More destruction DECEPTIVELY proposed for the Charles River.
1. General.
2. Plans.
A, General.
B. Governing plans.
C. DCR regeneration.
D. MIT Lecturer.
3. Reality.
1. General.
Another fake protective group has reared it misleading head.
An entity which claimed to be the “BU Bridge Safety Alliance” held a presentation on Thursday, October 5, 2023, announcing ideas which would be “better for all.”
It turned out to be an Massachusetts Institute of Technology lecturer indulging in a teaching session with his class with glorification galore, and minimal understanding of local history and lack of concern about environmental impacts.
I saw one student express concern about harm to existing trees. He was sloughed off. At another point, I raised plans IN THE IMPLEMENTATION STAGE to make the situation worse from what passes for planners in Cambridge. The instructor was uninterested.
Included in the group was a Cambridge City Council staffer who has conveyed the City Council’s destructive ideas to the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation. The City Council ideas communicated distress that the DCR had apparently backed off from the most irresponsible plans of the DCR. The City Council’s destructive ideas comported with one truly irresponsible idea of the MIT lecturer. The City Council euphemism is “sidewalk improvements” although the lecturer hid this destructive part of his proposal as much as possible while claiming to be communicating it.
The staffer is running for City Council. A more destructive “activist” is among his opposition among City Council candidates. She created an algae blight which poisoned the Charles River AS PAID CONTRACTOR FOR THE DCR. That does not make either one of them less of a problem than the City Council and its bureaucrats.
2. Plans.
A, General.
Below is the DCR’s plans for the most irresponsible part of the MIT lecturer’s ideas. Of importance, MIT supported the January 2016 destruction. From MIT’s point of view, it “benefitted” from that outrage.
This part of the plans was not implemented in the 2016 outrage. In the 2016 outrage the DCR with Cambridge assistance destroyed more than 150 trees near the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, including too many truly excellent trees. Our video on that package may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
The instructor’s ideas, obscured as much as possible, and shared by Cambridge’s environmentally destructive City Council, were rejected in 2016. They resurfaced through fraud in the latest round of plans, and apparently were given up on in favor of less destructive ideas. BUT THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL IS TRYING.
From Cambridge records, here is my recent summary of the continuing outrages most visibly by the DCR, with have included Cambridge bureaucracy and City Council support, with Cambridge’s usual fake protective groups assisting: https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3903&Inline=True, pages 2654 to 2713. This analysis goes back more than twenty years, although the Charles River White Geese have had their habitat on the Charles River in this area for more than 42 years.
I, at the direction of the governor’s people, have passed master computer files for that document to an office of the DCR. I would be pleased to pass these master files on to you as well. Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com. I had to split files without deletion of component parts to make the file size of the master files accepted by the state’s computer.
B. Governing plans.
Here are the plans apparently being resurrected by the MIT lecturer which the DCR gave up on in January 2016 and which the Cambridge City Council seems to be trying to revive, along with this MIT lecturer. The key part of the plans are difficult to read. I have tried to make them less hidden through lighting modifications. It is extremely difficult to use the plans.
The actual plans were drawn by a predecessor organization which the legislature tried to destroy to protect the world from its destructiveness. The “planners” moved to the DCR and have proceeded with the outrages. I will not waste people’s times by making what, in reality, HAS BEEN MADE a silly distinction between the two entities.
Memorial Drive, the boulevard on the Cambridge side of the Charles River runs right to left starting at the upper left and curving to the upper right.
Below it is the area in very destructive play, the on ramp from the BU Bridge to Memorial Drive. Running at a slight angle from bottom to top in the middle of the plan is the Grand Junction Railroad. To its left below the ramp is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. To the right is the Wild Area, the last remaining animal populated woods in this part of the Charles River.
The DCR demonstrates the vileness of the entire batch of plans by the circle numbered “535” toward the lower right. This is the ONE tree the batch of destroyers do not seem to be fighting to destroy. To the left of the Grand Junction are other trees targeted. The blackened one, marked “541" is the gem of the BU Bridge Rotary in this area, and the gem of this part of the Destroyed Nesting Area. It would be casually destroyed AS SECRETLY AS POSSIBLE
The latest round of attacks was delayed by the COVID nightmare. The DCR lied that its plans ended at the BU Bridge.
C. DCR regeneration.
Here is one of several essentially duplicate slides from the DCR presentation of the earliest version of its current proposal.
The key lie at that time was that the DCR said its plans eastern boundary was the BU Bridge. Crossing this plan is Memorial Drive. Running below Memorial Drive is the BU Bridge, the supposed eastern end. The lie is demonstrated by the fact that the plans go beyond the BU Bridge to the right. The area to the right is the area that the DCR did not destroy in January 2016, and which the Cambridge City Council through that staffer, and this MIT lecturer are currently attacking.
The DCR has backed off on this part of their plans, ending the current offensive at the next bridge to the west, the River Street Bridge. The Cambridge City Council, through that staffer has implored the DCR to do “sidewalk improvements” east of the BU Bridge. The “sidewalk improvements” are the stuff shown in the above plan, with the MIT lecturer including as misleadingly as possible in his presentation.
D. MIT Lecturer.
The MIT Lecturer had two handouts in his show and tell, one for the Cambridge Side of the BU Bridge, the other (mismarked “Cambridge”) for the Boston Side.
Here is a blow up of the relevant part of the MIT lecturer’s plans. Dominating the photo from bottom to top, is the BU Bridge. To the right is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
At the top is Memorial Drive, below it on the right is the on ramp from the BU Bridge to Memorial Drive, the northern edge of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The edge to the right IS NOT EDITED BY ME. THIS IS AS FAR AS HE WENT TO THE RIGHT.
The number 3 gives the impression that it indicates the totality of his plans. His comments extended the plans, if you listened close enough, to the outrage continually showing up from the DCR and the Cambridge City Council in spite of lovely and, in that key DCR announcement, FRAUDULENT comments to the contrary.
3. Reality.
Here is the wild area which would be destroyed. To its left is the Grand Junction Railroad, and a tiny part of the DNA. The building to the right is a boathouse owned by Boston University.
DCR work projects commonly have harm to the Charles River White Geese. The DCR has explained its continuing outrages by saying it only has a duty to refrain from harming animals on a Federal protected list.
It is now much larger. In the background is Memorial Drive and a building currently owned by MIT, the employer of the lecturer who is the creator of these latest plans.
