Harvard to Further Emulate MIT in Allston?

The BIG environmental problem on the Charles River is Harvard University’s massive expansion plans on the south side of the Charles River in Allston.

This area is visible from the environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. The plans on the Cambridge side are very clearly targeted at helping out the Allston projects. The jewel in the area was Harvard’s purchase of the Massachusetts Turnpike in the area and an abutting rail yard.

That purchase is comparable in size to Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood. The purchase occurred a few months after a state review decided that Mass. Pike traffic could be rerouted to the Grand Junction railroad bridge under the BU Bridge. A lot of environmental destruction fits in with that report.

Massive Harvard holdings in Allston were disclosed about that time. Harvard owns most of Western Avenue in Allston, stretching from the Charles River abutting Cambridge to the Charles River abutting Watertown. Harvard owns massive holdings on the extension of Western Avenue in Watertown.

The Boston Globe today (6/17/11) reports that Harvard is planning to announce that it will partner with private industry in its Allston expansion plans.

The reality behind this “change” may be seen in looking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s University Park development south of Central Square in Cambridge. MIT destroyed Central Square by buying out perfectly viable industrial buildings and leaving them vacant. MIT has done the same with a significant part of Mass. Ave. south of Central Square.

Over a 20 to 30 year period, MIT created and retained a 20 to 40 acre wasteland in the middle of one of the most densely developed cities in the United States.

This is similar to actions by Harvard on Western Avenue in Allston. Most visible is a formerly vibrant neighborhood car oriented shopping center. Harvard’s emptied it and has kept it almost totally empty to force the relocation of subsidized housing at Western Avenue and North Harvard in spite of contrary wishes by the owner of the latter parcel.

The MIT University Park area is now mostly private industry, but it shows on MIT maps as part of MIT’s campus. Translation: used by private industry for 20 or 40 years and then by MIT.

Clearly, Harvard has followed MIT’s lead with its destructive landbanking, and intends to follow it by having private industry use pay for new campus buildings.

Very clearly, Cambridge is too small for Harvard, MIT and Cambridge. MIT’s destructiveness has been extended by Harvard to Allston, and MIT and Harvard are key to the ongoing destruction of the Charles River.

Harvard is well established in Cambridge. Cambridge is well established in Cambridge.

The state is improving rail transportation to Massachusetts’ South Coast, the Fall River - New Bedford portion of the Fall River - New Bedford - Providence tri city area.

The location has plenty of room for expansion, excellent highway service, and definite possibilities for passenger rail service. It is also in a convenient location between Boston and New York.

I think the responsible thing is for MIT to move to the South Coast in steps and for Harvard to expand onto vacated portions of the MIT campus in steps. I think an excellent use for Allston is for housing, badly needed. I think an excellent use for Harvard’s landbanked shopping center on Western Avenue is as a shopping center, and the same for the shopping center it owns in Watertown.

This is reasonable, responsible, and moderate. The plans of Harvard, MIT and the City of Cambridge are exactly the opposite.

Cambridge is in the process of destroying the massive and formerly virgin Alewife Reservation for flood storage that belongs under a massive parking lot 200 feet to the south. The Charles River destruction is most definitely far less irresponsible SO FAR and can be reversed.

The link to the Boston Globe article is: http://www.boston.com/yourtown/boston/allston_brighton/articles/2011/06/16/harvard_may_turn_to_partners_to_revive_allston_expansion/.

Cambridge Chronicle prominently publishes letter

The June 16, 2011, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle very prominently published my letter on the destruction of Alewife, and the celebration of destruction on the Charles. I associated these actions with a letter from an associated writer mentioning, yet again, peripheral matters at Alewife.

I stood with that woman at the edge of the Alewife destruction zone at the beginning of the destruction. Her letter, as her letters have for 15 years, talked about peripheral issues at Alewife but did not mention the destruction of the core Alewife reservation. Her friends were celebrating destruction and neglecting to tell their fellow celebrants what they were celebrating.

My letter was in the featured spot of the Cambridge Chronicle’s editorial page, upper left corner where the lead editorial is put.

The letter was published on this blog and linked by the Boston Globe’s www.boston.com.

Thank you to the Cambridge Chronicle and to the Boston Globe.

Charles River Memories, Part XI, A Walk on the Charles

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Prior reports in this series.


1. Archie’s Report.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART XI

By Archie Mazmanian

[Note: I defer for a few weeks addressing the roles of Harvard, MIT and Boston University regarding the Charles River until I have had an opportunity to explore the MA Transportation Department’s considerations of the Grand Junction Rail Line that passes under the BU Bridge for commuter transit. I understand a meeting is planned at the Morse School in Cambridge today (June 16th) on this subject. I shall not be able to attend but trust that this Blog will cover the meeting.]

For a week or so, I had been planning to go to the Houghton Library in Harvard Yards to take in an exhibit on Wendell Phillips. Yesterday (June 15th) was such a pleasant day, after several dismal ones, that I decided to walk there from my home in the Cottage Farm Section of Brookline.

I started shortly after 9:00 AM. Crossing Commonwealth Avenue at the BU Bridge was time consuming with its heavy traffic. This was my first time on foot on the BU Bridge since the bridge construction started what seems years ago. The views easterly remain spectacular. I spent a few minutes looking down on the Grand Junction Rail Line trestle under the bridge. While there is only one set of tracks, the structure might permit for a second set. Of course, there remains on a distant transportation planning table the utilization of this trestle for Phase 2 of the dormant Urban Ring Project. I tried to observe the small wooded area between the bridge and the BU Boathouse but was unable to discern any activity in the Goose Ghetto.

Crossing from the bridge to the westerly side was a chore because of the construction and traffic, taking up quite a few minutes. I had never before walked along the Charles on the Cambridge side west of the BU Bridge. On foot, I was amazed with the large footprint of Magazine Beach. There was not much activity there, perhaps because it was a weekday. But there was much construction going on (in addition to the BU Bridge work) for the new pedestrian overpass that hopefully will provide safety to pedestrians wishing to enjoy Magazine Beach.

I stopped from time to time to look at the rhythmic sculling on the Charles and at structures on the Boston side; I also looked at structures on the Cambridge side. The perspective afoot is much more gratifying than in driving, noticing things I hadn’t noticed before. Along this stretch of the Charles, the Boston banks are either non existing or desolate. I imagined how years ago on a hot summer’s day the throng of crowds at Magazine Beach enjoying its pleasures. Maybe, just maybe, after the construction is completed, we might see such activity – as well as the return of the Charles River White Geese.

The Doubletree Inn seems to fit with its colors from the Cambridge side. But I’m not as sure about the BU high rise dorms on the old Commonwealth Armory site, where, in a few years a third high rise dorm is planned.

And the Genzyme building seems to be a better fit viewed from the Cambridge side, even with its scaffolding as its expansion continues. But then we come to the new Harvard dorms, low and high rising. After viewing these dorms for several minutes, I felt the need for an eye exam. I wonder if others have had the same feeling of myopia.

Some of the structures on the Cambridge side are striking – but some should be struck down. I noticed what appeared to me to be a new pocket park for the first time. (Maybe it’s been there and just never noticed it.) It looks great. Perhaps on my next walk, I’ll cross Memorial Drive to spend some time there.

The bridges west of the BU Bridge are very pretty and graceful, even though they need maintenance, some of which is taking place. Watching a scull racing under an arch is truly an enjoyable sight.

I did not go all the way to the Weld Boathouse before crossing Memorial Drive to head to my destination. All in all, with all the fits of construction and stops to look and listen, my trip took just under an hour at a leisurely pace. So I guesstimate that it was no more than a two mile trip. And it was enjoyable, especially with the good weather. I’ll have to do this again to see and enjoy even more than I did on this trip. (By the way, after my visit at the Houghton Library, I took the Red Line to Central and then the 47 bus back to Brookline.)

In an earlier part of this series, I expressed the thought of public transit on the Charles, perhaps between the Esplanade and Watertown Square, at least on pleasant spring, summer and fall days. That would provide yet another perspective of the jewel that is our Charles River.

2. Prior reports in this series.

Part X, 5/9/11:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-river-memories-part-x-harvard.html.

Part IX, 4/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-ix-charles.html.

Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.

Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.

Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.

Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.

Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.

Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.

Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.

Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.

Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.

Swimming on Magazine Beach?

A blog report on Cambridge Community Television’s site shows how the bad guys lie through omission and sucker in well intending people. (Caveat: I do a weekly show on the station. I have no knowledge of the writer.)

The people yelling the most about swimming on Magazine Beach have aggressively been preventing it. Then again, their friends claiming to be defending the Alewife reservation near the MBTA’s Alewife stop have just succeeded in the destruction of the core Alewife Reservation.

The most visible advocates are very consistently heartless supporters of animal abuse and environmental destruction when you are talking reality.

They conducted a “swim in” at Magazine Beach to celebrate the blocking off of Magazine Beach with bizarre introduced bushes which the lies say are “native” but most definitely are not native to the Charles River. Real native vegetation bordering on the Charles River is destroyed twice a year by the state but this bizarre stuff just keeps growing. In order to swim off Magazine Beach, it is absolutely necessary to chop down this irresponsible stuff but the “swimming advocates” would quite simply not dream of that.

The state’s manager brags that it starves the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese. This fits in with the state and Cambridge’s goals of killing off all animals residing on the Charles River Basin.

Also in the way of swimming is the poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly grass introduced when Cambridge and the state destroyed the healthy, responsible native grass which survived the better part of a century.

Large area of playing field have been destroy to drain off the poisons which should not be dumped on the banks of the Charles.

Solution: stop paying money for poisons, spread the seeds of the responsible native grasses which the “swimming advocates” destroyed.

Half truths with major lies through omission are the norm on the Charles River.

And you chop down the bizarre bushes like all the rest of the bordering vegetation, and replace poisons with responsible grass, then you can allow the Charles River White Geese to return to their home where they have fed most of the last 30 years.

But the “saviors”, in reality have contempt for the important things in our world.

http://www.cctvcambridge.org/magazinebeach

Woman attacked on Boston side of Charles.

WBZ Radio has reported an attack on a woman in the Boston Esplanade, the south side of the Charles River.

As stated in the report, these attacks have been by no means uncommon.

The destructive people fighting for a new highway in the Charles on the Cambridge side, in its wetlands, in its animal habitat and on top of easily a hundred trees lie regularly lie by omission.

One of the major things they do not want to know about is the rape / mugging problem in the highway in the Parklands on the Boston side that they want to repeat.

My understanding is that the portion of the parklands in Boston near the BU Bridge is closed at night because of the danger.

But the bad guys do not want to know that.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/06/15/woman-attacked-on-esplanade/

Environmental destruction, celebration, and ostriches

I have submitted the following letter to the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle. Previous blog posts provide details.

*********

The 6/9/11 letter “defending” Alewife has interesting timing.

Alewife communications have fought for borderline issues. The letters direct attention away from destruction of the core Alewife reservation, far more important because of the quality of the property being destroyed and because the fight should have been easy.

But the “activists”’ friends are destroying the core Alewife reservation. These pols claim environmental sainthood and should be easy to talk to. Alewife’s destruction is for flood storage that should be put under a parking lot perhaps 200 feet to the south. It is unnecessary.

I saw the writer at the start of the destruction of the core Alewife reservation. It says everything that she is, once again, writing but ignoring the most important part of the reservation.

Associated “activists”, on 6/11/11 were conducting parties “celebrating” Magazine Beach.

English translation:

1. Celebrating the dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles to keep alive introduced sickly grass which was planted after the destruction of native grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons.

2. Celebrating the destruction of playing fields to drain off poisons.

3. Celebrating the bizarre wall of introduced bushes blocking access between Magazine Beach and the Charles. That wall proves claims of “improving swimming” to be lies.

4. Celebrating heartless animal abuse, which is also a major part of the outrage at Alewife.

5. Celebrating the plans to destroy hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. This is a pittance compared to the destruction at Alewife. But Memorial Drive has not been destroyed YET.

6. Celebrating the annual poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl.

7. Reaffirming the lie that DCR and Cambridge are worthy of respect by those who love the environment. This is a common problem with Alewife.

8. Celebrating censorship by the “activists” as part of a pattern. They have barred discussion of any and all comments reflecting reality on the Charles, in apposition to the nonsense being put out by the “activists” and by their destructive friends.

But the “activists” do not tell the celebrants what they are celebrating.

If the Alewife “activists” get meaningfully concerned, a major part of Alewife will have been destroyed for no good cause. Some can be saved.

The situation on the Charles is completely reversible. All we need is responsible governments and REAL environmentalists. Con games are not helpful.

Supposed environmental protector blesses destruction at Alewife with SILENCE in a letter about Alewife

A “Friend of Alewife”’s letter in the June 9, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle concerning the Alewife flood plain is highly distressing. She has spent 15 years or so running around calling herself and her friends the Friends of Alewife.

Cambridge and the state have just started to destroy the core Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed under a massive parking lot a few hundred feet to the south.

I saw this person at the destruction area at the beginning of the destruction. She is fully aware that the core Alewife reservation is being needless destroyed.

Her letter continued her lovely words about peripheral and much less winnable matters over a 15 year period plus at least one letter supporting the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

SILENCE in this letter from a supposed protector combined with yelling ON THE EXACT SAME ISSUE in nearby, less important areas, says everything.

Her actions over the past 15 years have told people to look at everything except that which is most important and which WAS winnable.

Her fake protective organization, with its connections to powers-that-be in Cambridge, succeeded in accomplishing the City of Cambridge’s goals: DESTROY ALEWIFE and keep people busy chasing their tails RATHER THAN PROBABLY PREVENTING THE DESTRUCTION.

This is what passes for environmentalism in Eastern Massachusetts and in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.

Amory Park continued, in context with the coming “celebration” of environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse

1. Annabel adds.
2. Editor’s Comment.
3. Reversal by the Cambridge City Manager’s “neighborhood association”?


1. Annabel adds.

Someone at the park told me that the geese had laid eggs in previous years, but had been oiled to prevent them from hatching. Also, the drake had a band on its foot. A few days after they disappeared, I saw a reddish duck where the geese used to spend most of their time. It appeared to be tame, as it let me walk up to it and did not seem afraid. I thought it might have been placed there to make up for the disappearance of the geese, but that is just speculation on my part

2. Editor’s Comment.

The Charles River Conservancy has been running around poisoning the eggs of as much waterfowl as they can get away with since 2003. They are one of the corrupt groups scheduling the celebration of environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse slated for Magazine Beach this Saturday. Folks who would like more information should contact me at boblat@yahoo.com.

Thanks in advance. This corrupt group and their fellow destroyers WILL try to fool decent human beings into thinking that their destruction of the environment and heartless animal abuse is something normal.

Their signs of announcement are blatantly falsified, as if they were doing something decent, and as if they had something normal people would celebrate.

3. Reversal by the Cambridge City Manager’s “neighborhood association”?

The Cambridge City Manager’s “neighborhood association” which has inflicted outrageous lying through suppression of reality concerning the Charles while permitting unbridled PR by the destructive bureaucrats has put out an email announcement of the Saturday gathering which falls short of “celebrating.”

As usual with these types, there is a major defect in their trying to pretend they are decent human beings. The defect is all those leaflets posted around their neighborhood, flaunting the word “celebrate” which contain their name at the bottom.

And they are participating in this outrage!

But this type of person has such difficulty understanding reality. This is political corruption in the City of Cambridge.

This political corruption keeps extremely bad city councilors in office lying that they are pro-environment. They can make all sorts of lovely noises but it is silly to consider non-stop, very relevant and very valuable falsehoods as other than political corruption.

Geese at Amory Park: Victims of the Corruption on the Charles / the Globe Op Ed?

1. Introduction.
2. Annabel Osberg, June 7.
3. Michael Bukatin, June 8.
4. Summary.



1. Introduction.

We have been reporting on the outrageous environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse which are spinoffs of the environmental corruption at Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, plus the City of Cambridge, plus the fake groups associated with the two.

We have realized that the corruption which is so visible cannot possibly be limited to the Charles River.

Because of this, we have reported on the ongoing destruction of the Alewife Reservation with one of Cambridge’s fake environmental organizations leading the charge while claiming to be defending the reservation. We have gone into detail with regard to institutionalized lies used to destroy the Charles River and its animals.

We have also kept in contact with folks concerned about Amory Park in Brookline, a few blocks south of the Charles River.

Following are reports of interest:

2. Annabel Osberg, June 7.

Do you know anything about the Canada goose family that lived at Amory Park in Brookline? They had six goslings that hatched around April 24. I saw them every time I went to the park, but they disappeared around May 20th. The other park goers that I talked to were dismayed at their disappearance, as was I. I knew the father goose since last year.

3. Michael Bukatin, June 8.

Yes, we are all asking where that geese family disappeared.

Is it possible, that they just walked away, or is it true that
geese don't do that until the children can fly?

Mishka

4. Summary.

I do not believe in coincidences, especially since the corrupt situation in Cambridge and on the Charles River constantly talks in contempt for the environment and claims that everything is a coincidence.

It would appear that nesting Canadas on the Charles have been attacked and destroyed. No direct evidence. A body which has disappeared combined with Marilyn’s observations.

And the Cambridge pols are celebrating environment destruction and heartless animal abuse on the Charles while censoring the bad stuff.

And the Boston Globe has published on op ed calling for the killing of Canada Geese.

And Annabel describes the male (drake) as a long time resident.

The truly sick situation in Cambridge is a situation where fake environmentalists have loudly proclaimed neutrality while CENSORING any and all communications of reality about the environmental destruction on the Charles River. These people, representing an organization created by the Cambridge City Manager are conducting a celebration of environmental destruction on the Charles River on Saturday. They call their behavior, censorship of destruction combined with celebration of destruction “neutrality.”

They also have created spinoffs which call themselves “environmental” but do not want to know about environmental destruction by the people who look like they are pulling the strings.

When dealing with the Cambridge City Manager’s front organizations, the only responsible comment is: “You can’t possibly be so stupid.”

Any and all reports on the Canada Geese at Amory Park would be appreciated. The best email is: boblat@yahoo.com.

Thank you, and I envy so many of you who are not forced to live with the corruption in Cambridge, MA.

Cambridge City Council Maneuvering around Monteiro?

1. Introductory.
2. General.
3. Email letting me know about it.
4. Analysis.


1. Introductory.

The City of Cambridge is in the Appeals Court with regard to a Superior Court Civil Rights decision whose value exceeded $6 million a year ago. The key judge’s opinion goes into great detail apparently proving the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for destroying the life of the former head of the Police Review Board in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. She is a black, Cape Verdean, woman.

The Government Operations and Rule Committee of the Cambridge City Council will today consider seeking to retroactively amending the City Manager’s contract to add an indemnity clause.

2. General.

The following appears on the Cambridge City Council’s on line agenda:

Government Operations and Rules Committee
5:30 PM - 7:30 PM Wednesday, June 8, 2011

5:30 PM

The Government Operations and Rules Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss clarification/correction to the City Manager's contract.

3. Email letting me know about it.

RE: Oops!

Tonight at 530, Tim Toomey's subcommittee will be attempting to amend retroactively the Manager's 2006 contract to add an indemnity clause.

4. Analysis.

I am not certain of the nature of the indemnity clause.

Nevertheless, this sounds like another con game from the powers that be in the City of Cambridge, MA aimed at Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, now awaiting decision of a panel of the Appeals Court.

If Cambridge had a responsible City Council, the Cambridge City Council would have obtained an independent legal opinion before voting to spend millions on appeal of Monteiro v. Cambridge, which I have previously discussed.

The Cambridge City Council plays all sort of games to lie to their constituents.

If the Cambridge City Council were meaningfully concerned about the Monteiro case, they can still obtain independent legal opinion on whether they should have appealed.

If the Cambridge City Council were meaningfully concerned about civil rights and / or about their most basic responsibilities as a city council, they would look at that independent opinion and decide whether they should proceed with the appeal or seek to settle.

If settlement is appropriate, settlement should include firing the Cambridge City Manager with authorization of the Superior Court judge without the golden parachute in his contract and, possibly, without his pension.

Urban River in Virginia

1. Archie Reports.
2. Editor Response.


1. Archie Reports.

Archie Mazmanian reports:

Sunday's (June 5) Sunday NYTimes has an inspirational article by Sarah Wheaton titled "Signs of an Urban River's Revival in Virginia" (at page 19) illustrated with a picture captioned "A heron on the James River in downtown Richmond, VA."

It is a short article that demonstrates what people can do to save a river. Herons would be welcomed to the Charles River but they might not come - or stay - because of the hostile environment demonstrated by the callous treatment of the Charles River White Geese. The Commonwealth of Virginia gets a "thumbs up" and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and the City of Cambridge) gets a "thumbs down."

2. Editor Response.

I have seen heron off Magazine Beach on the Charles before Cambridge and the state started their destruction of the environment.

The Boston Conservation Commission was highly concerned about heron when they expressed at their shock at the environmental destruction of native vegetation on the Charles by the Charles River Conservancy. Cambridge appointees (and fake groups) share the CRC's contempt for the environment and free animals.

Somewhere in my computer, I have the state's plans to essentially bar free animals from the Charles River Basin. I have to dig it out and post it.

Dead Canada goose

1. Marilyn on Dead Canada Goose.
2. Editor’s Response.


1. Marilyn on Dead Canada Goose.

Marilyn Wellons reports the following:

An opinion in the May 20 Boston Globe called for the extermination of Canada geese.

Ten days later I found the body of a Canada goose whose nesting along the Charles River I’d followed closely this spring. It seemed to have died violently, a sight I’d seen before, in 2001, when authorities were vilifying the Charles River White Geese in much the same terms as the Globe’s editor now.

This goose and its mate had persisted for weeks as other geese managed to hatch their eggs. They remained alone by the water, tending their nest. I saw them daily.

The afternoon of May 20, I noticed a man moving carefully toward the two. They were alarmed, but held their posts. After quite some time the man noticed I was watching him. He then seemed to turn his attention to the river or sky. Again after quite some time he began to walk away, quickly up the hill toward the street. At some distance he looked back, to see me still watching him.

The following Friday I saw him again, staring at the geese. There were many other people around, so I went on. That Sunday or Monday the geese were gone. I hoped they and their goslings were finally on the river. When I checked the nest, however, I found the decomposing body of a goose a few feet away, wings in an attitude of flight, neck possibly broken, lying on a long stick. It had been dead for at least a day.

People who kill animals often go on to kill people. Over the next 2 days I called the State Police Lower Basin, State Police Brighton, Environmental Police, Mayor's Office hotline Boston, and the Boston Animal Rescue League. Given the DCR’s reaction to the White Geese’s killings in 2001 and the MSPCA’s botched investigation, I did not call them.

I tried to alert the authorities to the possible danger to humans and to get a necropsy to establish the cause of death, without success. Possibly one of the agencies removed the body; in any case a DCR employee mowing the grass near the nest may have done so.

An officer from the Environmental Police did speak with me this past weekend. He seemed aware of the danger and will follow up to the extent possible.

Thinking it over, I wonder if the Environmental Police rather than MSPCA are now responsible for investigating animal cruelty (at least on state parkland) because the MSPCA failed so dismally in 2001. It seems very likely that the killers of all those White Geese—starting in March and going through July—went on to rape, stab, and beat to death Io Nachtwey a few months later, exactly where the geese had been stabbed and beaten to death.

We don't know if investigation into her death revealed that her killers had also killed the White Geese. And that MSPCA's work on that had been worse then negligent--in my opinion, based on my experience,--corrupt. But it seems possible, even likely that information would have come out in interrogations of the 6 people now in jail for her death.

2. Editor’s Response.

You add to the proven irresponsibility in the Boston Globe, outrageous behavior in Cambridge.

A City Manager created group is holding an event to celebrate the environment destruction and heartless animal abuse associated with the BU Bridge area bizarre projects.

They compound their behavior with suppression of information on the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse. They have gone so far as to conduct a "public meeting" on the projects in which they allow the DCR to say everything they wanted. They prohibitted any and all negative comment on the project, on the record, on the plans to destroy hundreds of trees and further abuse animals and on the many lies.

The extreme dishonesty will not fool these guys' friends, their fellow destroyers.

City Manager Group Publicizing Celebration of Environmental Destruction and Animal Abuse at Magazine Beach

I saw at least one flier with the outrageous headline that the Cambridge City Manager created “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” is “celebrating Magazine Beach.” Fliers, not at all incidentally are prohibited where these are posted. Any guesses what would happen to fliers which responded with the truth about their destruction? Sanctions, fines, perhaps?

Totally unmentioned appears to be the needless environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

Reality is routinely censored by this group which, as part of highly distressing behavior, calls itself “neutral” while putting out such nonsense.

Marilyn Wellons circulated the following comments to a neighborhood association listserve. She was responding to a promise of "public service announcements" by another subscriber that would feature alerts on specific "Noxious Weeds in the City to Eradicate."

The first such alert was posted May 29, 2011 and featured bindweed and black swallowwort.

Wellons's post, June 1, 2011:

The Arnold Arboretum's Peter Del Tredici discusses not only Black swallowwort (p.126) but Hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium), Field bindweed (Convulvulus arvensis),and Tall morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea) (p. 106) in his useful book, Wild Urban Plants of the Northeast (Cornell, 2010).

The book aims to "open people's eyes to the ecological reality of our cities and appreciate it for what it is without passing judgment on it." So-called weed trees are "just as good at sequestering carbon and creating shade as our beloved native species or showy horticultural selections. . . . [I]f one were to ask whether our cities would be better or worse without Ailanthus,the answer would clearly be the latter . . . ." (p.2).

Weeds have an "innate capacity . . . to capitalize on the mess we have made of the planet" (p. 19). Bad-mouthing them "makes it virtually impossible to recognize the positive contributions they are making to the ecology of cities," e.g., temperature reduction, erosion and pollution control, inter alia (pp. 17-18).

"Restoration" to some idea of native--as funded by Cambridge at Magazine Beach--is "both ecologically and evolutionarily impossible. . . . In an urban context, the concept of restoration is really just gardening dressed up to look like ecology. . . ." (p. 16).

He notes analogies to human disturbance and immigration. There is the dynamic of cities, "as one ethnic group replaces another when the socioeconomic status of a given neighborhood shifts either upward or downward" (p. 14). There are attitudes about invasive that "mirror the political debate about undocumented aliens" (pp.17-18).

People may want to consider hit lists of any sort very carefully.

Cambridge City Manager Group reaffirms its "neutral" celebration of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach

The Cambridge City Manager created group which calls itself the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” has announced the following item for discussion at its next meeting:

********

2. Update on planning for event celebrating MAGAZINE BEACH. ([omitted] 9am - 3 pm. See separate announcement.)
Please help with this event including $$ donations for operating expenses and your participation, all greatly appreciated and all helping to build community.

********

This project was advertised as “improving” Magazine Beach.

One of the sponsors conducted a “swim in” to celebrate the improvement of swimming in the Charles as a result of this project.

The project has blocked access to the Charles from Magazine Beach, walling it off with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation for which well established native vegetation was destroyed.

The project has blocked boat launching capabilities into the Charles River.

The project has destroyed significant parts of the playing fields to create a drainage system. The drainage system is designed to drain off poisons which are being dumped on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly grass which was introduced in place of seven acres of native grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons.

This project has been an integral part of heartless animal abuse directed at the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese as part of the implementation of the bizarre effort. The state manager has bragged that he is starving the Charles River White Geese.

This group which is planning a “celebration” BARS HONEST COMMENT ON Magazine Beach if that comment, as is well deserved, is negative.

Business as usual in the City of Cambridge from friends of the Cambridge City Manager and the state bureaucrats.

And they get so offended if the expression “environmental destruction” is used. After they do not allow negative comment. And they are so self righteous. After all, celebrating environmental destruction falls in their definition of “neutrality.”

Camb CM Group: Environmental Destruction is not Environmental Destruction unless the advocate calls it environmental destruction

1. Creation of the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” by the Cambridge City Manager.
2. Recent record of this City Manager Group.
A. Censorship in support of State Bureaucrats.
B. Meeting to celebrate environmental destruction.
3. The latest.
A. Protection against undesired plants.
B. Unacceptable response.
C. Notice of censorship.
D. Response.



1. Creation of the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” by the Cambridge City Manager.

In the recent past, I had a discussion with a friend who was working on creating a neighborhood association in Boston.

I told him: “In Cambridge, we don’t have to do that. The City Manager does it for us.”

He laughed.

One such group calls itself the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.” Created at the request of the Cambridge City Manager’s people.

We are now informed by this group that they will censor any reference to environmental destruction unless the environmental destroyer calls her environmental destruction environmental destruction.

2. Recent record of this City Manager Group.

A. Censorship in support of State Bureaucrats.

I have previously reported the blatantly fake meeting by this group concerning the ongoing destruction at Magazine Beach.

They allowed the state bureaucrats to present their latest plans, but prohibited the public from making negative comment. They called this “neutrality.”

No negative comments allowed as to any of the ongoing or planned destruction.

B. Meeting to celebrate environmental destruction.

The following email was sent to the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association list on May 11, 2011

******

Save the Date!
Magazine Beach Clean-up and Celebration
Saturday, [ed: omitted], 9am-3pm
(rain date: Sunday, [ed: omitted])

9-12 noon Clean-up
Meet in front of the Riverside Boat Club (across from Starbucks at Microcenter Plaza) for hot coffee, cool drinks, cleanup tools, gloves and assignments.(Cleaner Uppers, please RSVP, so that we can be sure to have enough tools on hand! E-mail: lcw@thecharles.org.)

12-2 Picnic/Potluck/Barbeque to music
by Best Ever Chicken!

1-3 Learn-to-Row at the Riverside Boat Club

Bring your whole family! Bring a picnic cloth, a dish to share, frisbees, balls and badminton rackets!

Sponsored by: Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, Charles River Conservancy, Riverside Boat Club and DCR, [ed: omitted, sounds great, as usual.]

*******
Note, once again, they censored negative comment about the Magazine Beach projects in a “Public Meeting”. Now they are sponsoring a “Celebration” on that project

3. The latest.

About the time the city and state started the totally unnecessary destruction of the core Alewife reservation, a woman put out an email denying the destruction was ongoing.

The following is her latest pitch, my response, and the notice of censorship.

A. Protection against undesired plants.

It would be very helpful to the environment, as well as to insure the health and survival of public and private gardens here in Cambridge, as well as to protect butterflies and birds [ed: long totally silent about the heartless animal by their friends] , if everyone could learn to identify some of the worst invasive weeds that love living in our fair city and then set about digging them out. All parts of these plants should be wrapped up in plastic bags and put in the trash, not in the yard waste.

And so, I will be posting alerts about certain weeds at times when they are most troublesome or at times when it is favorable for attacking them.

Some weeds that we see in Cambridge are toxic to small children and pets. Even some adults could suffer mild bouts of discomfort from these weeds by ingesting their berries or other parts of the plant.

This week one very noxious weed and one nasty pest of a weed are growing like crazy. Please be on the lookout for them and pull or dig them out if you can. If everyone just weeds around their residence or the cracks in the sidewalk or along the edge of the sidewalk near their residence, it will make a huge difference.
Weeds being featured this week are: Field Bindweed (Convolvulus) and here is a long link to a page with many photos of the nasty plant. It looks like a morning glory in a way, but don't be fooled by it. It has pointed leaves whereas the morning glory has rounded leaves. We generally see only the white convolvulus, not those colorful ones.

[ed: link omitted. They always point out the responsible one AND CENSOR THE IRRESPONSIBLE ONES..]

But the noxious weed that children should avoid is Black Swallow-wort. You'll see it growing up chain link fences now or anywhere it can climb. It will give children quite an upset stomach. And, it endangers the Monarch butterfly because, although it is in the milkweed family, it is not the milkweed plant that Monarch's use to lay their eggs and so the eggs die. It can also pose a danger to some birds. This plant must be dug out and all bits of root removed from the soil.

B. Unacceptable response.

As the City Manager's appointees were fighting to destroy the Cambridge side of the Charles River, they made lots of noises about offensive vegetation.

I recall the Boston Conservation Commission expressing its disgust for the Charles River Conservancy running around the Boston side destroying that same vegetation.

The Boston Conservation Commission was concerned about MEANINGFUL native vegetation. The Boston Conservation Commission was disgusted with the CRC's destruction.

Strange, the City Manager's appointees stopped using those nasty words shortly after the Boston Conservation Commission showed the opinion of the real world about destructiveness which is fought for by the Cambridge City Manager's appointees.

Instead, they destroyed seven acres of healthy grass at Magazine Beach for replacement by sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive. Then to keep the poisons which have no business being dumped on the banks of the Charles out of the Charles, they DECREASED the size of the playing fields at Magazine Beach. The decreases was "needed" to keep the totally unnecessary poisons out of the Charles.

And the native vegetation the CRC ran around destroying? Well that was the excuse for the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which now keeps people at Magazine Beach from access to the Charles River. The native bordering vegetation is destroyed twice a year and the bizarre introduced stuff just keeps growing.

And then, of course, there is heartless animal abuse associated with this totally unnecessary destruction. But the supporters of destruction call themselves neutral, and it would be negative to point out that support for destruction is anything but neutral.

And there are people including the author below [ed: quoted above] who think destruction of the environment is worthy of celebrating. But we really must not let reality disrupt things, must we?

C. Notice of censorship.

Bob -- The right to express your opinion does not include misrepresenting the opinions of others. Nowhere in her statement does [omitted] favor destruction of the environment. If you want me to accept your message, please delete the phrase "including the author below."

Thank you, [omitted] (moderator)

D. Response.

How dare anybody call their celebration of environmental destruction at Magazine Beach a celebration of environmental destruction unless they admit they are celebrating environmental destruction.

Day 402, New York Times, Bullying, Fake Protectors, Alewife

1. Day 402.
2. Archie: Jonathan Franzen in the New York Sunday Times.
3. Malcolm Blackman, Protection Against Bullying, Environmental Destruction, Alewife.


1. Day 402.

On Sunday, May 29, I conducted the 402th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

It was a hot, beautiful day with quite a bit of traffic.

The small, undestroyed portion of the Nesting Area looks very good.

The small trees I accidentally thought had been planted by the bad guys are now healthy and active. Perhaps six in the western area were but white strands when I saw them a few months ago. They are fully leaved and look terrific. The two deciduous trees in the northern very small area are standing up terrific.

The only thing keeping this area from healthy vegetation are irresponsible state and city goverments and the massive organization of the Cambridge Pols.

2. Archie: Jonathan Franzen in the New York Sunday Times.

Archie Mazmanian reports:

********

Author Jonathan Franzen has a lengthy essay in today's (5/29/11) NYTimes "Liking Is For Cowards. Go for What Hurts." Sunday Opinion in the Week in Review section. Unfortunately, access my be limited by subscription. But the essay is a well worthwhile read for Friends of the CRWG. While Franzen was an environmentalist in his college days, he gave up because he felt that what he could do personally was quite limited. Then he became infatuated with technology. But in recent times he "fell in love with birds." This love has rejuvenated his environmental concerns. Here are the closing paragraphs of his essay adapted from his May 21st commencement speech at Kenyon College:

"When you stay in your room and rage or sneer or shrug your shoulders, as I did for many years, the world and its problems are impossibly daunting. But when you go out and put yourself in real relation to real people, or even just real animals, there's a very real danger that you might love some of them.

And who knows what might happen to you then?"

Those on the fence about the plight of the CRWG just might become their Friends.

PS For those who read hard copy, the essay is on page 10 of the Week in Review section of the NYTimes.

3. Malcolm Blackman, Protection Against Bullying, Environmental Destruction, Alewife.

I have posted a link in my private account on facebook from Malcolm Blackman providing contact to an entity which provides information and assistance on Child Bullying.

He comments that some of the people on the bad list posted by this site are people who destroyed his Hands Across the Ocean site from within. He has, at major effort, apparently minimized the harm.

Destruction from within is not at all an unusual tactic. Really, many of the slew of fake organizations in Cambridge and on the Charles River very much fit this mold. Many of the fake organizations were created fake in the first place.

The destroyers cannot attract people through honesty. So they create these fake organizations and lie, at minimum, through false names, or they take over good organizations and destroy them from within.

I have seen one of the front organizations publicly go on record supporting cyberbullying as a matter of free speech and throw a victim off their listserve because the victim sought the listserve’s protection against cyberbullying.

Quite possibly, one of the biggest victims in the destruction of the core Alewife reservation is the leader of the fake group which has run around for ten or fifteen years fighting, Cambridge con game style, for the destruction of the cause she seems to have held most dear.

I recall when she formed this group. She went to people she trusted. They destroyed her. They got her to fight to destroy Alewife by looking at everything except for that which she found most important.

The rotters in Cambridge, MA, lie that they are the good guys as did the people who destroyed HATO from within.

I do not want to look at Alewife. I am horrified at the thought of looking at Alewife.

Has this woman finally realized that she has been conned?

Something might still be saved IF SHE CHANGES TO THE SIDE SHE WANTED TO BE ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Or will she join the rotters on the Charles River and celebrate the destruction of that which she seems to hold most dear?

The Charles can still be meaningfully saved. At Alewife, the destruction can still be minimized.

Day 401, Fake Groups and the Destruction of the Environment

1. Day 401 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.


1. Day 401 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

On May 28, 2011, I conducted the 401st visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

The work on the BU Bridge which supposedly justified major destruction has been done for months now. There is a very large swath east of the BU Bridge with nothing but dirt where access was needed for repairs.

The white geese were under the big tree in the dirt created by the state bureaucrats probably through their favorite fake organization.

Traffic was heavier than would be expected on a holiday weekend.

People were friendly.

2. The technique of fake groups in destroying the environment.

A Cambridge City Manager / City Council related group in the neighborhood near Magazine Beach has announced a celebration of destruction of the environment of the Charles River.

These are the guys who claimed to be conducting a public meeting on state plans for the Charles River. They barred negative comments with flat out contempt for the very destructive reality on the banks of the Charles River. Censorship is a normal technique among the Cambridge Pols.

A related group has been running around claiming to be defending the Alewife reservation for something like 15 years. The Alewife reservation WAS an essentially virgin woodlands near the northernmost station of the subway system’s Red Line. This group has succeeded. The core part of the Alewife reservation is being destroyed.

This group is printing yet another letter in the Cambridge Chronicle bemoaning the destruction of peripheral areas of Alewife for private development. These letters have been very much non stop for perhaps 15 years.

Never, however, has this group ever condemned plans to destroy the core area. The core area is being destroyed by their friends, the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council. There has been at least one letter related to this group supporting the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

These groups are normal in Cambridge. I have had major environmental victories. The big problem has always been these Cambridge Pol groups.

The Cambridge Pol groups fill a void. They keep people who would otherwise be activists “out of trouble.”: The groups look like they have a function which is positive. By looking like positive organizations, they encourage people to “join” and be controlled. They prevent meaningful behavior standing up to the City Manager and City Council.

People go to them because they think that the groups’ loudly proclaimed purpose is meaningful.

I have long tried to prevent the destruction this group just achieved at Alewife. The Alewife reservation should not be destroyed for flood storage because there is a very large parking lot just to the south of the reservation which could be and should be used for flood storage.

Trouble is that the Cambridge Pols are well organized. Their pitch is “Trust the City Manger, trust the City Council, How dare you expect the City Manager and City Council to behave responsibly.”

It is always impossible to tell the difference between the knaves and the fools. I do know that with the knee jerk delivery of support from the Cambridge Pols, and the constant mantra by which the Cambridge Pols loudly proclaim it is crucial to trust people not worthy of being trusted, I got outorganized.

And the Cambridge Pols have kept people chasing their tails on much less important threats while the Cambridge Pols deliver a false world to the voters.

Alewife is being destroyed.

The Cambridge Pols are celebrating the destruction of the environment on the Charles. They are fighting for the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles exactly as the Alewife “organizers” have been fighting for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation for perhaps 15 years.

I assume the fake Alewife organization will be next to celebrate destruction of Alewife by their friends. They will, of course, not mention that the core Alewife reservation did not have to be destroyed.

Outrageous, irresponsible? This IS the Cambridge Pols.

Canada Geese, the Boston Globe, and contempt for the environment.

1. Oped condemning Canada Geese.
2. Marilyn Wellons responds.
3. Apologies.


1. Oped condemning Canada Geese.

Archie Mazmanian was kind enough to pass on a link to a Boston Globe oped by Lawrence Harmon entitled “Canada Geese have got to go” on May 21, 2011.

When I followed up the link, it was blank, probably pulled between the time Archie passed it on and I opened.

If anybody has an updated link, I would be pleased to insert it.

UPDATE:

It has been provided by Susan Harrison.

Thank you VERY MUCH Susan: http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-21/bostonglobe/29569074_1_canada-geese-goose-eggs-euthanize.

2. Marilyn Wellons responds.

On May 24, 2011, Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Boston Globe editor in response to the oped:

*********

Humans nearly exterminated Canada geese through hunting and habitat destruction a hundred years ago. That is why they are a federally protected species. Here are some facts for Mr. Harmon as he leads the charge for another go. I doubt they will dissuade him.

These creatures are greatly disadvantaged in their competition for habitat with the likes not only of golf-playing Mr. Harmon. In Delafield, Wisconsin, lakeshores are being sold for housing, its meadows paved over for Walmart. To the north, as the permafrost melts from climate change, lakes disappear. Who is encroaching upon whose turf?

As for goose poop, with geese, it’s grass in, grass out. Their non-toxic excrement replenishes the grass. Unlike others’, it almost uniquely does not attract flies. Free fertilizer for the public golf course!

Mr. Harmon’s modest proposal for gassing ignores evidence since 1945 that it is not a “humane” way to exterminate organisms.

It seems his problem is with his fellow humans. We city dwellers actually need and enjoy contact with the natural world—and celebrate what Mr. Harmon finds distasteful. It was presumably for this reason that a hundred years ago so many states invested in urban parks, Massachusetts among them.

3. Apologies.

From May 10 on, I worked seven days out of nine, occupying 15 to 16 hours each time, as an extra/actor on the movie “Here Comes the Boom” which was shooting in Lowell, MA.

In the middle of this shoot, my computer collapsed with a virus. Cleaning up this virus involved a number of extended phone discussions with McAfee, extended work on my own, and one phone discussion with the manufacturer of my computer. My praises to Toshiba. One phone call and very efficient service.

This morning, May 27, 2011, I finally fixed the virus and am now catching up.

To put it mildly, the combination was a person nightmare.

Actually, I got out three reports on this blog in the middle of everything. I have been very busy.

This report is late. I am sorry.

Cambridge, MA, and state commence destruction of Alewife Reservation

1, Report.
2. Cher Responds, with reply.
3. Boston.com picks up this report.

1. Report.

Cambridge and the state have been working for perhaps two decades to destroy a massive, essentially untrouched forest abutting the Alewife MBTA Station.

This area is in the western part of Cambridge, MA and includes or is near to parts of Belmont and Arlington, MA. One of the two key east-west superhighways in Massachusetts, state route 2, ends at Alewife Station.

Cambridge and the state are destroying the Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed under a massive parking lot about 300 feet to the south.

First and foremost, the Alewife reservation is being destroyed because Cambridge has a horribly irresponsible city manager and city council. They are able to do their terrible things, however, because of the massive organization they have running around lying about them.

I was at the Alewife reservation this morning, May 15, 2011, responding to the latest con game.

The environmental destroyers are running a week long series of events telling people to protect the environment. These fake initiatives are very much non stop in Cambridge. They are flat out frauds on the public because the organizers yell about everything except what counts. And they do not want to know about what counts.

The latest fake initiative included a walk around the Alewife reservation. I was there to leaflet and warn the public against the forthcoming destruction of the Alewife Reservation. It was highly distressing to see it had already started.

While I was there, the leader of the fake group came to post a sign delaying the walk a week because of rain.

My first concern for Alewife came in the early 80's when I lived about a mile from it.

I tried to organize against the destruction of Alewife, but this person outorganized me. In Cambridge, “organizing” by those who are destroying the environment is simple — They simply give themselves a lovely and misleading name. Then they just call the already built in Cambridge Pol organization and the Cambridge Pol organization delivers.

[Ed: I have had misgivings about the wording of the preceding paragraph, but reality is that the same analysis has proven true time and time and time again when talking about the Cambridge Pols, their "good intentions" and their fake organizations: “You simply cannot be that stupid.”]

So this woman has been pullinmg people around by the nose for ten or twenty years yelling about everything except for the really important stuff, really important stuff that could have been prevented and still can be reversed.

What it would take to reverse this destruction is to stop in place, Then take by eminent domain the massive parking lot 300 feet to the south (just north of the commuter rail) and proceed with the work that should have been done there in the first place. The flood storage should have been been placed under that parking lot in the first place.

This would make excellent sense because the devastation is so major and so easily avoidable. The state and Cambridge’s bad city government would have to undo the outrage that has already been committed, but that is the responsible thing to do. This, however, is Cambridge, MA, with all those fake groups running around praising a destructive city government for traits which are way too often exactly the opposite of reality.

This is a horrible, horrible day.

2. Cher Responds, with reply.

This really really really sucks. I don't remember how one goes about taking by eminent domain but am sure they have that covered too.

*********

The city manager prides himself on not doing takings. He reaches agreement. They do not have time for agreement.

On the other hand, if they started behaving responsibly on Monteiro, they might have an attorney’s position which gives them blessing, with judge’s consent, to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

3. Boston.com picks up this report.

Thank you for the report and the link.

Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge — The Attorneys.

1. Introduction.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?

1. Introduction.

On May 4, 2011, I was in the audience as the attorneys for Cambridge and Malvina Monteiro argued the appeal of Malvina Monteiro v. City ofCambridge.

This is the civil rights case concerning allegations that the City of Cambridge destroyed the life of the head of its Police Review board, a black Cape Verdean woman in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

In this case:

a. the jury awarded about $1 million in real damages, and $3.5 million in penal damages and

b. the judge, in support of the award, quoted the City Manager testimony at length, and then, based on her analysis, called him “reprehensible.”

I was so very pleased by the presentation of the Monteiro attorney before the Appeals Court that I wrote a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle expressing my pleasure. My letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition.

On May 10, 2011, I received a phone call from a journalist on my office phone asking me what I thought of the idea of the city suing its attorney in Monteiro for malpractice.

It is my opinion that the City Council’s funding of the appeal without getting a second opinion constituted a dereliction of duty. I burst out laughing and confirmed my comments by email.

2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney

The following letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition of the Cambridge Chronicle on Page 12.

Its location was excellent.

It occupied a double column at the top left of the editorial page following a shorter letter. This location is the normal spot for editorials. No editorial was printed.

*********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

My commendations to Attorney Zucker on her representation of Malvina Monteiro before the Appeals Court on May 4, 2011 in response to Cambridge's appeal of the Superior Court decision in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

This is the case in which the jury awarded $4.5 million including $3.5 million in penal damages, and everything had passed $6.0 million a year ago.

Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who, until her firing, was head of Cambridge's police review board.

Judge and jury found that the City of Cambridge destroyed Ms. Monteiro's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge went into extended analysis of the city manager's testimony in her key opinion. The judge proceded to find the Cambridge City Manager "reprehensible" based on her analysis.

I am not privy to the formal submittals in the case.

I did see Attorney Zucker's presentation before the Appeals Court.

I thought her presentation was excellent.

3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?

On May 10, 2011, I got a phone call at my law office from a woman who identified herself as a journalist. She asked me what I thought of the City of Cambridge suing their attorney in Malvina Montero.

I immediately laughed and then gave her a response which I summarized in the below email:

**********

It was a pleasure talking with you just now. I am copying a few people who have interest in this matter.

The YouTube URL presenting my formal presentation of my opinion on the proper handling of the Monteiro appeal is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

My edit of the Superior Court judge’s key opinion is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. This edit is paragraphed and formatted by me. It is taken from a posting by the Superior Court Clerk of Courts which totally lacked paragraphing. The paragraphing is my best estimate. I have made no other changes.

To put it succinctly, it is my opinion that, based on the Superior Court judge’s excellent opinion, the Cambridge City Council was derelict in its duty in funding the appeal of the Monteiro decision without getting independent opinion from an attorney competent in the field of employment law and civil rights law, and that such independent opinion should have been based on the entire record in this case.

If that attorney found that appeal was not warranted, based on the Superior Court judge and jury’s decision, it is my opinion that the city council should have suspended the Cambridge City Manager without pay and appointed the City Clerk as acting City Manager with direction to seek settlement with the plaintiff which would include firing of the City Manager, at minimum, without his golden parachute, plus, within a reasonable level of analysis, without pension.

Such agreement, when reached, should have been and still can be submitted to the Superior Court judge for her approval. The judge, I should think, would certainly approve firing without golden parachute inasmuich as, under these circumstances, the golden parachute would be in violation of public policy. Under the circumstances, I think there is good possibility as well that the judge would approve firing him without pension. The case, based on the judge’s opinion, looks like an ideal situation in which to seek to expand current law to this minor extent, especially since judge made law is very common in this field.

If I could be of further assistance, please contact me at 617-283-7649, my cell phone, or at boblat@yahoo.com.

Thank you very much for your interest and good luck with your story.

Mallard in trouble?

1. Report.
2. Jeanne comments.

1. Report.

Tuesday, May 10, I got a call from a lady who was concerned about a Mallard Duck wandering around Gerry Street. Gerry Street is in a lovely little neighborhood hidden a little west of Harvard Square. It is between Mount Auburn Street and Memorial Drive, with some small stores on Mount Auburn Street and massive converted condos between it and Memorial Drive.

She had last seen the Mallard in a parking lot behind a row of stores. She was concerned because a parking lot is not good duck habitat.

I parked at a meter across from the Harvard Square Post Office two blocks away and walked back to investigate. Just to the west of the store parking lot is an asphalt area behind a private home. There were bread morsels spread out over the asphalt.

I wandered around this lovely smaller scale neighborhood. No duck.

I called the lady back and reported that Mr. Mallard had apparently been attracted by the food and decided, in agreement with the lady, that the area was not good duck habitat. We were both happy.

2. Jeanne comments.

That was really nice.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART X, Harvard University and the Charles River

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Prior reports in this series.
3. Editor’s Supplement.

1. Archie’s Report.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART X
By Archie Mazmanian

I conduct research on the Internet for this series not only to test my memory but to learn more about the Charles River. Recently such a search revealed an article by Corydon Ireland titled “A river runs through it” subtitled “Harvard’s long and complex ties to the Charles” in the Harvard Gazette, October 10, 2010. Many may recall the 1992 movie with that title starring Robert Redford about a river in Montana. Titles are not subject to copyright protection. I was aware of this with my July 21,2009 post on this Blog of “A River Runs Through It” about Harvard and the Charles in my series on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring Project. [Available here: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_07_21_archive.html] No reference was made in Ireland’s article to mine. So be it. But there are different perspectives to consider.

The Harvard Gazette article mentions a book “Bringing the Harvard Yards to the River” (Harvard Design School, 2004), “a slender volume edited by the GSD’s Joan Busquetss, the Martin Bucksbaum Professor in Practice in Urban Planning and Design. In it, the contributors imagined turning parkways into promenades, digging pedestrian tunnels, and even building a midriver recreational island.

Each of the ideas shared a goal, Busquets wrote, ‘the importance of establishing a better connection to the Charles River.’” (Better for whom?)

I have not been able to locate this book at a local library as yet, so I know very little of the ideas of the goal of Harvard in “establishing a better connection to the Charles River.” [Harvard Magazine in March of 2005 discloses some of the ideas pictorially, available via the Internet at: http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/connecting-to-the-river.html.] We know of course of the hundreds of acres of land surreptitiously acquired by Harvard in Allston that remain to be developed. We have seen the new dorms with river views on the Allston side. What is to come, and will Allston residents have a say in what Harvard develops as it may impact upon the Charles, which belongs to all of us? What voice will or should Cambridge residents have? Others?

Harvard has a long history with the Charles River. Recall the exclusive ferry operations granted to Harvard back in 1650 between Boston and Charlestown discussed in Part VII of this series that were entwined with the 1837 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. Harvard College was earlier recognized in Chapter V of the MA Constitution confirming and commending its incorporation with this: “ … the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and other United States of America.” But God did not endow the Charles River to Harvard. And of course we have religious diversity today, thanks to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

This brings to mind this poem:

"And here's to good old Boston
The land of the bean and the cod
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots
And the Cabots talk only to God."

- Author Unknown

When it comes to the Charles River, Harvard must talk to all of us.

[Part XI of this series will address the roles of Harvard, MIT and Boston University regarding the Charles River. By the way, I am not aware of any of these venerable institutions addressing the cruelty imposed by MA and Cambridge government officials on the Charles River White Geese. I wonder why?]

2. Prior reports in this series.

Part IX, 4/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-ix-charles.html.

Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.

Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.

Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.

Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.

Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.

Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.

Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.

Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.

Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.

3. Editor’s Supplement.

I find Harvard’s official 2010 statement of intentions in Cambridge in its 2010 Town - Gown report to Cambridge. I do not see the 2011 version.

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-river-memories-part-x-harvard.html.

Harvard’s official position as to its intentions in Allston are posted at: http://www.evp.harvard.edu/allston.

Moving the Medical School to the current location of the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramps is not mentioned.

I looked for a comparable page for Watertown without success. Major purchases have been made across the Charles River in Watertown and I have seen plans for housing construction on the hillside above Greenough Boulevard facing the Charles River.

Additions are welcome.

Charles River White Geese facebook page not destroyed?

The facebook page definitely is different. What I am getting is MY PERSONAL information on the left of three columns.

At least, the notice at the top announcing the soon to come demise is gone.

There clearly are other changes. Among other things, we have lost our very prominent photo of the Charles River White Geese.

I know I very quickly filed an objection with facebook to the threat to destroy the page, insofar as such communication is allowed. The page creator says he took care of things.

I honestly do not know.

Charles River Bridge projects to be presented to Cambridge Conservation Commission

This coming Monday, May 9, at 7:15 pm, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) will brief this group of Cambridge City Manager appointees on this program which includes work on a number of Charles River Bridges: the Anderson Bridge (Harvard Square), River Street Bridge, Cambridge Street Bridge, BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.

Much of this program has been determined by the DCR working with the destructive City of Cambridge, and was taken over by MassDOT.

The continuing problem among the Charles River bridge projects is the efforts of environmentally destructive people to build a new highway in the Charles River and on its banks. This new highway would be destructive to the river, its trees, its wetlands, and its animals.

Location is 344 Broadway in Cambridge (corner of Inman, 2 blocks behind City Hall), fourth floor conference room.

Cher and Ellen on facebook attacking the Charles River White Geese page

Cher:

I can’t believe this.

Its always the people who are the most selfless and try the hardest to help others especially animals who get the most crap.

Ellen:

Unbelievable what they are doing or have done.

Joyce Killmer, trees, Cambridge and facebook

Archie Mazmanian comments on the current nightmare with facebook:

***********

If Joyce Kilmer were around, the poem "Trees" might have started thus:

"I think that I shall never see,
A Facebook lovely as a tree ... "

Just as MA and Cambridge officials are destroying the Charles River White Geese and trees along the Charles River, Facebook eliminates friends of CRWG. Why? Because they are there - or used to be? Alas, the First Amendment creates - and it can destroy.

Update on destruction of facebook page.

1. Report.
2. Comment.


1. Report.

Since yesterday a new facebook page has been created with exactly two members, me and Nick Cheung who created the original page.

But the 94 member page is the one you get to when you look for Charles River White Geese.

I have done quite a bit of objecting, including a post in a location which might get to the powers that be.

I have invited as friends on the new page all that facebook would allow, but I have deliberately kept the Charles River White Geese page separate from my personal page, and no more than half of the members of the Charles River White Geese page are friends on my personal page.

The only way physically, I can invite them to the savaged version of the Charles River White Geese facebook page is to invite them to my page and then to Charles River White Geese. This gets highly complicated by people having similar names. Highly complicated.

And the reality is that, as facebook comments in their fine print, Charles River White Geese was individually selected to have its friend grouping destroyed. This is no accident.

And we JUST HAPPEN TO BE STANDING UP to highly irresponsible behavior on behalf / benefitting Harvard.

I have a very large press mailing list which I will use when or if the 94 member page is destroyed.

2. Comment.

Danny Gold has been kind enough to post on the 94 member facebook page that Zuckerman only attended and did not graduate from Harvard.

Afraid I really do not know the details.

I thank very much Danny for the input. I will modify future postings and notices accordingly.

facebook to destroy group page of the Charles River White Geese

The behavior of the people fighting for destruction of animals and environment on the Charles River is commonly outrageous.

They work through many front organizations. The worst calls itself a Conservancy.

But the destructiveness is not limited to specialized groups. The bad guys toss in outrages in groups with less direct connections.

One thing which is a bad sign is groups with high MIT/Harvard connections.

One such group, which calls itself the Association for Public Transportation has gotten maneuvered into supporting an alternative on the Charles River which is flatly and simply stupid from a transportation point of view. They run a listserv.

Discussion of their nonsensical transportation position has been immediately responded to with cyberabuse.

The response of the listserve when the victim sought protection? The listserve defended cyberabuse as protected by freedom of speech and THREW OUT the victim for offending the listserve by passing on the cyberabuse and continuing to object to cyberabuse after the listserve head defended cyberabuse as protected speech.

Amazingly, it looks like facebook is not even exempt.

The owners come from Harvard or MIT.

We have just been told that our Charles River White Geese page will be destroyed by them.

They will allow us to keep some of our content but they are wiping out our total list of “friends.”

Just after we posted photos of key trees being destroyed, just a few of the hundreds threatened.

Just after we realized that some people who might be trying to friend us may have been fooled into “liking” the facebook page of the front organization for the destroyers, a destructive entity which has the nerve to call itself a “conservancy.”

facebook is giving no explanation. They are allowing us to keep some content but they, without any explanation, are destroying all our contact with our friends.

This is the way things are done in Cambridge, MA.

And how dare you call it “reprehensible.”

Follow up on false tree sightings

Saturday morning, I posted my report on the Friday visibility.

I was so happy. I thought I had seen trees planted.

Saturday afternoon, I walked the ground in the nesting area and realized I had made the mistake that decent people so commonly do, a mistake that allows a really rotten situation to continue in Cambridge and on the Charles River.

I assumed I was dealing with basic decency.

I am transmitting four photos from the photos I took on March 29. One is an overview, two are of the BU Bridge side, and one is of the ramp side.

The first photo is the overview, shot from a location which has not been destroyed by the very destructive agency responsible for the continuing and accelerating outrage.














In the second photo, the sticks in the middle of the photo are what I, on Friday, thought were tree plantings. In the third photo, they are to the far right.


























The poor geese are doing what they can to survive in the face of this outrage.

In each photo, there is a clear difference between crushed vegetation and strands of, apparently, vines stretching toward the middle of this man made wasteland. Those vines are nature healing itself. If nature were simply allowed to heal itself in the middle, the meadow would be reborn.

In the background is the construction. The construction zone to the left is now totally unnecessary. The excuse for construction was work on the BU Bridge. The work is done. The massive intrusion should be removed.















The fourth photo is of the vegetation toward the ramp with the first area visible to the left. Somewhere in the middle of this vegetation are the two small trees which I saw with leaves, struggling, nature reborn.

The first photo places this in perspective. The BU Bridge dominates the photo. Below the BU Bridge is the area in photos 2 and 3. To the right is the area in photo 4.

I still have a number of photos I have not published from the March 29 shoot. I will publish them in coming days.

Day 400 at the Destroyed Nesting Area, Trees Planted?

1. Day 400, the Visibility.
2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.
3. Follow up, correction

1. Day 400, the Visibility.

On Friday, April 29, 2011, I conducted the 400th visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

It was early rush hour with people already going to the Red Sox game. Cars and pedestrians were heavier than I have previously seen during this series of visibilities.

People going toward Cambridge were waving from their cars and beeping.

A lot of fliers were distributed. Quite a few people stopped for good conversations.

2. Day 400, conditions in the destroyed nesting area.

The 50 foot swath for access to bridge repairs that were completed months ago is still there, as is the parking area for cars that are parked elsewhere.

The hay bales which were piled in the interior corner of the L have been mostly moved. A number of them were moved in an organized manner against the sidewalk toward the BU Bridge near the on ramp. They exactly fit the height of the bridge above ground at that point. A lot of hay bales were thrown on the hill under the ramp in the construction zone.

Trees have been planted. To the human eye it looks good. I do not know what it looks like to the animals. That is a matter of concern. There have been perhaps ten trees planted in close groupings.

At the time of destruction of the natural area nearest the BU Bridge / on ramp intersection, two grouping of ground vegetation were not destroyed. Perhaps five deciduous trees have been planted in the grouping closer to the BU Bridge and perhaps 5 evergreens in the other area. The deciduous are close together and are tied in a supporting group. The evergreens are more spread out.

This greenery was a vestige of the wild area before the bureaucrats, Cambridge and their fake environmental group started destroying. The look of this wild remnant has been a dead appearance this spring raising the fear that the destroyers have further destroyed. But there has been no other real vegetation and vegetation is needed for nesting.

I have been aware of at least one nest in the wild area toward the bridge. That nest was nearest the bridge, and I think I saw the mother goose from above. Trouble is that I really do not know the location of all the nests.

View of the tree plantings from above gives the impression of care in planting. It looks like the vegetation has not been damaged. The nest I can see is away from the plantings. Reality is, however, that non damage is impossible.

To a human, the plantings look good. Human sensibilities, however, have been at the core of the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles. And the destroyers live off lying to please human sensibilities since they have contempt for resident animals.

I do not know. I do know that, in contrast to the City of Cambridge, to the DCR bureaucrats, and to the fake environmental group, I have respect for the Department of Transportation people.

The Department of Transportation people are the ones doing the work now, but they have been committed in their performance by contracts signed by the reprehensible DCR.

I would very strongly appreciate analyses by other responsible people.

3. Follow up, correction.

One of the ways the bad guys get away with so many really bad things is that there are so many of us who want to believe well of people.

I checked on the area in the afternoon. The trees I observed from above could not possibly be recent plantings.

Sorry, I, like so many other victims wish well of the bad guys.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX, Charles River Architecture, Natural and Man Made

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Response.
3. Prior reports.



1. Archie’s Report.

CHARLES RIVER MEMORIES, PART IX

By Archie Mazmanian

Consider the architecture along and over the Charles River downstream of the Weld Boathouse. The Charles River bridges [yes, Virginia, bridges are architecture!] along this stretch are varied in style, size, construction and materials; they can be best examined leisurely on walking or bicycling trips along the river and over them, whereas safety requirements in driving a motor vehicle limit the opportunity to do so (although passengers may do so safely).

Along the Charles River, the buildings present varied architectural styles. While these may be appreciated driving along Storrow and Memorial Drives, they serve as teasers to leisurely examining them on walking or bike trips. There are the traditional Georgian buildings of Harvard?s Cambridge campus, that contrast with the post WW II Harvard Business School campus and the very recent Harvard dorms on the Allston side of the river. There are the more recent modern commercial and residential structures on both sides of the river. And consider the rehabbed Ford Motor Company building at the northerly end of the BU Bridge.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have had mixed thoughts about some of the recent additions along the river. What are the obligations of developers along the river to respect the Charles River and its enjoyment by the public? Should Boston have a voice on development on the Cambridge side? Should Cambridge have a voice on development on the Boston side? Should the MA public beyond Boston and Cambridge have a voice on such development since he Charles River belongs to all of us?

Another way to enjoy the architecture along and over the Charles is directly on the river. In the summertime, I have observed tour (including duck) boats from downtown Boston that make their way to the BU Bridge and back. Unfortunately, they cannot proceed further upstream to the Weld Boathouse and beyond to Watertown Square because of the low rail bridge under the BU Bridge.

Sailboats and sculls are another means of enjoying the architecture along and over the Charles, including at the sailing pavilion in the Esplanade area as well as the sailing operations of several area universities. The annual Head of the Charles Regatta provides magnificent views for the rowers who can maneuver the low rail bridge below the BU Bridge.

In my contributions to this Blog on the Urban Ring Project, I have been critical of the proposed utilization of the rail bridge by expanding it to accommodate two travel lanes for Bus Rapid Transit’s 60-foot articulated buses for the Project?s Phase 2 Charles River crossing. Such would further segment water travel upstream and downstream of the BU Bridge.

But what if the Charles River became a mode of commuter boat public transit between Boston and Watertown Square without the obstacle of this low rail bridge under the BU Bridge? This would be much shorter, and safer, than commuter boat trips between Hingham and Boston, with more interesting vistas, including architectural along and over the Charles.

Yes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. But so is ugliness. Until recent years, we have had the benefit of beholding the beauty of the Charles River White Geese (and their family values) outside of their private habitat of several decades at the northerly end of the BU Bridge, their habitat being their architecture closer to nature than that of man over and along the Charles. Their private habitat was not intended for us to behold. Now we have the ugliness brought about by MA and Cambridge government officials intent upon destroying this habitat and thus destroying the Charles River White Geese. Bob?s post on Day 399 should shame these officials and we should be outraged by their ugliness.

2. Response.

Thank you Archie.

The sickness in Cambridge and their friends is their contempt for nature.

The sickness is multiplied by fake group’s with fraudulent and misleading names who fool people into supporting them and these fake groups are a very major part of the problem.

In is particularly outrageous to have a fraudulently named group

a. destroying the environment including, apparently, pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, and

b. Through use of their fake name, enticing people who want to support the environment into “liking” them when really want to friend the Charles River White Geese.

This rottenness is a major reason how very destructive people get elected to office in Cambridge, MA, USA.

The fake meeting on Magazine Beach which allowed the destroyers to talk and talk and talk but EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED negative comment is highly common in Cambridge. To call this some sort of public meeting is the sort of lie which is normal in Cambridge, MA.

It is possible that Governor Patrick saw through the lies of the destroyers and did not approve their seeking Obama money to destroy hundreds of healthy trees on Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. I think Marilyn may have provided him with the plans submitted by the bureaucrats to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which directly contradicted flat out lies about the quality of the trees being destroyed.

Unfortunately, the destroyers may be getting the money through a state legislature austerity budget, and the very destructive Cambridge Pols.

3. Prior reports.

Part VIII, 4/20/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-viii.html.

Part VII, 4/16/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vii-charles.html.

Part VI,4/11/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-part-vi.html.

Intermission, 4/1/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/charles-river-memories-intermission.html.

Part V, 3/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-v.html.

Part IV, 3/7/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/charles-river-memories-part-iv.html.

Part III, 2/19/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/charles-river-memories-part-iii.html.

Part II, 2/5/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_02_05_archive.html.

Part I, 1/29/11: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011_01_29_archive.html.