A response to Alewife destroyers / “Silver Maple” "Defenders"

On February 17, 2012, I transmitted to the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle six photos of Cambridge’s destruction at Alewife and a suggestion that he really should cover it. This came in response to the editor devoting the first page of the second section of the Cambridge Chronicle to photos of a fund raiser for a long shot fight to stand up to private nearby development. The key “defenders” could care less about massive destruction by Cambridge in the same area.

The communication and photos have been published at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.

In the interim, I added one photo to the photos I provided to the editor, the following photo of the area of destruction from the location where the flood storage should go. The photo was taken on June 30, 2011, before the worst of the destruction. The two roads used to be part of the untouched forest. The left road is a small vehicle highway. The right is construction access. The destruction area can be seen a few hundred feet straight ahead, before the mess.















The editor has just suggested a letter to the editor.

I have submitted the following:

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I appreciate your coverage of the continuing scam concerning the “Silver Maple Forest.”

The game is: “Don’t look at what we are destroying, look at how great we sound when we yell at the other guy.”

Attached is a photo of the massive destruction done by the "Silver Maple Forest" activists’ friends at the City of Cambridge in the core Alewife Reservation a few hundred feet away.

This, Cambridge promises, will protect against the worst storm likely in every two year period. Two fifty year storms have hit the area in the last 20 years.

A massive parking lot directly across Cambridge ParkDrive is about to be built on. In a combined project, this parking lot can provide the flood protection needed by local residents.

The 15 year leader of the “Silver Maple Forest” scam has published a letter in the Chronicle bragging about the destruction.

I have twice in the pages of the Chronicle pointed out the reality at Alewife and demanded her response. Her response, and yours, is that full page advertisement at the beginning of the second section about how great their con game is.

I consider this outrageous.

Kill Shelters, the Very Destructive Pols in Cambridge, MA, USA, Nevins Farm, a serious attempt to kill the Charles River White Geese

Ellen Schloss started a discussion on facebook which has evolved into relevance for this blog.

1. Ellen protecting a beautiful dog.

Wall Photos

please cross post this on fb, and email to others.

This dog is at Andover vet and his time is just about up (10 day hold, been there since 2/13)
from there he goes to MSPCA, Nevins Farm in Methuen (which is NOT a no-kill shelter).

2. Editor’s response on facebook.

Nevins Farm is well known to me.

The Cambridge Pols tried to move the Charles River White Geese there, calling it a "happy farm." They neglected to mention the kill part, or that people "adopting" could "adopt" for Sunday dinner, or that their "water" would be a kids' wading pool.

Their current replacements are using tactics on the Charles like their friends used to destroy at Alewife.

3. Ellen.

yes i remember when that happened

4. Karen.

Bob, there are other no kill shelters in Massachusetts.

5. Your editor.

I got off on a side track.

The destructive people lying that they are environmentalists normally lie through any number of tactics, including omission.

Saying to send the Charles River White Geese to a "happy farm" while not mentioning the routine killing is an excellent example of the really rotten situation in Cambridge, MA, USA, which is destroying the environment insofar as they can get their really bad hands on it.

This includes the Charles River, Alewife, Fresh Pond, and undisclosed fine print in contractor booty all over the place.

Caveat on calling Cambridge’s new mayor an “Environmental Destroyer”

One caveat on yesterday’s report on the Cambridge, MA, USA mayoral election.

It is very clear that Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis is the most environmentally destructive Cambridge city councilor with regard to the Charles River. However, the title I used yesterday, “Cambridge, MA elects Environmental Destroyer Mayor,” would apply to any of the incumbent city councilors (8 out of 9) possible to have been elected chair (“mayor”) of the Cambridge City Council.

The only current member without totally filthy hands as far as environmental destruction goes is the newly elected councilor. She, however, has been very visible on a photo quite dominant on the website of the fake protective group which has been most important in the fighting for destruction at Alewife. The new incumbent fits very well into the very hypocritical world of the Cambridge Pols. It is rather silly to even give her the courtesy of considering possibly redeeming environmental leanings. I simply would not be so silly as to think she has meaningful environmentally responsible leanings. I would love to be proven wrong.

And note that the preceding paragraph picks out the new incumbent for discussion solely because the other eight are beneath favorable consideration.

Cambridge, MA Elects Environmental Destroyer Mayor

The Cambridge City Council is reported from various sources to have elected Henrietta Davis, the most environmentally destructive member particularly as far as the Charles River is concerned, as its mayor. Reports are from the Boston Globe, Universal Hub, and Cambridge Day.

This report is based on the listings / links on boston.com (Boston Globe).

Nothing left to defend at Alewife and on the Charles River?

Ellen follows up on http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/ellen-comments-on-photos-of-alewife.html as follows:


Ellen:

There is nothing left to defend are they blind?

Your editor’s Response:

The Cambridge Pols are defiant about their belligerent stupidity.

If you see somebody in Cambridge who talks Cambridge politics and cries out for the response, "You cannot possibly be so stupid," that is almost certainly a Cambridge pol.

Unfortunately, the latest game is that there still is a lot more which has not been destroyed. And there is the continued existence of that massive parking lot which can hold the flood storage that they lie is being provided by this destruction. They are continuing the "Silver Maple Forest" scam which allows them to destroy more and more of Alewife.

When the victims find out their lies did not provide the needed flood storage, they (or to be more accurate, the one or two people pulling the strings) want to be able to say:

Oh, golly gee, we meant well. We will just have to destroy more.

One branch of the Machine, in Cambridgeport, has been very active in its environmental destruction.

The Cambridgeport con game spent years telling people to "defend" Alewife by ignoring their friends destruction at Alewife.

The Cambridgeport branch's attack on the Charles River is exemplified by a "public meeting" in which state destroyers were allowed to say every sort of nonsense they felt like. The Cambridgeport branch of the machine, in the name of "fairness," censored every response which reflected reality, flat out publicly prohibitting such statements.

They then started "celebrating" Magazine Beach with the blatant censorship of the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

But now, just as they lied about defending Alewife, they are lying about defending the Charles River. They are fighting to keep in place on the Charles totally repairable outrages and hoping to keep up the con to implement even worse destruction.

At Alewife, it will take the better part of a century to undo one month's destruction.

These are really, really bad people and they have a massive machine supporting each other.

Ellen comments on the photos of Alewife Destruction by Cambridge, MA and the state of Massachusetts

Ellen Schloss:

What a mess they made out of a beautiful area.

Your Editor:

It is even worse when you realize the 15 years of scam loudly claiming to be defending Alewife.

And I am not positive I got everything.

Photos are at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.

Cambridge Pols destroy Alewife — Photo Evidence

The following is the transmittal document and photo evidence (reduced in size here) transmitted to the Cambridge Chronicle on February 16, 2012.

If Cambridge, MA, had a responsible city government, it would negotiate with Richie McKinnon, the owner of the parking lot shown in Photo #7. It stretches behind the building to the left and follows the commuter rail to Alewife Brook Parkway.

I am not certain but I think he owns the entire massive parking lot.

Flood storage to protect Alewife, North Cambridge, Arlington and Belmont from fifty year storms or more should be constructed under that parking lot combined with Richie’s project on air rights. Richie should be compensated for whatever costs might be added to his project by the delay.

As for this environmental outrage, created as a very major part out of the “Silver Maple Forest” scam, Cambridge and the state should stop work and walk away from it.

Post signs, front and rear, calling this outrage the “Ellen Mass Memorial Wasteland” and let nature heal what a reprehensible (to quote that civil rights judge) city council destroyed in a month. The contractors have had too much pork at the expense of the environment.

Included on the sign as evidence of their infamy (in the same manner as so many responsible projects) should be the names of the Cambridge City Manager and the members of the Cambridge City Council plus the responsible state bureaucrats (including the governor) in October 2011 when the outrage was done.

*************

The mantra of the Cambridge Pols: Don’t look at what we are destroying, look at how great we sound when we yell at the other guys.

These photos were taken on February 16, 2012. The trees around the artificially created moonscape are the same trees these hypocrites destroyed to create the moonscape.

The fake flood protection will protect against two year storms. The massive parking lot across Cambridge Park Drive can readily be used to provide the needed protection, against 50 years storms, two of which have occurred during the past twenty years.

You are authorized to print one or more of these seven photos, giving me credit.

You have done so on the con game fundraiser with regard to photos taken by Ellen Mass who fought for this destruction for 15 years, lying that she was defending Alewife, which she has admitted in a letter to the editor by praising the destruction.

The photos are identified by the sequence in which I am sending them combined with the sequence number assigned by the processor, i.e. #1 (019A).

The first six photos will be my shots from 2/16/12. The seventh is my photo from June 30, 2011, of the parking lot where the flood storage belongs and which can hold in combination with the project now going through city reviews.

*************


Cambridge Pols destroy Alewife - #1 (019A)















Cambridge Pols destroy Alewife - #2 (020A)
















Cambridge Pols destroy Alewife - #3 (021A)
















Cambridge Pols destroy Alewife - #4 (022A)

















Cambridge Pols destroy Alewife - #5 (023A)
















Cambridge Pols destroy Alewife - #6 (024A)




















Cambridge Pols destroy Alewife - #7 (6/30/11)














For my analysis of Richie McKinnon and his project, please see http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/alewife-richie-mckinnon-true.html.

Alewife: Richie McKinnon, true environmentalist and victim?

1. Richie McKinnon — a good record.
2. The Cambridge Conservation Commission meeting, February 13, 2012.
3. Summary.

1. Richie McKinnon — a good record.

In my last post, I said that the new owner / developer of the massive parking lot where the Alewife flood storage should be is a good guy.

His name is Richard McKinnon. He was a key assistant to the late Cambridge Mayor / City Councilor Al Vellucci. I posted a glowing praise of Al a couple of months back, contrasting him to the outrage which is the very destructive Cambridge Pols. Al would be proud of what Richie has done at Alewife.

Richie is now developing property both north and south of the Alewife reservation, and judging by the looks on folks faces when I went over the destruction of the Alewife reservation being accomplished by the City of Cambridge, I would say he has been believing the con games from the Cambridge Machine that the private developers are the big threat at Alewife, not Cambridge.

I am spreading among this report photos of the parking lot he returned to the Alewife Reservation and of the massive parking lot he is committed to develop. The first two are the parking lot he returned to nature.




























The third is the parking lot he is developing and which should hold the flood storage. His ownings stretch far to the left behind the building.
















The fourth photo is a VERY dated view of the Alewife destruction from his property. The access road on the right and the small vehicle highway on the left used to be part of the virgin forest and the destruction is a lot worse now. The small vehicle highway has been relocated from the destroyed virgin woodland which last I saw was a open surface mine.
















I know what Richie did with that parking lot between his existing project and Alewife Station. He implemented the zoning change in the Sheila Cook zoning petition which I wrote and for which the Cambridge Machine treated Sheila like crap.

Richie sounded very responsible in other environmental aspects of his existing development especially those facing the area Cambridge and the Cambridge Pols seem to be determined to destroy as they do their non stop con game telling people to look everyplace else.

2. The Cambridge Conservation Commission meeting, February 13, 2012.

Richie has replaced the developer who got environmental approvals in 2008.

Richie presented his plans to the Cambridge Conservation Commission last night and hopes to present it to the Cambridge Planning Board on March 20.

Richie presented a package showing his proposal.

At the very beginning of the proposal package is a site plan / satellite photo which would be an excellent before picture for Cambridge’s outrage at Alewife.

It shows the Alewife reservation in the excellence which Cambridge and its fake groups destroyed.

As near as I can gather, it would appear that he owns the big parking lot which is directly across the street from the destroyed Alewife reservation and that he owns the rest of the series of parking lots which run from there along the commuter rail to Alewife Brook Parkway.

I started off my comments by pointing out to them that their site plan / satellite photo is out of date because Cambridge has destroyed a fast amount of the reservation shown on the site plan / satellite photo.

I continued to explain that the Alewife area needs flood protection from the 50 year floods which have occurred twice in the last 20 years.

I pointed out that, as massive as the destruction has been, it only protects against 2 year floods, i.e. rather than protecting against the worst possible flood in a 50 year period, it protects against the worst possible flood in a two year period.

Once the first really bad rain occurs, folks are going to find out they have been lied to.

Then the real destruction occurs. The flood protection can only be provided by further massive and perhaps total destruction of the Alewife reservation or by creating underground flood storage under all of Richie’s property, preferably coordinated with his project.

McKinnon’s plans call for at grade parking throughout the project area, exactly the area which would be hurt worst by Cambridge’s lies that Cambridge is meaningfully protecting against flooding.

I asked Richie if Cambridge has ever contacted him about use of his property for the flood storage which Alewife needs, coordinating with his project.

He said he has not been contacted.

3. Summary.

Cambridge’s con game continues.

McKinnon, the true environmentalist, North Cambridge, Arlington and Belmont are being severely hurt by the non stop smoke screen tactics what have gotten this outrage this far.

Cambridge (MA) Conservation Commission: Charles River and Fresh Pond

1. Introductory.
2. The Charles River.
3. Fresh Pond.

1. Introductory.

The February 13, 2012 meeting of the Cambridge Conservation Commission had items on its agenda concerning the Charles River, Alewife and Fresh Pond.

I am going to break my report into two parts. First I will do the Charles River and Fresh Pond. Then, in a separate report, I will do Alewife.

The Alewife report will require a lot of work. It deserves its own separate report.

To put it succinctly, the developer has changed. The new developer is a person I have known for a long time and whom I respect. Some of my introductory comments drew a reaction from his team which indicated to me that they may have been had. They may have entered into this project thinking that the comments of the fake groups were true, that the problems at Alewife are the private developers and that Cambridge and its friends are saints. I quickly and succinctly disabused them of yet another lie from Cambridge and its friends.

It is entirely possible that they have been shafted.

2. The Charles River.

The first item on the agenda was the Western Avenue and River Street Bridges project. These are the next two bridges to the west from the BU Bridge.

The biggest problem was that the agenda misidentified the presenters as the Department of Conservation and Development. It turned out to be the Department of Transportation (MassDOT).

The environmental problems with these projects are the ones Cambridge’s friends are trying to add. MassDOT and the DCR have rejected these outrages.

It was a straight forward presentation from good people.

3. Fresh Pond.

The best example of the ongoing Fresh Pond projects are photos of wild birds nesting on nearby office buildings because the animal habitat at Fresh Pond has been destroyed.

The presenters, employees of the City of Cambridge, were showing a plan in which they were chopping up a hillside and rebuilding it.

I asked them how many trees had previously been destroyed in the project area and how many would be destroyed by the project.

The presenters objected to my language. They were not destroying trees they are removing trees.

And they were not destroying animal habitat. They are improving animal habitat.

I refused to use their euphemisms and I, with the maximum nicety possible, condemned the massive habitat destruction in their ongoing series of projects.

I did not get an answer.

Cambridge Chronicle glorifies Cambridge con game at Alewife

In my last post, I praised the Cambridge Chronicle for moderating its language concerning con game fundraiser concerning part of the Alewife reservation which is privately owned. This is a Don Quixote con game fight in which well intentioned people are told to ignore those ;portions of Alewife which are being destroyed for no good purpose by government with a ready, alternative and look at the next to impossible fight concerning a privately owned portion of the Alewife Reservation, to which has been applied to glorious name, Silver Maple Forest.

I just saw the hard copy version of that language. I retract nearly all of my praise. The language is an improvement for certain over the prior edition. It however is surrounded by a page full of photos of the con game fundraiser.

By contrast, although my Letters to the Editor have been pretty much universally printed, (1) exactly zero reporting has been done on the needless destruction of the Alewife reservation by Cambridge and its friends and (2) exactly zero reporting has been done on the obvious alternative, the massive parking lot across CambridgePark Drive, an alternative which could disappear very quickly.

Cambridge and its friends tell people not to look at Cambridge’s willful, totally irresponsible and totally unnecessary destruction which should be readily preventable. Cambridge and its friends tell people to yell at the private property owners who are destroying an inferior, smaller portion.

The obvious result of the con game is the possible destruction of all of Alewife: the private property against which the fight is a tilting at windmills and the publicly owned Alewife reservation where the destruction is totally avoidable.

The reality of Cambridge and friends’ completed destruction of the core Alewife reservation is that their destruction cannot achieve its claimed goals: protection of the neighbors of the Alewife reservation from flooding during massive storms.

Cambridge has destroyed acres of virgin woodland and hundreds or more animals at Alewife. The problem is the flooding of neighbors resulting from Cambridge allowing development in the flood plain. Cambridge’s destruction will protect against the worst possible storm in any two year period, a two year storm. The problem is two fifty year storms in the last twenty years. Cambridge and its friends have knowingly destroyed the core Alewife reservation for flood storage Cambridge and its friends know they cannot provide.

Directly across CambridgePark Drive is a massive parking lot which extends to the railroad right of way to the south and to Alewife Brook Parkway to the east. Build the flood storage under that parking lot and build building on top of the flood storage and you accomplish two goals at once, flood storage and development near public transportation.

TONIGHT, the Cambridge Conservation Commission will hear the owner of the most important part of that parking lot seek a modification of their permission to build office buildings in that parking lot. Prior permission was granted before the Great Recession. The owner is coming back.

If those buildings are built without the parking lot, a city government which lied that it was providing meaningful flood storage will be oh, so sorry when neighbors find out they have been had.

The poor dears in the Cambridge city government will “have to” destroy a much larger part of the publicly owned portion of the Alewife reservation if not all of it to deliver on the promises made when they destroyed the core Alewife reservation.

And the Don Quixote fighit? Cambridge pols are very fond of Don Quixote fights in place of meaningful action. In the rare times that Don Quixote wins, other things come up, as happened at North Point, but North Point is another story.

It would be nice if the Cambridge Chronicle devoted the same coverage to this very real and very avoidable destruction as the Cambridge Chronicle has to the con game fundraiser. A page full of photos of the strip mine which was formerly an irreplaceable forest, plus the massive parking lot which can hold the flood storage, plus some of the massive trees yet to be destroyed when the s*** hits the fan.

It would be nice.

Cambridge Chronicle improves its reporting on Alewife in its on line report

Earlier today, I passed on with analysis my letter to the Cambridge Chronicle responding to their on line report on fundraising which I consider just part of the ongoing fight by Cambridge and its friends to destroy the core Alewife reservation by conning people into defending a long shot part of the Alewife reservation. This is particularly distressing because Cambridge and its friends appear launched to strikingly multiply the totally inexcuseable destruction.

The game of Cambridge and its friends has been to fool well meaning people to fight one of their usual Don Quixote bouts rather than working to defend the key core Alewife reservation from totally inexcusable destruction by Cambridge and its friends.

I just found a copy of the February 2, 2012, issue of the Cambridge Chronicle, which had their report on fundraiser buried on page 9. The language used implied that the long shot being defended against is superior to the irreplaceable forest destroyed.

The key language on line is: “The 7-acre silver maple forested area is a habitat for rare animals and birds including otter, deer, coyote, fox and nearly a hundred bird species – some of which require both uplands and wetlands. The concert celebrated this valuable resource.”

Frankly this language is also applicable to the area these “activists” are happy seeing destroyed. I definitely think the area they are destroying is more valuable because, in addition to these factors, it includes Little River.

The real difference, as is normal in the rotten situation in Cambridge, is that the Cambridge machine is destroying the core Alewife reservation, and it is a private developer in the area they claim is so great. The Cambridge City Council constantly lies that it is holier than thou on environmental and civil rights matters. That is a flat out lie, and this game of irresponsibly maneuvering people away from their irresponsible destruction is just part of it.

That flat out lie makes the Cambridge City Council vulnerable to attacks by knowing people who are aware of how irresponsible nine councilors are. The exposure in the last election of the environmentally second worst councilor as “reprehensible” with regard to the civil rights case of Malvina Monteiro could very possibly have led to his firing by the voters.

The fundraiser with the usual failure to mention the important stuff is another factor in the fight to destroy the core Alewife reservation. Simultaneous with the destruction, the owner of the parking lot where the flood storage should go is building, apparently without the flood storage that should be there rather than destroying the core Alewife reservation.

Another interesting factor is the presence of Ellen Mass in this non “Alewife” group which has apparently replaced “Friends of the Alewife Reservation.” Ellen Mass’s credit appears on the two photos printed in the hard copy. Thus the admission continues. Ellen Mass has succeeded in destroying the core Alewife reservation by loudly claiming to be defending Alewife and by duping people into this Don Quixote fight. She has publicly bragged about the destruction. She, at least judging by that photo credit, is continuing with the “defense” group which no longer claims to be defending Alewife.

Mass led the fake Alewife group and has publicly praised the destruction. That praise totally discredits her and her friends claims of concern for the environment in their Don Quixote Silver Maple fight.

So thanks to the Chronicle for moderating key language in the later printing. People who are thinking about what they are doing, and responsible, will change upon reflection.

Fund raising which aids destruction at Alewife

1. General.
2. Letter to Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Summary.


1. General.

The following letter has been submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle in response to a series of versions of a report by the Chronicle on a fund raiser concerning private property at the Alewife reservation.

The most recent version of the report is at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1341770199/Concert-raises-money-for-the-Silver-Maple-Forest#ixzz1m7JJl1QC. It is quite a bit shorter than the other versions. Sorry. This is the best I can see.

2. Letter to Cambridge Chronicle.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I appreciate your “Silver Maple Forest” report.

For nearly 15 years, a group “defending” Alewife told people who were concerned about Alewife to protect the “Silver Maple Forest.” That group said not to look at the inexcusable and in fact downright bizarre environmental destruction being accomplished at Alewife by Cambridge and by Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation, which owns the core Alewife reservation.

A few months ago, these entities accomplished the first stage of destruction. They bragged about “flood storage” their destruction cannot achieve. They brag about needed flood storage which can be achieved on the other side of the adjoining CambridgePark Drive.

The destruction so far can protect against two year floods (the worst flooding in any two year period). Alewife has seen two fifty year floods in the past twenty years.

The needed protection can be provided by taking the massive parking lot across CambridgePark Drive or by further destruction of the reservation. The flood protection should be placed under office buildings whose construction in that parking lot is imminent. The alternative is a doubling, tripling or more of destruction of the irreplaceable woodlands.

The key “activist” has gone from “defending” Alewife to bragging about the destruction of the core Alewife reservation. The “defending” group which is now visible does not even use the word “Alewife” in its name.

Your report describes “Silver Maple Forest” in glowing terms. Those glowing terms describe the destroyed area and the phase 2 destruction as well. Total public destruction will easily be much larger than the destruction at this privately owned long shot at “Silver Maple.”

If Cambridge had a responsible city government, that massive parking lot would be taken by eminent domain and used for the flood protection needed. The imminent office buildings would be built on top of the flood storage. The inexcusable strip mine which replaced an irreplaceable woodlands would be given back to nature to undo damage which should never have been done.

Instead we see people fighting Don Quixote fights who do not want to see the bizarre and totally avoidable destruction a hundred or so feet away. They destroy their own credibility by their indifference.

Cambridge and its friends keep the good guys “out of trouble” by having them chase their tails. They keep up the lie that they are environmental saints. How dare you object to totally wasteful environmental destruction. Cambridge pols sound great!

3. Summary.

Please note that the Cambridge Conservation Commission will be discussing the office project slated for that massive parking lot on the fourth floor of City Hall Annex at Broadway and Inman Monday, February 13, at 7:15 pm.

The bragging about the destruction was done by Ellen Mass to a non profit which calls itself “Greenport” on January 18 at the church on the corner of Brookline Street and Putnam Avenue. The related “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” has spent years telling people who are concerned about Alewife to go to the fake Friends group.

Since the destruction of the core Alewife reservation the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” has started strongly denying that Alewife is any proper interest of their group.

The “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” has joined the falsely named Charles River Conservancy in creating a group for Magazine Beach which stinks of the “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” group.

The “Friends of Alewife Reservation” now seems to have disappeared with its success in destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

“Non profit” wants to gold plate the Boston / lower end of the Charles River

Ellen Schloss has posted a link on the facebook page at http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1402556&format=comments#CommentsArea to the Boston Herald’s report on one of the typical non profit’s proposal for the Boston Esplanade on the south side of the Charles River and for the Charles River Dam area.

The non profit claims to love the peace and the beauty of the Charles. The Boston Herald link very prominently shows their proposal for a Ferris Wheel dominating the skyline at the Charles River Dam overwhelming the Museum of Science.

And the non profits, as a group, will keep on telling you how lovely they are. And their proposals are always called "improvements" or the like.

Alewife destruction progresses

Next Monday, February 13, 2012, the Cambridge Conservation Commission will consider a “Request to Amend Order of Conditions” with regard to 150 and 180 CambridgePark Drive.

This is the office project that was delayed because of the Great Recession.

This office project is on top of the parking lot where flood protection for the Alewife Reservation should be placed, across the street from the Cambridge/DCR created strip mine that used to be an irreplaceable forest.

If those buildings go there without the flood protection under them, the Cambridge Pols will have “no choice” but to finish the destruction of the Alewife Reservation for flood storage.

In related news, the falsely named “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” no longer is visible in “fighting to save” the nearby “Silver Maple Forest”, the privately owned property subject to the usual Don Quixote type fight to distract concerned people from the real action, the fully savable Alewife Reservation. The "non profits" are using a different name now and no longer apparently even use the word “Alewife.”

Alewife is fully savable except for the related non profits, fake groups normal in Cambridge, MA, politics which regularly control the population and achieve a lot of environmental destruction.

So a “reprehensible” city government (to quote that civil rights judge) looks like it is getting its destruction, and North Cambridge, Arlington and Belmont neighbors will not find out they have been chasing their tails until it is “too late.”

Oh, and the Cambridge City Council keeps up its very much non stop efforts to “save the world” just as long as the voters do not look at them destroying Cambridge and related environment.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission meeting is of no real significance. The key forum is the Cambridge City Council, which is protected by the massive Cambridge Pol machine.

The core Alewife reservation can still be saved. The acres of destruction which occurred in the last few months can be undone by allowing nature to restore itself.

Those buildings go up without the flood storage and the Alewife reservation will be gone.

Oh, and the “Silver Maple Forest”? A long shot at best, made even longer by support for destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

Orders to review Cambridge City Manager’s contract and to replace retiring Cambridge City Clerk Placed on File

We had a disagreement with the Cambridge Chronicle on the handling of one of the three orders considered by the Cambridge City Council concerning the employment situation of the Cambridge City Manager and the replacement of the retiring Cambridge City Clerk.

My resolution of the employment situation is to fire the Cambridge City Manager for Monteiro and hire the retiring Cambridge City Clerk to act as acting Cambridge City Manager pending international search for a new City Manager.

The third motion, which passed, appointed Donna Lopez, City Clerk Drury’s current number 2 person as Interim City Clerk because of the anticipated late February retirement and to empower the two to set up an orderly transition.

Two motions (1) to establish procedures with regard to the City Manager’s expiring contract and (2) with regard to establishing procedures to replace the City Clerk were initiated by Cambridge City Councilor Kelley and were delayed to last Monday’s meeting (2/6/12) by Councilor Davis under her powers under the city charter.

Kelley was out of state on Monday and no other councilor brought up the orders. The two orders, in accordance with the Charter provision, were automatically placed on file.

The Monteiro decision concerned the City Manager’s firing of Department Head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. Very strong communications were written by a panel of the Appeals Court and by the Superior Court trial judge, plus there was an award of $3.5 million PENAL damages by the jury in addition to $1.1 million real damages. The judicial comments clearly established grounds to fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.

Response to Sea Island Defense

1. Response to Sea Island Defense.
2. Your Editor.


1. Response to Sea Island Defense.

Dear Mr. La Trémouille,

Thank you ever so much for picking our concerns up on your blog. I am the retired Altamaha Riverkeeper®, well at least almost retired. Having said that, if you care about our wildlife and natural resources you can never totally retire. Before I became the Altamaha Riverkeeper® I worked as a blue crab commercial fisherman on the coast of Georgia for almost 25 years until we formed the Altamaha Riverkeeper®, Inc. (ARK) in 1999. We formed the ARK because the State of Georgia had lost site of what our natural resources mean to us as a people. Without going into a long writing spell you can just about figure the rest out for yourself. Just wanted you to know a little bit about us and how much we appreciate your assistance.

Again, thank you very much,

James Holland

P.S.
To learn more about the Altamaha Riverkeeper® go on their web site at www.altamahariverkeeper.org.
To learn more about me and what I care for go on my web site www.jamesrhollandphotography.com/blog.

2. Your Editor.

The parallels between the two situations are striking, except that our enemies have very bad records both on the Charles and in the not too far away Alewife reservation where they indulged in large scale environmental destruction and mass animal killing for "flood storage" the project could not deliver and which could be achieved across the street under a parking lot.

The non profit in that situation was a fake group which fits patterns of fake groups which are associated with Cambridge.

And thank you for friending the Charles River White Geese.

Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?

1. A good friend: Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?
2. Editor’s Reply.

1. A good friend: Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?

A good friend posted the following question on facebook in response to our partial posting of the funders of the Charles River “Conservancy.”

*********

Robert, I am not clear what this posting is about! Plz clarify in simple terms. The White Geese at the Charles R extremely important 2 me.--thank u Robert!

2. Editor’s Reply.

This posting is a direct response to the posting concerning Sea World below.

The Sea World destruction very closely fits the attacks on the Charles River.

There are a lot of “non profits” whose behavior is destructive.

Some, like the Charles River “Conservancy” are blatant falsehoods. This group is belligerently destructive of the environment. There is a very real problem with groups claiming to be holier than thou who really are not.

The very big problem is their fooling well meaning people into hurting the cause they claim to stand for.

Like so many activists in Cambridge, it is impossible to tell the difference, at face value, from the knaves and those who have been fooled.

One way to try to do so is follow the money.

The good guys will run away from groups running false colors. The bad guys will stay there.

Another interesting point in the funders are the educational institutions which benefit greatly and have been quite active in environmental destruction on the Charles River. These institutions very consistently lie to their students about their environmental destructiveness. Their false colors are a very major factor in fooling well meaning people into destroying the environment.

Selected Non Profits Funding Charles River “Conservancy”

The following is a partial list of nonprofits contributing to the environmentally destructive and falsely named Charles River Conservancy.

This is taken from an attachment to a Fall 2011 fundraising letter bragging, among other things about their fight for a new small vehicle highway on and in the Charles River on the Cambridge side. This major initiative (and not mentioned any more than they can help) would destroy hundreds of healthy trees, wetlands, and animal habitat including major portions of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

The CRC’s highway construction has been rejected as environmentally destructive in a joint report by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The CRC’s list is preceded with the comment: “We are grateful to our corporate sponsors and to the foundations who have supported us over the last 18 months.”

VERY prominently displayed at the top of the list are the following logos:

The Boston Foundation
Intersystems
WilmerHale
Massachusetts Environmental Trust
Bank of America
Fidelity Investiments
Converse

The first two groupings are:

*********

Visionary

Anonymous
George H. and Jane A. Mifflin Memorial Fund
Harold Whitsworth Pierce Charitable Trust

Rejeuvenator

Bilesikian Family Foundation
Elizabeth Taylor Fessenden Foundation
Mahoney’s Garden Center
National Grid Foundation
REI
Sanoli Aventis/Genzyme

*********

Elsewhere on the list are Harvard University, MIT Community Service Fund, Harvard Business School, Boston University and the New England College of Optometry.

Leading Nonprofits Join Sea Island in Destroying Critical Habitat in Marsh Buffer

The following link has the stench of the environmental destruction on the Charles River, right down to “non profits” fighting for environmental destruction.

http://www.protectthemarsh.org.

The title is “Leading Nonprofits Join Sea Island in Destroying Critical Habitat in Marsh Buffer.”

The Charles River Conservancy is lying with its name, but the stench is the same and it is by far not the only actor using “non profit” status. I have its publication of its contributor list.

Fortunately, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation is standing up to the small vehicle highway outrage on the Charles River. It seems to have roped the Department of Conservation and Recreation into a responsible position on that highway but DCR and Cambridge are very, very destructive on their own.

WHY WE LOVE THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE

Archie Mazmanian comments:

Yesterday's (2/5/12) NYTimes Sunday Review section features "Why We Love Zoos" by Diane Ackerman. Here's the closing paragraph:

"What a lonely species we are, searching for signals of life from other galaxies, adopting companion animals, visiting parks and zoos to commune with other beasts. In the process we discover our shared identity. We flock to zoos for many reasons, not least to shed some of the burden of being human."

Zoos are indeed great places to go to. But so is our jewel of the Charles River where for many years we - and especially our children - could enjoy the Charles River White Geese in what ha d developed into a seemingly natural habitat. There were no bars or cages. We did not interfere with the Goose Ghetto, respecting their privacy. But we shared the Charles River with them in mutual respect. Will the Goose Ghetto be restored? Will the destructive vegetation along the banks interfering with the CRWG use of the Charles River be eliminated? Will we once again reside in harmony with the CRWG?

Imagine 50 or a 100 years from now yet another misguided governmental effort to eliminate some other Charles River fauna. Perhaps these government officials might think: "Who remembers the CRWG?"

Let's not forget.

Conflict with Cambridge Chronicle City Council Report: We were right.

I did a double take on reading the report of the Cambridge Chronicle on Monday night’s Cambridge City Council meeting.

We reported that two of the three motions concerning the future of the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Clerk were delayed until the next meeting by Councilor Davis’ exercise of her rights under the Cambridge City Charter.

The only motion to pass was the one appointing Donna Lopez as Interim City Clerk given the stated intention of City Clerk D. Margaret Drury to retire at the end of February. The motion authorized the two to establish transition procedures.

The Chronicle, on page 2 of yesterday’s (February 2, 2012) edition reported that the motion passed which established procedures concerning the future of the Cambridge City Manager. I have not checked, but it is likely the on line equivalent is the same.

The conflict in the reports was a matter of distress to me because the council, by voting to suspend its rules after I left the meeting, could have brought the two “charter righted” orders up and passed them.

I have checked the on line report of the City Clerk and determined that my report is correct.

The report is at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/PolicyOrderList.cfm. The orders “charter righted” are orders 4 and 5. The order passed is motion 6.

Action on Cambridge (MA) City Manager Deferred; Action taken on City Clerk Retirement

Last night, January 30, 2012, the Cambridge City Council had in front of it three proposed actions with regard to the Cambridge City Manager, Robert Healy, and with regard to my choice for acting city manager, Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

The three motions were:

1. Councilor Kelley’s motion to set up a committee to start looking for a new city clerk in light of her impending retirement, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33957.

2. Councilor Kelley’s motion to set up a committee to set up review of the Cambridge City Manager’s status and to discuss his intentions with regard to another contract with him, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33958.

3. Councilor Maher’s motion to appoint Donna Lopez as Interim City Clerk in light of Ms. Drury’s anticipated retirement on February 29, 2012, and to authorize Drury and Lopez to plan the transition, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33977.

Councilor Kelley’s motions were deferred to the next meeting by Councilor Davis’s exercise of her rights under the Cambridge Charter.

Councilor Kelley informed the City Council that he would not be attending next Monday’s meeting but would be amenable to a special meeting earlier than that with regard to the election of the mayor (that city councilor who functions as the chair of the city council and school committee).

Councilor Maher’s motion seemed to pass without negative comment although there were comments from the the councilor sitting as the chair (Councilor Reeves) that confused me.

Donna Lopez is highly qualified to succeed Margaret Drury as Cambridge City Clerk.

Alternates to Cambridge City Manager

1. Introduction.
2. Ellen’s suggestion.
3. Editor’s response.
4. Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.


1. Introduction.

Earlier today, I reported that the Cambridge, MA, City Council seems to be in the process of starting the process of determining whether they will rehire the Cambridge City Manager.

My evaluation is that they should, long ago, have obeyed the directions of the courts and fired him. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-cambridge-ma-usa-city-council.html.

This should link to my YouTube posting on this matter dating back to August 15, 2010, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

2. Ellen’s suggestion.

Ellen responded on facebook:

bob you would make a super city manager - have you thought about it?

3. Editor’s response.

Thank you very much.

Regrettably, we are talking about employment by the Cambridge City Council whose record is strikingly antithetical to the pious claims of sainthood which are very much non stop from the members and their massive machine.

I believe very strongly in what they claim to stand for.

That is a very major point of disqualification.

4. Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

My choice for acting city manager is Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

Margaret Drury is highly respected in the City of Cambridge for good reason. She runs her office well and efficiently. She would be a breath of fresh air.

It is rumored that she is considering retirement at the end of January 2012.

My posting on firing the Cambridge City Manager is dated August 2010. If Cambridge had a responsible city council, a very clean replacement of Healy could have occurred with permission of Court, before the Appeals Court decision.

I do not know just how badly the extreme irresponsibility of the Cambridge City Council has messed things up by failing to act.

I am of the strong opinion, not having discussed anything with Margaret, that finishing off her career as Acting City Manager while the City Council conducts the usual international search would be a major coup by which she could top off her career and probably increase her pension.

I would hope that it can still be maneuvered.

Will the Cambridge, MA, USA City Council rehire the Cambridge City Manager?

Order number O-5 from the Cambridge City Council’s agenda for this coming Monday evening, January 30, 2012 may be read at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33958.

City Councilor Craig Kelley is starting the process of considering whether or not the Cambridge City Manager should be reappointed.

Exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council have expressed interest in implementing the decisions of the Appeals Court panel (“ample evidence [of] outrageous actions”) and the Trial Court Judge (“reprehensible”) and Jury ($3.5 million PENAL damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages) in Monteiro v. Cambridge.

Exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council have suggested the Cambridge City Manager should be fired without golden parachute and possibly without pension in implementation of these very strong judicial communications with regard to City Manager’s Healy’s destruction of the life of department head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Report on Conditions at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese

I was at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese at dusk today, January 24.

All of the staging was gone from under Memorial Drive. No offices, no vehicles, nothing was left THERE.

There were three vehicles left in the Destroyed Nesting Area east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. One small truck was left next to the BU Bridge in the northern portion of the cleared land. There were two other small vehicles all the way in at the eastern end of the northern area, the area which was quite simply not needed and which did great environmental damage. There were some smaller items in the area around the two vehicles.

Many members of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese were grouped between the two vehicles and the big tree they usually huddle under. There were geese resting in the staging / construction zone south of the two vehicles.

I also saw some White Geese in the Charles River and in that portion of the Goose Meadow next to the Charles River but also next to the 50 foot wasteland created for the BU Bridge work. That wasteland was empty south of the parked small truck.

The western side of the BU Bridge still had two large machines on the sidewalk but, while I watched, a bicycle was operated on the sidewalk between the two machines and the Charles River.

The fencing along the BU Bridge side of the Destroyed Nesting Area has been replaced, as has the fencing on the western side of the bridge. The new fencing was identical on both sides, vaguely historical in nature. The new fencing on the western side was extremely close in construction to fencing on that side which connected to it and which was next to the pollution plant. This older fencing had been there, perhaps, since the 80’s or so.

A very nice woman chatted with me while I was watching the White Geese. She strongly condemned the people who have been so heartlessly abusing the Charles River White Geese. We chatted about what kind of person would stoop to such behavior.

This is a normal human being. She is strikingly different from the tiny minority who are the Cambridge Pols. But my times at the Destroyed Nesting Area indicate that she is a normal human. It has always been refreshing to get away from the rotten situation which passes for the norm when you are dealing with the Cambridge Pols.

There are signs (perhaps my imagination) that nature is healing itself in the construction area. Clearly the rest of the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has seen its ground vegetation destroyed and it did not regrow. That indicates poisons, by, very clearly, the Charles River Conservancy.

My gut feel is that the work area will regrow if humans will remove their intrusions. Run the new fence in front of the entries illegally created by Boston University in 1999 and you might give nature a change to heal itself. The poisoned area might need more work although the tiny, very vital growth areas by the construction zone have seemed to expand on their own.

The Charles River Conservancy missed destroying these vibrant areas figuring the construction zone would kill them, and they survived.

Perhaps all that is needed is to leave nature alone and let nature heal the ravages of truly irresponsible government entities.

Further information on Highway Proposal in the Charles River and on its banks. Telling source of information.

1. Update on report.
2. Telling source.


1. Update on report.

I missed part of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy”’s January newsletter.

My quote was based on introductory material only.

The following is quoted from later in the newsletter:

***********

The exchange of the 35 stakeholders at the Issue Forum held on December 15th and moderated by former Governor [ed: omitted to protect a possible victim] was very productive. State Rep. Marty Walz made a strong start by saying that the 2016 deadline that MassDOT claims exists, is a self-imposed policy and NOT a legislative mandate. That means there IS more time to carefully plan these bridges AND add underpasses where needed as this is a chance that will not come back for several generations.

***********

“Carefully plan” is more euphemistic garbage. Buried in the euphemism is the flat out lie that MassDOT and the DCR do not know what they are talking about.

The CRC/Cambridge highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks was clearly reviewed and rejected by MassDOT and the DCR in a separate report as environmentally destructive.

These destructive people want to lie to bystanders and get fooled bystanders to object and reverse a very responsible decision.

My prior report may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/former-governors-name-misused-by.html.

Representative Walz fits the Cambridge pol mode brilliantly although she lives in Boston.

Lots of lovely words come out of Walz. Lots of destruction is implemented by Walz.

2. Telling source.

This paragraph was pointed out by a person on the Cambridgeport list.

She previously put out severe misinformation on the same list on the Alewife destruction after I reported the initial part of the destruction.

The misinformation flatly and simply said that the initial destruction, although shockingly destructive on its own, was minor. She further communicated that no further destruction is coming.

This is the way the Cambridge Machine works.

The machine scratches each others backs and delays or misdirects the good guys by any tactic possible, anything to get their beloved destruction accomplished.

Former Governor’s name misused by Environmental Destroyers?

It is very difficult for well meaning people to do business with the environmental destroyers floating around the Charles River and related target areas.

I have just gotten yet another communication from the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” that a former governor chaired one of their gatherings concerning their highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks.

A number of key questions:

1. Was the former governor informed that the name of the organization, Charles River “Conservancy”, is a blatant lie because their aggressive destructive behavior is anything but the behavior of a “Conservancy”?

2. Was the former government informed that the state Department of Transportation (MassDOT) along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation have condemned their highway proposal for being environmentally destructive?

3. Was the former governors informed of the heartless animal abuse, particularly toward the Charles River White Geese, which is part of the proposal and a continuation of past attacks by the same people?

4. Was the former governor informed that the proposal includes destruction of hundreds of healthy, excellent trees?

5. Was the former governor informed of the decimation of the excellent 104 tree grove of trees at the Memorial Drive split which is part of their highway plan?

6. Was the former governor informed that the highway on the Boston side which their highway proposal duplicates has signs up warning people of muggings and rapes if people use that highway at night?

7. Was the former governor informed that the DCR

A. Has tried to get Obama moneys for the destruction of many of the same trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge;

B. That the DCR lied that all the trees they are destroying are sickly;

C. That the DCR’s filings with the City of Cambridge proved the sickly statements to be a flat out lies;

D. That the Cambridge filings, the proof of the flat out lie, was given to Governor Patrick;

E. And that the DCR does not seem to have gotten the Obama moneys for the tree destruction.

8. There have to be a whole bunch of other concepts relevant, but I think this is enough.

Key in the environmental destruction on the Charles and related areas is gross misbehavior by the people fighting for the destruction because, if they are honest, decent people will not work with them.

Nothing new here. Sounds like a former governor got conned by an entity flying under a false name seeking environmental destruction and working through key omissions.

I consider this pattern lying. I have seen too much of it, and I sympathize with the former governor. I strongly respect him. He should not be abused in this manner.

Boston University on BU Bridge Traffic Rearrangement

Archie Mazmanian reports:

Here's link to a BU Today feature: "BU Bridge Project Nearly Finished - Two new lane configurations being tested"

http://www.bu.edu/today/2012/bu-bridge-project-nearly-finished/

providing diagrams of such configurations. Let's hope that winter weather does not cover the lane markings.

[Note: This was brought to my attention by a notice from the Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association.]


ED: We have done a series on this rearrangement. The most recent, with a summary of prior links may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/bu-bridge-work-archie-responds-to-globe.html.

Evaluation of minutes of city council executive committee meetings on the Monteiro case

1. General.
2. Analysis of minutes.
3. Supplement on remaining plaintiffs.

1. General.

The case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is a case in which the jury awarded $3.5 million penal damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages against Cambridge based on its finding that the City Manager destroyed the life of Department Head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The judge’s opinion was scholarly and very effectively destroyed all arguments of the City of Cambridge, including the arguments raised in executive session. The trial judge’s key opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

The key word used by the trial judge which summarizes the situation was “reprehensible.”

On appeal, the Appeals Court panel reacted to the appeal with disgust. It refused to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion, commenting that there was “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The appeals court opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

There has been considerable press on the failure to release the minutes of the city council discussions of the case including administrative action by the Cambridge Chronicle.

In the Cambridge Chronicle's endorsement editorial with regard to the November city election, the Chronicle specifically lamented the inability of the voters to judge the behavior of individual councilors on Monteiro because of the suppression of the minutes of the executive sessions.

The minutes of the executive sessions are posted at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/Monteiro_sessions.pdf.

2. Analysis of minutes.

The minutes, for almost all practical purposes, are useless.

The only meetings for which substantive comments are reported in any real detail are the last two meetings: the August 19, 2011 meeting at which the City Manager reported the Appeals Court decision to the city council and September 26, 2011 meeting at which a vote was taken on suppressing the minutes of the executive sessions.

In general, while, on occasion, there are talking points stated, who said what is not stated, nor is the extent to which there was meaningful support communicated of any of the stated positions.

The August 19, 2011 goes into apparent detail quoting the city manager’s report to the city council.

On September 26, 2011, the last executive session, there is report of the following vote:

*******

The question came on whether to uphold the Mayor’s decision that the Monteiro case is still pending such that disclosure of the executive session minutes may have a detrimental effect on the City’s legal position in the remainder of the case and therefore the reason for nondisclosure still pertains.

The roll was called and the results were as follows:

Yeas: Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Seidel, Councillor Toomey and Mayor Maher

Nays: Councillor Cheung, Councilor Decker, Councillor Reeves and Councillor Simmons

And the motion was passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 4.

*******

The coalition on either side of the vote is striking in particular for the vote of Councillor Kelley. Kelley has run in such a way as to give the impression that he is the only opponent to the Cambridge City Manager. But his vote could be considered the swing vote to keep things secret.

3. Supplement on remaining plaintiffs.

The Cambridge Chronicle has reposted its analysis of the final two actions in the five related cases of which the most visible case was that of Malvina Monteiro. It is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x167854483/Details-exposed-on-Cambridge-discrimination-case#axzz1jr1zSjnr.

Cambridge, MA Releases Monteiro Records from Executive Sessions

Cambridge Day has posted on line the just release records of the Cambridge City Council’s executive committee meetings on the Monteiro case.

They may be read at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/Monteiro_sessions.pdf.

Fake Environmental Group “Clarifies” Meeting to Sugar Coat Destruction of Core Alewife Reservation

1. General.
2. Meeting for the key Alewife destroyer to lie to people.
3. Analysis of Call to Meeting.
4. Analysis of organizers.


1. General.

The reality of the very destructive situation in the City of Cambridge is that the tactics used to destroy the Core Alewife Reservation are not at all unusual.

The difference from the norm at Alewife is that the tactics and their result were so blatant.

The Cambridge Pols also aggressively create other “environmental” organizations. The common feature is that the Cambridge Pols keep their “environmental organizations” from meaningful concern for the environment.

Environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse which is so normal and so reprehensible among the government and elected officials of the City of Cambridge is kept out of meaningful discussion except to try to fool good people into fighting for environmental destruction or heartless animals abuse.

2. Meeting for the key Alewife destroyer to lie to people.

One of the fake environmental groups claims to be concerned about Cambridgeport. It has routinely suppressed meaningful discussion of the many outrages on the Charles River.

Tuesday night, January 17, they are giving the mike to the woman who ran around for 15 years loudly proclaiming that she was defending Alewife. She spent 15 years telling people to look at everything except for the totally unnecessary and totally avoidable plans of her friends for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation. Now she is running around praising the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

These people and others helped her in her destruction of the core Alewife reservation exactly the way they are helping her pave over the destructiveness and irresponsibility of her achievement. They praised her as a responsible and progressive activist.

The following is their description of this latest fake presentation.

************

The main focus of this presentation will be the storm water wetlands restoration project. The impact of the proposed removal of the silver maple forest on the storm water project has not yet been scientifically established. The forum may include discussion of the silver maple forest and likely impacts of its removal, but with clarity that there is no scientific claim that removal of the forest will ruin the stormwater project.

*************

This presentation is the usual type of lie out of the Cambridge Machine.

3. Analysis of Call to Meeting.

Notice the euphemism “the removal of the forest” with regard to private property away from the core Alewife reservation. They do not even use this euphemism with regard to the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the “storm water wetlands restoration project” cannot achieve its publicly stated goals, that of protecting North Cambridge from massive storms.

North Cambridge needs protection from flooding as the result of major storms. Alewife has seen two fifty year storms in the past twenty years.

Their destruction of acres of excellent forest and killing of hundreds or thousands of resident animals will protect against two year storms.

There is a very big difference between protecting against the worst possible storm in 50 years and protecting against the worst possible storm in 2 years.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the goals of the “storm water wetlands restoration project” can easily be accomplished without massive destruction of an irreplaceable forest and mass killings of valuable animals. The storm water protection can be provided by building under the massive parking lot across the street, and by coordinating the storm water protection with office building construction there on air rights. But the developer will go forward with or without the storm water protection.

So the fake environmental protectors by sugar coating the current totally unnecessary destruction are working for further, larger destruction because the project will not work without further, larger destruction.

4. Analysis of organizers.

And the organizers will run around lying that they are environmental saints.

And the organizers will run around lying that the Cambridge government and elected officials are environmental saints.

As the civil rights judge said “reprehensible.”

Environmentally destructive “Conservancy” vows to fight on

1. General.
2. Mass Tree Destruction and Highway Initiatives on the Charles River.
3. Update on attempts at destruction.


1. General.

The destructive parties in Cambridge commonly fight for their ends through fake groups which give people the wrong impression of which side they are on.

The most recent example is the outrageous environmental destruction and mass animal killing in the Alewife reservation as part of supposed flood protection project which, upon close questioning, cannot achieve its stated ends. The project managers and friends do not want to know about the massive parking lot directly across the street, CambridgePark Drive which can achieve the flood control needs of Alewife.

Crucial in this destruction was a fake protective group which calls itself a protector of Alewife, and which spent 15 years telling well meaning people to look at everything except the totally avoidable destruction which has just been accomplished.

The correlative of this fake organization on the Charles River calls itself a Conservancy, and the use of the word “Conservancy” is a blatant lie.

This group, with major developer funding, including from Harvard, has been fighting for more than ten years for environmental destruction and the destruction of resident animals on the Charles River.

2. Mass Tree Destruction and Highway Initiatives on the Charles River.

The Charles River “Conservancy” was the lead in a fight for an outrageously irresponsible highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks in Cambridge which would be built in the Charles under four historical bridges, the BU Bridge and bridges to its west, the River Street Bridge, and the Anderson Bridge plus under a pedestrian bridge between the last two bridges.

This outrageous proposal would increase the irresponsible environmental destruction at Magazine Beach, under the BU Bridge and in the goose meadow with corresponding increase in the heartless abuse of the valuable 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.

This proposal would be key in the decimation of an excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split.

The highway proposal is key in the plans to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge east of the BU Bridge.

This proposal would duplicate a small vehicle highway on the Boston side which sees overnight closings because of rapes and muggings.

Fortunately, responsible people have stepped in to interfere with the outrageously irresponsible City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Governor Patrick was provided with the DCR plans for the tree destruction as part of the DCR’s attempts to get Obama money for the tree destruction. The DCR was lying that all the trees were diseased. Their lie was proven by their own plans, filed with the City of Cambridge.

The irresponsible highway proposal was called “environmentally destructive” in a report by a joint committee of the Department of Transportation and Recreation and the DCR. Their report recommended against the new highway.

3. Update on attempts at destruction.

The fake “Conservancy” has not given up.

They have announced on their facebook page intention to conduct planning meetings to organize for their destructive efforts on the highway proposal in January and February.

They state: “CRC . . . will present the recommendations [of its organizing meetings] to Mass DOT at the 25% design presentation for the River Street and Western Avenue Bridge projects, anticipated for February.”

Their destructiveness is bad enough. The false name is even more outrageous.

Cambridge Chronicle Op Ed: Republican Leader Cynical about Harvard’s Greenness

1. Op Ed questioning Harvard Environmentalism.
2. Application.
3. Related fake environmental group.
4. Proposed destruction of hundreds of trees lining Memorial Drive.
5. Summary.


1. Op Ed questioning Harvard Environmentalism.

The Cambridge Chronicle regularly publishes a column written by the city’s Republicans. This week’s report is posted at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1015660787/The-Right-View-Harvard-s-deep-green-pockets#axzz1jS50y4oR.

There is a lot to be said about the comments.

Harvard’s excuse for greenness, as quoted and objected to by the author, rings very true.

The ring is that of the lies of environmental sainthood coming from the Cambridge City Council.

2. Application.

At no point does there appear in the Harvard words described by the Republican even the slightest concern for the most basic environmental dangers: the destructiveness of the environment by Cambridge and by one key state agency, the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Cambridge and the DCR are fighting to kill off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. Bizarre projects during the last ten years have gone a long distance in that direction. Their goal looks very much like they are converting all remaining wilderness into something that looks like a college campus.

Harvard is massively expanding on south side of the Charles River and has presented plans to have the state subsidize its expansion. Killing off all animals certainly sounds like that.

I recall that, when the attacks on the Charles River White Geese were just starting, people were running around Harvard bragging that they would replace them with “better” animals, ones without bodily functions. Since lacking bodily functions is patently impossible, that very clearly stated the goals of the organizers for the Charles River.

3. Related fake environmental group.

A fake environment group receiving funds from Harvard and other developers calls itself the Charles River “Conservancy.” It neglects to mention that its use of the word “conservancy” is a flat out lie since it supports the mass animal abuse and massive proposed destruction of trees, plus it runs around destroying ground vegetation and bordering vegetation, totally indifferent to the impact on resident or visiting animals. It very consistenly supports the destructive stuff being done on the Charles.

The CRC held a “swim in” to celebrate the outrages at Magazine Beach. It somehow seems to think that walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles Rive and dumping poisons on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly introduced grass are environmentally beneficial. The CRC sniffs at the idea of resident animals.

The CRC was the most visible advocate of the highway in and abutting the Charles River which was condemned by the state as environmentally irresponsible. Key in the state opposition is the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, a responsible agency which apparently shamed DCR into behaving responsibly as well.

The CRC is key in the current efforts to “protect” Magazine Beach which has such a striking resemblance to the tactics the Cambridge Machine used to destroy the core Alewife Reservation, and a total lack of notice of the bizarre wall, the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, the dumping of poisons to keep alive the sickly grass which replaced healthy grass which survived responsibly for the better part of a century. The initiative is pushing the destruction of the lower class picnic area at the foot of Magazine Beach by destroying its tiny, very environmentally integrated parking lot.

I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission flat out shocked by CRC destruction of protective vegetation on their side of the Charles River.

4. Proposed destruction of hundreds of trees lining Memorial Drive.

Cambridge and the DCR are fighting to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge to the east of the BU Bridge. The DCR has even gone so far as to lie that there are no trees to be destroyed except for diseased trees, a lie proven by their filing on the project with the City of Cambridge.

The reality is that this reprehensible project by straightening out Memorial Drive, makes Memorial Drive more fit to accept traffic off I90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) on the off ramp proven possible by the MBTA over the Grand Junction Bridge.

The reality is that the Cambridge Machine very prominently features Harvard types with a very tut tut ness which has supported massive environmental destruction and animal killing in the truly bizarre Alewife project.

Another beneficiary is Massachusetts Institute of Technology in that removal of parking in this area makes access by non MIT people that much more difficult if not nearly impossible, and MIT lines the area of destruction.

Yet another beneficiary is Boston University which started the attacks on the Charles River White Geese by destroying their nesting area in 1999 with violations of law. BU’s Boathouse is directly east of the small wild area. BU regularly uses Magazine Beach for its graduation ceremonies. The highway proposal hopefully killed by MassDOT included a highway connecting Magazine Beach to the goose meadow running in the Charles River.

I have seen official maps which mark the goose meadow as the “BU Triangle.”

Governor Patrick may have stood up to a very visible attempt to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. That is the one is which the DCR lied that they were all diseased, trying to get Obama moneys. Governor Patrick got the proof that they were lying and the money did not come.

But the destroyers are very determine. The plans are not dead.

5. Summary.

So, I am happy to listen to somebody making responsible noises about the environment in Cambridge. It is interesting that the responsible noises are coming from a Republican leader, although Cambridge politics is owned by the democrats, and the Cambridge Machine definitely has major looks resembling the Cambridge Democratic party.

Harvard University attacks affordable tenants, brags it is benefitting them

1. Harvard empire building - general environmental.
2. Harvard empire building - Allston.
3. Harvard empire building - attack on the needy.
4. Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center today.


1. Harvard empire building - general environmental.

Possibly the biggest environmental problem on the Charles River is the empire building of Harvard University.

In the analysis of traffic in the BU Bridge area, I provided a map showing the interrelationship of Harvard’s expansion with the problem of the Charles River White Geese and other resident animals. See http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/traffic-impact-of-bu-bridge-project.html.

Harvard University plans to move the Harvard Medical School to the current location of the Cambridge / Allston exit from I90, the Massachusetts Turnpike and to the adjacent rail yards, Beacon Yard.

Key to their move is moving the I90 exit to the Grand Junction rail bridge under the BU Bridge.

A whole bunch of bizarre and commonly destructive activities are planned or have been done which can very readily be explained as rearranging the north side of the Charles River to receive the relocated exit. The explanations commonly provided are downright bizarre and Harvard always moves secretly.

2. Harvard empire building - Allston.

Just as the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge is associated with other really rotten behavior, as found in legally binding decisions in Monteiro v. Cambridge, Harvard’s behavior has a very real dark side.

So, naturally, Harvard puts out things praising itself.

The relocated Harvard Medical School appears to be very much a long range plan spinning off Harvard’s creation of a new Harvard campus in Allston, which includes the Med School.

Harvard has long owned and occupied the Harvard Business School and Harvard Stadium. These are located between Western Avenue and the Charles River across the Charles River from the Harvard Houses, Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School, and Harvard Square, Cambridge. The Western Avenue Bridge across the Charles River is the second bridge west of the BU Bridge.

Harvard secretly bought a very significant part of Western Avenue in Allston, which is the extension of Western Avenue in Cambridge. Harvard also secretly bought a very significant part of Watertown on the extension of Western Avenue over the Charles River to the west, in Watertown.

Harvard’s plans include a significant hub at the intersection of Western Avenue and North Harvard Street in Allston. North Harvard Street by another name is one of the streets which come together in Harvard Square, Cambridge. On the Allston side of the Charles River, North Harvard Street adjoins Harvard Stadium (on the west) and Harvard Business School (on the east). On the Cambridge side, by a different name, it adjoins Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School (on the west) and the Harvard Houses (on the east).

The studios of WGBH TV, a hub of educational television for perhaps 50 years, were located on the river side of Western Avenue next to Harvard Business School and in a connected building on the south side of Western Avenue. Harvard now owns both buildings. The building on the south side is in the middle of a massive Harvard construction zone. The future Harvard Medical School will be a bit south / east of this construction.

The main WGBH building is separated by one building from a sprawling affordable housing complex built in the 70's. This complex, the Charlesview affordable housing complex, occupies almost all of the area near Harvard’s planned hub at North Harvard and Western.

Harvard has long owned the property on the northwest corner.

3. Harvard empire building - attack on the needy.

There was a very major problem from Harvard’s point of view in the Charlesview housing.

Rumors were that the owner did not want to sell.

One of Harvard’s secret purchases included the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center, a few blocks west of the key Western Avenue / North Harvard Street intersection on the south side of Western Avenue.

Harvard did not rent out stores in the main part of the shopping center as the tenants moved out. Harvard turned the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center into a ghost town by failing to replace departed tenants. Harvard created a situation where the main part of the shopping center, a block long strip shopping area building, was decrepit.

All Harvard did not destroy in the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center through its landbanking were (1) a free standing McDonald’s building facing on Western Avenue, (2) a large super market, Shaw’s / Star Market, set way back from Western Avenue at the far end of but not connected to the destroyed shopping building, and (3) a free standing building at Western Avenue and Everett Street containing a pet store.

This was the shopping center for the needs of the needy folk living in Charlesview. The only other shopping center within walking distance is Harvard Square. Harvard Square has, for many years, not been a viable place for general daily living needs, especially as far as people living in Charlesview would be looking for.

Golly gee.

The owner of Charlesview agreed to move to the Shopping Center.

4. Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center today.

Construction zone. The area which used to hold all those emptied stores has been cleared preparatory for construction.

The McDonald’s is gone. The McDonald’s was a traditional facility, normal size and alignment.

There seems to be a replacement building going up, apparently a much larger McDonald’s. It looks like it will have its back to the moved Charlesview complex.

The super market (and I would invite correction) seems to have changed its name twice.

It was a Star Market. Star Markets were bought by Shaw’s. Shaw's has changed most of the Star Market stores to the Shaw’s name and greatly expanded their size. I am quite certain that this Star Market was expanded and I think its name was changed to Shaw’s. The “Star Market” name has continued on smaller stores in the Cambridge area and perhaps further.

Right now the name Star Market name is back. Could Harvard have forced a decrease in the size of the store to fit its plans?

Quoting from Harvard’s website:

************

The new Charlesview will be constructed on nearly 9 acres of Harvard-owned land in the Brighton Mills Shopping Center, just a few blocks up Western Avenue from the current Charlesview, which the University made available in a mutually beneficial land exchange for the current 4.5-acre site. It will be built in two phases. Phase 1 includes 260 units of affordable housing and home-ownership opportunities, as well as a half-acre park, 14,000 square feet of retail, and a community center. Phase 2 will include 80 home-ownership units.

************

The full Harvard article may be read at http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/05/working-toward-a-new-charlesview/.

It is not at all surprising that the report omits a lot.

Cambridge Chronicle: Praise for Al Vellucci, scorn for the Cambridge, MA Political Machine

I have printed the same proposed letter to the editor twice in this blog.

It was published yesterday, January 5, 2012, by the Cambridge Chronicle, on the editorial page, page 8 in a middle spot with a significant editorial improvement.

The major problem with my letter was the fact that I did not communicate the reason I was motivated to write it.

Two weeks ago, the Chronicle printed a op ed concerning Harvard Yard. It concluded with: “Where are George Orwell and Al Vellucci when you need them?”

I was so pleased with the op ed and its conclusion that I wrote a letter spinning off from the conclusion. I started the letter with my quote of the conclusion. I just neglected to explain where the statement came from.

In my two publications here, I carefully explained where it came from. The Chronicle had no such option. The editor very nicely resolved the problem by omitting the reason why I wrote the letter and titling the letter “Reprehensible.”

I frequently need a good editor. I had one here. I appreciate the improvement and I thank him both for the improvement and for the printing.

It has not been published on line yet. It if is, I will modify this blog accordingly.

The first of my publications of the unedited letter on this blog with a much longer explanation may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/praise-for-al-vellucci-otherwise-for.html. The actual letter was published in section 2 with a lot of explation.

The publication was without the first sentence, and with the title “Reprehensible.”