Charles River: Little Guy’s Parking Lot and Trees Destruction, Coming Magazine Beach Destruction, parts 3 and 4.

Charles River:  Little Guy’s Parking Lot and Trees Destruction, Coming Magazine Beach Destruction, parts 3 and 4.

March 23 2019, Pulled after 5 hits, refiled April 9, 2019, 4:54 am

I. General Introduction.
1. Introduction.
2. Our June 6, 2017 analysis of destruction plans 3, overview.
3. The Little Guys’ Parking Lot.
4. Summary.
II. Part 3.  Destruction of the Little Guys’ Parking Lot, and all but one tree in it.
III. Massive Tree Destruction and Funding Games, Coming Magazine Beach Destruction, part 4.


I. General Introduction.

Once again, passing on a letter to the Cambridge City Council and the City Manager.

This started with part 3.  I caught a narrow glitch.  So put out Part 4.  The combination is the story.

So here comes the original, then the change.

II. Part 3.  Destruction of the Little Guys’ Parking Lot, and all but one tree in it.

Once again, passing on a letter to the Cambridge City Council and the City Manager.

These letters are developing into a replacement for evaluations posted on this blog.  The difference is that they get made part of the Cambridge, MA, official record in the process.

Letter addressed to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager, received on March 28, 2019 by the City Manager and, for the City Council by the City Clerk who will pass it on to the Cambridge City Council next Monday, April 1, 2019.

What it does is go much further into evaluation of the formerly SECRET funding plans of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and evaluates them as rather clearly more Fraud on the Cambridge Voters.

The nominal purpose is to pass on the pages of the Destruction plans of the DCR blessed by the Cambridge City Council for the lovely little guys’ parking lot in the middle of the Magazine Beach playing fields.

This destruction greatly gentrifies the facility by keeping away from it people whom the “right kind of people” might consider below the appropriate station for such a beautiful facility.  And, of course, in the process, achieving very major environmental destruction which the Cambridge City Council DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT.

1. Introduction.
2. Our June 6, 2017 analysis of destruction plans 3, overview.
3. The Little Guys’ Parking Lot.
4. Summary.


Gentlemen / Ladies:

1. Introduction.

It is so very scary to recognize the very destructive reality behind the Cambridge City Council’s lovely claims of environmental sainthood.  This follows upon two letters presenting excerpts from my June 7, 2017 analysis of the Cambridge City Council’s April 24, 2017 order 1 blank check to the Department of Conservation and Recreation for its outrageous destruction plans at Magazine Beach.

* * * * * *

The Magazine Beach park.  The Cambridge City Council wants perhaps 30 trees in this park destroyed along with the little guys’ parking lot in the front facing Memorial Drive, including every tree but one in that parking lot.  Gentrification and massive environmental destruction.  This report is the little guys’ parking lot.  Magnificent trees behind the little guys’ parking lot, with associated funding fraud details, will be presented in the next report..

* * * * * *

My letter went over the plans for destruction and matched those plans to photos of targeted trees.  The Selected Relatively Recent Related Materials at the end of this letter provide a limited list of City Council communications, with the prior two communications in this series toward the end.

We have had a major change in the no longer SECRET knowledge about pending / imminent destruction, with the filing by the Cambridge City Council’s “kind of activist” of the DCR plans for division of moneys in the destruction at Magazine Beach to allow the Cambridge City Council’s nonsensically claims of innocence.

Here, once again, is the previously SECRET DCR plans for funding games.

We are having problems with translation of the original into blog view.  Sometimes the full map translates.  Sometimes, it does not.  So we are publishing first the full map.  Then we are publishing it in thirds right (generally west), middle (the park), left (generally east).

Looking over this outrage more closely, it would appear that the Cambridge City Council will be designated to pay for areas 1 and 2, to allow the voter fraud of claims of “innocence” with regard to massive and highly irresponsible tree destruction in areas 3 and 4.

What happens to the doomed trees in area 1 would appear to be still secret.  Will the Cambridge City Council pay for that destruction, this time claiming stupidity?  Will the DCR do it later?

Or have our publicizing this reprehensible proposal saved some excellence?

Compare, however, the line between areas 2 and 4 to the right of the pool.

There is nothing complicated about this line.  The DCR and the Cambridge City Council are NOT destroying the line of trees immediately to the right of the pool area.  The DCR and the Cambridge City Council ARE destroying the SECOND line of EXCELLENT trees to the right of the pool area.

The line between area 2 and area 4 is placed BETWEEN THE TWO ROWS OF TREES!

The area to the left of the line will be assigned to the Cambridge City Council funding AND WILL NOT BE DESTROYED.  The area to the right of the line will be assigned to DCR funding AND WILL BE DESTROYED.
Lying through funding, fraud on the voters.

My reference of compass directions in this report have been persuasively communicated to me as deficient by Phil Barber.  I have a problem in that I too often believe the self-proclaimed “experts” and it too often comes back to haunt me.  There is a convention by which maps commonly have NORTH at the top.  The “experts” in their maps of Magazine Beach, have NORTHEAST at the top.  I mistakenly believed them and missed OCCASIONAL tiny explanations in fine print.  So my compass references are frequently wrong.  Phil’s references are correct.  The top of ALL plans are northeast in reality.

2. Our June 6, 2017 analysis of destruction plans 3, overview.

This chart organizes our presentation of the Area 1 / 2 / 3 /4  fraud on the voters arrangement of funding.  It presents the now THICK Magazine Beach Park bounded on the north by Memorial Drive, on the south by the Charles River, generally on the east by the pedestrian overpass (and the area south of it is included) and on the west by the Swimming Pool area.

These pages present ONLY the little guys DOOMED parking lot, the area at the top left of this chart.  The beauty of this nearly totally doomed area is indisputable.  We will later present the truly massive and doomed trees below it which are being divided between areas 2 and 4 by the DCR to simplify the lie that the Cambridge City Council is behaving responsibly.

When viewing this excellent AND NEARLY TOTALLY DOOMED little park, one good comparison is the thick park nearest Harvard Square on the Cambridge Common destroyed by the Cambridge City Council.  Those trees included trees which were larger than THESE particular trees.

The trees behind these particular trees, the ones shown in the prior two reports, and many of those in coming reports are MUCH LARGER.

The Cambridge City Council is demonstrating its very true vileness.

3. The Little Guys’ Parking Lot.

4. Summary.

In a subsequent letter I will pick up with groupings which followed the above.  This current letter has presented  the destruction of the  Little Guys’ Parking Lot including all but one of the trees in it.  After running this series to the western (actually northern) extremity, I will return to the beginning of the June 6, 2017 letter.

Planned destruction of the Little Guys’ Parking Lot is an excellent example of gentrification because this is where the little guys’ park to picnic in this CURRENTLY excellent park.  So, in yet another field, the Cambridge City Council has only to look in a mirror to identify part of the problem.

I regret that there are so many erroneous plans in distribution with regard to apparent compass directions that I am rather forced to use the “expert’s”erroneous presentation of north to minimize confusion.

Reality again, not what is being pitched by the Cambridge City Council.

III. Massive Tree Destruction and Funding Games, Coming Magazine Beach Destruction, part 4.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

On Monday, April 1, 2019, I will be appearing in the shooting of part of a series TV show in central Massachusetts in my capacity as a SAG AFTRA performer.

It thus appears unlikely that I will be able to be in Cambridge City Hall on Monday.  Accordingly I will mail this communication in hard copy, and it probably will arrive on Monday.  Plus, I will scan this communication and send the resulting files as email attachments to the City Manager, City Clerk and City Council.  Emailing with be in two parts to be certain to avoid overloading your system.

There is a letter from me in the April 1, 2019, communications primarily concerned with the destruction of the excellent little guys’ parking lot in the thick Magazine Beach park.  This destruction is supported by the Cambridge City Council.  The letter includes introductory language concerning what amounts to voter fraud in the allocation of funds for this project.  I reaffirm that position.

The reason I am writing is that I have discovered a POSSIBLE error in the boundaries of the district arrangements.  These funding districts are designed to fool the voters.

While my June 6, 2017 letter is fully accurate, I had an error of boundaries in my implementation in my letter already in the communications.  My memory at the time of writing this latest letter had the lines of trees adjacent to the swimming pool reversed.

The key factor is the massive trees which the Cambridge City Council and the DCR are destroying which are generally east of the swimming pool proper and generally south of the DOOMED little guys’ parking lot and trees.

Additional factors are that

1. As is very much too normal, DCR plans are confusing, and

2. THE REALLY HORRIBLE STUFF IS KEPT AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE, combined with

3. SIMULTANEOUS NON STOP NONSENSICAL PRAISE OF THE PROJECT WHICH KEEPS THE DESTRUCTIVE STUFF SECRET.

I am not one of the tiny number of people fighting for AND PRAISING this outrage while keeping the bad stuff secret.

I am just a person trying to communicate the terrible stuff which is kept secret as best I can, and as best as I can figure out the obfuscations.

The key is with regard to the trees generally east of the swimming pool and generally south of the little guys’ parking lot.

That key is the two truly massive trees slated for destruction along with neighboring excellent trees not as large.

This part of the destruction plans is on page 4.  The two massive doomed trees are the EXTREMELY large circles.  The black and white version has  X’s in the circles to indicate destruction.  The colored version shows these doomed trees colored yellow with red circles.  Two less large trees are in the area of the two massive trees  It is my understanding that size of depiction is intended to be proportionate to tree size.

My confusion lay in the plans to destroy trees next to the swimming pool, the X’d out circles in the black and white, and colored circles WITHOUT RED CIRCLES next to the swimming pool.  I was thinking that this row of trees, rather than being the first row from the swimming pool was the second row.  The plans call for no destruction in the second row.  I reversed the rows.

The plans call for the destruction of these excellent trees with the DCR essentially admitting that it has no responsible justification for destroying them.

The red circles are an example of skilled fraud misusing normal words way beyond their normal meaning and, REALLY, beyond their meaning as jargon.  The fraudulently misused word is “decline.”

“Decline” means that the tree has reached its peak of excellence and is ONE DAY BEYOND ITS PEAK OF EXCELLENCE, NO MATTER HOW EXCELLENT IT CONTINUES TO BE.

Trees so marked may “only” have another fifty years to live, should they have a life span of one hundred years.

The position of right to destroy is outrageous, but that position is the DCR’s position with regard to these trees AND WITH REGARD TO OTHER MASSIVE TARGETED TREES in the Magazine Beach reservation.

The SECRET plan of the DCR for allocation of funding is truly impossible to interpret as to the exact line of admitted excellent trees generally east of the swimming pool which the DCR’s filed plans say the DCR and the Cambridge City Council intend to destroy.  I assumed that the City Council funding line included the first row of trees because that would fit the fraudulent funding games.  It is entirely possible that the City Council funding line includes none of these trees.  It is also possible that the DCR had a bout of conscience and decided to be responsible and not destroy these trees which the DCR admits are healthy trees.

This destruction would be similar to the reality with regard to perhaps a majorioty of the hundreds of threes destroyed by the DCR and Cambridge east of the BU Bridge in January 2016, and reflective, once again, of a disposition which renders the DCR unfit for its responsibilities on the Charles River.

So, in summary, in the letter already in the 4/1/19 communications, I tried to understand the DCR’s plans, but I got the exact boundary line wrong.

The key point is that the DCR and Cambridge City Council are playing funding games to shield the Cambridge City Council from well deserved responsibility for outrageous destruction.  And that the outrageous destruction includes TWO REALLY MASSIVE TREES in this area.

In any case, here are the previously SECRET DCR funding plan, and the relevant pages from the June 6, 2017 letter which the City Council does not want to know about.  These pages concern the area of the Magazine Beach Park generally south of the DOOMED little guys’ parking lot WITH ALL BUT ONE OF ITS TREES TO BE DESTROYED, and generally east of the swimming pool. The previously SECRET DCR funding plan.

The relevant pages from the June 6, 2017 letter.

I will be thinking of you in Central Massachusetts.

My exact hours on Monday are impossible to predict.  The last time I reported for a movie in Central Massachusetts, I was told at about 9 pm the prior evening that I would have to report for the gig at 4 am.  My work days have been as long as 16 hours, only exceeding 16 hours once.  10 to 13 hours is common.  We find out the end of the day when they tell us to go home.




Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair

Selected Relatively Recent Related Materials

1. Multiple instances of large scale tree destruction at Fresh Pond by Cambridge Water Department.
Citations will be provided.

2. Destruction of 3.4+ acres of Silver Maple Forest at Alewife by Cambridge City Council and DCR
Citations will be provided.

3. Destruction of thick woods on Cambridge Common nearest Harvard Square by Cambridge City Council.
Citations will be provided.

4. The Destruction of Memorial Drive, January 2016, final cut (by Cambridge and the DCR, 30 minute video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o

5. Trailer for #4, 5 minute video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0iEFypDt8k&t=18s

6. Nature and Beauty Ripped Out on the Charles River (Analysis of achievements by #1, international expert, 30 minute video)
https://youtu.be.com/dWyCdcWMuAA

7. City Council vote in praise and support of DCR planned destruction at Magazine Beach, April 24, 2017
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1782&Inline=True, page 309 and 310

8. 51 page analysis of DCR filed plans for Magazine Beach with OFFICIALLY FILED plan details and photos of target trees, June 6, 2017, provided twice to Cambridge City Council
http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html

9. Destruction at MicroCenter in implementation of City Council blank check (#7), increases supported destruction to 56 trees, August 7, 2017
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1825&Inline=True, pages 151 to 157

10. Multiple objections to destruction of Vellucci Park in Inman Square
Too many to individually cite

11. Analysis of City Council fake Tree Protections to Cambridge City Council, March 18, 2019
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2033&Inline=True, pages 141 to 143

12. Report of Large Scale City of Cambridge Tree Destruction at Huron Ave & Fresh Pond Pkwy, almost certainly Water Department.  Communication 3, 3/25/19
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2033&Inline=True, page 144

13. Response to Destruction achieved and planned by Cambridge City Council at Riverbank, Samples of reality at Magazine Beach #2, March 18, 2019.
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2033&Inline=True, pages 145 to 162


Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair

Charles River: City of Cambridge Environmental Attacks in light of the Magazine Beach Plans.

Charles River:  City of Cambridge Environmental Attacks in light of the Magazine Beach Plans.

I hate to keep posting pretty much unedited letters to the Cambridge MA City Council.  But I put a lot of work into them.  Their contents are of major importance in general, and with regard to the Charles River in particular.

The non stop lying of environmental sainthood spreading out from Cambridge has very broad impact.  The level of hypocrisy which focuses on this entity is very illuminating.

This was officially filed with the Cambridge City Council (filing on March 18, 2019; to be formally received on March 25, 2019) and the Cambridge City Manager (received on March 18, 2019.

RE: New “Tree protections,” more tree destruction.  Samples of reality at Magazine Beach, part 2.

1. Introduction.
2. Our June 6, 2017 analysis of destruction plans 2, overview.
3. The northeastern part of the Hill and northwestern part of Playing Fields.
4. The Magnificent Grove on the Hill, Overhanging the Playing Fields.
5. Summary.


Gentlemen / Ladies:


1. Introduction.

It was decidedly telling to see the grand total of communications for the March 18, 2019, meeting.

Communication 1 praised Peter Valentine for the beautiful, non “professional” look he has created of his home.

Communication 2 and 4 were my letters condemning fake tree protections and bemoaning the imminent “professional” destruction on Magazine Beach.

* * * * * * *

Magnificent grove overhanging the Playing Fields.  CDD and City Council vary in whether they want to destroy all this excellent grove or just part of it.  They also claim that these TEN trees are THREE.  Two of the ten have been destroyed since this picture

* * * * * * *

Communication 3 communicated a good example of one reason why the “tree protections” are so meaningless.  One of the top two tree destroyers in Cambridge, the City of Cambridge, would appear to have destroyed in this highly visible part of the Fresh Pond Reservation, at Huron Avenue and Fresh Pond Parkway, in the same spirit as nine City Councilors are destroying on the Charles River.  This is decidedly in the spirit of 3.4 + acres at Alewife, the thick woods on the Cambridge Common nearest Harvard Square and the hundreds of trees on the Charles River east of the BU Bridge.

The City Council responded to communication 3 with deafening and very telling silence.

A comment of apology.  I have felt guilty about omitting the outrage in Inman Square in my past comments.  It is not because I think Cambridge’s tree destructive City Council is being responsible in Inman Square.  It is because, while this destruction is reprehensible and widely known to be reprehensible, it amounts to but a fraction of the destruction in each of the other items I have been mentioning.  Other outrages, apparently, include the destruction at Huron Avenue and Fresh Pond Parkway which the Cambridge City Council, dah, dah, does not seem to want to know about.

In Communication 4, I gave the City Council my explanation of the formerly SECRET plans for manipulation of funds at Magazine Beach (see insert).  Funds are being manipulated to lie that the Cambridge City Council is a “responsible” entity.

* * * * * *

Top is generally NE.  Lots of issues with regard to the “restoration” and the “protective group.”  Plan kept secret for more than a year.

* * * * * *

The manipulation allows the Cambridge City Council to support massive tree destruction by the Department of Conservation and Recreation in areas 2, 3, and 4, while loudly bragging that the Cambridge City Council  is “only” paying for heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach, by just paying for Area 1.

Lying through allocation of funds does not change a truly reprehensible reality.  These now publicized secret plans were made public by one of the biggest environmental destroyers on the Charles River.  She runs around bragging about things.  Her broad statements brag about areas which  include massive environmental outrages which she keeps secret.  I call that lying.

Area 1 is the area specified for allocation of funding by the Cambridge City Council to give the false impression of responsible behavior while supporting and “partnering” in the massive tree destrucition and claiming that indulging in funding games  in less obvious destructive behavior and heartless animal abuse.  The area 1 plans included two doomed trees, although, since the language is for destruction of “invasives,” the City Council could be joining its “kind of activist” in rerouting more poisons into the Charles River including heartless animal abuse and destruction of those trees..

I broke out two trees in Area 1 which the DCR informed the Cambridge Conservation Commission it wants to destroy.  The words are sufficiently ambiguous that they could include City Council destruction.

Then again, lovely plans /  lovely promises do not seem to bother the Department of Conservation and Recreation very much.  The destruction could be casually included in area 4 which is the most large scale destruction, that of the core park.  I recall the destruction in the core MIT portion of the BU Bridge to Longfellow Bridge outrage was described to well meaning people as “thinning” without mentioning the truly massive destruction.

Much of the outrage in Area 4 may be laughed off as “thinning” by the destroyers.  The DCR admits that their “decline” lie overwhelmingly does not apply.

Returning to the information the Cambridge City Council does not want to know.

Here is some of the destruction in the reprehensible area of activity BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL and the DCR, Area 4.  Since this is so massive, the bulk of the 56 tree outrage, it will take more than one communication.


2. Our June 6, 2017 analysis of destruction plans 2, overview.

This chart organizes that part of the “Area 3" / “Area 4" outrage at the top of the hill, the THICK Magazine Beach Park bounded on the north by Memorial Drive, on the south by the Charles River, generally on the east by the pedestrian overpass (and the area south of it is included) and on the west by the Swimming Pool area.

This chart will be followed by a sufficient number of additional pages to communicate PART of the  outrage in the Magazine Beach Park, while trying to keep the size of this letter to be other than overwhelming.  The chart includes all or part of all designated areas.  Part of the area in our prior report, Area 1, is at the bottom.

Some of these trees have already been destroyed.

My reference of compass directions in this report have been persuasively communicated to me as deficient by Phil Barber.  I have a problem in that I too often believe the self-proclaimed “experts” and it too often comes back to haunt me.  

There is a convention by which maps commonly have NORTH at the top.  The “experts” in their maps of Magazine Beach, have NORTHEAST at the top. 

I mistakenly believed them and missed OCCASIONAL tiny explanations in fine print.  So my compass references are frequently wrong.  Phil’s references are correct.

3.The northeastern part of the hill and northwestern part of Playing Fields.

Area includes the southern end of the pedestrian overpass.

The tree straight ahead and slightly to the right looking down the ramp has been destroyed.

4. The Magnificent Grove on the Hill, Overhanging the Playing Fields.

Two dead trees among this grove have been properly removed.  As stated in the analysis, this is TEN TREES, NOT THREE.  They were the furthest trees to the left in the plans, SOUTHEAST in reality.  Please see my comment above.

My Comment as to which subgrove is not being destroyed, for reasons stated way above, is wrong.  Originally all are being destroyed.  The change (color) says that the upper right portion of the grove is not being destroyed, until the next time they change their mind.  And this error continues, correspondingly.

5. Summary.

The immediately following pages of the June 6, 2017 letter were presented in Communication 4 of March 18, 2019.

In a subsequent letter I will pick up with groupings which followed the above.  This will include the destruction of the  Little Guys’ Parking Lot including all but one of the trees in it.  After running this series to the western (actually northern) extremity, I will return to the beginning of the June 6, 2017 letter.

Planned destruction of the Little Guys’ Parking Lot is an excellent example of gentrification.  So, in yet another field, the Cambridge City Council has only to look in a mirror to identify part of the problem.

I regret that there are so many erroneous plans in distribution with regard to apparent compass directions that I am rather forced to use the “expert’s”erroneous presentation of north to minimize confusion.

Reality again, not what is being pitched by the Cambridge City Council.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair

Selected Relatively Recent Related Materials

1. Multiple instances of large scale tree destruction at Fresh Pond by Cambridge Water Department.
Citations will be provided.

2. Destruction of 3.4+ acres of Silver Maple Forest at Alewife by Cambridge City Council and DCR
Citations will be provided.

3. Destruction of thick woods on Cambridge Common nearest Harvard Square by Cambridge City Council.
Citations will be provided.

4. The Destruction of Memorial Drive, January 2016, final cut (by Cambridge and the DCR, 30 minute video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o

5. Trailer for #4, 5 minute video
https://youtu.be.com/x0iEFypDt8k

6. Nature and Beauty Ripped Out on the Charles River (Analysis of achievements by #1, international expert, 30 minute video)
https://youtu.be.com/dWyCdcWMuAA

7. City Council vote in praise and support of DCR planned destruction at Magazine Beach, April 24, 2017
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1782&Inline=True, page 309 and 310

8. 51 page analysis of DCR filed plans for Magazine Beach with OFFICIALLY FILED plan details and photos of target trees, June 6, 2017, provided twice to Cambridge City Council
http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html

9. Destruction at MicroCenter in implementation of City Council blank check (#7), increases supported destruction to 56 trees, August 7, 2017
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1825&Inline=True, pages 151 to 157

10. Multiple objections to destruction of Vellucci Park in Inman Square
Too many to individually cite

11. Analysis of City Council fake Tree Protections to Cambridge City Council, March 18, 2019
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2033&Inline=True, pages 141 to 143

12. Report of Large Scale City of Cambridge Tree Destruction at Huron Ave & Fresh Pond Pkwy, almost certainly Water Department.
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2033&Inline=True, page 144

13. Response to Destruction achieved and planned by Cambridge City Council at Riverbank, Samples of reality at Magazine Beach #2, March 18, 2019.
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2033&Inline=True, pages 145 to 162


* * * * *

This letter is posted in the official Cambridge City Records on line at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2036&Inline=True, communication 14, pages 281 to 294.

Of necessity, it is not possible to reproduce on this blog in exactly the format which appears in the City of Cambridge official records.  This link provides that official record.

Charles River: Analysis of the Latest Secret Action by the Cambridge City Council on Magazine Beach.

Charles River:  Analysis of the Latest Secret Action by the Cambridge City Council on Magazine Beach.

In my last post, I gave my analysis of the Cambridge City Council’s fake vote for “tree protections” in light of the very great destructiveness of trees by the Cambridge City Council.  They lie to the voters about “concern” by yelling at the other guy, hundreds of little guys living in Cambridge, while the Cambridge City Council exempted from their supposed protections the biggest tree destroyers in the City of Cambridge.  Those are the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge.

In the same meeting, as secretly as possible, the Cambridge City Council voted for more work at Magazine Beach.

The Cambridge City Council loudly brags about stuff they are proud of, and are DEAFENINGLY SILENT ABOUT SHAMEFUL ACTIONS.

Here is my response to that latest destructive probable outrage.  It, as usual is addressed to the Cambridge City Council and to the Cambridge City Manager.

References to the “City Council’s ‘Kind of Leader’” quote City Councilor Devereux’ explanation of a past outrage, for which no member of the City Council provided an explanation.  The only meaningful explanation provided by any City Councilor from Devereux, that this woman, the only visible meaningful support was that this woman was Devereux’ “kind of activist.”

The Cambridge City Council's "kind of activist" showed up this time too, she spoke and filed written comments.  The written comments  included supposed plans which have been kept secret for more than a year.  Once again, the Cambridge City Council had no meaningful plans in front of them, and they voted for this secret work without looking at her plan submission.

* * * *

RE: Part of the Destructive Reality behind the latest Riverfront Vote.

1. General Analysis.
2. Differences between the Two.
3. Relevant Portion of the FILED Plans the Cambridge City Council Does Not Want to Know About.
4. Summary.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

1. General Analysis.

Some realities hidden in your latest vote to authorize destructive work at Magazine Beach became visible in a document filed by the woman who has been running around bragging about the project and keeping the tree destructlyion and HER poisoning of the Charles River as secret as possible ‒ The Cambridge City Council’s “kind of activist.”

Looking at reality, the City Council would appear in this secret funding to be physically and directly paying for major  tree destruction and ramping up heartless animal abuse.

Further on in this report, we print the relevant DCR destruction plans filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  Those plans certainly seem to destroy both of the trees on this page in the areas where both versions of what is being done call for “pruning” of trees.

* * * * * 

Doomed Willow

Doomed Ornamental

* * * *

Pruning of the outrageous Starvation Wall by removing it would be excellent, but we are not dealing with responsible people.  Therefore, the most needed improvement, finally providing the promised lawn to the river with access for resident animals, is almost certainly not part of this.

Equally important, since most of the playing fields seem to be excluded from all parts of this segmented partnered project, the Cambridge City Council and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation are continuing the inexcusable use of poisons on Magazine Beach.  The DCR’s beloved poisons were originally introduced into Magazine Beach as part of the outrages of the 2000's by Cambridge and the DCR.

An excellent example of the DCR’s  love of poisons is in the annual algae blight on the Charles River.  That started THE DAY AFTER THE DCR introduced poisons at Ebersol Fields next to the Massachusetts General Hospital, marked against use near water.  This outrage was done because the DCR was not happy with the performance of the poisons already there.

Nevertheless, the Cambridge City Council and the DCR are continuing the inexcusable use of poisons on Magazine Beach.  The two are making the outrage worse routing poisons into the Charles River by use of “volunteers.”  This is supposedly to get rid of beautiful vegetation WHICH FEEDS ON THE POISONS.

Both reports (by the City Manager for the Cambridge Development Department and by the City Council’s “kind of activist”) on the City Council funds appear to agree that the City Council is attacking this beautiful vegetation, and DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE POISONS THESE BEAUTIFUL, FREE PLANTS FEED ON.  

Both versions call for cleaning up of “invasives.”  However the DCR and Cambridge, instead of removing the destructive starvation wall which is clearly massive invasive, vegetation  irresponsibly introduced by Cambridge and the DCR with great and knowing harm to the resident animal population 

a. Cambridge and the DCR fixate on beautiful vegetation which feeds on the poisons introduced by Cambridge and the DCR, and
b. The Cambridge City Council has the gall to cry about bees dying out, as its poisons on Magazine Beach poison bees.

* * * * *

                                               Photo:  Phil Barber

At Alewife, Somerville shows off beautiful vegetation that

Cambridge and the DCR destroy with great nuttiness.  But

then, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed 3.4 acres of the

"irreplaceable" (Cambridge City Council quote) Silver

Maple Forest while the Cambridge City Counci yelled at

private developers destroying the Silver Maple Forest IN

COMPLIANCE WITH MUNICIPALLY CONTROLLED

ZONING.

* * * * *

Outrageous.

Here is the analysis WITHOUT PLANS from the Cambridge Development Department through the City Manager:

* * * *

To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $600,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Executive Department Extraordinary Expenditures, to be used for shoreline and landscape improvements at Magazine Beach. 

Magazine Beach is a regional open space and ecological resource, and functions as an important neighborhood connection to the river.  This project is a key component of Phase II-1 improvements to the park, encompassing the shoreline area between the new kayak launch and the Powder Magazine.  The project will include planting new trees; pruning of existing trees and shrubs and other plant care; new naturalized bank treatments (river bank and wetland area); a new accessible path connecting the new kayak launch to the Powder Magazine; new site furnishings, including 10 new benches; new electrical connections and pole inserts for canopy lighting or outdoor art; and a new storm water infiltration system that will manage run off from the paved surfaces into the river. 

The City’s contribution to the project will be matched dollar for dollar by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) in order to create a new accessible patio and terrace and newly paved walkways. 

Since 2012, the City has provided over $500,000 in funding for improvements at Magazine Beach ($341,050 since 2017), which has leveraged hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in matching funds from DCR, neighborhood organizations, and nonprofits. 

This project further exemplifies the City’s commitment to Magazine Beach, by working closely with neighborhood residents, Magazine Beach Partners, DCR, and elected officials to support strategic, incremental, improvements to Magazine Beach.    Work on the improvements is anticipated to begin in spring 2019. 

* * * * *

To the right [Ed: below] are the relevant three parts of the analysis by the City Council’s “kind of activist.”

 

To the best of my knowledge, this information has previously been kept secret.

As mentioned above,“installation of oak logs” is distressingly similar to the outrage which the City Council’s “kind of activist”  and her friends assisted east of the BU Bridge by telling people not to look at the coming destruction.  After they achieved destruction, they discussed seeking a part in choosing trees to replace the excellent trees which should not have been destroyed.  Looks to me like seeking a payoff for helping the outrage.

* * * * *

The day Cambridge and the DCR started to starve the 38

year resident Charles River White Geese - being fed by

decent human beings, OVER YET ANOTHER

BARRIER.

* * * * *

In addition to the destruction of hundreds of mostly excellent trees (see my video, Memorial Drive Destruction, Final Cut, January 2016), at https://youtu.be.com/h_u-woTPRJ8), a “riverfront” was created across from the Hyatt Regency by destroying every tree across from the Hyatt Regency, and installing rocks to prevent the Charles River White Geese from feeding there.

Below is the bizarre barrier created there as a part of the January 2016 destruction of hundreds of mostly excellent trees by Cambridge, the DCR, and the “protectors.”

A decidedly beautiful video is posted online by Ernie Sarno showing the Charles River White Geese getting up in the middle of the night to feed at the Hyatt Regency shore BEFORE the installation of this particular outrage.  It is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.  “White Geese of Cambridge,” November 2009.

Is there any difference between this heartless starvation barrier of rocks, and the promised lovely logs in the City Council’s phase 1 project, or the corresponding plaza to be built by the DCR.  Almost certainly NO.

Here is the plaza which was created out of the secret plans for the work funded by the Cambridge City Council at the destroyed boat dock of the 20th Century.

                                                                                Phil Barber

No new dock, just more starvation techniques targeted at the Charles River White Geese.

The heartlessness of the CDD, DCR and the City Council’s “kind of activist” who has been in the middle of this series of massive destruction on the Charles was bragged about in this part of their propaganda show on the CDD’s turf, City Hall Annex.

At the top of the next page {Ed: below] is the reality of the “fight” against vegetation feeding on the POISONS introduced onto Magazine Beach by Cambridge and the DCR in the outrages of the 2000's.

Here is an accumulation of algae observed next to the blocked drainage.  This blocking redirected drainage of poisons which should not even be used on the banks of the Charles River.

                                                                                 Phil Barber

Here are the true invasives, the Starvation Wall introduced by Cambridge and the DCR during the 2000's outrage, turning the Magazine Beach playing fields into a recreation facility which might as well be ten miles from the Charles River.  No wonder the DCR now admits it is hated by the public.

Here is a photo of this outrage from the Boston Side five or so years ago.

This understates the situation since the Starvation Wall continues quite a bit further to the left / west, and there have been years of outrageous growth.

The brown opening to the right is the area which, until rendered unusable in the 2000's outrages, was the boat dock.  Now, it is yet another technique in the heartless starvation of the 38 year resident tourist attraction, the Charles River White Geese.

Views of the playing fields from my June 6, 2017 letter are printed on page 11 below  (page 13 of the June 6, 2017 letter), page 12 (page 14 of the June 6, 2017 letter) and page 13 (page 15 of the June 6, 2017 letter).

On page 14 below (page 32 of the June 6, 2017 letter) and page 15 (page 33 of the June 6, 2017 letter) are the tree destruction plans for the two important trees now being destroyed by the Cambridge City Council with plenty of wiggle room in the fine print.

Destruction of  trees like this by private citizens on their own property is now illegal under the “tree protections” just passed by the Cambridge City Council.  Naturally, the Cambridge City Council exempted itself and the DCR from the “tree protections,” but will run around yelling that they are protecting Cambridge from THE OTHER GUY.


2. Differences between the two.

The package filed by the City Council’s “kind of activist” provides plans and specifies where the work will be done.  It is on page 3, above.

The information filed by the City Manager has to be assumed to originate in the Cambridge Development Department.  It is on pages 2 and 3, above.

The filed plans by the City Council’s “kind of activist” show an area 1 which she says is  City Council work, but the CDD says that area the City Council is paying for will be split dollar for dollar with the DCR.

The two agree on “new naturalized bank treatments (river bank and wetland area).”  The CDD version calls for an equal amount to be spent by the DCR in the area for a “new accessible patio and terrace.”

Both call for “pruning of existing trees and shrubs,” while the CDD adds “other plant care.”

“Installation of oak logs” is included by the City Council’s “kind of activist.”

The combination does not seem to include (and since it is not said, almost certainly does not include), removal of the publicly hated starvation wall and replacement of it with the “lawn to the river” which was promised there.  This bizarre blockade was built instead.  It makes the playing fields for all practical purposes ten miles from the Charles River.

The promise upon which the Starvation Wall was achieved  very clearly was compatible with and encouraged the continued habit of the major tourist attraction, the 38 year resident Charles River White Geese, to include the Magazine Beach playing fields, which have been the main food and residence for the last 38 years.  The Charles River White Geese, instead are being heartlessly starved.

On page 4 is a photo of responsible humans feeding the Charles River White Geese on the first day of their heartless starvation to protect them from this reprehensible act by Cambridge and the DCR.

I have repeatedly offered my half hour video of the January 2016 outrage achieved by Cambridge, the DCR, and the City Council’s “kind of activist” and her friends.  Hundreds of mostly excellent trees were destroyed between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.   My trailer for that video runs less than five minutes.  It is telling on its own.  It is posted at https://youtu.be.com/x0iEFypDt8k.

As part of this outrage, the threesome destroyed every tree across from the Hyatt Regency and installed the outrage shown on page 4 under the first day starvation photo.

A video posted on YouTube by Ernie Sarno, “White Geese of Cambridge,” shows the Charles River White Geese getting up in the middle of the night and going to this area across from the Hyatt Regency to feed.  This video is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.  When I last checked a year and a half ago, it had had had more than three thousand hits.

But Cambridge, the DCR, the City Council’s kind of activist and her friends have taken care of that.  Those stones might as well be a Starvation Wall.

Instead of obvious starvation targeted stones, the City Council’s “ kind of activist” talks about lovely logs BEING PAID FOR BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL on the banks of the Charles River.  There is no meaningful difference between the Starvation Stones and the Starvation Wall.

The CDD, through the City Manager talks about a lovely plaza.

On page 5, I show the secret “improvement” paid for by the Cambridge City Council at the location of the boat dock of the Twentieth Century which was rendered useless in the 2000's, and, dah dah, is now called a canoe dock.  The secret work by the Cambridge City Council kept the destroyed boat dock still destroyed while creating more heartless blocking for the 38 years tourist attraction Charles River White Geese.

Dah, dah, the plaza the CDD talks about!!!!  Ramping up the heartless starvation.

They work the same as the stones and the logs and the Starvation Wall.

Golly gee, a lovely plaza with beloved starvation obstacles for the major tourist attraction.

The City Council’s “kind of activist” talks about “pruning” trees and removing “invasives.”  There is no mention whatsoever of removing the outrageous starvation wall.

On the page 6 is the record of the City Council’s “kind of activist” concerning “invasives” in this area.

What happened is that Cambridge and the DCR introduced poisons for the first time into Magazine Beach during the outrages of the 2000's.

To keep the poisons out of the Charles River, Cambridge and the DCR created a drainage system.

The City Council’s “kind of activist, in December 2017, blocked the drainage system, and has been rerouting poisons onto the banks and into the Charles River ever since.  Matched with the photo of the blocked drainage system is a photo of a pond of algae created next to the blocked drainage system.

Blocking the drainage system was apparently obtained by funds obtained through the DCR.

Here is a photo of CITY OF CAMBRIDGE PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES PICKING UP THE TRASH CREATED in association with the blocking of the drainage system.

And to wrap it all up, here once again is the photo of an exhibit in a propaganda show in the CDD’s home turf, the City Hall Annex.  The propaganda show appeared to be curated by the City Council’s “kind of activist” and her friends.

3. Relevant Portion of the FILED Plans the Cambridge City Council Does Not Want to Know About.

Here are the plans for that portion of area 1 under area 4, taken from our June 6, 2017, letter which is posted at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html, and has been physically presented to the Cambridge City Council twice.

Once again,  these are copies of plans filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission matched to photos of the area.

These are pages 13, 14, 15, 32, and 33 of our June 6, 2017 letter.

On page 12 of this document (page 14 of the June 6, 2017 letter) and page 13 of this document (page 15 of the June 6, 2017 letter) are photos of the Starvation Wall from the playing field side and of the bizarre second wall between the parking lot and the blocking bridge.

This introduced vegetation is designed to prevent the Charles River White Geese from getting their food of most of the last 38 years (albeit with the DCR and City Council added poisons) should they get through the blocking bridge / destroyed boat dock / replaced introduced pond.

Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation in January 2016 were rapacious in their destruction of excellent trees.  Destruction of this oriental and the magnificent willow fit the massive destruction of so many excellent, healthy trees, including so many fruit trees.

Our video on that outrage is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

I see plenty of reason to keep why the city council is keeping secret what it is funding from the voters.

4. Summary.

First of all, our June 6, 2017 letter was done in the face of extreme secrecy and frequently confusing plans.  That secrecy and enforced confusion continue as a result of governmental wishes very clearly communicated by the great secrecies and misstatements in official actions.

To the extent our analysis may have problems in details, those problems were created by government outrages.  We are doing our best in spite of government maneuvers.  There is obvious fear in the Cambridge City Council that the voters will realize the terrible things the Cambridge City Council is doing.

The voters expect responsible behavior from the Cambridge City Council.  Keeping destruction as secret as possible gives the voters the false impression of a responsible government.  When the outrage is achieved, the usual “explanation” is:

Why did you not keep us from doing these terrible things?

This part of the project would appear to include destruction of excellent trees, plus AT MINIMUM heartless animal abuse in the use of logs as yet another wall to prevent feeding by the 38 year resident Charles River White Geese.

How long ago was the secret “rebuilding” of the NOT EVEN REBUILT boat dock with its secret amping up on heartless animal abuse?

Months.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Chair

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council Tree protections in reality.

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council Tree protections in reality.

I have previously reported the “tree protections” con game from the Cambridge City Council, at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/charles-river-tree-destroyers-defend.html.

I talk to a lot of people on environmental issues.  One excellent discussion with a pro environment property owner resulted in the follow letter to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager.

I will not quote the amazed comments from the individual.

This letter does a good job of communicating what I think he was thinking.  Since this is my subjective analysis, it in no way should ascribed to anybody but me.

It was delivered to the Cambridge City Manager on March 7, 2019, and to the City Clerk for delivery at the City Council’s next meeting.

* * * * *

RE: New “tree protections” in their very nasty and very real context.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

As usual, I have been talking with people concerning the massive tree destruction supported by nine city councilors at Magazine Beach.

The blatantly fake protections just passed simply do not fly with normal human beings.

The idea that

1. The City Council can yell at private citizens for limited destruction of significant trees and

2. At the same time partner in the project at Magazine Beach with massive destruction of significant trees,

a. Paying for selected parts of the project including heartless animal abuse and

b. NOT WANTING TO KNOW WHAT IS ACTUALLY going on

i. either by the money of the Cambridge City Council or

ii. by the money of he Department of Conservation and Recreation.

is outrageous.

I get the impression from the presiding officer of the Cambridge City Council’s outrageous “lie” claim that the City Council considers segregation of funds on the Magazine Beach project to free nine city councilors from the responsibility for outrages PLANNED AND ONGOING as part of the PARTNERED PROJECT at Magazine Beach.

This bizarre claim of the presiding officer of the Cambridge City Council rather clearly states that

1. Nine destructive city councilors are turned into saints at Magazine Beach by having the MASSIVE TREE DESTRUCTION apparently be paid for by careful segregation of funds

2. EVEN THOUGH THE CITY COUNCIL HAS REPEATEDLY RECEIVED THE PLANS FILED WITH THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, WITH PHOTOS MATCHED TO DOOMED EXCELLENT TREES,

3. And praises the plans and

4. Helps the most destructive plans by paying funding games:

a. Paying for “only” the more subtle heartless animal abuse parts;

b. And frees up money which would otherwise be used for the more subtle heartless animal abuse to be used on the more visible and massive tree destruction.

This bizarre position is very much not credible.  It clearly communicates that

1. The City Council’s is yelling at the public for VERY LIMITED destruction of significant trees

2. While the City Council is part of this outrageous destruction of LARGE NUMBERS of significant trees,

and loudly claiming that the Cambridge City Council is a meaningful protector of trees is nothing but blatant hypocrisy.

The filed plans the City Council has repeatedly received AND DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT are posted at http://focrwg.com/agenda1.html.  The City Council supports and praise the entire project.  The City Council releases money for the more blatantly irresponsible parts by limiting its funds solely to more subtle heartless animal abuse.

PLAYING GAMES WITH MONEY DOES NOT TURN THE HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL INTO A RESPONSIBLE ENTITY.

The best single two words that can be used are “blatant hypocrisy.”  And that is clear to voters.

People are simply not so stupid to think to think that it is meaningful for nine city councilors to indulge is such blatantly hypocritical, destructive behavior and have any basis for calling themselves environmental saints.

People are not so stupid as to consider the distinction honest, nor are nine members of the Cambridge City Council.

To put it more succinctly, the important distinction is between

1. One tree being destroyed by one property owner about which the City Council claims massive concern;

2. And 56 mostly excellent, truly SIGNIFICANT trees being destroyed by the DCR and Cambridge City Council with funding games and blatant hypocrisy.

Massive scale and massive hypocrisy.