1. Cambridge Day Reports.
2. Evaluation of the non signers, of the Cambridge City Manager, and of the Cambridge City Council.
3. The motion to be considered by the Cambridge City Council on Monday, March 19, 2012.
1. Cambridge Day Reports.
Cambridge Day reports, at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/03/17/councillors-seek-to-extend-city-managers-contract-while-they-plan-succession/ that the Cambridge City Council, Monday night, March 19, 2012, will consider a nine month extension for the contract of City Manager Robert Healy. This would extend his end date from September 30, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
The motion to work on a nine month extension is sponsored by seven members of the nine member body. Not included as sponsors are Councilor Craig Kelley and Councilor Kenneth Reeves.
2. Evaluation of the non signers, of the Cambridge City Manager, and of the Cambridge City Council.
The motion is posted below. I find the action troubling.
I find the form of the motions surprising. It comes as quite a surprise in its form inasmuch as this is worded as an exercise of a right by the Cambridge City Council. The seven are proposing simply to extend the contract and have worded the motion as their action with no need to concur by the Cambridge City Manager. They propose a nine month extension to phase him out.
A few weeks ago, I reported a motion by Councilor Kelley to initiate the process on the Cambridge City Manager’s contract with no comment on whether the council would extend it or not. Action on the Kelley motion was delayed a week by, I believe, Councilor Davis’ exercise of her right under the City Charter. That motion was automatically placed on file the following week because Kelley had to be out of state that night.
Kelley was the only member of the current Cambridge City Council who in last year’s election stated he would not vote to rehire the Cambridge City Manager.
Kelley has a public record in which he appears to be the only council member hostile to the Cambridge City Manager.
His position is very hard to compute based on his record with regard to the fake downzonings written by the City Manager’s people and fronted by the Machine. Kelley was very much an aggressive part of these outrages, an aggressive part of the Machine.
Lovely words. Lots of secret fine print which made the words very often so many lies.
Kelley’s record on these zoning outrages put to the lie his long standing claims of environmentalism.
Similarly, Kelley’s main stomping grounds are North Cambridge, which includes Alewife. Kelley has no publicly stated problems with the destruction of the core Alewife reservation for promises of flood protection which, in reality are lies, skillfully worded as usual, but lies. The people active in the North Cambridge group who look the most visible and who the most do not seem t want to know what they are doing certainly look like Kelley people.
Kelley’s indifference to the destruction of Alewife puts the lie to his long standing claims of environmentalism.
Kelley’s claims of hostility to the city manager are interesting. His long record of being part of the city manager’s environmental destruction make his claims of hostility to the city manager quite interesting.
As far as Reeves goes, Reeves is not quite as much of a problem as an “environmentalist” destroying the environment as part of the city manager’s people. Reeves just fits into the normal rottenness of the Cambridge political machine.
As far as the other seven city councilors go, they are extending in office a city manager who should be fired without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
I am very disappointed the Cambridge City Council does not adopt the positions of the Appeals Court panel and the Superior Court judge and jury on Monteiro. It seems very clear that all found it proven that City Manager Healy had committed reprehensible violations of Monteiro’s civil right in retaliation for Monteiro filing a civil rights complaint.
There is nothing complicated about the Monteiro case because it has gone to the Appeals Court with very strong affirmation of findings all over the place. A responsible city council would fire the Cambridge City Manager for cause and use the court decisions as indisputable support.
Cambridge, MA does not have a responsible city council.
3. The motion to be considered by the Cambridge City Council on Monday, March 19, 2012.
The motion reads:
WHEREAS: City Manager Robert Healy's current employment contract with the City of Cambridge expires on September 30, 2012; and WHEREAS: The contract contains a notification provision which needs action by the City Council or Mr. Healy on or before March 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS: As a result of Mr. Healy's long tenure as City Manager, the City of Cambridge has not undertaken a search for a new City Manager for over thirty years; and WHEREAS: It is imperative to the overall stability of the City of Cambridge that the City Council develop both a comprehensive short-term and long-term succession plan that will assist the City Council in their ongoing goal of providing fiscal stability and thoughtful strategic planning and any short-term plan should be in place before the FY 2014 budget process begins; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council amends the expiration date of the City Manager's current employment contract to June 30, 2013 which coincides with the fiscal FY 2013 year-end; and be it further ORDERED: That all other provisions of the employment contract remain unchanged; and be it further
ORDERED:
That the City Council's Government Operations and Rules Committee, with the assistance of the City Manager, begin the process of developing a comprehensive short-term and long-term succession plans. Such plans shall include timelines and outline opportunities for input from the community including residents, businesses, institutions and city staff. Once developed, such plans shall be presented to the full City Council for final consideration.
Listed sponsors are:
COUNCILLOR MAHER, COUNCILLOR CHEUNG, COUNCILLOR DECKER, VICE MAYOR SIMMONS, COUNCILLOR TOOMEY, MAYOR DAVIS, COUNCILLOR VANBEUZEKOM
This motion is posted at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=34502.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Photo of Muskrat from Charles River “Conservancy” - Sophisticated and Very Cynical Lying
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” posted on its facebook page on Thursday, March 15, 2012, a beautiful photo of a Muskrat in the Charles River near Watertown, MA.
Watertown is borderline. Part of Watertown is in that area of the Charles River whose environment and animals are being destroyed by the Charles River “Conservancy” acting as agent for Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge, MA. Part is not.
This photo posting is an excellent example of the cynical tactics by which destructive entities lie about themselves, their environmental destruction and their heartless animal abuse.
The CRC is posting this photo and admiring this excellent animal. That gives the highly false impression that they are pro environment.
Animals are explicitly under attack on the Charles River basin by the DCR and the habitat destruction which the CRC specializes in directly attacks the animals of the Charles River. Over the past 10 years, it is impossible to say how many animals they have killed. It is clear that they have been deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese since 2004 by walling off Magazine Beach and the food there which these beautiful animals have had as their principal diet for most of the past 30 years.
The lie from the CRC also is a sophisticated lie about the destructive entities with whom they are so closely aligned, the DCR and Cambridge. Look at the photo of the muskrat. Don’t look at the heartless abuse at Magazine Beach and the destroyed nesting area. Don’t look at the acres of wanton destruction at Alewife and mass animal killing there.
Don’t look at the policy of the DCR being implemented over more than 12 years: kill off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. Don’t look at the many other outrages.
Look at the lovely photo of the muskrat.
Do not look at the dishonestly by which an animal destructive organization lies about itself by showing this photo without mentioning its own very destructive reality.
Since the CRC started environmental destruction for the DCR, almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed between the BU Bridge and, to its east, the BU Boathouse. This is the ghetto to which the beautiful Charles River White Geese have been heartlessly consigned.
The photo was take by Carole Berney, wildlife photographer, and submitted to this falsely named group.
Please note that this photo is being reproduced without permission under the fair use doctrine.
Watertown is borderline. Part of Watertown is in that area of the Charles River whose environment and animals are being destroyed by the Charles River “Conservancy” acting as agent for Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge, MA. Part is not.
This photo posting is an excellent example of the cynical tactics by which destructive entities lie about themselves, their environmental destruction and their heartless animal abuse.
The CRC is posting this photo and admiring this excellent animal. That gives the highly false impression that they are pro environment.
Animals are explicitly under attack on the Charles River basin by the DCR and the habitat destruction which the CRC specializes in directly attacks the animals of the Charles River. Over the past 10 years, it is impossible to say how many animals they have killed. It is clear that they have been deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese since 2004 by walling off Magazine Beach and the food there which these beautiful animals have had as their principal diet for most of the past 30 years.
The lie from the CRC also is a sophisticated lie about the destructive entities with whom they are so closely aligned, the DCR and Cambridge. Look at the photo of the muskrat. Don’t look at the heartless abuse at Magazine Beach and the destroyed nesting area. Don’t look at the acres of wanton destruction at Alewife and mass animal killing there.
Don’t look at the policy of the DCR being implemented over more than 12 years: kill off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. Don’t look at the many other outrages.
Look at the lovely photo of the muskrat.
Do not look at the dishonestly by which an animal destructive organization lies about itself by showing this photo without mentioning its own very destructive reality.
Since the CRC started environmental destruction for the DCR, almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed between the BU Bridge and, to its east, the BU Boathouse. This is the ghetto to which the beautiful Charles River White Geese have been heartlessly consigned.
The photo was take by Carole Berney, wildlife photographer, and submitted to this falsely named group.
Please note that this photo is being reproduced without permission under the fair use doctrine.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Photos of Alewife before destruction and the parking lot where flood storage needs to go
I have reviewed the North Cambridge Stabilization Fund’s file on 160 CambridgePark Drive. This is the massive parking lot which, together with adjacent lots should be used for flood storage to protect neighbors.
Below is the developer’s plan for the project.
The photo that is the basis for the plan is a satellite photo which is now dated. The excellent woods where the words “Alewife Reservation” appear have been destroyed plus perhaps an additional area about as wide to the left. The waterway above is the northern boundary. Destruction does not seem to go quite to it. Photos of the destruction and the current view of the current parking lot / future building may be seen at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.
The lie is that this is flood storage to protect neighbors. Close questioning discloses that the “flood storage” protects against the worst likely storm in any two year period (two year storm). There have been two fifty year storms in this area in the past twenty years. When the public finds out the lie, the poor dears will be “forced” to destroy what has not been destroyed, unless the flood storage is built south of CambridgePark Drive, the street below the destroyed Alewife reservation.
The structure shown in yellow just below CambridgePark Drive is the proposed building in what is now a massive parking lot directly across from access to what is now wasteland, formerly the Alewife reservation. The gray area to the right and dropping is the additional parking also owned by the prime developer. The street to the right of the parking lot is Alewife Brook parkway. Note that the parking lot gets wider proceeding to Alewife Brook Parkway.
Above CambridgePark Drive is a big white building with circular ramps left and right at the top. This is the Alewife Subway Station and garage.
Flood storage plans for the building shown in yellow may be obtained by reviewing the BCS Flood Report at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-ZbJdsEcId8bGg0RU8xYkJTNkc1RlRaMHNHajh3dw/edit?pli=1.
Their proposal looks like a smaller scale description of the flood control project that should be placed under the current project and under the parking lot to the right. You just build what they are building but larger, and you need a responsible city government.
Below is the developer’s plan for the project.
The photo that is the basis for the plan is a satellite photo which is now dated. The excellent woods where the words “Alewife Reservation” appear have been destroyed plus perhaps an additional area about as wide to the left. The waterway above is the northern boundary. Destruction does not seem to go quite to it. Photos of the destruction and the current view of the current parking lot / future building may be seen at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.
The lie is that this is flood storage to protect neighbors. Close questioning discloses that the “flood storage” protects against the worst likely storm in any two year period (two year storm). There have been two fifty year storms in this area in the past twenty years. When the public finds out the lie, the poor dears will be “forced” to destroy what has not been destroyed, unless the flood storage is built south of CambridgePark Drive, the street below the destroyed Alewife reservation.
The structure shown in yellow just below CambridgePark Drive is the proposed building in what is now a massive parking lot directly across from access to what is now wasteland, formerly the Alewife reservation. The gray area to the right and dropping is the additional parking also owned by the prime developer. The street to the right of the parking lot is Alewife Brook parkway. Note that the parking lot gets wider proceeding to Alewife Brook Parkway.
Above CambridgePark Drive is a big white building with circular ramps left and right at the top. This is the Alewife Subway Station and garage.
Flood storage plans for the building shown in yellow may be obtained by reviewing the BCS Flood Report at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-ZbJdsEcId8bGg0RU8xYkJTNkc1RlRaMHNHajh3dw/edit?pli=1.
Their proposal looks like a smaller scale description of the flood control project that should be placed under the current project and under the parking lot to the right. You just build what they are building but larger, and you need a responsible city government.
RE: Alewife Update, key developer at North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
1. Introductory.
2. McKinnon presentation.
A. Ownership.
B. Nature of Use.
C. Flood Protection.
3. The North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
4. Summary.
1. Introductory.
Last night, March 14, 2012, I caught a further presentation by Richie McKinnon and his team concerning their project at Alewife. This is the project slated for the massive parking lot where flood storage should go for which Cambridge and the DCR claim they have destroyed the core Alewife reservation.
Their destruction will protect against the worst possible storm in two years (“two year storm”). Alewife has seen two instances of 50 years storms in the past 20 years. When the victims find out they have been lied to with promises that seem to be promising flood protection, the powers that be will be oh, so sorry. They will have to continue with destruction of this irreplaceable virgin woods and its animals.
Richie’s project and adjoining parking stretching along commuter rail line to Alewife Brook Parkway could readily provide the needed flood protection but it would be very much needed to have his project built above flood protection to do the job as well as possible.
Richie’s presentation was to a group named North Cambridge Stabilization Committee. I was either a founding member or an early member of this group, many years ago when I lived in North Cambridge.
Richie had spoken with them before concerning his plans and was providing further details.
Prior posts of value may be seen at:
Photos of destruction and McKinnon’s parking lot: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.
My analysis of his project:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/alewife-richie-mckinnon-true.html.
I have not checked the quality of the collection but the NCSC people say that all the documents are posted at http://northcambridge.net/. Just click on 160/180 CambridgePark Drive.
2. McKinnon presentation.
A. Ownership.
McKinnon, very heavily for my benefit, went into detail concerning the parking lot ownership.
The parking lot where he is building is to be owned by him during construction. They already have a managing company / subsequent owner lined up to take it over when it is ready for occupancy.
This lot is the one that can be seen on the parking lot photo. The lot, however, is part of a package owned by the owner of two existing office buildings and the development is being coordinated with those buildings. That owner is the current owner of the lot where McKinnon is building and the parking lots between there and Alewife Brook Parkway.
I my prior report I stated that McKinnon could be the owner of everything. He is not. The other guy from whom he is buying is the owner of everything.
We had an almost tense moment when he explained that. I thanked him for correcting my understanding. The reality, however, is that the other owner who owns all the parking lots seems very clearly to be the important entity and that owner owns everything, subject to development plans.
Even if ownership is separated, having different owners on two parts of this massive parking lot which should be used for flood protection would be no big thing to a responsible city government.
B. Nature of Use.
There was extensive discussion of traffic problems associated with the existing development.
Residential uses create much less traffic problems. My interpretation of the discussion is that the big reason this is a residential project is to minimize traffic impact.
The building will have a shell of residential uses on the first floor facing CambridgePark Drive and the destroyed Alewife reservation. The rest of the first floor will be parking for cars and bicycles. The presenter had a good grasp on local bike highways.
They anticipate bikes will access Cambridge to the east through an underpass under Alewife Brook Parkway that is part of the Alewife Station Complex. That could be a good analysis, much better than trying to cross the heavily traveled Alewife Brook Parkway. But bicyclists, lawless or not, could readily cut over to Rindge Avenue across from CambridgePark Drive. It could be done legally as pedestrians. They could then go through the neighborhood that way.
C. Flood Protection.
Their engineer distinguished between two different types of protection from water impact. I still do not understand his distinction, but fortunately another person in the room followed up and got the key details out.
There is one kind of flood protection in two rectangular tanks on the commuter rail side of the project. There is also a massive flood gathering arrangement built under the parking.
These two items are crucial. These items should be greatly expanded to be part of a regional flood protection system, but this can only be done now as part of the construction of the building.
Corresponding flood protection can and should be put under the massive parking lot toward Alewife Brook Parkway which will be retained by the principal developer.
3. The North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
This group is a breath of fresh air after dealing with the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” and the Charles River “Conservancy.” The problem individuals are a much smaller number, but, even so, they are enough to dominate well meaning neighbors who mean well.
The interactions are an excellent example of how the Cambridge Machine works in a group with minimal but real connection.
The meeting was conducted by the number 2 member of the group. He claims to be a zoning expert. His zoning expertise seems to amount to going to the City Manager’s people and learning what is his opinion.
A second key Machine type is a “transportation expert” who is visible in the Machine groups pretty much uniformly to the extent the Machine groups are working on development issues. He always sounds great. He is always part of the resulting, bad effort.
In a public meeting presentation, he did, however, provide me with the key issue concerning the extremely irresponsible development of Alewife.
The “zoning expert” gave the usual pitch: You can’t win, you can’t win, but have I got a deal for you.
The deal amounted to chasing their tails at various meetings while Richie presents his plan to people working for / appointed by the Cambridge City Manager.
The idea of doing something meaningful like talking to the City Council was pooh poohed / ignored. The Machine maneuvers people away from the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge City Council is the only people they should be dealing with because the Cambridge City Council should be taking underground rights in those parking lots including Richie’s for the flood storage the city needs, rather than massive destruction of the irreplaceable Alewife woodlands.
Also visible was a couple I know from when I lived in North Cambridge. Disclosure: I dated their daughter for awhile.
The woman in the couple has been very belligerent that they did what they could to prevent the outrage at Alewife. They sued city employees. Neither can meaningfully explain why, in the years they have been attempting to protect Alewife, they have not and will not talk with the Cambridge city council.
The Machine strongly discourages talking with the Cambridge City Council. You can’t win, but have we got a deal for you. Besides, suing city employees and ignoring the Cambridge City Council keeps people out of trouble from the point of view of the machine.
The reality is that there could be no knaves in this group. The knaves could just be the city employees / Cambridge machine members pulling the strings of a very tiny minority. It is really irrelevant whether we are talking knaves or otherwise. The problem people have long, bad records and, as usual, they present themselves as experts.
4. Summary.
I spoke with almost all the local people individually. I showed them my photos of Alewife as destroyed as of a month ago. I pointed them to this blog for further copies of those photos and gave them the standard FOWG informational flier that leads with Alewife on one side while devoting the full other side to the Charles River.
There are good people in this group. They are exactly the type of people I have worked with in so many major victories. I hope they can free themselves of the Cambridge Machine and put pressure where it belongs, on the Cambridge City Council.
1. Introductory.
2. McKinnon presentation.
A. Ownership.
B. Nature of Use.
C. Flood Protection.
3. The North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
4. Summary.
1. Introductory.
Last night, March 14, 2012, I caught a further presentation by Richie McKinnon and his team concerning their project at Alewife. This is the project slated for the massive parking lot where flood storage should go for which Cambridge and the DCR claim they have destroyed the core Alewife reservation.
Their destruction will protect against the worst possible storm in two years (“two year storm”). Alewife has seen two instances of 50 years storms in the past 20 years. When the victims find out they have been lied to with promises that seem to be promising flood protection, the powers that be will be oh, so sorry. They will have to continue with destruction of this irreplaceable virgin woods and its animals.
Richie’s project and adjoining parking stretching along commuter rail line to Alewife Brook Parkway could readily provide the needed flood protection but it would be very much needed to have his project built above flood protection to do the job as well as possible.
Richie’s presentation was to a group named North Cambridge Stabilization Committee. I was either a founding member or an early member of this group, many years ago when I lived in North Cambridge.
Richie had spoken with them before concerning his plans and was providing further details.
Prior posts of value may be seen at:
Photos of destruction and McKinnon’s parking lot: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html.
My analysis of his project:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/alewife-richie-mckinnon-true.html.
I have not checked the quality of the collection but the NCSC people say that all the documents are posted at http://northcambridge.net/. Just click on 160/180 CambridgePark Drive.
2. McKinnon presentation.
A. Ownership.
McKinnon, very heavily for my benefit, went into detail concerning the parking lot ownership.
The parking lot where he is building is to be owned by him during construction. They already have a managing company / subsequent owner lined up to take it over when it is ready for occupancy.
This lot is the one that can be seen on the parking lot photo. The lot, however, is part of a package owned by the owner of two existing office buildings and the development is being coordinated with those buildings. That owner is the current owner of the lot where McKinnon is building and the parking lots between there and Alewife Brook Parkway.
I my prior report I stated that McKinnon could be the owner of everything. He is not. The other guy from whom he is buying is the owner of everything.
We had an almost tense moment when he explained that. I thanked him for correcting my understanding. The reality, however, is that the other owner who owns all the parking lots seems very clearly to be the important entity and that owner owns everything, subject to development plans.
Even if ownership is separated, having different owners on two parts of this massive parking lot which should be used for flood protection would be no big thing to a responsible city government.
B. Nature of Use.
There was extensive discussion of traffic problems associated with the existing development.
Residential uses create much less traffic problems. My interpretation of the discussion is that the big reason this is a residential project is to minimize traffic impact.
The building will have a shell of residential uses on the first floor facing CambridgePark Drive and the destroyed Alewife reservation. The rest of the first floor will be parking for cars and bicycles. The presenter had a good grasp on local bike highways.
They anticipate bikes will access Cambridge to the east through an underpass under Alewife Brook Parkway that is part of the Alewife Station Complex. That could be a good analysis, much better than trying to cross the heavily traveled Alewife Brook Parkway. But bicyclists, lawless or not, could readily cut over to Rindge Avenue across from CambridgePark Drive. It could be done legally as pedestrians. They could then go through the neighborhood that way.
C. Flood Protection.
Their engineer distinguished between two different types of protection from water impact. I still do not understand his distinction, but fortunately another person in the room followed up and got the key details out.
There is one kind of flood protection in two rectangular tanks on the commuter rail side of the project. There is also a massive flood gathering arrangement built under the parking.
These two items are crucial. These items should be greatly expanded to be part of a regional flood protection system, but this can only be done now as part of the construction of the building.
Corresponding flood protection can and should be put under the massive parking lot toward Alewife Brook Parkway which will be retained by the principal developer.
3. The North Cambridge Stabilization Committee.
This group is a breath of fresh air after dealing with the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” and the Charles River “Conservancy.” The problem individuals are a much smaller number, but, even so, they are enough to dominate well meaning neighbors who mean well.
The interactions are an excellent example of how the Cambridge Machine works in a group with minimal but real connection.
The meeting was conducted by the number 2 member of the group. He claims to be a zoning expert. His zoning expertise seems to amount to going to the City Manager’s people and learning what is his opinion.
A second key Machine type is a “transportation expert” who is visible in the Machine groups pretty much uniformly to the extent the Machine groups are working on development issues. He always sounds great. He is always part of the resulting, bad effort.
In a public meeting presentation, he did, however, provide me with the key issue concerning the extremely irresponsible development of Alewife.
The “zoning expert” gave the usual pitch: You can’t win, you can’t win, but have I got a deal for you.
The deal amounted to chasing their tails at various meetings while Richie presents his plan to people working for / appointed by the Cambridge City Manager.
The idea of doing something meaningful like talking to the City Council was pooh poohed / ignored. The Machine maneuvers people away from the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge City Council is the only people they should be dealing with because the Cambridge City Council should be taking underground rights in those parking lots including Richie’s for the flood storage the city needs, rather than massive destruction of the irreplaceable Alewife woodlands.
Also visible was a couple I know from when I lived in North Cambridge. Disclosure: I dated their daughter for awhile.
The woman in the couple has been very belligerent that they did what they could to prevent the outrage at Alewife. They sued city employees. Neither can meaningfully explain why, in the years they have been attempting to protect Alewife, they have not and will not talk with the Cambridge city council.
The Machine strongly discourages talking with the Cambridge City Council. You can’t win, but have we got a deal for you. Besides, suing city employees and ignoring the Cambridge City Council keeps people out of trouble from the point of view of the machine.
The reality is that there could be no knaves in this group. The knaves could just be the city employees / Cambridge machine members pulling the strings of a very tiny minority. It is really irrelevant whether we are talking knaves or otherwise. The problem people have long, bad records and, as usual, they present themselves as experts.
4. Summary.
I spoke with almost all the local people individually. I showed them my photos of Alewife as destroyed as of a month ago. I pointed them to this blog for further copies of those photos and gave them the standard FOWG informational flier that leads with Alewife on one side while devoting the full other side to the Charles River.
There are good people in this group. They are exactly the type of people I have worked with in so many major victories. I hope they can free themselves of the Cambridge Machine and put pressure where it belongs, on the Cambridge City Council.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Urban Ring Supplement, Passenger Service, choice of crossings, Yawkey Station
In yesterday’s post, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/archie-on-mbta.html, I partially responded to Archie Mazmanian’s comments concerning the Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee.
On greater thought, my comment needs supplementation.
I informed the group of the MassDOT decision rejecting passenger service. The MassDOT representative spoke later about wishes of the group for the Grand Junction which are still on MassDOT’s active list.
This group does not give the impression of being strongly a citizen’s group. In the Charles River area, it looks very much like the institutions. The group was continued after the state officially gave up on the Urban Ring.
The Urban Ring concept dates back to the mid 80's when it was created as a means of allowing connections between the spokes of the subway system to allow people to get from place to place without going through the heavily used downtown stations where they still have to transfer.
Most recently, the bureaucrats have attempted to add a stage in the proposal for buses before putting in new subway lines.
Buses make excellent sense in the part of the Boston transportation system outside the Cambridge - Boston core area. In the Cambridge-Boston core area, buses are quite simply silly.
The Urban Ring bus proposal before it was put on hold was subjected to an interim environmental order prohibiting the Bus actions to do anything to predetermine which of two subway possibilities would be used.
The two subway proposals most important difference is in the crossing of the Charles River. The heavy subway Kenmore Crossing would cross near Kenmore Square. The streetcar BU Bridge Crossing would cross near the BU Bridge. The streetcar proposal is a spin off of a heavy subway proposal for the same basic route. The streetcars are being proposed because of a turn at Mountfort and Park Drive which heavy subway cannot achieve.
An additional difference between the two is that the streetcar proposal needed to move the Yawkey Commuter Rail Station to Mountfort and St.Mary’s within view of Marsh Chapel, the core of the BU Campus, to get Commuter Rail connections.
The legislature, as reported in the Urban Ring CAC meeting, has spent millions upgrading the existing Yawkey Station. Yawkey is an integral part of an excellent combination of the Urban Ring / Street Cars (existing Kenmore) and Commuter Rail. It provides excellent connections.
The CAC types have proposed a complicated bunch of busses going over and under the BU Bridge. The proposal clearly was intended to decide the choice of crossings in favor of the BU Bridge crossing.
But the legislature has made it a fait accompli that the Kenmore Crossing will be used by upgrading Yawkey in place. The games with the commuter rail on the Grand Junction looks like a response. Supposedly this was for some Worcester / Framingham to Boston trains, but the obvious tactic is to get some and then the rest. Moving all the Worcester service to the Grand Junction would make Yawkey Station superfluous and give their streetcar alternative a chance.
But the bad guys have lost yet another key vote.
And somehow the apparent killing of passenger service on the Grand Junction was not reported to the Urban Ring CAC until I informed them of it.
On greater thought, my comment needs supplementation.
I informed the group of the MassDOT decision rejecting passenger service. The MassDOT representative spoke later about wishes of the group for the Grand Junction which are still on MassDOT’s active list.
This group does not give the impression of being strongly a citizen’s group. In the Charles River area, it looks very much like the institutions. The group was continued after the state officially gave up on the Urban Ring.
The Urban Ring concept dates back to the mid 80's when it was created as a means of allowing connections between the spokes of the subway system to allow people to get from place to place without going through the heavily used downtown stations where they still have to transfer.
Most recently, the bureaucrats have attempted to add a stage in the proposal for buses before putting in new subway lines.
Buses make excellent sense in the part of the Boston transportation system outside the Cambridge - Boston core area. In the Cambridge-Boston core area, buses are quite simply silly.
The Urban Ring bus proposal before it was put on hold was subjected to an interim environmental order prohibiting the Bus actions to do anything to predetermine which of two subway possibilities would be used.
The two subway proposals most important difference is in the crossing of the Charles River. The heavy subway Kenmore Crossing would cross near Kenmore Square. The streetcar BU Bridge Crossing would cross near the BU Bridge. The streetcar proposal is a spin off of a heavy subway proposal for the same basic route. The streetcars are being proposed because of a turn at Mountfort and Park Drive which heavy subway cannot achieve.
An additional difference between the two is that the streetcar proposal needed to move the Yawkey Commuter Rail Station to Mountfort and St.Mary’s within view of Marsh Chapel, the core of the BU Campus, to get Commuter Rail connections.
The legislature, as reported in the Urban Ring CAC meeting, has spent millions upgrading the existing Yawkey Station. Yawkey is an integral part of an excellent combination of the Urban Ring / Street Cars (existing Kenmore) and Commuter Rail. It provides excellent connections.
The CAC types have proposed a complicated bunch of busses going over and under the BU Bridge. The proposal clearly was intended to decide the choice of crossings in favor of the BU Bridge crossing.
But the legislature has made it a fait accompli that the Kenmore Crossing will be used by upgrading Yawkey in place. The games with the commuter rail on the Grand Junction looks like a response. Supposedly this was for some Worcester / Framingham to Boston trains, but the obvious tactic is to get some and then the rest. Moving all the Worcester service to the Grand Junction would make Yawkey Station superfluous and give their streetcar alternative a chance.
But the bad guys have lost yet another key vote.
And somehow the apparent killing of passenger service on the Grand Junction was not reported to the Urban Ring CAC until I informed them of it.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Archie on the MBTA
1. Archie Mazmanian Reports.
2. Editor’s response.
1. Archie Mazmanian Reports.
Bob,
I was checking out the CHWG Blog this morning and after reading it I clicked on "Next Blog" out of curiousness and what popped up was the "Mass Sierra Club News" with its March 3, 2012 post "Boston Area Transit Under Threat" at
http://mass-sierra.blogspot.com/
This reminded me that I have been derelict in not reporting on the Urban Ring "Revival Meeting" that we both attended on February 27th. You may recall that at the end of the public comment period, I made reference to the fact that the CAC's Agenda for that meeting was set on MassDOT letterhead that features this phrase (new to me) at the bottom:
"Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence".
I suggested that MassDOT might add an asterisk after "Excellence" and note: "except for public transit."
I may have more to say about the "Revival Meeting" in due course. I don't plan to attend the upcoming meeting focusing on Melnea Cass Boulevard; if you do, I think your comments would be appropriate. Perhaps over the 20 years or so various segments of the Urban Ring will be patched together. By then Bus Rapid Transit may be replaced by more efficient technology.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Editor’s response.
I would like to attend the Melnea Cass meeting. I am not certain if I can.
A very major problem with the Massachusetts Sierra Club is the presence very visibly of members of Cambridge’s political machine with quite bad records on zoning issues. They submit zoning changes written by the Cambridge City Manager and, to no surprise, those proposals altogether too often have unexplained fine print which belies the lovely claims of the proposals. The secret fine print commonly is very destructive.
With such people in such a very visible location, the repeated endorsement by the Massachusetts Sierra Club of Cambridge City Councilors who are belligerently destructive of the environment comes as no surprise. It does, however, destroy the credibility of the Massachusetts Sierra Club as far the Charles River and the City of Cambridge goes.
As far as the Urban Ring meeting goes, there were points to be made, but I am still getting around to making them.
They had the Grand Junction passenger service on the agenda, but neglected to tell the members of the Committee that MassDOT has rejected passenger service on the Grand Junction for Worcester/Framingham service unless expansion of South Station is impossible.
2. Editor’s response.
1. Archie Mazmanian Reports.
Bob,
I was checking out the CHWG Blog this morning and after reading it I clicked on "Next Blog" out of curiousness and what popped up was the "Mass Sierra Club News" with its March 3, 2012 post "Boston Area Transit Under Threat" at
http://mass-sierra.blogspot.com/
This reminded me that I have been derelict in not reporting on the Urban Ring "Revival Meeting" that we both attended on February 27th. You may recall that at the end of the public comment period, I made reference to the fact that the CAC's Agenda for that meeting was set on MassDOT letterhead that features this phrase (new to me) at the bottom:
"Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence".
I suggested that MassDOT might add an asterisk after "Excellence" and note: "except for public transit."
I may have more to say about the "Revival Meeting" in due course. I don't plan to attend the upcoming meeting focusing on Melnea Cass Boulevard; if you do, I think your comments would be appropriate. Perhaps over the 20 years or so various segments of the Urban Ring will be patched together. By then Bus Rapid Transit may be replaced by more efficient technology.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Editor’s response.
I would like to attend the Melnea Cass meeting. I am not certain if I can.
A very major problem with the Massachusetts Sierra Club is the presence very visibly of members of Cambridge’s political machine with quite bad records on zoning issues. They submit zoning changes written by the Cambridge City Manager and, to no surprise, those proposals altogether too often have unexplained fine print which belies the lovely claims of the proposals. The secret fine print commonly is very destructive.
With such people in such a very visible location, the repeated endorsement by the Massachusetts Sierra Club of Cambridge City Councilors who are belligerently destructive of the environment comes as no surprise. It does, however, destroy the credibility of the Massachusetts Sierra Club as far the Charles River and the City of Cambridge goes.
As far as the Urban Ring meeting goes, there were points to be made, but I am still getting around to making them.
They had the Grand Junction passenger service on the agenda, but neglected to tell the members of the Committee that MassDOT has rejected passenger service on the Grand Junction for Worcester/Framingham service unless expansion of South Station is impossible.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Selected Entities Funding the Charles River “Conservancy” — Part 2
The following is another partial list of entities 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.
I have recently reported on the Longfellow Bridge Repairs. This falsely named group was there fighting against the needs of bicycle commuters by restricting them to the sidewalk on the Longfellow Bridge.
It seems likely that this entity and its controlled activists are treating the Longfellow Bridge repairs as an extension of their irresponsible highway project on the Cambridge side of the Charles River. Their irresponsible project would destroy hundreds of trees, wetlands and portions of the Charles River. The project has deservedly been condemned for its environmental destruction by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Their small vehicle highway would be highly destructive to the Charles River White Geese in the tiny area to which they have been consigned east of the BU Bridge. It would multiply destruction there, at Magazine Beach and on the riverbank to the east. It would destroy a magnificent grove of 104 trees at the Memorial Drive Split.
Since the Charles River “Conservancy” constantly and very visibly lies about their reason for existence by using the false word “Conservancy” in their name, the number of troops it presents as activists probably includes a lot of people who have been duped by the lying in their name and by who knows what irresponsible techniques used less publicly.
The CRC’s list of contributors 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 third grouping is as follows. Please excuse errors in compilation. Printing is in white letters on a beige background. Definitely not conducive to accurate reading.
*********
Benefactor
Alexander, Aronsin, Fleming and Company, PC
Allston Brighton / Boston College Community Fund
Anchor Capital Advisors, LLC
BoseZen Consulting.
Blitz Media
Boston Duck Tours
Boston University
Cambridge Heritage Trust
Cambridge Trust Company
Charles Riverboat Company
Charlesbank Capital Partners LLC
Clean Harbors, Inc.
Druker Company, Lts.
Dyus Corporation
Fields Pond Foundation
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Infinity Pharmaceuticals
Intercontinental Management Corporation
ITA Software, Inc.
JumpTap, Inc.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Icn.
Rosales & Partners
Sun Life Financial
TD Bank
Tufts Health Plan Foundation
WBUR 90.0 FM
*********
Very visible on the list are Harvard University, MIT Community Service Fund, Harvard Business School, Boston University, Allston Brighton / Boston College Community Fund, and the New England College of Optometry.
Our prior posting on this issue presented the first two groupings on this list of shame. It may be viewed at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/selected-non-profits-funding-charles.html
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.
I have recently reported on the Longfellow Bridge Repairs. This falsely named group was there fighting against the needs of bicycle commuters by restricting them to the sidewalk on the Longfellow Bridge.
It seems likely that this entity and its controlled activists are treating the Longfellow Bridge repairs as an extension of their irresponsible highway project on the Cambridge side of the Charles River. Their irresponsible project would destroy hundreds of trees, wetlands and portions of the Charles River. The project has deservedly been condemned for its environmental destruction by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Their small vehicle highway would be highly destructive to the Charles River White Geese in the tiny area to which they have been consigned east of the BU Bridge. It would multiply destruction there, at Magazine Beach and on the riverbank to the east. It would destroy a magnificent grove of 104 trees at the Memorial Drive Split.
Since the Charles River “Conservancy” constantly and very visibly lies about their reason for existence by using the false word “Conservancy” in their name, the number of troops it presents as activists probably includes a lot of people who have been duped by the lying in their name and by who knows what irresponsible techniques used less publicly.
The CRC’s list of contributors 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 third grouping is as follows. Please excuse errors in compilation. Printing is in white letters on a beige background. Definitely not conducive to accurate reading.
*********
Benefactor
Alexander, Aronsin, Fleming and Company, PC
Allston Brighton / Boston College Community Fund
Anchor Capital Advisors, LLC
BoseZen Consulting.
Blitz Media
Boston Duck Tours
Boston University
Cambridge Heritage Trust
Cambridge Trust Company
Charles Riverboat Company
Charlesbank Capital Partners LLC
Clean Harbors, Inc.
Druker Company, Lts.
Dyus Corporation
Fields Pond Foundation
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Infinity Pharmaceuticals
Intercontinental Management Corporation
ITA Software, Inc.
JumpTap, Inc.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Icn.
Rosales & Partners
Sun Life Financial
TD Bank
Tufts Health Plan Foundation
WBUR 90.0 FM
*********
Very visible on the list are Harvard University, MIT Community Service Fund, Harvard Business School, Boston University, Allston Brighton / Boston College Community Fund, and the New England College of Optometry.
Our prior posting on this issue presented the first two groupings on this list of shame. It may be viewed at:
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/selected-non-profits-funding-charles.html
Monday, March 05, 2012
Harvard’s public position on Allston expansion
Harvard’s empire building in Boston’s Allston neighborhood is directly relevant to the Charles River because its activities are only a few hundred feet from the Charles and because it is involved in many attacks on the Charles directly supporting its activities in Allston, whether obvious or hidden behind the almost non stopping con games.
The following is taken from page 33 and the top of page 34 of a document entitled “Harvard University’s Town Gown Report 2011." It was submitted to the Cambridge Planning Board in a meeting in February 2012 which received such reports from Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge College. My memory is that there was a document describing this report as actually submitted in late (December?) 2011. I do not see that document now.
*********
C. Other Planning Priorities.
Allston Planning.
In the summer of 2011, the Harvard Allston Work Team presented the University with the following set of five recommendations for proposed next steps in Allston.
● Resume planning and development of the Western Avenue foundation (science site) [Ed: this is on the southern side of Western Avenue across from the Charlesview (subsidized) Housing and north or east of North Harvard Street] as an innovative, interdisciplinary health and life science center [ed: fits exactly in with the clear plans to move the Harvard Medical School to the rail yard / I90 exit which Harvard owns and which is further to the east on the other side of Cambridge Street].
● Develop an enterprise research campus in Allston Landing North, creating a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, research and science Development
[Ed: "Allston Landing North" confuses me and I have not been able to get a straight answer. Is this the rail yard / I90 exit? Is this further west on Western Avenue between Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road? Is this on Lincoln Street which parallels Western Avenue, abuts the I90, between Everett Street and Market Street, a few blocks south of the destroyed Western Avenue Shopping Center? Is this the shopping center at Cambridge Street and North Harvard across east of the Hess Station? Is it the triangle created by Brighton Avenue, Cambridge Street and Harvard Avenue / Street?]
● Enhance the vibrancy of Barry’s Corner through housing and other amenities [ed: this is Western Avenue and North Harvard Street where Harvard is in the process of destroying the Charlesview housing.]
● Enable academic growth by preserving land adjacent to the existing campus, consistent with past planning
● Explore the feasibility of a conference center and hotel to accommodate the academic and research sector
These recommendations were endorsed by the President and the Harvard Corporation in September, and initial implementation is expected in two distinct but related phases of work.
Phase one includes three major components:
● Moving ahead on a Health and Life Science Center of the Western Avenue foundation, driven by academic planning under the leadership of the Provost. As a program of specific health, life and interdisciplinary science research uses is identified, the building plan will be evaluated and re-programmed to ensure the optimization of science and research space.
● Planning for a new residential commons and retail center in the Barry’s Corner area. Rental housing for Harvard graduate students, visiting scholars, faculty members and others will be combined with retail facilities and amenities for the entire neighborhood. After soliciting ideas and feedback from the community to inform planning for Barry’s Corner, the University plans to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for third-party development partners to plan, build and manage the residential commons and retail center. Depending on the pace of the design and permitting processes, construction could begin in 2013.
● This phase will also include site assessment and academic planning for the current Charlesview Apartments site along Western Avenue and North Harvard Street. As soon as the new Charlesview Residences are occupied As soon as the new Charlesview Residences are occupied, and prior to demolition at the existing site, Harvard will provide an update on the site assessment, academic planning and timeline.
[Ed: former Western Avenue Shopping Center west of Barry’s corner most of which was landbanked by Harvard in its successful pressure on the owner of Charlesview Housing to vacate Barry’s Corner. The former retail mall has been destroyed and is now an extremely large construction site. The super market has been returned to its original name of Star Market from Shaw’s and an addition to which I believe Shaw’s expanded has been demolished. The McDonald’s has been rebuilt to the east of the construction zone. The retail building at Western and Everett has been untouched. So the formerly vibrant shopping center has been drastically reduced in size.]
Phase two will focus on Allston Landing North and include the identification of appropriate development partners to assist in planning and developing an Enterprise Research Campus, which could potentially include a hotel and conference center. The Enterprise Research Campus is intended to serve as a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, and research and science development. This activity will be explored in tandem with phase one, but with longer-term objectives and timeframes.
[Ed.: such “collaborative” development is commonly done on long term rentals. The renter creates and uses buildings on Harvard property which then become a part of the Harvard campus without Harvard having to pay for building the buildings. Many buildings in Cambridge have been built for MIT in this manner. Allston Landing North could very likely be the current I90 exit / rail yard and future Harvard Medical School, but I have gotten such conflicting explanations for “Allston Landing North”.]
Harvard anticipates that the planning efforts associated with these two phases will result in a new institutional Master Plan Notification Form (IMPNF) submission by the end of 2012, a process which will include a series of conversations with the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the community that will ultimately lead to a new Institutional Master Plan for Harvard in Allston.
The following is taken from page 33 and the top of page 34 of a document entitled “Harvard University’s Town Gown Report 2011." It was submitted to the Cambridge Planning Board in a meeting in February 2012 which received such reports from Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge College. My memory is that there was a document describing this report as actually submitted in late (December?) 2011. I do not see that document now.
*********
C. Other Planning Priorities.
Allston Planning.
In the summer of 2011, the Harvard Allston Work Team presented the University with the following set of five recommendations for proposed next steps in Allston.
● Resume planning and development of the Western Avenue foundation (science site) [Ed: this is on the southern side of Western Avenue across from the Charlesview (subsidized) Housing and north or east of North Harvard Street] as an innovative, interdisciplinary health and life science center [ed: fits exactly in with the clear plans to move the Harvard Medical School to the rail yard / I90 exit which Harvard owns and which is further to the east on the other side of Cambridge Street].
● Develop an enterprise research campus in Allston Landing North, creating a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, research and science Development
[Ed: "Allston Landing North" confuses me and I have not been able to get a straight answer. Is this the rail yard / I90 exit? Is this further west on Western Avenue between Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road? Is this on Lincoln Street which parallels Western Avenue, abuts the I90, between Everett Street and Market Street, a few blocks south of the destroyed Western Avenue Shopping Center? Is this the shopping center at Cambridge Street and North Harvard across east of the Hess Station? Is it the triangle created by Brighton Avenue, Cambridge Street and Harvard Avenue / Street?]
● Enhance the vibrancy of Barry’s Corner through housing and other amenities [ed: this is Western Avenue and North Harvard Street where Harvard is in the process of destroying the Charlesview housing.]
● Enable academic growth by preserving land adjacent to the existing campus, consistent with past planning
● Explore the feasibility of a conference center and hotel to accommodate the academic and research sector
These recommendations were endorsed by the President and the Harvard Corporation in September, and initial implementation is expected in two distinct but related phases of work.
Phase one includes three major components:
● Moving ahead on a Health and Life Science Center of the Western Avenue foundation, driven by academic planning under the leadership of the Provost. As a program of specific health, life and interdisciplinary science research uses is identified, the building plan will be evaluated and re-programmed to ensure the optimization of science and research space.
● Planning for a new residential commons and retail center in the Barry’s Corner area. Rental housing for Harvard graduate students, visiting scholars, faculty members and others will be combined with retail facilities and amenities for the entire neighborhood. After soliciting ideas and feedback from the community to inform planning for Barry’s Corner, the University plans to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for third-party development partners to plan, build and manage the residential commons and retail center. Depending on the pace of the design and permitting processes, construction could begin in 2013.
● This phase will also include site assessment and academic planning for the current Charlesview Apartments site along Western Avenue and North Harvard Street. As soon as the new Charlesview Residences are occupied As soon as the new Charlesview Residences are occupied, and prior to demolition at the existing site, Harvard will provide an update on the site assessment, academic planning and timeline.
[Ed: former Western Avenue Shopping Center west of Barry’s corner most of which was landbanked by Harvard in its successful pressure on the owner of Charlesview Housing to vacate Barry’s Corner. The former retail mall has been destroyed and is now an extremely large construction site. The super market has been returned to its original name of Star Market from Shaw’s and an addition to which I believe Shaw’s expanded has been demolished. The McDonald’s has been rebuilt to the east of the construction zone. The retail building at Western and Everett has been untouched. So the formerly vibrant shopping center has been drastically reduced in size.]
Phase two will focus on Allston Landing North and include the identification of appropriate development partners to assist in planning and developing an Enterprise Research Campus, which could potentially include a hotel and conference center. The Enterprise Research Campus is intended to serve as a gateway to a collaborative community for business, investment capital, and research and science development. This activity will be explored in tandem with phase one, but with longer-term objectives and timeframes.
[Ed.: such “collaborative” development is commonly done on long term rentals. The renter creates and uses buildings on Harvard property which then become a part of the Harvard campus without Harvard having to pay for building the buildings. Many buildings in Cambridge have been built for MIT in this manner. Allston Landing North could very likely be the current I90 exit / rail yard and future Harvard Medical School, but I have gotten such conflicting explanations for “Allston Landing North”.]
Harvard anticipates that the planning efforts associated with these two phases will result in a new institutional Master Plan Notification Form (IMPNF) submission by the end of 2012, a process which will include a series of conversations with the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the community that will ultimately lead to a new Institutional Master Plan for Harvard in Allston.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Longfellow Bridge Project, excellent MassDOT behavior, as usual
0. General introduction to letter to MassDOT.
1. Introductory.
2. Drainage system.
A. Magazine Beach.
B. Ebersol Fields.
3. Bicycle traffic.
A. General.
B. MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.
C. The friends of Cambridge and the DCR.
D. The record of Cambridge, the DCR and their controlled activists.
E. The falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
4. Summary.
Last night, I attended the public hearing by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation concerning the Longfellow Bridge repairs.
The Longfellow Bridge is the second bridge to the east of the BU Bridge. It is the farthest point that I am aware of of the environmental outrages coming on the Charles River by Cambridge, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their stand-ins.
As usual, the biggest problem was not with MassDOT but with Cambridge, the DCR and the stand-ins.
I am sending in the following comments. They are self explanatory.
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attn: Kevin Walsh
RE: Rehabilitation of the Longfellow Bridge over Charles River
Sir:
This will follow up on my comments of last evening.
I have great respect for MassDOT and great lack of respect for Cambridge and the DCR.
1. Introductory.
Cambridge has a massive organization, as well as does the so called Charles River Conservancy. Large turnouts furthering the cause of either should be ignored because those turnouts commonly are based on false information to well meaning people.
An excellent example of the most basic lie comes in the name of the Charles River Conservancy which is most definitely not a Conservancy, as your department has very responsibly noted in rejecting past environmentally destructive initiatives from this entity. When there is a large perhaps even blind turnout with a key “organization” lying about itself in its name, need I say more? And I really do not want to spend a long time bad mouthing bad people.
I have more than 30 years experience defending the environment in Cambridge. I have frequently encountered and defeated such “groups.” My 30 years plus experience includes experience in transportation including bicycle matters.
Two points stand out to me: Your complicated drainage system to drain off pollutants and the treatment of bicycle transportation.
2. Drainage system.
Your proposal devotes a fair amount of land to natural drainage of pollutants.
A. Magazine Beach.
This natural drainage is strikingly similar to a system put in place at Magazine Beach and the problems are similar at Magazine Beach and on the Boston side of the Longfellow Bridge.
At Magazine Beach, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed seven acres of vegetation which had successfully existed for the better part of a Century without poisons being used to keep it alive.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed the responsible grasses and replaced them with sickly grasses which need poisons to avoid dying. These introduced grasses thus exactly fit the definition of vegetation which should be destroyed. Instead of destroying this destructive stuff, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed what had been playing fields to put in complicated fancy drainage to keep poisons out of the Charles River which are being used to keep alive grasses which have no business on the Charles River.
If Cambridge and the DCR were responsible entities, instead of dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River, Cambridge and the DCR would be spending the money seeding the responsible grasses back onto Magazine Beach which they should not have destroyed in the first place.
Once the responsible grasses were returned, the playing fields which were destroyed for this irresponsible drainage could be returned and the Charles River would have as many playing fields as it did before this irresponsible destruction.
A parallel step at Magazine Beach would be to chop down the introduced wall of vegetation as the DCR, twice a year, chops down all other bordering vegetation the Charles River Basin. But it continues to grow and it continues to grow for a purpose. The DCR’s goal is to wipe out all animals living on the Charles. Destroying almost all bordering vegetation serves that goal by driving away migratory waterfowl. Keeping the bizarre wall growing and growing furthers that goal by starving the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.
The DCR is unfit to manage the environment.
B. Ebersol Fields.
The irresponsible behavior of Cambridge and the DCR at Magazine Beach follows on irresponsible behavior at Ebersol Fields.
Ebersol Fields also has sickly grasses which will not survive without be dosed regularly with poisons.
A few years ago, the poisons proved inadequate. So the DCR dumped Tartan on Ebersol Fields. Tartan is marked against use next to bodies of water. But the DCR is unfit to manage the environment. So the DCR dumped Tartan.
The next day, the Charles River was dead from the Mass. Ave. (Harvard) Bridge to the Harbor, infested with algae. That algae recurs annually.
If the natural drainage being installed on the Boston side of the Charles River is being installed to neutralize the poisoning of the Charles by the DCR at Ebersol Fields, the responsible thing to do is stop the poisoning. As at Magazine Beach, instead of spending money on poisons at Ebersol Fields, money should be spent on seeds for the responsible grasses the DCR and Cambridge destroyed at Magazine Beach.
If responsible grasses being introduced at Ebersol Fields solves the pollutant problem, MassDOT can create parkland rather than this drainage system.
3. Bicycle traffic.
A. General.
I have done extensive bicycle commuting. I commuted daily even during the worst of weather to Boston University Law. My bicycle commuting has been as long as seven miles, even in the worst of weather.
I commuted over the Longfellow Bridge to an internship at the State House. During that internship, I was given personal credit by the Governor’s Office for killing a silly change in bicycle laws which had passed both house without negative comment.
B. MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.
A bicycle lane to the right of traffic separated from the sidewalk is the sensible way to go. Vehicles capable of traveling 20 miles an hour on a highway with a 30 mile an hour speed limit should be handled like vehicles capable of traveling 20 miles an hour. They should not be mixed with pedestrians.
Bicycles must, in order for our world to survive, be made a responsible part of the traffic mix. Bicycle commuting must be viable. Treating bicycle traffic with the contempt that is associated with limiting the rights as if they were the most incompetent, irresponsible members of their community is exactly the wrong way to go.
C. The friends of Cambridge and the DCR.
Bicycles on sidewalks endanger pedestrians and prevent normal commuting by bicyclists.
I have a friend who was laid up for six months when she was run down by a sidewalk bicyclist.
The irresponsibility of sidewalk bicycle highways is shown on Cambridge’s Vassar Street small vehicle highway on the sidewalk. That project is an obvious failure.
Cambridge is repeating the Vassar Street error on Western Avenue. Cambridge’s response to the impossibility of making a left turn at an intersection for bicycles traveling on the right sidewalk is that bicycles do not have to use the supposed bike paths. So Cambridge is deliberately constructing “bike paths” which Cambridge knows are useless. The short term for that kind of behavior is incompetence.
D. The record of Cambridge, the DCR and their controlled activists.
MassDOT has rejected the proposal to build a small vehicle highway (the euphemism is “bike path) on the north side of the Charles River in wetlands and in the river.
MassDOT has accurately pointed out that this is environmentally irresponsible.
The DCR has sought Obama moneys to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge in part for their irresponsible small vehicle highway. This includes devastation of an excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split.
The DCR lied concerning the Obama application that this destruction was only destroying sickly trees. The DCR documented that their lie was a lie by its exactly contrary filing with the City of Cambridge.
The governor received a copy of the filing at the City of Cambridge. Somebody killed this irresponsible proposal this time. But friends of Cambridge and the DCR continue their efforts.
E. The falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
In the middle of all the destructive outrages.
4. Summary.
MassDOT is behaving responsibly in this proposal but should consider whether reversing the DCR environmental destruction at Ebersol Fields would negate the “need” for the natural drainage system.
MassDOT should continue to defend the Charles River from the irresponsibility of Cambridge, the DCR and their stand-ins.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
1. Introductory.
2. Drainage system.
A. Magazine Beach.
B. Ebersol Fields.
3. Bicycle traffic.
A. General.
B. MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.
C. The friends of Cambridge and the DCR.
D. The record of Cambridge, the DCR and their controlled activists.
E. The falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
4. Summary.
Last night, I attended the public hearing by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation concerning the Longfellow Bridge repairs.
The Longfellow Bridge is the second bridge to the east of the BU Bridge. It is the farthest point that I am aware of of the environmental outrages coming on the Charles River by Cambridge, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and their stand-ins.
As usual, the biggest problem was not with MassDOT but with Cambridge, the DCR and the stand-ins.
I am sending in the following comments. They are self explanatory.
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attn: Kevin Walsh
RE: Rehabilitation of the Longfellow Bridge over Charles River
Sir:
This will follow up on my comments of last evening.
I have great respect for MassDOT and great lack of respect for Cambridge and the DCR.
1. Introductory.
Cambridge has a massive organization, as well as does the so called Charles River Conservancy. Large turnouts furthering the cause of either should be ignored because those turnouts commonly are based on false information to well meaning people.
An excellent example of the most basic lie comes in the name of the Charles River Conservancy which is most definitely not a Conservancy, as your department has very responsibly noted in rejecting past environmentally destructive initiatives from this entity. When there is a large perhaps even blind turnout with a key “organization” lying about itself in its name, need I say more? And I really do not want to spend a long time bad mouthing bad people.
I have more than 30 years experience defending the environment in Cambridge. I have frequently encountered and defeated such “groups.” My 30 years plus experience includes experience in transportation including bicycle matters.
Two points stand out to me: Your complicated drainage system to drain off pollutants and the treatment of bicycle transportation.
2. Drainage system.
Your proposal devotes a fair amount of land to natural drainage of pollutants.
A. Magazine Beach.
This natural drainage is strikingly similar to a system put in place at Magazine Beach and the problems are similar at Magazine Beach and on the Boston side of the Longfellow Bridge.
At Magazine Beach, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed seven acres of vegetation which had successfully existed for the better part of a Century without poisons being used to keep it alive.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed the responsible grasses and replaced them with sickly grasses which need poisons to avoid dying. These introduced grasses thus exactly fit the definition of vegetation which should be destroyed. Instead of destroying this destructive stuff, Cambridge and the DCR destroyed what had been playing fields to put in complicated fancy drainage to keep poisons out of the Charles River which are being used to keep alive grasses which have no business on the Charles River.
If Cambridge and the DCR were responsible entities, instead of dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River, Cambridge and the DCR would be spending the money seeding the responsible grasses back onto Magazine Beach which they should not have destroyed in the first place.
Once the responsible grasses were returned, the playing fields which were destroyed for this irresponsible drainage could be returned and the Charles River would have as many playing fields as it did before this irresponsible destruction.
A parallel step at Magazine Beach would be to chop down the introduced wall of vegetation as the DCR, twice a year, chops down all other bordering vegetation the Charles River Basin. But it continues to grow and it continues to grow for a purpose. The DCR’s goal is to wipe out all animals living on the Charles. Destroying almost all bordering vegetation serves that goal by driving away migratory waterfowl. Keeping the bizarre wall growing and growing furthers that goal by starving the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.
The DCR is unfit to manage the environment.
B. Ebersol Fields.
The irresponsible behavior of Cambridge and the DCR at Magazine Beach follows on irresponsible behavior at Ebersol Fields.
Ebersol Fields also has sickly grasses which will not survive without be dosed regularly with poisons.
A few years ago, the poisons proved inadequate. So the DCR dumped Tartan on Ebersol Fields. Tartan is marked against use next to bodies of water. But the DCR is unfit to manage the environment. So the DCR dumped Tartan.
The next day, the Charles River was dead from the Mass. Ave. (Harvard) Bridge to the Harbor, infested with algae. That algae recurs annually.
If the natural drainage being installed on the Boston side of the Charles River is being installed to neutralize the poisoning of the Charles by the DCR at Ebersol Fields, the responsible thing to do is stop the poisoning. As at Magazine Beach, instead of spending money on poisons at Ebersol Fields, money should be spent on seeds for the responsible grasses the DCR and Cambridge destroyed at Magazine Beach.
If responsible grasses being introduced at Ebersol Fields solves the pollutant problem, MassDOT can create parkland rather than this drainage system.
3. Bicycle traffic.
A. General.
I have done extensive bicycle commuting. I commuted daily even during the worst of weather to Boston University Law. My bicycle commuting has been as long as seven miles, even in the worst of weather.
I commuted over the Longfellow Bridge to an internship at the State House. During that internship, I was given personal credit by the Governor’s Office for killing a silly change in bicycle laws which had passed both house without negative comment.
B. MassDOT’s proposal is responsible.
A bicycle lane to the right of traffic separated from the sidewalk is the sensible way to go. Vehicles capable of traveling 20 miles an hour on a highway with a 30 mile an hour speed limit should be handled like vehicles capable of traveling 20 miles an hour. They should not be mixed with pedestrians.
Bicycles must, in order for our world to survive, be made a responsible part of the traffic mix. Bicycle commuting must be viable. Treating bicycle traffic with the contempt that is associated with limiting the rights as if they were the most incompetent, irresponsible members of their community is exactly the wrong way to go.
C. The friends of Cambridge and the DCR.
Bicycles on sidewalks endanger pedestrians and prevent normal commuting by bicyclists.
I have a friend who was laid up for six months when she was run down by a sidewalk bicyclist.
The irresponsibility of sidewalk bicycle highways is shown on Cambridge’s Vassar Street small vehicle highway on the sidewalk. That project is an obvious failure.
Cambridge is repeating the Vassar Street error on Western Avenue. Cambridge’s response to the impossibility of making a left turn at an intersection for bicycles traveling on the right sidewalk is that bicycles do not have to use the supposed bike paths. So Cambridge is deliberately constructing “bike paths” which Cambridge knows are useless. The short term for that kind of behavior is incompetence.
D. The record of Cambridge, the DCR and their controlled activists.
MassDOT has rejected the proposal to build a small vehicle highway (the euphemism is “bike path) on the north side of the Charles River in wetlands and in the river.
MassDOT has accurately pointed out that this is environmentally irresponsible.
The DCR has sought Obama moneys to destroy hundreds of trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge in part for their irresponsible small vehicle highway. This includes devastation of an excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split.
The DCR lied concerning the Obama application that this destruction was only destroying sickly trees. The DCR documented that their lie was a lie by its exactly contrary filing with the City of Cambridge.
The governor received a copy of the filing at the City of Cambridge. Somebody killed this irresponsible proposal this time. But friends of Cambridge and the DCR continue their efforts.
E. The falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
In the middle of all the destructive outrages.
4. Summary.
MassDOT is behaving responsibly in this proposal but should consider whether reversing the DCR environmental destruction at Ebersol Fields would negate the “need” for the natural drainage system.
MassDOT should continue to defend the Charles River from the irresponsibility of Cambridge, the DCR and their stand-ins.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
Alewife letter almost published in Cambridge Chronicle; milestone
1. Response to letter almost published in Cambridge Chronicle.
2. References.
A. The letter unedited.
B. Transmittal of photos.
C. Transmittal of eighth photo.
3. Milestone. This is our 800th post on this blog.
1. Response to letter almost published in Cambridge Chronicle.
The following proposed letter is self explanatory. I will follow with the documents referenced.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Thank you for very visibly publishing my letter responding to the “Silver Maple Forest” scam to which you have given such major visibility and I equally appreciate the many prior letters you have published.
The trouble is that you omitted two key paragraphs, the 3d and 4th, and thus gutted my comments.
The second through fifth paragraphs read:
“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.”
Attached to the letter was a photo of Cambridge / DCR’s and this group’s totally needlessly destroyed acres of former virgin forest with the killing of untold numbers of animals. I was anticipating that the attachment would be counted against the approximately 250 words I had left against your word limit.
This was one of six photos I provided you a few hours earlier showing the destruction, plus a photo of the key part of the parking lot where meaningful flood protection should be constructed plus a photo of some of the destroyed reservation from that parking lot.
I find it incredible that Cambridge / DCR can needlessly destroy acres of irreplaceable woodlands hiding behind a group friendly to Cambridge / DCR conducting a smokescreen and the Chronicle only seems capable of publishing photos of the scam but not of the needless and irresponsible destruction in a related area being hidden by the scam.
Certainly I made strong statements, but I proved the strong statements and you gutted the key parts of the proof.
I am ready, willing and able to provide you the same eight photos for your use including the one I referenced in the omitted paragraphs. I realize that I could very easily have missed part of the needless destruction.
2. References.
A. The letter unedited.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/fund-raising-which-aids-destruction-at.html
B. Transmittal of photos.
This transmitted the six photos of destruction plus the photo of the key part of the parking lot which can provide the flood protection falsely claimed to being provided.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html
C. Transmittal of eighth photo.
This transmitted the eighth, the photo of preliminary destruction taken next to the parking lot where it belongs.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/response-to-alewife-destroyers-silver.html
3. Milestone. This is our 800th post on this blog.
This post is our 800th post on this blog. The blog was preceded by an email newsletter which, at its peak, reached over 1300 recipients. That letter had more than 500 issues, starting in March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to their beloved Nesting Area to find that it had been destroyed for the first time.
That first destruction was an illegal gift to the state bureaucrats from Boston University. BU, as is the custom with so many of these destructive people, lied. They proceeded to deny that they did the destruction from the time of the destruction in October 1999 to six months later, when the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it. Then they blamed the lying on their president’s secretary, who was not fired. We are dealing with a lot of really rotten people.
So now they are dealing in massive starvation and heartless abuse, using fake groups in Cambridge playing con games telling people to look at everything else except their own rotten behavior and the rotten behavior of their friends, but they sound so good.
2. References.
A. The letter unedited.
B. Transmittal of photos.
C. Transmittal of eighth photo.
3. Milestone. This is our 800th post on this blog.
1. Response to letter almost published in Cambridge Chronicle.
The following proposed letter is self explanatory. I will follow with the documents referenced.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
Thank you for very visibly publishing my letter responding to the “Silver Maple Forest” scam to which you have given such major visibility and I equally appreciate the many prior letters you have published.
The trouble is that you omitted two key paragraphs, the 3d and 4th, and thus gutted my comments.
The second through fifth paragraphs read:
“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.”
Attached to the letter was a photo of Cambridge / DCR’s and this group’s totally needlessly destroyed acres of former virgin forest with the killing of untold numbers of animals. I was anticipating that the attachment would be counted against the approximately 250 words I had left against your word limit.
This was one of six photos I provided you a few hours earlier showing the destruction, plus a photo of the key part of the parking lot where meaningful flood protection should be constructed plus a photo of some of the destroyed reservation from that parking lot.
I find it incredible that Cambridge / DCR can needlessly destroy acres of irreplaceable woodlands hiding behind a group friendly to Cambridge / DCR conducting a smokescreen and the Chronicle only seems capable of publishing photos of the scam but not of the needless and irresponsible destruction in a related area being hidden by the scam.
Certainly I made strong statements, but I proved the strong statements and you gutted the key parts of the proof.
I am ready, willing and able to provide you the same eight photos for your use including the one I referenced in the omitted paragraphs. I realize that I could very easily have missed part of the needless destruction.
2. References.
A. The letter unedited.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/fund-raising-which-aids-destruction-at.html
B. Transmittal of photos.
This transmitted the six photos of destruction plus the photo of the key part of the parking lot which can provide the flood protection falsely claimed to being provided.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/cambridge-pols-destroy-alewife-photo.html
C. Transmittal of eighth photo.
This transmitted the eighth, the photo of preliminary destruction taken next to the parking lot where it belongs.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/response-to-alewife-destroyers-silver.html
3. Milestone. This is our 800th post on this blog.
This post is our 800th post on this blog. The blog was preceded by an email newsletter which, at its peak, reached over 1300 recipients. That letter had more than 500 issues, starting in March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to their beloved Nesting Area to find that it had been destroyed for the first time.
That first destruction was an illegal gift to the state bureaucrats from Boston University. BU, as is the custom with so many of these destructive people, lied. They proceeded to deny that they did the destruction from the time of the destruction in October 1999 to six months later, when the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it. Then they blamed the lying on their president’s secretary, who was not fired. We are dealing with a lot of really rotten people.
So now they are dealing in massive starvation and heartless abuse, using fake groups in Cambridge playing con games telling people to look at everything else except their own rotten behavior and the rotten behavior of their friends, but they sound so good.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Responsibility from the Cambridge Pols and State Bureacrats?
Ellen posted the following comment following up on my monkey report comments posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/third-monkey-dies-at-harvard-research.html.
Ellen:
These folks need to take full responsibility for their actions instead of blaming the other guy. however the other guy needs to take responsibility for his actions as well. our government system has hit rock bottom IMO. they are the ones responsible for all this killing that goes on here in MA
Your Editor:
The situation from the City of Cambridge and its friends in the State Bureaucracy (primarily the Department of Conservation and Recreation) are viler than normal because of the nonstop lies of being "holier than thou" combined with the fake groups which run around telling folks to yell at the other guy and who lie through omissions that the Cambridge pols are decent folks.
The state bureaucrats expand on the problem. You go from a lot of sophisticated lying from the massive Cambridge Pol organization to a lot of flat out lying with the state bureaucrats.
Ellen:
These folks need to take full responsibility for their actions instead of blaming the other guy. however the other guy needs to take responsibility for his actions as well. our government system has hit rock bottom IMO. they are the ones responsible for all this killing that goes on here in MA
Your Editor:
The situation from the City of Cambridge and its friends in the State Bureaucracy (primarily the Department of Conservation and Recreation) are viler than normal because of the nonstop lies of being "holier than thou" combined with the fake groups which run around telling folks to yell at the other guy and who lie through omissions that the Cambridge pols are decent folks.
The state bureaucrats expand on the problem. You go from a lot of sophisticated lying from the massive Cambridge Pol organization to a lot of flat out lying with the state bureaucrats.
Protect the Food of The Charles River White Geese — Response: They are being deliberately starved
1. Introductory.
2. Anjell response.
3. Editor’s response to Anjell.
4. The fake groups in general.
1. Introductory.
A few days ago, we provided an analysis of the destruction on the Charles in response to the Charles River Swim, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/charles-river-swim-in-context-of.html.
Our facebook page includes regular comments on responses to this blog.
2. Anjell response.
Anjell responded with the following comment:
Oh no, what plan have they 4 Magazine Beach-- the white geese live off the grass there so do the Canadian ones.! -- Bob plz keep us posted. --- thanks
3. Editor’s response to Anjell.
We are dealing with the same sick people who conducted the totally wasteful destruction of acres of virgin forest at Alewife along with mass animal killings. The only difference on the Charles River is the names used by the fake groups who cheerlead them, and those groups back each other up.
These people have been deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese for years. The geese have only survived through the saintliness of the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative. The state got this far through non stop lies, “We have no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese,” and the lies of fake groups claiming to be defending.
The starvation has been accomplished by the introduction of a bizarre wall of introduced bushes walling off access to Magazine Beach from the Charles River. The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” destroys all protective vegetation on the Charles twice a year except for this bizarre wall. Both actions serve the same purpose. Destroying the protective vegetation drives away migratory waterfowl (and the CRC poisons eggs every spring). Walling off Magazine Beach starves the Charles River White Geese. The holy grail, the lying Charles River Master Plan called for a lawn to the river. That was casually changed after the fact.
And the poisons being dumped to keep alive the sickly grass introduced in place of healthy grass, of course, has very negative effects as well.
The local fake group now strongly parallels the fake group which destroyed the core Alewife reservation. They have suddenly decided to protect Magazine Beach, but their protection includes lies through omission and lies through flat out censorship. They have even conducted a meeting in which they allowed people from the environmentally destructive, flat out lying, Department of Conservation and Recreation to say anything they want, and explicitly prohibited negative comments, mentioning the heartless animal abuse or the outrageous environmental destruction.
These frauds have taken up the next step of destruction while lying about concern for Magazine Beach, concern which continues suppression of discussion of the fully correctable destruction at Magazine Beach which is the real problem. They say the real problem is the next welfare project for contractors. And how dare you mention the little guys who use that picnic area they now want to destroy. And how dare you mention the condemnation as environmentally destructive by MassDOT of their beloved new highway in the Charles and on its banks.
4. The fake groups in general.
These fake groups with their lies of concern for what decent people are concerned about conduct very much non stop con operations in Cambridge. The con going on at Magazine Beach fits the sickness.
“Don’t look at what we are destroying, help us with the next level of destruction and we will omit the destructive part just as we censor the reality of our past destruction.”
So they fool concerned people into shafting the causes for which concerned people stand. The organization is massive. The organization gains credibility by false praise back and forth between members and their fellow destroyers.
There are so many, and the gulls are so ingrained into the really rotten system that it is impossible to tell the knaves from the victims. Telling the difference is really irrelevant since the victims are some well roped into the very bad system.
2. Anjell response.
3. Editor’s response to Anjell.
4. The fake groups in general.
1. Introductory.
A few days ago, we provided an analysis of the destruction on the Charles in response to the Charles River Swim, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/charles-river-swim-in-context-of.html.
Our facebook page includes regular comments on responses to this blog.
2. Anjell response.
Anjell responded with the following comment:
Oh no, what plan have they 4 Magazine Beach-- the white geese live off the grass there so do the Canadian ones.! -- Bob plz keep us posted. --- thanks
3. Editor’s response to Anjell.
We are dealing with the same sick people who conducted the totally wasteful destruction of acres of virgin forest at Alewife along with mass animal killings. The only difference on the Charles River is the names used by the fake groups who cheerlead them, and those groups back each other up.
These people have been deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese for years. The geese have only survived through the saintliness of the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative. The state got this far through non stop lies, “We have no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese,” and the lies of fake groups claiming to be defending.
The starvation has been accomplished by the introduction of a bizarre wall of introduced bushes walling off access to Magazine Beach from the Charles River. The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” destroys all protective vegetation on the Charles twice a year except for this bizarre wall. Both actions serve the same purpose. Destroying the protective vegetation drives away migratory waterfowl (and the CRC poisons eggs every spring). Walling off Magazine Beach starves the Charles River White Geese. The holy grail, the lying Charles River Master Plan called for a lawn to the river. That was casually changed after the fact.
And the poisons being dumped to keep alive the sickly grass introduced in place of healthy grass, of course, has very negative effects as well.
The local fake group now strongly parallels the fake group which destroyed the core Alewife reservation. They have suddenly decided to protect Magazine Beach, but their protection includes lies through omission and lies through flat out censorship. They have even conducted a meeting in which they allowed people from the environmentally destructive, flat out lying, Department of Conservation and Recreation to say anything they want, and explicitly prohibited negative comments, mentioning the heartless animal abuse or the outrageous environmental destruction.
These frauds have taken up the next step of destruction while lying about concern for Magazine Beach, concern which continues suppression of discussion of the fully correctable destruction at Magazine Beach which is the real problem. They say the real problem is the next welfare project for contractors. And how dare you mention the little guys who use that picnic area they now want to destroy. And how dare you mention the condemnation as environmentally destructive by MassDOT of their beloved new highway in the Charles and on its banks.
4. The fake groups in general.
These fake groups with their lies of concern for what decent people are concerned about conduct very much non stop con operations in Cambridge. The con going on at Magazine Beach fits the sickness.
“Don’t look at what we are destroying, help us with the next level of destruction and we will omit the destructive part just as we censor the reality of our past destruction.”
So they fool concerned people into shafting the causes for which concerned people stand. The organization is massive. The organization gains credibility by false praise back and forth between members and their fellow destroyers.
There are so many, and the gulls are so ingrained into the really rotten system that it is impossible to tell the knaves from the victims. Telling the difference is really irrelevant since the victims are some well roped into the very bad system.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Third Monkey Dies At Harvard Research Facility
Exchange from facebook:
1. Ellen Schloss has posted the following on the facebook page:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/30545613/detail.html?treets=bos&tid=26513800601813&tml=bos_7am&tmi=bos_7am_1_06500102272012&ts=H
Third Monkey Dies At Harvard Research Facility
www.thebostonchannel.com
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- A dehydrated squirrel monkey died at a Harvard Medical School research facility in December, the third monkey to die at the New England Primate Research Center in 19 months. Sunday, February 26, 2012.
2. Editor's Response:
A very major part of the destruction of the environment and heartless animal abuse on the Charles can be traced back to Harvard's empire building.
As is usual with Harvard, you really have to understand what is going on.
3. Ellen:
they have way too much control of cambridge
4. Editor:
Excellent point and one we tend to ignore because the Harvard types are so pervasive, both on the responsible side and the irresponsible.
The empire building can specifically be traced to any number of outrageously destructive proposals and actions on the Charles River.
On the Charles, the goodies laden out, the benefits of destruction, are obviously spread out among the three key institutions with Harvard most important, but also, less visibly, among other developers.
Then there are the developer types who ALWAYS support the party line and sound so good.
1. Ellen Schloss has posted the following on the facebook page:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/30545613/detail.html?treets=bos&tid=26513800601813&tml=bos_7am&tmi=bos_7am_1_06500102272012&ts=H
Third Monkey Dies At Harvard Research Facility
www.thebostonchannel.com
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- A dehydrated squirrel monkey died at a Harvard Medical School research facility in December, the third monkey to die at the New England Primate Research Center in 19 months. Sunday, February 26, 2012.
2. Editor's Response:
A very major part of the destruction of the environment and heartless animal abuse on the Charles can be traced back to Harvard's empire building.
As is usual with Harvard, you really have to understand what is going on.
3. Ellen:
they have way too much control of cambridge
4. Editor:
Excellent point and one we tend to ignore because the Harvard types are so pervasive, both on the responsible side and the irresponsible.
The empire building can specifically be traced to any number of outrageously destructive proposals and actions on the Charles River.
On the Charles, the goodies laden out, the benefits of destruction, are obviously spread out among the three key institutions with Harvard most important, but also, less visibly, among other developers.
Then there are the developer types who ALWAYS support the party line and sound so good.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Charles River Swim in context of environmental destruction by the state and its fake groups
1. “Charles River Swim” announced.
2. “Charles River Swim” scheduled to avoid pollution of the Charles River created by environmental irresponsibility of the DCR.
3. Destruction of Magazine Beach playing fields follows the lead of the environmental destruction at Ebersol Fields.
4. Further destruction by the Charles River “Conservancy” and related.
5. Photo op by the Charles River “Conservancy.”
6. Further water related uses destroyed.
7. Two fake groups implement successful destruction tactics at Alewife to attack the Charles River.
1. “Charles River Swim” announced.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has posted an announcement from another non profit that registration for this year’s “Charles River Swim” is now open.
As usual when dealing with the destructive entities running around cheerleading efforts on the Charles River and related environmental targets, there is a key omission.
2. “Charles River Swim” scheduled to avoid pollution of the Charles River created by environmental irresponsibility of the DCR.
The key omission this time is the timing of the Charles River Swim. The Charles River Swim is supposed to celebrate the cleanliness of the Charles. The key omission is that the swim schedule has been moved forward to avoid contamination of the Charles by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
The contamination came about as part of one of the favorite activities of those involved: dumping poisons on the river banks.
There is a large group of ball fields on the South Side of the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. Without giving respect to a bunch of bureacratese, a good name to refer to them as is Ebersol Fields.
You see, the DCR, with its usual contempt for the environment dumped poisons on Ebersol Fields to keep sickly grass alive. The poisons did not work, so the DCR dumped poisons there which were marked not for use near water bodies.
The next day, the Charles River was dead, from the Massachusetts Avenue (aka Harvard) Bridge to the Harbor with an infestation of algae. This infestation is repeated annually.
Because of this infestation caused by the DCR, the Charles River is very much unswimmable during the infestation.
3. Destruction of Magazine Beach playing fields follows the lead of the environmental destruction at Ebersol Fields.
The outrageous series of contractor welfare projects at Magazine Beach follows the lead of Ebersol Fields. These contractor beneficial projects took playing fields which, according to all knowledgeable independent people I spoke with, did not need “improvement.”
So the DCR and Cambridge “improved” playing fields which did not need improvement.
They dug up seven acres of grass and dirt which had survived nicely without poisons for the better part of a century. They have replaced the seven acres or perfectly good environment with an inferior seven acres. The healthy grass was replaced with sickly stuff that cannot survive without poisons. To keep the poisons out of the Charles River, a significant part of the perfectly good playing fields were destroyed for a fancy drainage system. The fancy drainage system drains off poisons needed to keep alive grasses which should not even be there.
4. Further destruction by the Charles River “Conservancy” and related.
Almost immediately after the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” assumed responsibility for destruction of ground vegetation on the Charles River, the ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to its east came under attack.
Over the years, almost all the ground vegetation in this area not slated to be destroyed by the BU Bridge project was destroyed.
This is the area to which the DCR and Cambridge have consigned the Charles River White Geese when they barred the Charles River White Geese from Magazine Beach with the bizarre wall of introduced bushes and poisoned grass.
At the same time as the DCR did their first dig up of Magazine Beach with deliberate barriers installed, Cambridge walled off the riverbank east of the BU Boathouse. Supposedly this massive walling off was for a sewer project.
Supposedly, the timing of the sewer project to take away all the Charles River White Geese’s food was strictly a coincidence.
Cambridge and the DCR have destroyed hundreds if not thousands of resident animals as part of the bizarre Alewife project.
I have seen the shock on the face of members of the Boston Conservation Commission receiving a report of environmental destruction on the south side of the Charles River by the Charles River “Conservancy.”
The BU Bridge project was planned by the DCR. It was needlessly and deliberately cruel to the Charles River White Geese, destroying a significant part of the tiny ghetto to which the DCR and Cambridge assigned them.
5. Photo op by the Charles River “Conservancy.”
The fake group, the Charles River “Conservancy” conducted a photo opportunity during the destruction. They swam off Magazine Beach, bragging about swimming there.
The DCR and Cambridge have walled off Magazine Beach with a bizarre wall of introduced bushes which they lie are “native” but are certainly not native to the Charles River.
The Charles River Conservancy and its friends have yet to explain how dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River and walling off the Charles River from Magazine Beach assists in swimming off Magazine Beach.
6. Further water related uses destroyed.
The DCR claims it is concerned to keep water related uses on the Charles River. Another part of the project seems to have closed a boat ramp which was in use for the better part of a century.
The DCR publicly brags that it is killing off all animals living on the Charles River Basin. Naturally, they use euphemisms. The euphemism is parklands. Their definition of parklands is: “No resident animals need apply.”
The project manager has publicly bragged that the bizarre wall starves the Charles River White Geese, keeping them from grasses on which they have fed for the better part of the last 30 plus years.
The project manager previously has lied, repeatedly that he has no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese. The article printed in the Boston Globe when the destruction of Magazine Beach started quoted his lie.
He has more recently explained that, in his world, starving them is not harming them.
Starting in 2003, the Charles River “Conservancy” ran around the Charles River poisoning the eggs of as much migratory waterfowl as they can get away with.
Starting in 2003, the Charles River “Conservancy” has around destroying pretty much all protective vegetation lining the Charles River twice a year.
The only exception, the bizarre introduced wall at Magazine Beach.
There is a common factor. Destroying protective vegetation everywhere else drives away migratory waterfowl. Letting the bizarre wall at Magazine Beach grow and grow and grow starves the Charles River White Geese.
In the world of the DCR, Cambridge and their cheerleaders / destroyers, migratory waterfowl are not water related uses.
In the world of the DCR, Cambridge and their cheerleaders / destroyers, resident waterfowl are not water related uses.
In the world of the DCR, Cambridge and their cheerleaders / destroyers, the boat ramp they seem to have destroyed at Magazine Beach is not a water related uses.
7. Two fake groups implement successful destruction tactics at Alewife to attack the Charles River.
These facts are part of the facts which were shouted down by the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” during the public hearing in which they allowed representatives of this destructive DCR agency with truth problems to say whatever they wanted.
The two entities, the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” and the Charles River “Conservancy” have joined forces to “celebrate”: Magazine Beach, a celebration which bars discussion of the above but which glorifies the destruction of the picnic area west of the Magazine Beach playing fields, as usual, without mentioning the destruction.
They are following the lead of the very successful tactics used for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation by a related group which ran around “defending” Alewife for the past 15 years.
Don’t look at what we are destroying, look at us yelling our half truths falsely praising our future destruction.
2. “Charles River Swim” scheduled to avoid pollution of the Charles River created by environmental irresponsibility of the DCR.
3. Destruction of Magazine Beach playing fields follows the lead of the environmental destruction at Ebersol Fields.
4. Further destruction by the Charles River “Conservancy” and related.
5. Photo op by the Charles River “Conservancy.”
6. Further water related uses destroyed.
7. Two fake groups implement successful destruction tactics at Alewife to attack the Charles River.
1. “Charles River Swim” announced.
The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has posted an announcement from another non profit that registration for this year’s “Charles River Swim” is now open.
As usual when dealing with the destructive entities running around cheerleading efforts on the Charles River and related environmental targets, there is a key omission.
2. “Charles River Swim” scheduled to avoid pollution of the Charles River created by environmental irresponsibility of the DCR.
The key omission this time is the timing of the Charles River Swim. The Charles River Swim is supposed to celebrate the cleanliness of the Charles. The key omission is that the swim schedule has been moved forward to avoid contamination of the Charles by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
The contamination came about as part of one of the favorite activities of those involved: dumping poisons on the river banks.
There is a large group of ball fields on the South Side of the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. Without giving respect to a bunch of bureacratese, a good name to refer to them as is Ebersol Fields.
You see, the DCR, with its usual contempt for the environment dumped poisons on Ebersol Fields to keep sickly grass alive. The poisons did not work, so the DCR dumped poisons there which were marked not for use near water bodies.
The next day, the Charles River was dead, from the Massachusetts Avenue (aka Harvard) Bridge to the Harbor with an infestation of algae. This infestation is repeated annually.
Because of this infestation caused by the DCR, the Charles River is very much unswimmable during the infestation.
3. Destruction of Magazine Beach playing fields follows the lead of the environmental destruction at Ebersol Fields.
The outrageous series of contractor welfare projects at Magazine Beach follows the lead of Ebersol Fields. These contractor beneficial projects took playing fields which, according to all knowledgeable independent people I spoke with, did not need “improvement.”
So the DCR and Cambridge “improved” playing fields which did not need improvement.
They dug up seven acres of grass and dirt which had survived nicely without poisons for the better part of a century. They have replaced the seven acres or perfectly good environment with an inferior seven acres. The healthy grass was replaced with sickly stuff that cannot survive without poisons. To keep the poisons out of the Charles River, a significant part of the perfectly good playing fields were destroyed for a fancy drainage system. The fancy drainage system drains off poisons needed to keep alive grasses which should not even be there.
4. Further destruction by the Charles River “Conservancy” and related.
Almost immediately after the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” assumed responsibility for destruction of ground vegetation on the Charles River, the ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to its east came under attack.
Over the years, almost all the ground vegetation in this area not slated to be destroyed by the BU Bridge project was destroyed.
This is the area to which the DCR and Cambridge have consigned the Charles River White Geese when they barred the Charles River White Geese from Magazine Beach with the bizarre wall of introduced bushes and poisoned grass.
At the same time as the DCR did their first dig up of Magazine Beach with deliberate barriers installed, Cambridge walled off the riverbank east of the BU Boathouse. Supposedly this massive walling off was for a sewer project.
Supposedly, the timing of the sewer project to take away all the Charles River White Geese’s food was strictly a coincidence.
Cambridge and the DCR have destroyed hundreds if not thousands of resident animals as part of the bizarre Alewife project.
I have seen the shock on the face of members of the Boston Conservation Commission receiving a report of environmental destruction on the south side of the Charles River by the Charles River “Conservancy.”
The BU Bridge project was planned by the DCR. It was needlessly and deliberately cruel to the Charles River White Geese, destroying a significant part of the tiny ghetto to which the DCR and Cambridge assigned them.
5. Photo op by the Charles River “Conservancy.”
The fake group, the Charles River “Conservancy” conducted a photo opportunity during the destruction. They swam off Magazine Beach, bragging about swimming there.
The DCR and Cambridge have walled off Magazine Beach with a bizarre wall of introduced bushes which they lie are “native” but are certainly not native to the Charles River.
The Charles River Conservancy and its friends have yet to explain how dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles River and walling off the Charles River from Magazine Beach assists in swimming off Magazine Beach.
6. Further water related uses destroyed.
The DCR claims it is concerned to keep water related uses on the Charles River. Another part of the project seems to have closed a boat ramp which was in use for the better part of a century.
The DCR publicly brags that it is killing off all animals living on the Charles River Basin. Naturally, they use euphemisms. The euphemism is parklands. Their definition of parklands is: “No resident animals need apply.”
The project manager has publicly bragged that the bizarre wall starves the Charles River White Geese, keeping them from grasses on which they have fed for the better part of the last 30 plus years.
The project manager previously has lied, repeatedly that he has no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese. The article printed in the Boston Globe when the destruction of Magazine Beach started quoted his lie.
He has more recently explained that, in his world, starving them is not harming them.
Starting in 2003, the Charles River “Conservancy” ran around the Charles River poisoning the eggs of as much migratory waterfowl as they can get away with.
Starting in 2003, the Charles River “Conservancy” has around destroying pretty much all protective vegetation lining the Charles River twice a year.
The only exception, the bizarre introduced wall at Magazine Beach.
There is a common factor. Destroying protective vegetation everywhere else drives away migratory waterfowl. Letting the bizarre wall at Magazine Beach grow and grow and grow starves the Charles River White Geese.
In the world of the DCR, Cambridge and their cheerleaders / destroyers, migratory waterfowl are not water related uses.
In the world of the DCR, Cambridge and their cheerleaders / destroyers, resident waterfowl are not water related uses.
In the world of the DCR, Cambridge and their cheerleaders / destroyers, the boat ramp they seem to have destroyed at Magazine Beach is not a water related uses.
7. Two fake groups implement successful destruction tactics at Alewife to attack the Charles River.
These facts are part of the facts which were shouted down by the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” during the public hearing in which they allowed representatives of this destructive DCR agency with truth problems to say whatever they wanted.
The two entities, the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” and the Charles River “Conservancy” have joined forces to “celebrate”: Magazine Beach, a celebration which bars discussion of the above but which glorifies the destruction of the picnic area west of the Magazine Beach playing fields, as usual, without mentioning the destruction.
They are following the lead of the very successful tactics used for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation by a related group which ran around “defending” Alewife for the past 15 years.
Don’t look at what we are destroying, look at us yelling our half truths falsely praising our future destruction.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Cambridge Pols going ahead with destruction of picnic area west of Magazine Beach?
1. Report from lovely sounding group.
2. Background of lovely sounding group.
3. Funding for power house translates into chasing away minorities using the abutting picnic area?
4. Clarification.
1. Report from lovely sounding group.
It is always very tricky interpreting initiatives by the Cambridge Pols. Remember they have just destroyed a key part of Alewife running around “defending” Alewife.
As a result, the following entries in notes from the Annual Meeting of the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association are of interest:
*********
Treasurer Jay Shetterly reported that the organization had received grants in the past year amounting to about $5,500, much of it in support of the Powder House renovation.
Cathie Zusy gave updates on the Earth Day Clean-Up scheduled for April 21 at Magazine Beach and on the Powder House rehabilitation. Marilyn Wellons reported on a trip she made with Zusy and Nina Cohen to observe renovations at another powder house in Newburyport.
*********
Analysis in section 3. First the reality behind the lovely sounding group.
2. Background of lovely sounding group.
The “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” was created by request of the Cambridge City Manager’s people. By contrast, “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” or whatever they are calling themselves these days was created by a woman who wanted to create it after discussions with the Cambridge City Manager’s people.
The “CNA” organized itself around objecting to a conversion of Catholic Church property next to Dana Park on grounds that the proposal was too big. They had a victory. They made the project bigger.
The “CNA” repeatedly sent people to the fake Alewife group to defend Alewife until the fake group succeeded in destruction. Now the :CNA claims to have nothing to do with Alewife.
A fake environmental group connected to the “CNA” which calls itself Greenport gave a forum recently to the leader of the fake protective group achieving the destruction at Alewife. She bragged about the destruction.
The “CNA” assisted major destruction of zoning protections on the north side of Memorial Drive by telling people not to fight it. The advocates of this proposal, written by the Cambridge City Manager’s people, ran around telling people that the zoning protected the north side. They lied. It destroyed key protections on the north side.
The “CNA” brags about major benefits to the neighborhood in Memorial Drive zoning. After
a. They got caught destroying those zoning protection,
b. the developer of the targeted property got its major benefits, and
c. people realized they had been had,
the “CNA” undid what they got caught on, only what they got caught on. The “CNA” left a whole bunch of lovely fine print in the ordinance that was added by zoning that they helped pass.
The “CNA” held a recent meeting on Magazine Beach. There are very major problems on Magazine Beach. All have been created by city and state in the past 10 years, truly bizarre projects of benefit primarily to the people paid to do the outrages. The “CNA” presented representatives of the state agency who, with Cambridge, did the outrages.
The outrages include major environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese.
The “CNA” allowed the environmental destroyers, an agency with truth problems, to say whatever they wished. Part of their proposals would destroy a little picnic area east of Magazine Beach by destroying its parking.
The “CNA” then explicitly censored reality. Negative responses were prohibited.
The “CNA” then started a cheerleading group which "celebrated" the situation at Magazine Beach. The cheerleading group, neglected to mention the very real problems created by its friends and that the “CNA” had shouted down mention of the destruction at the “public meeting”.
The pattern of the cheerleading group is exactly the scam by which their friends at Alewife achieved very major destructions, with much more to come unless they are stopped, at Alewife.
3. Funding for power house translates into chasing away minorities using the abutting picnic area?
The quote in section 1 is taken from http://www.cctvcambridge.org/Cambridgeport_Neighbors_Annual_Meeting.
That announcement follows up on the censored meeting concerning Magazine Beach. The censored meeting at Magazine Beach included comments by the state agency that they want to close the tiny parking lot west of Magazine Beach which makes a small picnic area viable. The small picnic area is used by minorities from outside Cambridge.
Next to the small picnic area is the power house for which they have received renovation funds.
The machine and its bureaucrats commonly lie through omission.
Need we say what will happen to the picnic area?
Need we say what will happen to the little guys who need to drive to the destroyed parking lot to get to the picnic area.
Need we say what will happen to their tiny, environmentally sensitive parking area?
Need we say what the fake Cheerleading group will say about destroying the parking and thus destroying the picnic area?
Business as usual from the Cambridge Pols.
But the Cambridge Pol love minorities, except for Malvina Monteiro (that Appeals Court / Superior Court civil rights decision, among other things calling the Cambridge City Manager’s behavior “reprehensible”), of course, and except for minorities using that tiny picnic area, and except for who knows what other exception.
Business as usual from the Cambridge Pols.
4. Clarification.
The first post of this report described the targeted picnic area as EAST of Magazine Beach. It is WEST of Magazine Beach directly across from Magazine Street on the other side of Memorial Drive. Sorry about the typo.
Additionally, in my analysis of this particular fake / controlled group, I did not go into detail about the destruction they have hidden at Magazine Beach. I can only go into so much irresponsible behavior from these fake groups. I have opportunity to go into Magazine Beach in other reports. These other outrages are peripheral and are included in this report because otherwise they might not get included.
2. Background of lovely sounding group.
3. Funding for power house translates into chasing away minorities using the abutting picnic area?
4. Clarification.
1. Report from lovely sounding group.
It is always very tricky interpreting initiatives by the Cambridge Pols. Remember they have just destroyed a key part of Alewife running around “defending” Alewife.
As a result, the following entries in notes from the Annual Meeting of the “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association are of interest:
*********
Treasurer Jay Shetterly reported that the organization had received grants in the past year amounting to about $5,500, much of it in support of the Powder House renovation.
Cathie Zusy gave updates on the Earth Day Clean-Up scheduled for April 21 at Magazine Beach and on the Powder House rehabilitation. Marilyn Wellons reported on a trip she made with Zusy and Nina Cohen to observe renovations at another powder house in Newburyport.
*********
Analysis in section 3. First the reality behind the lovely sounding group.
2. Background of lovely sounding group.
The “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association” was created by request of the Cambridge City Manager’s people. By contrast, “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” or whatever they are calling themselves these days was created by a woman who wanted to create it after discussions with the Cambridge City Manager’s people.
The “CNA” organized itself around objecting to a conversion of Catholic Church property next to Dana Park on grounds that the proposal was too big. They had a victory. They made the project bigger.
The “CNA” repeatedly sent people to the fake Alewife group to defend Alewife until the fake group succeeded in destruction. Now the :CNA claims to have nothing to do with Alewife.
A fake environmental group connected to the “CNA” which calls itself Greenport gave a forum recently to the leader of the fake protective group achieving the destruction at Alewife. She bragged about the destruction.
The “CNA” assisted major destruction of zoning protections on the north side of Memorial Drive by telling people not to fight it. The advocates of this proposal, written by the Cambridge City Manager’s people, ran around telling people that the zoning protected the north side. They lied. It destroyed key protections on the north side.
The “CNA” brags about major benefits to the neighborhood in Memorial Drive zoning. After
a. They got caught destroying those zoning protection,
b. the developer of the targeted property got its major benefits, and
c. people realized they had been had,
the “CNA” undid what they got caught on, only what they got caught on. The “CNA” left a whole bunch of lovely fine print in the ordinance that was added by zoning that they helped pass.
The “CNA” held a recent meeting on Magazine Beach. There are very major problems on Magazine Beach. All have been created by city and state in the past 10 years, truly bizarre projects of benefit primarily to the people paid to do the outrages. The “CNA” presented representatives of the state agency who, with Cambridge, did the outrages.
The outrages include major environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese.
The “CNA” allowed the environmental destroyers, an agency with truth problems, to say whatever they wished. Part of their proposals would destroy a little picnic area east of Magazine Beach by destroying its parking.
The “CNA” then explicitly censored reality. Negative responses were prohibited.
The “CNA” then started a cheerleading group which "celebrated" the situation at Magazine Beach. The cheerleading group, neglected to mention the very real problems created by its friends and that the “CNA” had shouted down mention of the destruction at the “public meeting”.
The pattern of the cheerleading group is exactly the scam by which their friends at Alewife achieved very major destructions, with much more to come unless they are stopped, at Alewife.
3. Funding for power house translates into chasing away minorities using the abutting picnic area?
The quote in section 1 is taken from http://www.cctvcambridge.org/Cambridgeport_Neighbors_Annual_Meeting.
That announcement follows up on the censored meeting concerning Magazine Beach. The censored meeting at Magazine Beach included comments by the state agency that they want to close the tiny parking lot west of Magazine Beach which makes a small picnic area viable. The small picnic area is used by minorities from outside Cambridge.
Next to the small picnic area is the power house for which they have received renovation funds.
The machine and its bureaucrats commonly lie through omission.
Need we say what will happen to the picnic area?
Need we say what will happen to the little guys who need to drive to the destroyed parking lot to get to the picnic area.
Need we say what will happen to their tiny, environmentally sensitive parking area?
Need we say what the fake Cheerleading group will say about destroying the parking and thus destroying the picnic area?
Business as usual from the Cambridge Pols.
But the Cambridge Pol love minorities, except for Malvina Monteiro (that Appeals Court / Superior Court civil rights decision, among other things calling the Cambridge City Manager’s behavior “reprehensible”), of course, and except for minorities using that tiny picnic area, and except for who knows what other exception.
Business as usual from the Cambridge Pols.
4. Clarification.
The first post of this report described the targeted picnic area as EAST of Magazine Beach. It is WEST of Magazine Beach directly across from Magazine Street on the other side of Memorial Drive. Sorry about the typo.
Additionally, in my analysis of this particular fake / controlled group, I did not go into detail about the destruction they have hidden at Magazine Beach. I can only go into so much irresponsible behavior from these fake groups. I have opportunity to go into Magazine Beach in other reports. These other outrages are peripheral and are included in this report because otherwise they might not get included.
Friday, February 24, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
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).
This report is based on the listings / links on boston.com (Boston Globe).
Sunday, February 19, 2012
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:
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.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, February 17, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)