One of the key games being played by key Cambridge activists lost another point.
The Cambridge Pols in their fight for environmental destruction for the benefit of the institutions are fighting for commuter rail on the Grand Junction railroad. They are loudly yelling that everybody else is the bad guy, and have they got a deal for you.
The pols claim this route is needed for Worcester to Boston transportation.
Trouble for the bad guys is Worcester to Boston transportation currently goes to South Station and the South Coast Rail project includes a proposal to expand tracks at South Station.
The proposal for expanding tracks at South Station restores a lot more trackage than is needed for the South Coast Rail. Excess trackage can be used for expansion of Worcester to Boston.
So the Cambridge Con Artists are yelling that commuter rail on the Grand Junction is needed for Worcester while really fighting for the institutions / developers and to heck with the environment or rational transportation planning.
This week’s Environmental Monitor has been published by the State. The reviewers find that the Draft Environmental Impact Review for South Coast Rail “adequately and completely complies with MEPA.” The Environmental Monitor is posted at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/emonitor.aspx.
The poor dears, the poor Cambridge Pols.
Reality has once again trumped their scare tactics.
But the Cambridge Pols regularly do not recognize reality. How much longer will nonsense come from these people that Worcester needs the Grand Junction? And you can’t win, you can’t win, you can’t win, BUT HAVE WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU.
And their con games for this part of Cambridge already include at least one other very crucial flat out lie.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Monteiro Case: Argument over Supreme Judicial Court decision
1. Introductory.
2. The Cited Case.
3. Key language in the cited case.
1. Introductory.
I have earlier reported on the appearance of three papers in the Appeals Court case on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This blog report is the latest in a pretty rapid series of reports coming from those papers. Based on the recent nature of those reports, I will not go into detail here on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
Cambridge filed a paper. Monteiro filed a response. The Court said both papers were out of order and not properly filed.
A knowledgeable attorney then provided more detail on the papers and commented that he considered the Appeals Court action indication that the Appeals Court panel had made up its mind.
2. The Cited Case.
The correct citation of the case, taken from the docket is: PSY-ED CORPORATION & another vs. STANLEY KLEIN & another; DAVID HIRSCH & others, third-party defendants (and a companion case), SJC-10722, 459 Mass. 697
Rescript 5/12/2011 (#24) Lower Court: Middlesex Superior Court, sua sponte transfer from Appeals Court.
The rescript date is the date of publication of the report. 459 Mass. 697 is the place to look in the filing system of the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court to find the full case. 459 is the volume number. 697 is the page number.
I have reviewed the case and I have to agree with the knowledgeable attorney on his evaluation of the filings by Cambridge and Monteiro, without even being able to read those filings.
It strikes me as surprising that Cambridge would bother the court with filing a paper saying that this case could be considered supportive of Cambridge’s case in Monteiro v. Cambridge.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged retaliation by the filing of a civil action by the employer against the plaintiff after the plaintiff’s employment was terminated.
The decision supports Monteiro. It says that a retaliation complaint can properly be filed.
3. Key language in the cited case.
I am not going to bother you with who said what and who did what. There are more than one plaintiff and the Court for good reason distinguishes between the two.
I think the key language in the decision is quite adequate. My quote starts on page 710 of the opinion. I have also made all the comments I intend to.
*****************
b. Schive's claim of retaliation.
In reviewing a judge's decision after a jury-waived trial, "we accept the judge's findings of fact as true unless they are clearly erroneous" but "scrutinize without deference the legal standard which the judge applied to the facts." Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 620, 621 (1992). With respect to Schive's claim of retaliation, we conclude that the trial judge applied the proper legal standards to the facts, and that his factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
The judge properly outlined the elements of unlawful conduct under § 4(4). Relying on Sahli, 437 Mass. at 702-704, he identified the dividing line between "[b]aseless" or "sham" litigation, which is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and those "reasonably based but unsuccessful lawsuits" that are constitutionally protected and so cannot constitute a violation of § 4(4) or (4A). He correctly pointed out that, while a causal connection must be established between protected conduct and adverse action, that connection may be shown either directly or by inference. Where the link is inferentially shown by closeness in time between an adverse action and the conduct that apparently triggered it, he stated, the triggering conduct need not be the initial filing of the complaint.
The judge ruled that Schive engaged in legally protected conduct by bringing her discrimination claim with the MCAD. He further ruled that the 1999 action [28] was an "adverse employment action" and that it was "baseless, " see Sahli, supra at 702-704, in that all claims against Schive were dismissed "on
Page 711
the grounds that admissible evidence of damages and actionable defamation was lacking." [29] He found Schive demonstrated the necessary causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse action where, in the judge's view, Valenzano testified at trial that he brought the case to "retry" Schive's MCAD claims, [30] and where the "rapid succession" of events in the fall and winter of 1999 also supported an inference of a causal connection between Schive's MCAD case and the complaint her former employer filed. [31] The trial judge concluded by ruling that "Schive
Page 712
has acted reasonably and in good faith in believing she had suffered discrimination, and reasonably responded to that belief by filing a complaint at MCAD." [32] The judge found, "[b]ased on direct and indirect evidence, " that Psy-Ed and Valenzano brought suit "because of her reasonable efforts at MCAD." [33]
c. Klein's claim of retaliation.
As noted in Part 1(c), supra, the motion judge entered summary judgment on Klein's claim for retaliation on the ground that the retaliatory acts he alleged "occurred over two years after the employment relationship between the parties terminated." Because, as we have concluded,
Page 713
a person need not be a current employee to enjoy the protection of § 4(4) and (4A), the entry of summary judgment on Klein's claim must be vacated. [34]
2. The Cited Case.
3. Key language in the cited case.
1. Introductory.
I have earlier reported on the appearance of three papers in the Appeals Court case on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This blog report is the latest in a pretty rapid series of reports coming from those papers. Based on the recent nature of those reports, I will not go into detail here on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
Cambridge filed a paper. Monteiro filed a response. The Court said both papers were out of order and not properly filed.
A knowledgeable attorney then provided more detail on the papers and commented that he considered the Appeals Court action indication that the Appeals Court panel had made up its mind.
2. The Cited Case.
The correct citation of the case, taken from the docket is: PSY-ED CORPORATION & another vs. STANLEY KLEIN & another; DAVID HIRSCH & others, third-party defendants (and a companion case), SJC-10722, 459 Mass. 697
Rescript 5/12/2011 (#24) Lower Court: Middlesex Superior Court, sua sponte transfer from Appeals Court.
The rescript date is the date of publication of the report. 459 Mass. 697 is the place to look in the filing system of the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court to find the full case. 459 is the volume number. 697 is the page number.
I have reviewed the case and I have to agree with the knowledgeable attorney on his evaluation of the filings by Cambridge and Monteiro, without even being able to read those filings.
It strikes me as surprising that Cambridge would bother the court with filing a paper saying that this case could be considered supportive of Cambridge’s case in Monteiro v. Cambridge.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged retaliation by the filing of a civil action by the employer against the plaintiff after the plaintiff’s employment was terminated.
The decision supports Monteiro. It says that a retaliation complaint can properly be filed.
3. Key language in the cited case.
I am not going to bother you with who said what and who did what. There are more than one plaintiff and the Court for good reason distinguishes between the two.
I think the key language in the decision is quite adequate. My quote starts on page 710 of the opinion. I have also made all the comments I intend to.
*****************
b. Schive's claim of retaliation.
In reviewing a judge's decision after a jury-waived trial, "we accept the judge's findings of fact as true unless they are clearly erroneous" but "scrutinize without deference the legal standard which the judge applied to the facts." Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 620, 621 (1992). With respect to Schive's claim of retaliation, we conclude that the trial judge applied the proper legal standards to the facts, and that his factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
The judge properly outlined the elements of unlawful conduct under § 4(4). Relying on Sahli, 437 Mass. at 702-704, he identified the dividing line between "[b]aseless" or "sham" litigation, which is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and those "reasonably based but unsuccessful lawsuits" that are constitutionally protected and so cannot constitute a violation of § 4(4) or (4A). He correctly pointed out that, while a causal connection must be established between protected conduct and adverse action, that connection may be shown either directly or by inference. Where the link is inferentially shown by closeness in time between an adverse action and the conduct that apparently triggered it, he stated, the triggering conduct need not be the initial filing of the complaint.
The judge ruled that Schive engaged in legally protected conduct by bringing her discrimination claim with the MCAD. He further ruled that the 1999 action [28] was an "adverse employment action" and that it was "baseless, " see Sahli, supra at 702-704, in that all claims against Schive were dismissed "on
Page 711
the grounds that admissible evidence of damages and actionable defamation was lacking." [29] He found Schive demonstrated the necessary causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse action where, in the judge's view, Valenzano testified at trial that he brought the case to "retry" Schive's MCAD claims, [30] and where the "rapid succession" of events in the fall and winter of 1999 also supported an inference of a causal connection between Schive's MCAD case and the complaint her former employer filed. [31] The trial judge concluded by ruling that "Schive
Page 712
has acted reasonably and in good faith in believing she had suffered discrimination, and reasonably responded to that belief by filing a complaint at MCAD." [32] The judge found, "[b]ased on direct and indirect evidence, " that Psy-Ed and Valenzano brought suit "because of her reasonable efforts at MCAD." [33]
c. Klein's claim of retaliation.
As noted in Part 1(c), supra, the motion judge entered summary judgment on Klein's claim for retaliation on the ground that the retaliatory acts he alleged "occurred over two years after the employment relationship between the parties terminated." Because, as we have concluded,
Page 713
a person need not be a current employee to enjoy the protection of § 4(4) and (4A), the entry of summary judgment on Klein's claim must be vacated. [34]
A trophy for the Charles
1. Archie’s Post.
2. Archie Comments further.
1. Archie’s Post.
Archie Mazmanian has provided the following. I have added paragraphing.
*********
Derrick Z. Jackson's column in the Boston Globe on 7/2/11, available here:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2011/07/02/a_trophy_for_the_charles/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
titled "A trophy for the Charles - River once again hosts a native fish" was really positive news.
But contrast this wonderful effort to reestablish shad in our beloved Charles that may serve much of the long winding river (subject to working fish ladders) with the plight of the Charles River White Geese, a small gaggle, whose eggs had been sprayed in recent years to prevent hatching and their perpetuation. Cole Porter's "Let's Fall in Love" is a reminder that even shad do it: "think of shad roe."
But Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are hell bent on annihilating the Charles River White Geese in devious ways in their tiny habitat, demonstrating an utter lack of love.
2. Archie Comments further.
The whole point is the contrast regarding nature. Perhaps the shad are welcomed because they are silent although potentially millions in numbers, whereas the CRWG, much, much fewer in number, can still honk. It has been the visibility of the CRWG that attracted us and our children to them in nature. They should not be silenced, nor should we.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Archie Comments further.
1. Archie’s Post.
Archie Mazmanian has provided the following. I have added paragraphing.
*********
Derrick Z. Jackson's column in the Boston Globe on 7/2/11, available here:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2011/07/02/a_trophy_for_the_charles/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
titled "A trophy for the Charles - River once again hosts a native fish" was really positive news.
But contrast this wonderful effort to reestablish shad in our beloved Charles that may serve much of the long winding river (subject to working fish ladders) with the plight of the Charles River White Geese, a small gaggle, whose eggs had been sprayed in recent years to prevent hatching and their perpetuation. Cole Porter's "Let's Fall in Love" is a reminder that even shad do it: "think of shad roe."
But Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are hell bent on annihilating the Charles River White Geese in devious ways in their tiny habitat, demonstrating an utter lack of love.
2. Archie Comments further.
The whole point is the contrast regarding nature. Perhaps the shad are welcomed because they are silent although potentially millions in numbers, whereas the CRWG, much, much fewer in number, can still honk. It has been the visibility of the CRWG that attracted us and our children to them in nature. They should not be silenced, nor should we.
Archie Mazmanian
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Monteiro: Papers explained by knowledgeable lawyer
On June 29, 2011, I reported on papers (29, 30 and 31) filed in the Appeals Court in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The posting may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/monteiro-machinations-in-superior-court.html.
This is the case in which judge and jury have found the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” (judge’s word, jury’s money) for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for this black female department head filing a civil rights complaint.
My report indicated that I saw the papers, that I did not know what was in them, and that it looked to me like the Appeals Court panel was chastising both sides.
An attorney who has been familiar with the Monteiro case provides the following analysis. Lukey is the attorney for Cambridge. Zucker is Monteiro’s attorney.
I know no more than the below, but I certainly intend to research the case he has cited.
**********
No 29 is Lukey's letter calling the Court's attention to the SJC case of Psy Ed Corp v Klein, decided one week after the oral argument.
No 30 is Zucker's response, demolishing Lukey, pointing out how the Psy Ed case supports Monteiro on all the points of the Appeal, including the Judge's instructions and the propriety of the handling of the retaliation claim.
No 31 tells me the Court has its mind made up.
This is the case in which judge and jury have found the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” (judge’s word, jury’s money) for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for this black female department head filing a civil rights complaint.
My report indicated that I saw the papers, that I did not know what was in them, and that it looked to me like the Appeals Court panel was chastising both sides.
An attorney who has been familiar with the Monteiro case provides the following analysis. Lukey is the attorney for Cambridge. Zucker is Monteiro’s attorney.
I know no more than the below, but I certainly intend to research the case he has cited.
**********
No 29 is Lukey's letter calling the Court's attention to the SJC case of Psy Ed Corp v Klein, decided one week after the oral argument.
No 30 is Zucker's response, demolishing Lukey, pointing out how the Psy Ed case supports Monteiro on all the points of the Appeal, including the Judge's instructions and the propriety of the handling of the retaliation claim.
No 31 tells me the Court has its mind made up.
Photos of Goose Ghetto, Pedestrian Overpass
Update: The link to Roy Bercaw's 2000 video of the goose meadow is: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html.
1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.
1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to provide links to two very valuable reports on his blog. His email reads:
**********
Here are links to images of
1. construction of the new pedestrian bridge over Memorial Drive at Magazine Street., and
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-memorial-drive-pedestrian-bridge-at.html
2. the stubborn geese who demand a court ordered eviction before they leave their historical God-given nesting grounds alongside of the BU Bridge.
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/state-does-not-have-court-order-for.html--
Roy Bercaw - Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
enoughroom.blogspot.com
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
I strongly appreciate Roy’s input. I previously provided photos of the destruction and devastation which are available on facebook. The update, taken July 2, is strongly appreciated.
He very early on provided a video report to which we have posted a link on this blog. That was during the first few months of this outrage. It concludes with a photo of a White Goose flying very high. I will amend this report later to add a direct link.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.
Phil Barber previously provided photos of the trees which were destroyed for this project. It is another Department of Conservation and Recreation project taken over by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
As part of the corrupt way of doing business we have become accustomed to from the DCR, this destruction and total rebuilding was publicized by the flat out lie, “repair.” Thus the people we are forced to deal with prevented objections.
I have heard no exact numbers. My educated guess is that the bridge is being raised to accommodate trucks from the Massachusetts Turnpike which will allow the Grand Junction Bridge under the BU Bridge and through the goose meadow to be converted to an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike.
1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.
1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to provide links to two very valuable reports on his blog. His email reads:
**********
Here are links to images of
1. construction of the new pedestrian bridge over Memorial Drive at Magazine Street., and
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-memorial-drive-pedestrian-bridge-at.html
2. the stubborn geese who demand a court ordered eviction before they leave their historical God-given nesting grounds alongside of the BU Bridge.
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/state-does-not-have-court-order-for.html--
Roy Bercaw - Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
enoughroom.blogspot.com
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
I strongly appreciate Roy’s input. I previously provided photos of the destruction and devastation which are available on facebook. The update, taken July 2, is strongly appreciated.
He very early on provided a video report to which we have posted a link on this blog. That was during the first few months of this outrage. It concludes with a photo of a White Goose flying very high. I will amend this report later to add a direct link.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.
Phil Barber previously provided photos of the trees which were destroyed for this project. It is another Department of Conservation and Recreation project taken over by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.
As part of the corrupt way of doing business we have become accustomed to from the DCR, this destruction and total rebuilding was publicized by the flat out lie, “repair.” Thus the people we are forced to deal with prevented objections.
I have heard no exact numbers. My educated guess is that the bridge is being raised to accommodate trucks from the Massachusetts Turnpike which will allow the Grand Junction Bridge under the BU Bridge and through the goose meadow to be converted to an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
“Opposition” on the Grand Junction passenger service. — “Lie” versus “nonsense.”
1. Report on Alewife.
2. Claims of independence.
3. The Grand Junction plans.
1. Report on Alewife.
In my latest report on Alewife, I used the word “lies” about Cambridge activists repeating communications on development issues. I have distress using the term and I changed it from “lies” to “nonsense” in my facebook page passing on the report.
The trouble is that “lies” is extremely accurate concerning too high a percentage of communications on zoning and other environmental issues. Sophisticated versions of lies are too often normal on development issues in Cambridge, MA.
2. Claims of independence.
Similarly, what is an organization which claims to be one thing but which functions to fulfill the goals of the powers that be?
Is it a “neighborhood association” or an “environmental group” or is it really a front organization through which the city manager / city council fool people into doing things they would not otherwise do? Or keep well intended people from opposing matters they normally would oppose?
And is the use of the term “neighborhood association” or “environmental group” by these groups a lie?
And is this well established pattern in Cambridge simply corruption?
3. The Grand Junction plans.
What brings this up is a communication received by the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport. The communication concerned the Grand Junction railroad and possible use of it in Cambridge for passenger service. A city councilor sent the following email to the group’s listserve:
*********
I just wanted to quickly weigh in – I was at the meeting at the Morse school and am very concerned about the plan. I think [ed: name omitted] said it very well below so I’ll just echo sentiments. I wasn’t here a few years ago, this term the Council did vote on a resolution expressing our serious concern about the impact this would have on the neighborhood, traffic, etc.
********
I also was at that vote. My interpretation was that the only member of the city council for whom I have some possible respect on that vote is Toomey.
The reality is that a lot of councillors looked like they were lying through false definition [another sophisticated technique of lying].
The reality is that a lot of councilors look like they support the proposal WITH CHANGES DETRIMENTAL to Cambridge. That is not opposition. That is support with changes, and claims of opposition are, in reality, lying.
The reality is that the Cambridge machine looks like it is taking orders and working for support with changes while lying to the victims that the victims are standing up to an external but powerful enemy.
The enemy on the Grand Junction looks very strongly like the City of Cambridge / the Cambridge City Council, and the Cambridge pol campaign “against” looks like the usual lie.
2. Claims of independence.
3. The Grand Junction plans.
1. Report on Alewife.
In my latest report on Alewife, I used the word “lies” about Cambridge activists repeating communications on development issues. I have distress using the term and I changed it from “lies” to “nonsense” in my facebook page passing on the report.
The trouble is that “lies” is extremely accurate concerning too high a percentage of communications on zoning and other environmental issues. Sophisticated versions of lies are too often normal on development issues in Cambridge, MA.
2. Claims of independence.
Similarly, what is an organization which claims to be one thing but which functions to fulfill the goals of the powers that be?
Is it a “neighborhood association” or an “environmental group” or is it really a front organization through which the city manager / city council fool people into doing things they would not otherwise do? Or keep well intended people from opposing matters they normally would oppose?
And is the use of the term “neighborhood association” or “environmental group” by these groups a lie?
And is this well established pattern in Cambridge simply corruption?
3. The Grand Junction plans.
What brings this up is a communication received by the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport. The communication concerned the Grand Junction railroad and possible use of it in Cambridge for passenger service. A city councilor sent the following email to the group’s listserve:
*********
I just wanted to quickly weigh in – I was at the meeting at the Morse school and am very concerned about the plan. I think [ed: name omitted] said it very well below so I’ll just echo sentiments. I wasn’t here a few years ago, this term the Council did vote on a resolution expressing our serious concern about the impact this would have on the neighborhood, traffic, etc.
********
I also was at that vote. My interpretation was that the only member of the city council for whom I have some possible respect on that vote is Toomey.
The reality is that a lot of councillors looked like they were lying through false definition [another sophisticated technique of lying].
The reality is that a lot of councilors look like they support the proposal WITH CHANGES DETRIMENTAL to Cambridge. That is not opposition. That is support with changes, and claims of opposition are, in reality, lying.
The reality is that the Cambridge machine looks like it is taking orders and working for support with changes while lying to the victims that the victims are standing up to an external but powerful enemy.
The enemy on the Grand Junction looks very strongly like the City of Cambridge / the Cambridge City Council, and the Cambridge pol campaign “against” looks like the usual lie.
Friday, July 01, 2011
The Reality at Alewife
1. The Bad Guys Speak.
2. My research.
A. General.
B. Official position on the current part of the project.
3. Translation.
1. The Bad Guys Speak.
The Alewife reservation is the last essentially untouched wilderness in the City of Cambridge. It is across the street from Alewife Station on the Red Line rapid transit. So naturally, the powers that be being the powers that be, they are determined to destroy it. After all they have a massive organization in place to lie to people.
One of the key people in the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport has been speaking out concerning Alewife.
The bad guys love to confuse things.
Her solution for the forthcoming destruction of Alewife is to control invasives. And she is very indignant that invasives MUST be controlled.
2. My research.
A. General.
I have kept as close to the planning as is possible. I have been familiar with the plans for more than 15 years. I tried to organize but I was outdone by the Cambridge Pols with their fake protective group backed by a very massive citywide organization which passes on whatever lie the City is putting out this week.
June 30, 2011, I walked the ground at Alewife for the first time since I saw the destruction’s start standing next to the leader of the fake organization which has been “defending” Alewife by telling people to look at everything other than the important stuff.
I went into the reservation on a temporary bike path. I observed signage and existing destruction.
I did research on the city’s website.
The key documents seem to be posted at:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/cityprojects/detail.aspx?path=%2fsitecore%2fcontent%2fhome%2ftheworks%2fcityprojects%2f2011%2fcambridgeparkdrivewetlands.
B. Official position on the current part of the project.
The following is copied directly from the city’s website. I doubt that the link to YouTube will carry, but the above link will get you to this document and the rest:
*********
The Cambridge Department of Public Works in conjunction with NSTAR Electric, NSTAR Gas, and AT&T, began utility relocation work in the Alewife Reservation on Tuesday May 3, 2011 in advance of the start of the stormwater wetland construction. The utility work will relocate utilities beneath a portion of the Alewife Reservation and Little River to Acorn Park Drive through a process called Pilot Tube Auger Boring (PTAB). PTAB is a trenchless technology method designed to minimize disturbance in the Alewife Reservation and Little River by tunneling under the Little River. For a demonstration of PTAB please see the following video on You Tube.
The utility relocation work will include a cleared and fenced in utility relocation zone approximately 150 feet by 120 feet and a laydown area approximately 120 feet by 100 feet in the Alewife Reservation for equipment and materials and excavation of a drilling pit. Open trenching of the underground utilities will be performed from the staging area south to the connection points to existing utilities adjacent to the existing bike path. This work is expected to be completed by the end of July 2011 to allow the utilities to make connections to their existing systems.
This utility relocation work is in preparation for the start of the stormwater wetlands construction anticipated to begin in October 2011.
3. Translation.
The Stormwater Wetlands Construction is the storage system which will destroy the Alewife reservation.
A responsible city government would be placing that drainage under a massive parking lot just north of the main city Commuter Rail track. This parking lot is separated from the soon to be destroyed Alewife reservation by a city street and by a private lot one office building deep. They are within view of each other.
The owner of the parking lot has plans to build on it. Delay means making the certainty of destruction of Alewife that much more firm.
The current work is destructive but the very massive destruction will start the day after the fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council are put to the vote in the City Elections.
One of Cambridge’s really rotten traditions is that the really dirty work starts the day after the City Elections.
So the incumbents can lie about which side they are on. Then the truth comes out after it is too late.
2. My research.
A. General.
B. Official position on the current part of the project.
3. Translation.
1. The Bad Guys Speak.
The Alewife reservation is the last essentially untouched wilderness in the City of Cambridge. It is across the street from Alewife Station on the Red Line rapid transit. So naturally, the powers that be being the powers that be, they are determined to destroy it. After all they have a massive organization in place to lie to people.
One of the key people in the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport has been speaking out concerning Alewife.
The bad guys love to confuse things.
Her solution for the forthcoming destruction of Alewife is to control invasives. And she is very indignant that invasives MUST be controlled.
2. My research.
A. General.
I have kept as close to the planning as is possible. I have been familiar with the plans for more than 15 years. I tried to organize but I was outdone by the Cambridge Pols with their fake protective group backed by a very massive citywide organization which passes on whatever lie the City is putting out this week.
June 30, 2011, I walked the ground at Alewife for the first time since I saw the destruction’s start standing next to the leader of the fake organization which has been “defending” Alewife by telling people to look at everything other than the important stuff.
I went into the reservation on a temporary bike path. I observed signage and existing destruction.
I did research on the city’s website.
The key documents seem to be posted at:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/cityprojects/detail.aspx?path=%2fsitecore%2fcontent%2fhome%2ftheworks%2fcityprojects%2f2011%2fcambridgeparkdrivewetlands.
B. Official position on the current part of the project.
The following is copied directly from the city’s website. I doubt that the link to YouTube will carry, but the above link will get you to this document and the rest:
*********
The Cambridge Department of Public Works in conjunction with NSTAR Electric, NSTAR Gas, and AT&T, began utility relocation work in the Alewife Reservation on Tuesday May 3, 2011 in advance of the start of the stormwater wetland construction. The utility work will relocate utilities beneath a portion of the Alewife Reservation and Little River to Acorn Park Drive through a process called Pilot Tube Auger Boring (PTAB). PTAB is a trenchless technology method designed to minimize disturbance in the Alewife Reservation and Little River by tunneling under the Little River. For a demonstration of PTAB please see the following video on You Tube.
The utility relocation work will include a cleared and fenced in utility relocation zone approximately 150 feet by 120 feet and a laydown area approximately 120 feet by 100 feet in the Alewife Reservation for equipment and materials and excavation of a drilling pit. Open trenching of the underground utilities will be performed from the staging area south to the connection points to existing utilities adjacent to the existing bike path. This work is expected to be completed by the end of July 2011 to allow the utilities to make connections to their existing systems.
This utility relocation work is in preparation for the start of the stormwater wetlands construction anticipated to begin in October 2011.
3. Translation.
The Stormwater Wetlands Construction is the storage system which will destroy the Alewife reservation.
A responsible city government would be placing that drainage under a massive parking lot just north of the main city Commuter Rail track. This parking lot is separated from the soon to be destroyed Alewife reservation by a city street and by a private lot one office building deep. They are within view of each other.
The owner of the parking lot has plans to build on it. Delay means making the certainty of destruction of Alewife that much more firm.
The current work is destructive but the very massive destruction will start the day after the fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council are put to the vote in the City Elections.
One of Cambridge’s really rotten traditions is that the really dirty work starts the day after the City Elections.
So the incumbents can lie about which side they are on. Then the truth comes out after it is too late.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Apparent waste in latest Cambridge Library / High School project?
1. Background.
2. The latest construction.
3. A little more background.
1. Background.
My initial exposure to the very real dark side of Cambridge, MA “environmentalism” was when the city needlessly destroyed something like 23 one hundred year plus old trees when Cambridge rearranged the city High School.
The construction could very easily have gone elsewhere on the site. The alternate location was designated as blood money. People on Broadway got paid off for supporting needless destruction on Cambridge Street.
It was obvious landbanking. The fully predictable stab in the back to the back stabbers on Broadway came in the rearrangement of the city’s public library. This “improvement” reduced the shelf space of the public library. It also took away a significant part of the Judas coins given to Broadway.
The Library rearrangement destroyed much of the essentially unimproved grass put in where the High School building should have gone. This unimproved grass was called a “replacement” for the hundred year old trees. The library rearrangement also destroyed 50 or so trees which were planted as saplings and advertised as other blood money in the needless destruction of those hundred year old trees.
Very prominent in the destruction was a “neighborhood association” created in coordination with the Cambridge City Manager. Need I say more?
2. The latest construction.
Roy Bercaw, at http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-at-first-you-don’t-succeed-don’t-kill.html, reports on apparently rather blatant waste in the latest rearrangement of the Public Library / High School site.
He provides photos.
3. A little more background.
I got a preliminary injunction on appeal against the destruction of the park containing those hundred year old trees.
Such an order is next to impossible on appeal. It indicated a very strong case.
In the middle of the case, the state Supreme Judicial Court came down with a decision ignoring a key distinction in trust law. The error was dicta but exactly on point. The error was corrected ten years later.
In the meantime, I had lost a key part of my case. I needed to win on a statute protecting parks. The judge made a finding of fact that this excellent park was not a park but Library grounds. He authorized the destruction on Cambridge Street praising all the saplings being planted on Broadway.
2. The latest construction.
3. A little more background.
1. Background.
My initial exposure to the very real dark side of Cambridge, MA “environmentalism” was when the city needlessly destroyed something like 23 one hundred year plus old trees when Cambridge rearranged the city High School.
The construction could very easily have gone elsewhere on the site. The alternate location was designated as blood money. People on Broadway got paid off for supporting needless destruction on Cambridge Street.
It was obvious landbanking. The fully predictable stab in the back to the back stabbers on Broadway came in the rearrangement of the city’s public library. This “improvement” reduced the shelf space of the public library. It also took away a significant part of the Judas coins given to Broadway.
The Library rearrangement destroyed much of the essentially unimproved grass put in where the High School building should have gone. This unimproved grass was called a “replacement” for the hundred year old trees. The library rearrangement also destroyed 50 or so trees which were planted as saplings and advertised as other blood money in the needless destruction of those hundred year old trees.
Very prominent in the destruction was a “neighborhood association” created in coordination with the Cambridge City Manager. Need I say more?
2. The latest construction.
Roy Bercaw, at http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-at-first-you-don’t-succeed-don’t-kill.html, reports on apparently rather blatant waste in the latest rearrangement of the Public Library / High School site.
He provides photos.
3. A little more background.
I got a preliminary injunction on appeal against the destruction of the park containing those hundred year old trees.
Such an order is next to impossible on appeal. It indicated a very strong case.
In the middle of the case, the state Supreme Judicial Court came down with a decision ignoring a key distinction in trust law. The error was dicta but exactly on point. The error was corrected ten years later.
In the meantime, I had lost a key part of my case. I needed to win on a statute protecting parks. The judge made a finding of fact that this excellent park was not a park but Library grounds. He authorized the destruction on Cambridge Street praising all the saplings being planted on Broadway.
Monteiro: Machinations in Superior Court? Final pre-trial hearing for last two plaintiffs rescheduled again
1. General Introduction.
2. Monteiro: Final two plaintiffs get deferred again.
1. General Introduction.
I do not consider the outrageous environmental destruction being inflicted by the City of Cambridge with the very clear unanimous support of the Cambridge City Council at all unrelated to other aspects of Cambridge City Government.
There is a stench about this government hidden by a massive machine which runs around passing on a lot of lying.
The big issue, to my mind, is just how rotten the situation is. It is very difficult to evaluate the situation when you are as close as I am even though I know a very significant part of just how bad things are by looking at the environmental situation and those portions of the civil rights situation which are not hidden.
The reality is that the large number of people running around passing around lies about reality do not do such behavior in a vacuum. The reality certainly is that a very significant portion of the people spouting the lies do not know what they are talking about. They are just passing on what they are told are their opinions. Nevertheless, as tiny as the number of people really doing the thinking may be, they clearly have a lot of people passing on as reality a whole bunch of false statements.
Then again, people do not usually behave this badly in a vacuum.
Cambridge looks like a house of cards.
2. Monteiro: Final two plaintiffs get deferred again.
The Monteiro case originally had five plaintiffs. Two settled and, I understand, got pretty big payments.
Malvina Monteiro went to trial. She then was retried on the retaliation issue which she won impressively. That case is now in Appeals Court.
Papers, to my knowledge, have been filed informing appropriate courts that the last two plaintiffs still have yet to be tried.
Most recently, there have been stirrings in Superior Court about going forward toward trial with the last two plaintiffs. The final pre-trial hearing to set matters in place to go forward has now been rescheduled a few times. The last change I had been aware of was to July 12, 2011 at the Woburn, MA courthouse for the Middlesex County Superior Court. This change was apparently by agreement of the parties.
The docket shows another delay, to August 10, 2011, at 2 pm, rescheduling by the Court.
Whether this had anything to do with the latest exchange in Appeals Court is beyond me. All I am looking at, in each case, is the on line docket.
2. Monteiro: Final two plaintiffs get deferred again.
1. General Introduction.
I do not consider the outrageous environmental destruction being inflicted by the City of Cambridge with the very clear unanimous support of the Cambridge City Council at all unrelated to other aspects of Cambridge City Government.
There is a stench about this government hidden by a massive machine which runs around passing on a lot of lying.
The big issue, to my mind, is just how rotten the situation is. It is very difficult to evaluate the situation when you are as close as I am even though I know a very significant part of just how bad things are by looking at the environmental situation and those portions of the civil rights situation which are not hidden.
The reality is that the large number of people running around passing around lies about reality do not do such behavior in a vacuum. The reality certainly is that a very significant portion of the people spouting the lies do not know what they are talking about. They are just passing on what they are told are their opinions. Nevertheless, as tiny as the number of people really doing the thinking may be, they clearly have a lot of people passing on as reality a whole bunch of false statements.
Then again, people do not usually behave this badly in a vacuum.
Cambridge looks like a house of cards.
2. Monteiro: Final two plaintiffs get deferred again.
The Monteiro case originally had five plaintiffs. Two settled and, I understand, got pretty big payments.
Malvina Monteiro went to trial. She then was retried on the retaliation issue which she won impressively. That case is now in Appeals Court.
Papers, to my knowledge, have been filed informing appropriate courts that the last two plaintiffs still have yet to be tried.
Most recently, there have been stirrings in Superior Court about going forward toward trial with the last two plaintiffs. The final pre-trial hearing to set matters in place to go forward has now been rescheduled a few times. The last change I had been aware of was to July 12, 2011 at the Woburn, MA courthouse for the Middlesex County Superior Court. This change was apparently by agreement of the parties.
The docket shows another delay, to August 10, 2011, at 2 pm, rescheduling by the Court.
Whether this had anything to do with the latest exchange in Appeals Court is beyond me. All I am looking at, in each case, is the on line docket.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Appeals Court chastises both Sides in Monteiro v. Cambridge case
1. Court papers.
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
B. This Decision.
1. Court papers.
The following notations are the most recent on the Appeals Court Docket in Monteiro v. Cambridge. They are copied directly from the Appeals Court Docket. Paragraphing is added for clarification of presentation and to more closely communicate the docket which is a table with three columns. So, instead of providing columns, I provide paragraphing.
In each instance, the date is the date of posting, the number is the number of the formal entry in the docket. Then follows the description
******
05/16/2011
#29
Letter pursuant to MRAP 16(l) filed by City of Cambridge.@
06/08/2011
#30
Response to paper #29, filed by Malvina Monteiro, Mary Chui Wong, & Linda Stamper. *@
06/24/2011
#31
ORDER: The office of the Clerk has received letters from counsel for appellant City of Cambridge dated May 16, 2011, and from counsel for appellee Monteiro dated June 7, 2011. Both letters purport to be submissions pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 16(l). Neither letter complies with the letter or purpose of the rule; both constitute an unauthorized additional stage of repetitive argument. The court will not accept or consider the letters. (Mills, Sikora & Rubin, JJ.)
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
I have been following the civil rights case of Monteiro v. Cambridge on this blog for a number of reasons.
One very big reason is the judge’s calling the City Manager “reprehensible” and apparently proving it. This civil rights judge’s analysis certainly fits a reasonable analysis of the environmental situation on the Charles River.
If the Superior Court decision stands, the Cambridge City Council will be forced into a position where it really should fire the Cambridge City Manager.
Firing the Cambridge City could have major impact on the environmental corruption which is business as usual in the City of Cambridge, including the attacks on the Charles River.
B. This Decision.
One or both sides tried to do something.
All I have is the docket. I do not have the papers, although the order is probably completely posted.
This sort of exchange occurred a number of times in Superior Court with the judge being quite considerate in acknowledging and responding to comments.
Whatever one or both sides tried to do, the Appeals Court is much less gentle than the Superior Court judge.
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
B. This Decision.
1. Court papers.
The following notations are the most recent on the Appeals Court Docket in Monteiro v. Cambridge. They are copied directly from the Appeals Court Docket. Paragraphing is added for clarification of presentation and to more closely communicate the docket which is a table with three columns. So, instead of providing columns, I provide paragraphing.
In each instance, the date is the date of posting, the number is the number of the formal entry in the docket. Then follows the description
******
05/16/2011
#29
Letter pursuant to MRAP 16(l) filed by City of Cambridge.@
06/08/2011
#30
Response to paper #29, filed by Malvina Monteiro, Mary Chui Wong, & Linda Stamper. *@
06/24/2011
#31
ORDER: The office of the Clerk has received letters from counsel for appellant City of Cambridge dated May 16, 2011, and from counsel for appellee Monteiro dated June 7, 2011. Both letters purport to be submissions pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 16(l). Neither letter complies with the letter or purpose of the rule; both constitute an unauthorized additional stage of repetitive argument. The court will not accept or consider the letters. (Mills, Sikora & Rubin, JJ.)
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
I have been following the civil rights case of Monteiro v. Cambridge on this blog for a number of reasons.
One very big reason is the judge’s calling the City Manager “reprehensible” and apparently proving it. This civil rights judge’s analysis certainly fits a reasonable analysis of the environmental situation on the Charles River.
If the Superior Court decision stands, the Cambridge City Council will be forced into a position where it really should fire the Cambridge City Manager.
Firing the Cambridge City could have major impact on the environmental corruption which is business as usual in the City of Cambridge, including the attacks on the Charles River.
B. This Decision.
One or both sides tried to do something.
All I have is the docket. I do not have the papers, although the order is probably completely posted.
This sort of exchange occurred a number of times in Superior Court with the judge being quite considerate in acknowledging and responding to comments.
Whatever one or both sides tried to do, the Appeals Court is much less gentle than the Superior Court judge.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Cambridge Pols respond concerning environmental destruction of Charles and Alewife
I have provided you with my letter published in the June 16, 2011 Cambridge Chronicle concerning the celebration of the Cambridge pols of the environmental destruction on the Charles almost immediately after they succeeded in starting destruction of the core Alewife Reservation. It is at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/environmental-destruction-celebration.html.
Thursday, June 23, 2011, the Cambridge pols published their response. It got exactly the same visibility as my letter and may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x539090444/Letter-Why-are-healthy-trees-cut-in-Cambridge#axzz1QIeEV0B2.
The writer has created a typically falsely named Cambridge group, the Cambridge Tree Stewards. That, as usual, gives a highly false impression of what she stands for. She looks like an integral part of the Cambridge Pols. She was part of the con game at Alewife, running around yelling about privately owned, peripheral property and, by omission, telling people to ignore the import stuff.
This letter responds to the totally unnecessary destruction of the Core Part of the Alewife reservation by her friends with the usual propaganda:
Don’t look at the important stuff my friends are needlessly destroying on public owned land, which could easily have been prevented. We are running a long shot fight: standing up to private property owners in a far less crucial location.
So she supports the public destruction of the core reservation by omission and yells that she is standing up to peripheral damage by private property owners.
Her response to the Cambridge Pols’ celebration of environmental destruction on the Charles is worse. She loudly proclaims intention to save street trees which her friends do not want to destroy. She neglects to mention that her secret definition of street trees exempts and thus supports the destruction of hundreds of street trees on Memorial Drive.
So she, and her falsely named “Tree Stewards” organization support by omission the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive, the dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles River, the walling off of Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of bushes, and the heartless, needless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
She just neglects to mention what she supports.
Oh, yeh, the current “concern” for street trees started one week after the Cambridge City Council voted to destroy a densely wooded piece of property for another DCR highway project. They voted to exempt the destruction from public meeting requirements, to keep it as secret as possible. The Chronicle caught them. So a week later, we started seeing yelling about street trees with the key secret definition.
More pious lies about environmental concerns.
This is business as usual in the City of Cambridge. Look at my lovely words. Do not look at my very terrible actions which prove my lovely words lies.
This is corruption.
This is Cambridge, MA, USA.
Thursday, June 23, 2011, the Cambridge pols published their response. It got exactly the same visibility as my letter and may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x539090444/Letter-Why-are-healthy-trees-cut-in-Cambridge#axzz1QIeEV0B2.
The writer has created a typically falsely named Cambridge group, the Cambridge Tree Stewards. That, as usual, gives a highly false impression of what she stands for. She looks like an integral part of the Cambridge Pols. She was part of the con game at Alewife, running around yelling about privately owned, peripheral property and, by omission, telling people to ignore the import stuff.
This letter responds to the totally unnecessary destruction of the Core Part of the Alewife reservation by her friends with the usual propaganda:
Don’t look at the important stuff my friends are needlessly destroying on public owned land, which could easily have been prevented. We are running a long shot fight: standing up to private property owners in a far less crucial location.
So she supports the public destruction of the core reservation by omission and yells that she is standing up to peripheral damage by private property owners.
Her response to the Cambridge Pols’ celebration of environmental destruction on the Charles is worse. She loudly proclaims intention to save street trees which her friends do not want to destroy. She neglects to mention that her secret definition of street trees exempts and thus supports the destruction of hundreds of street trees on Memorial Drive.
So she, and her falsely named “Tree Stewards” organization support by omission the destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive, the dumping of poisons on the banks of the Charles River, the walling off of Magazine Beach by the bizarre wall of bushes, and the heartless, needless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
She just neglects to mention what she supports.
Oh, yeh, the current “concern” for street trees started one week after the Cambridge City Council voted to destroy a densely wooded piece of property for another DCR highway project. They voted to exempt the destruction from public meeting requirements, to keep it as secret as possible. The Chronicle caught them. So a week later, we started seeing yelling about street trees with the key secret definition.
More pious lies about environmental concerns.
This is business as usual in the City of Cambridge. Look at my lovely words. Do not look at my very terrible actions which prove my lovely words lies.
This is corruption.
This is Cambridge, MA, USA.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Grand Junction slides available
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has provided me with their slides from their presentation on June 16, 2011 concerning possible passenger use on the Grand Junction.
The slides are quite good and informative. They provide more detail than I was able to include in my report. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out a way to upload them.
Please send me an email at boblat@yahoo.com, and I will be pleased to provide the slides to you. They run slightly under 799,000 KB.
The slides are quite good and informative. They provide more detail than I was able to include in my report. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out a way to upload them.
Please send me an email at boblat@yahoo.com, and I will be pleased to provide the slides to you. They run slightly under 799,000 KB.
The Cambridge Machine extends Cambridge corruption to the regional level
1. Cambridge Corruption goes regional.
2. This blog reaches a milestone.
1. Cambridge Corruption goes regional.
I define corruption as dishonesty in fact.
The corrupt environmental situation in Cambridge, MA, was bad enough but it clearly now has regional environmental impacts.
The Charles River is being destroyed but it is not beyond reclamation.
Alewife is being destroyed. Each of those major, excellent trees is irreplaceable, and there must be easily be thousands of them. Strictly a wild guess, but when the Cambridge City Manager started his destruction of the Fresh Pond reservation, he bragged of planting a thousand saplings which would translate into destruction of thousands to make room for the saplings. Alewife is bigger than the northern portion of Fresh Pond which Cambridge has been destroying.
The corruption of Cambridge is highly scary because the game is to infiltrate and control. The situation is such that it is impossible to distinguish between knaves and fools.
There is a woman who spent 15 years “defending” Alewife and succeeded in destroying the core part of Alewife, highly savable, while continuing to tilt at windmills on less important stuff. She is almost certainly a fool and not a knave. This is one tactic of the Cambridge machine. Keep them out of trouble chasing the other stuff.
But the way the machine is destroying Alewife shows just how tiny the number of people really pulling the strings need be.
It gets scarier to remember a key Boston Sierra Club member at the Grand Junction meeting, and realize the situation in the Sierra Club.
Last I recall, this guy was strongly supportive of cyberabuse as part of a supposed transportation organization. Cyberabuse was the tactic the knaves used to prevent meaningful discussion of the Urban Ring. The knaves fooled the key people in the group into taking a position which simply could not be justified from a transportation point of view. The minute reality was discussed, cyberabuse was used to bring discussions to a halt.
And this key Sierra Club person clearly supported the cyberabuse. His support of cyberabuse continues because the knaves are still present in that group and the victim was thrown out because the victim objected to being cyberabused.
Last I heard, the Sierra Club was pushing the flat out lie (originating from Cambridge of course, major participation) that there is only one option in the Urban Ring heavy rail proposal, the silly and environmentally destructive streetcar proposal. The Cambridge pols flatly and simply lie that the responsible Orange Line option does not exist. That lie certainly looks like it is being spouted by the Boston Sierra Club.
There is a lot of lying coming out of Cambridge.
What is a lie? Spouting flat out falsehoods can be a lie in either of two ways.
First, you can know the falsehood is a lie and spout it. Secondly, by spouting the falsehood, you claim you know what you are talking about. So either you know it is a falsehood and are lying or you claim to know what you are talking about and are lying about that. Either way, you are lying and are part of corruption which has spread from Cambridge and is now in the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club has repeatedly endorsed environmental destroyers for City Council in Cambridge. The corruption in Cambridge controls the liberal arm of Cambridge politics. Very visible in the Sierra Club are people who look like part of the Cambridge corruption. The Cambridge corruption looks like it controls the Boston Sierra Club insofar as it needs support for its environmental destruction.
If you want to discuss corruption in the Sierra Club, just ask that guy in the key position in the Sierra Club what two practitioners of cyberabuse are doing in key positions in that transportation group, and why he supports cyberabuse.
You might also ask him what destroyers of the Charles River, Fresh Pond and Alewife are doing being endorsed by the Sierra Club, or better yet, what these endorsements say about the Boston Sierra Club.
2. This blog reaches a milestone.
This is the 600th edition of this blog.
The blog started in 2004. It is a spinoff of an email newsletter which exceeded 400 issues and, at one point, reached 1,300 recipients.
In March 2000, I started putting out reports on the situation at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The reports went out over a phone connection by Yahoo! The accumulation of multiple reports took more time than the distribution. Hours were spent on each report, and the reports went out daily or more often for quite awhile.
Yahoo! made things quite a bit more difficult for that type of procedure.
By 2004, it was taking four days to send out each report.
That was unsustainable.
So, we have now reached 600 postings here, and a total or more than 1000 reports since March 2000.
2. This blog reaches a milestone.
1. Cambridge Corruption goes regional.
I define corruption as dishonesty in fact.
The corrupt environmental situation in Cambridge, MA, was bad enough but it clearly now has regional environmental impacts.
The Charles River is being destroyed but it is not beyond reclamation.
Alewife is being destroyed. Each of those major, excellent trees is irreplaceable, and there must be easily be thousands of them. Strictly a wild guess, but when the Cambridge City Manager started his destruction of the Fresh Pond reservation, he bragged of planting a thousand saplings which would translate into destruction of thousands to make room for the saplings. Alewife is bigger than the northern portion of Fresh Pond which Cambridge has been destroying.
The corruption of Cambridge is highly scary because the game is to infiltrate and control. The situation is such that it is impossible to distinguish between knaves and fools.
There is a woman who spent 15 years “defending” Alewife and succeeded in destroying the core part of Alewife, highly savable, while continuing to tilt at windmills on less important stuff. She is almost certainly a fool and not a knave. This is one tactic of the Cambridge machine. Keep them out of trouble chasing the other stuff.
But the way the machine is destroying Alewife shows just how tiny the number of people really pulling the strings need be.
It gets scarier to remember a key Boston Sierra Club member at the Grand Junction meeting, and realize the situation in the Sierra Club.
Last I recall, this guy was strongly supportive of cyberabuse as part of a supposed transportation organization. Cyberabuse was the tactic the knaves used to prevent meaningful discussion of the Urban Ring. The knaves fooled the key people in the group into taking a position which simply could not be justified from a transportation point of view. The minute reality was discussed, cyberabuse was used to bring discussions to a halt.
And this key Sierra Club person clearly supported the cyberabuse. His support of cyberabuse continues because the knaves are still present in that group and the victim was thrown out because the victim objected to being cyberabused.
Last I heard, the Sierra Club was pushing the flat out lie (originating from Cambridge of course, major participation) that there is only one option in the Urban Ring heavy rail proposal, the silly and environmentally destructive streetcar proposal. The Cambridge pols flatly and simply lie that the responsible Orange Line option does not exist. That lie certainly looks like it is being spouted by the Boston Sierra Club.
There is a lot of lying coming out of Cambridge.
What is a lie? Spouting flat out falsehoods can be a lie in either of two ways.
First, you can know the falsehood is a lie and spout it. Secondly, by spouting the falsehood, you claim you know what you are talking about. So either you know it is a falsehood and are lying or you claim to know what you are talking about and are lying about that. Either way, you are lying and are part of corruption which has spread from Cambridge and is now in the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club has repeatedly endorsed environmental destroyers for City Council in Cambridge. The corruption in Cambridge controls the liberal arm of Cambridge politics. Very visible in the Sierra Club are people who look like part of the Cambridge corruption. The Cambridge corruption looks like it controls the Boston Sierra Club insofar as it needs support for its environmental destruction.
If you want to discuss corruption in the Sierra Club, just ask that guy in the key position in the Sierra Club what two practitioners of cyberabuse are doing in key positions in that transportation group, and why he supports cyberabuse.
You might also ask him what destroyers of the Charles River, Fresh Pond and Alewife are doing being endorsed by the Sierra Club, or better yet, what these endorsements say about the Boston Sierra Club.
2. This blog reaches a milestone.
This is the 600th edition of this blog.
The blog started in 2004. It is a spinoff of an email newsletter which exceeded 400 issues and, at one point, reached 1,300 recipients.
In March 2000, I started putting out reports on the situation at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The reports went out over a phone connection by Yahoo! The accumulation of multiple reports took more time than the distribution. Hours were spent on each report, and the reports went out daily or more often for quite awhile.
Yahoo! made things quite a bit more difficult for that type of procedure.
By 2004, it was taking four days to send out each report.
That was unsustainable.
So, we have now reached 600 postings here, and a total or more than 1000 reports since March 2000.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Mass. Dept. of Transportation meeting on Grand Junction passenger rail, June 16, 2011
1. Introductory.
2. Difference?
3. Numbers.
4. Current Daily Use.
5. Urban Ring: Cambridge, the good guys and the bad guys.
A. The alternatives, briefly.
(1) The official position.
(2) New Orange Line Route.
(3) Streetcars.
B. The MassDOT Meeting.
(1) MassDOT.
(2) Cambridge.
(3) Your Editor.
(4) Street car enthusiast.
6. Summary.
7. Media Coverage.
1. Introductory.
There was a good crowd at the auditorium of the Morse School the evening of June 16, 2001.
The first thing to catch the eye was a flier on the front door of Morse School advertising the Cambridge Pols’ fraudulent “celebration” of Magazine Beach on which I have reported. My response to this con game was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle the same day and has seen links by the Boston Globe on line.
The issue is MassDOT’s consideration of passenger commuter use of the Grand Junction railroad running from the Beacon Yards in Allston to North Station in Boston for trains running between Framingham/Worcester and Boston. The Grand Junction railroad includes the rail bridge under the BU Bridge. It goes directly through the tiny part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese which has not been destroyed for them.
As usual, the Cambridge Pols are running around blaming everybody else for attacking Cambridge and claiming to be saving people. The reality appears to be that key Cambridge Pols are the strongest entity fighting for this nonsense. They are playing their usual con game, trying to fool concerned people into stabbing themselves in the back while claiming to be their friends.
The proposal is silly. The state’s figures indicate a possible for an increase in round trips in the next 25 years from 21 per day now to 30 per day then.
2. Difference?
A big difference from the prior presentation was that the presenters were a lot more positive a few months ago that South Station, the current terminus, is being greatly expanded as a result of the South Coast (Fall River and New Bedford) passenger service resumption. This would be done by moving the South Postal annex to a location further in the South Boston waterfront area, tearing it down, and putting in trackage that was destroyed 50 or 60 years ago before the building was constructed. The additional trackage would leave plenty of room for Worcester expansion of service.
When I pointed out the change, the speakers suddenly got more positive about the possibility of South Station expansion.
3. Numbers.
There is a small fraction of the current passengers who are going to the North Station area by their studies (8%) or to the Cambridge Kendall Square area (5%). To service these passengers, the state is considering instituting passenger service which would interfere with traffic on 6 roadways in Cambridge, crossing at grade, and add to the environmental destruction Cambridge and other Cambridge friends are inflicting on the Charles River.
No tracks would be added to the Grand Junction railroad. Train speed would vary from 15 to 30 miles per hour.
The route would clearly be greatly inferior to the current route and would use a transportation technique, at grade crossings with drop down gates, which went out of favor more than 50 years ago, at least in densely developed communities.
However, key Cambridge Pols want to help Cambridge industrial developers and they are trying to scare the public into savaging themselves.
4. Current Daily Use.
Current daily use of the Grand Junction is as follows:
One scheduled freight.
MBTA moves to their repair shops.
Amtrak moves of cars from service on their Downeaster trains to their Northeast Corridor trains.
Sporadic freight.
5. Urban Ring: Cambridge, the good guys and the bad guys.
A. The alternatives, briefly.
(1) The official position.
The official position is a bunch of bus rearrangements with real rapid transit somewhere in the future.
The rapid transit aspects are plans I have been working on since 1985. There are two alternate proposals.
(2) New Orange Line Route.
The state has invested $20 million in Yawkey Station, a crucial part of an Orange Line alternative which would start at Ruggles Station on the Orange line, stop at Longwood Medical Area, then at Yawkey, then at a number of stops which both proposals use north of the Charles, ending in Charlestown with a transfer at Bunker Hill Community College or further out.
Yawkey Station is the key the Orange Line alternative would have a new stop under Brookline Avenue over the Mass. Pike connecting Commuter Rail at Yawkey to the existing Green Line station at Kenmore. This would provide excellent covered connections among three Green Line branches, the new Orange Line station, the Commuter Rail and Fenway Park.
The Orange Line connections would allow such a route to be connected to trains on the existing Orange Line service. Phase 1 would be excellent. It could allow a spur off Ruggles station to Longwood Medical Area and the Kenmore-Yawkey Station. This spur could be arranged to allow direct, non transfer service from Dowtown Boston, Charlestown and west to Longwood and Kenmore.
Really excellent.
This route was initially proposed by me in 1986 and made part of the state considerations in about 1991.
(3) Streetcars.
Cambridge, its developers, and organizations influenced by Cambridge have put out a very consistent lie that there is only one alternative: a street car proposal which could not possibly get people off the Downtown Subway, a goal the Cambridge FORMAL representative pushed.
It would be quite destructive of the Charles River, and needlessly destructive because it is far inferior to the Orange Line proposal.
The different stations from the Orange Line proposal are south of the commonly proposed Mass. Ave. Station in the middle of the MIT Campus.
Then the route has a stop at Putnam Avenue in Cambridge which would be quite destructive to the residential neighborhood. It crosses the Charles River and then stops at Mountfort and St. Mary’s a block south of BU’s Marsh Chapel, this would connect to commuter rail at this point and connect to Fenway Park but be 4 to 6 blocks further away. Then it would have a station under Park Drive between the Riverside line (connecting to Fenway Park station) and the Beacon Street line (connecting to a new station under Audubon Circle).
This alternative stinks of the Grand Junction commuter rail.
B. The MassDOT Meeting.
The part of the meeting which I found more enlightening included three presentations on the Urban Ring transportation system.
(1) MassDOT.
MassDOT called the plans in great hiatus and not meaningfully being considered. They described it as a bus proposal and neglected to mention the rapid transit aspects.
(2) Cambridge.
Cambridge’s representative put in a pitch for the rapid transit aspects without being specific.
But the nonsense put out by the Cambridge Pols denies the existence of the Orange Line route.
(3) Your Editor.
I called the bus proposal silly in the core area of Boston while having possible value in the outer areas. I pointed out that Yawkey Station, with the state funding, is highly valuable to the Framingham - Worcester people, and a crucial part of the meaningful rapid transit proposals. The streetcar proposal crosses the train line too far out, causing significantly inferior service. This is the Mountfort Station, next to the Mass. Pike, near Boston University’s Marsh Chapel.
I objected to Grand Junction use as far inferior, and expressed concern that the state could be trying to save money on the South Coast project at the expense of Worcester / Framingham and Cambridge by moving the trains to the Grand Junction. I pointed out that moving them would kill the value of the Urban Ring to Framingham/Worcester for which the state has spent $20 million on the Yawkey Station.
(4) Street car enthusiast.
A streetcar enthusiast from Somerville responded to me (not mentioning names) by pushing a transfer at Mountfort from the Mass. Pike. Drivers would have to be very foolish to want to get off to transfer to streetcars, to put it mildly. Such a proposal would require a garage on air rights over the Mass. Pike near BU’s Marsh Chapel, on air rights over the Mass. Pike in a number of possible locations perhaps going as far east as Brookline Avenue or as far west as the meadow just west of the BU Bridge.
I take such comments out of the blue from such a person as not at all to be ignored. This could very easily his exposing the pitch from Cambridge or their friends for their silly streetcars, trying to give Mountfort Station value in place of Yawkey.
6. Summary.
One succinct comment may be of value. Like so many things, dealing with MassDOT is day and night different from dealing with the City of Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their controlled "organizations."
The con game from the Cambridge pols is very real and very much part of the usual script, except that MassDOT looks meaningful neutral, unless you listen to the scare tactics being put out by the Cambridge pols.
When the Cambridge pols tell me they are protecting me from something, I have a very strong tendency to believe the opposite.
You need look no farther than Alewife where a woman apparently trying to save the Alewife reservation certainly looks like she was fooled by the Cambridge pols into being a main cause of its destruction. She spent 15 years or so telling people to look at everything except for the core part which her “friends” in Cambridge wanted to and are now destroying.
Further studies and meetings will occur.
7. Media Coverage.
The Boston Globe’s on line report did not say much. It is at: http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-17/yourtown/29670836_1_commuter-rail-rail-line-light-rail.
2. Difference?
3. Numbers.
4. Current Daily Use.
5. Urban Ring: Cambridge, the good guys and the bad guys.
A. The alternatives, briefly.
(1) The official position.
(2) New Orange Line Route.
(3) Streetcars.
B. The MassDOT Meeting.
(1) MassDOT.
(2) Cambridge.
(3) Your Editor.
(4) Street car enthusiast.
6. Summary.
7. Media Coverage.
1. Introductory.
There was a good crowd at the auditorium of the Morse School the evening of June 16, 2001.
The first thing to catch the eye was a flier on the front door of Morse School advertising the Cambridge Pols’ fraudulent “celebration” of Magazine Beach on which I have reported. My response to this con game was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle the same day and has seen links by the Boston Globe on line.
The issue is MassDOT’s consideration of passenger commuter use of the Grand Junction railroad running from the Beacon Yards in Allston to North Station in Boston for trains running between Framingham/Worcester and Boston. The Grand Junction railroad includes the rail bridge under the BU Bridge. It goes directly through the tiny part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese which has not been destroyed for them.
As usual, the Cambridge Pols are running around blaming everybody else for attacking Cambridge and claiming to be saving people. The reality appears to be that key Cambridge Pols are the strongest entity fighting for this nonsense. They are playing their usual con game, trying to fool concerned people into stabbing themselves in the back while claiming to be their friends.
The proposal is silly. The state’s figures indicate a possible for an increase in round trips in the next 25 years from 21 per day now to 30 per day then.
2. Difference?
A big difference from the prior presentation was that the presenters were a lot more positive a few months ago that South Station, the current terminus, is being greatly expanded as a result of the South Coast (Fall River and New Bedford) passenger service resumption. This would be done by moving the South Postal annex to a location further in the South Boston waterfront area, tearing it down, and putting in trackage that was destroyed 50 or 60 years ago before the building was constructed. The additional trackage would leave plenty of room for Worcester expansion of service.
When I pointed out the change, the speakers suddenly got more positive about the possibility of South Station expansion.
3. Numbers.
There is a small fraction of the current passengers who are going to the North Station area by their studies (8%) or to the Cambridge Kendall Square area (5%). To service these passengers, the state is considering instituting passenger service which would interfere with traffic on 6 roadways in Cambridge, crossing at grade, and add to the environmental destruction Cambridge and other Cambridge friends are inflicting on the Charles River.
No tracks would be added to the Grand Junction railroad. Train speed would vary from 15 to 30 miles per hour.
The route would clearly be greatly inferior to the current route and would use a transportation technique, at grade crossings with drop down gates, which went out of favor more than 50 years ago, at least in densely developed communities.
However, key Cambridge Pols want to help Cambridge industrial developers and they are trying to scare the public into savaging themselves.
4. Current Daily Use.
Current daily use of the Grand Junction is as follows:
One scheduled freight.
MBTA moves to their repair shops.
Amtrak moves of cars from service on their Downeaster trains to their Northeast Corridor trains.
Sporadic freight.
5. Urban Ring: Cambridge, the good guys and the bad guys.
A. The alternatives, briefly.
(1) The official position.
The official position is a bunch of bus rearrangements with real rapid transit somewhere in the future.
The rapid transit aspects are plans I have been working on since 1985. There are two alternate proposals.
(2) New Orange Line Route.
The state has invested $20 million in Yawkey Station, a crucial part of an Orange Line alternative which would start at Ruggles Station on the Orange line, stop at Longwood Medical Area, then at Yawkey, then at a number of stops which both proposals use north of the Charles, ending in Charlestown with a transfer at Bunker Hill Community College or further out.
Yawkey Station is the key the Orange Line alternative would have a new stop under Brookline Avenue over the Mass. Pike connecting Commuter Rail at Yawkey to the existing Green Line station at Kenmore. This would provide excellent covered connections among three Green Line branches, the new Orange Line station, the Commuter Rail and Fenway Park.
The Orange Line connections would allow such a route to be connected to trains on the existing Orange Line service. Phase 1 would be excellent. It could allow a spur off Ruggles station to Longwood Medical Area and the Kenmore-Yawkey Station. This spur could be arranged to allow direct, non transfer service from Dowtown Boston, Charlestown and west to Longwood and Kenmore.
Really excellent.
This route was initially proposed by me in 1986 and made part of the state considerations in about 1991.
(3) Streetcars.
Cambridge, its developers, and organizations influenced by Cambridge have put out a very consistent lie that there is only one alternative: a street car proposal which could not possibly get people off the Downtown Subway, a goal the Cambridge FORMAL representative pushed.
It would be quite destructive of the Charles River, and needlessly destructive because it is far inferior to the Orange Line proposal.
The different stations from the Orange Line proposal are south of the commonly proposed Mass. Ave. Station in the middle of the MIT Campus.
Then the route has a stop at Putnam Avenue in Cambridge which would be quite destructive to the residential neighborhood. It crosses the Charles River and then stops at Mountfort and St. Mary’s a block south of BU’s Marsh Chapel, this would connect to commuter rail at this point and connect to Fenway Park but be 4 to 6 blocks further away. Then it would have a station under Park Drive between the Riverside line (connecting to Fenway Park station) and the Beacon Street line (connecting to a new station under Audubon Circle).
This alternative stinks of the Grand Junction commuter rail.
B. The MassDOT Meeting.
The part of the meeting which I found more enlightening included three presentations on the Urban Ring transportation system.
(1) MassDOT.
MassDOT called the plans in great hiatus and not meaningfully being considered. They described it as a bus proposal and neglected to mention the rapid transit aspects.
(2) Cambridge.
Cambridge’s representative put in a pitch for the rapid transit aspects without being specific.
But the nonsense put out by the Cambridge Pols denies the existence of the Orange Line route.
(3) Your Editor.
I called the bus proposal silly in the core area of Boston while having possible value in the outer areas. I pointed out that Yawkey Station, with the state funding, is highly valuable to the Framingham - Worcester people, and a crucial part of the meaningful rapid transit proposals. The streetcar proposal crosses the train line too far out, causing significantly inferior service. This is the Mountfort Station, next to the Mass. Pike, near Boston University’s Marsh Chapel.
I objected to Grand Junction use as far inferior, and expressed concern that the state could be trying to save money on the South Coast project at the expense of Worcester / Framingham and Cambridge by moving the trains to the Grand Junction. I pointed out that moving them would kill the value of the Urban Ring to Framingham/Worcester for which the state has spent $20 million on the Yawkey Station.
(4) Street car enthusiast.
A streetcar enthusiast from Somerville responded to me (not mentioning names) by pushing a transfer at Mountfort from the Mass. Pike. Drivers would have to be very foolish to want to get off to transfer to streetcars, to put it mildly. Such a proposal would require a garage on air rights over the Mass. Pike near BU’s Marsh Chapel, on air rights over the Mass. Pike in a number of possible locations perhaps going as far east as Brookline Avenue or as far west as the meadow just west of the BU Bridge.
I take such comments out of the blue from such a person as not at all to be ignored. This could very easily his exposing the pitch from Cambridge or their friends for their silly streetcars, trying to give Mountfort Station value in place of Yawkey.
6. Summary.
One succinct comment may be of value. Like so many things, dealing with MassDOT is day and night different from dealing with the City of Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their controlled "organizations."
The con game from the Cambridge pols is very real and very much part of the usual script, except that MassDOT looks meaningful neutral, unless you listen to the scare tactics being put out by the Cambridge pols.
When the Cambridge pols tell me they are protecting me from something, I have a very strong tendency to believe the opposite.
You need look no farther than Alewife where a woman apparently trying to save the Alewife reservation certainly looks like she was fooled by the Cambridge pols into being a main cause of its destruction. She spent 15 years or so telling people to look at everything except for the core part which her “friends” in Cambridge wanted to and are now destroying.
Further studies and meetings will occur.
7. Media Coverage.
The Boston Globe’s on line report did not say much. It is at: http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-17/yourtown/29670836_1_commuter-rail-rail-line-light-rail.
Friday, June 17, 2011
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/.
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/.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
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.
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.
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
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/
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/
Saturday, June 11, 2011
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.
*********
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.
Friday, June 10, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, June 06, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
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 $$ donations for operating expenses and your participation, all greatly appreciated and all helping to build community.
********
This project was advertised as “improving” Magazine Beach.
One of the sponsors conducted a “swim in” to celebrate the improvement of swimming in the Charles as a result of this project.
The project has blocked access to the Charles from Magazine Beach, walling it off with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation for which well established native vegetation was destroyed.
The project has blocked boat launching capabilities into the Charles River.
The project has destroyed significant parts of the playing fields to create a drainage system. The drainage system is designed to drain off poisons which are being dumped on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly grass which was introduced in place of seven acres of native grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons.
This project has been an integral part of heartless animal abuse directed at the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese as part of the implementation of the bizarre effort. The state manager has bragged that he is starving the Charles River White Geese.
This group which is planning a “celebration” BARS HONEST COMMENT ON Magazine Beach if that comment, as is well deserved, is negative.
Business as usual in the City of Cambridge from friends of the Cambridge City Manager and the state bureaucrats.
And they get so offended if the expression “environmental destruction” is used. After they do not allow negative comment. And they are so self righteous. After all, celebrating environmental destruction falls in their definition of “neutrality.”
********
2. Update on planning for event celebrating MAGAZINE BEACH. ([omitted] 9am - 3 pm. See separate announcement.)
Please help with this event including $$ 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.”
Monday, May 30, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)