid transit connection which has been PROMISED and that is greatly needed by the North Allston neighborhood which abuts the project.  This is an area I have lived in (close to the proposed Franklin Street station), and I strongly agree with the frustrations of the current residents.

Green Line A would greatly reduce traffic on the overloaded Red Line rapid transit between Park Street and Harvard Station by being more convenient for people in Back Bay who need to get to Harvard Station and beyond.

Thus it would provide MIT and company improved service at Kendall / MIT on that portion of the Red Line in place of the commuter rail service their group is trying to sneak into the I90 rebuild out of the public view.

The rerouting of the I90 / Mass Pike rebuild so that I90 is on the ground with Soldiers Field Road above it could greatly facilitate Green Line A.  The configuration would allow putting Green Line A above the Mass. Pike between the BU Bridge and he future Harvard construction.

Common sense for the greater good.