Cambridge Rent Control Property Manager on Rent Control; The Current Position of “Activists”
1. Excellent Column.
2. Company unions domination of the post rent control tenant scene.
1. Excellent Column.
This week’s Cambridge Chronicle features a striking op end on Rent Control in Cambridge by a manager of a ten unit building under Rent Control. He says that by playing the system by its rules, he and others like him were allowed maximum rents for his units which nearly tripled the owner’s income. He refers to the operation of rent control as the model of fairness.
The article is: Phillip Barber: Rent Control was a fair solution to Cambridge’s unique problem. It is posted at http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20141119/NEWS/141116096/2011/OPINION.
His key comment reads: “
**********
Rent control was never about subsidizing the rents of individual tenants. Its intent was to protect the rental housing stock in Cambridge from the destabilizing effects of real estate speculation . . .
**********
This is a very astute short analysis of the situation. It functions as a shortened presentation of the Supreme Judicial Court analysis in the 70s by which the SJC found Rent Control legal.
The SJC very clearly dictated that the minute rent control became a subsidy, Rent Control was illegal as a taking of the landlords’ property.
For this reason, the landlords’ line was that Rent Control was a subsidy for tenants.
2. Company unions domination of the post rent control tenant scene.
The minute rent control died, the people controlling the tenant movement from the shadows adopted the landlords’ position on rent control.
They, and their front organizations, immediately declared that rent control is a subsidy. They inserted a demand that Rent Control be a subsidy into two reinstatement referenda which were rendered illegal by the presence of such a demand in the petitions.
Just another problem with “protective organizations” in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA in recent decades.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Charles River: Mass. Pike project runs commuter rail up Grand Junction as it sits now.
Charles River: Mass. Pike project runs commuter rail up Grand Junction as it sits now.
I. Introduction.
II. Transmittal.
III. Letter of comment.
1. Introduction.
2. The Viaduct.
a. Southern Boundary.
b. Northern Boundary.
3. The main part of the proposal.
a. General.
b. Commuter rail layover yard.
c. West Station.
d. Green Line A Spur.
4. Summary.
I. Introduction.
It is amazing how these various projects interrelate.
I attended two environmental review meetings in the last week, South Station expansion and Mass. Pike rebuilding.
The South Station expansion sounds like an expansion, but it sunk in to me that the expansion is viewed as the furthest that South Station can go. The planners figure that no further expansion of traffic to South Station is possible after this one
That, however, has a caveat. If you cannot further expand to the south, what are the alternatives?
The alternative that impacts the Charles River is the forcing of new trains over the Charles River and the Grand Junction with all the environmental nightmares involved, as a result of the Mass. Pike reorganization subject to the limits in the South Station expansion..
And all new service would wind up going to North Station.
I have filed an ENF comment on the Mass. Pike work and reproduce it below, adding the Internet standard index.
I commend MassDOT for their handling of the rebuilding of the raised portion (viaduct) of the Mass. Pike.
The comment expands on my ideas for a Green Line A route to service North Allston. It proposes areas to be set aside for Green Line A, and additional area for expansion of South Station layover in the future rather than the “We can’t do more” mentality. My comment objects to the new West Station now proposed as part of the Mass. Pike rebuilding for multiple reasons, including the apparent mandatory use of the Grand Junction for all new train service west or south.
The solution to the overload problem at South Station is to expand South Station in such a way as to work to avoid overload in the future. In this document, going over that alternative is not appropriate.
I will put out my South Station Comment in the next week.
Possible added room can be created in South Station by adding one or two tracks closer to Fort Point Channel, and rearranging a choke point at the railroad entrance to South Station.
Larger scale change is proposed by the North - South Rail folks. To alleviate the overload problem, their proposal makes sense.
The first step, and it has to be in the South Station expansion project, is to build two levels of track as part of the expansion of South Station, the level currently existing (proposed by the expansion project) and another level below it.
Doing this now would avoid the overload currently imminent. I would hope the lower level could be expanded in the future under existing tracks.
In order to get into the lower level, a deep bore track would have to be created in the future for access. It would seem to have to come from from the direction of Back Bay Station. The North - South Connector could alleviate a need for further expansion of South Station by routing trains as possible through to North Station.
This is looking increasingly like the only responsible alternative.
The following sections are my transmittal letter and the actual comments. Because of the greater flexibility possible on the blog, the attachments will be inserted into the document copy below.
II. Transmittal.
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us
RE: I90 Allston Interchange Project, EEA #15278, ENF Comments
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Enclosed are three documents, in combination constituting my comments on the Environmental Notification Form on the I90 Allston Interchange Project.
Enclosed are my comments and two attachments. One concerns a possible Green Line A spur which could be impacted by this project. The other concerns the highways impacted by the only currently available route for commuter rail out of West Station, should the current plans for South Station persist.
I hope I got the Secretary’s name correctly. I am afraid that I did not copy it down on Thursday evening, and the on line information has a distressing lack of information as to the identity of the Secretary.
III. Letter of comment.
November 22, 2014
Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Holly Johnson, EEA #15278
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us
RE: I90 Allston Interchange Project
Madame Secretary:
1. Introduction.
I am writing individually and as chair of Friends of the White Geese, a Massachusett Not Profit organized in 2001 with the purpose of protecting the environment and animals of the Charles River and related matters.
I myself have two years of on the ground experience in railroad operations. I have, as part of my railroad position, observed railroad operations first hand from Boston almost to Washington, DC, varying between freight and passenger service. I have major experience in working on transit planning matters in the Boston / Cambridge area over nearly 40 years.
I proposed the Kenmore Crossing on the Urban Ring subway concept five years before it was officially adopted by the MBTA as a recognized alternative route in 1991.
I have major environmental experience. In the last 15 years, this has been on Charles River and related matters. I rather clearly have prevented a mass animal killing in that location.
In the last 40 years I have used my legal training for the benefit of the environment in Cambridge.
I obtained a preliminary injunction on appeal, next to impossible, in a temporarily successful effort to protect one of the best parks in the middle of Cambridge, including more than 20 one hundred year old trees.
I have written more successful zoning changes in Cambridge than any other person not employed by the City of Cambridge. I have used zoning as a tool to force environmental protection on very major parts of the City of Cambridge. My zoning changes have required ground floor open space and more housing on about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue in the area between Harvard and Central Squares and portions of adjacent side streets. My zoning changes allowed fairly large buildings on Mass. Ave. while maintaining environmental protections and protections for neighbors.
The building at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Harvard Street in east Harvard Square, formerly known as the Inn at Harvard was one of my big victories. Harvard wanted that building to be 72% larger and built to the sidewalk. The City Council disagreed. About a block away, I saved the 19th Century building at the corner of Banks and Mt. Auburn Streets from destruction by Harvard using fine print in the Cambridge Rent Control Ordinance. Saving that building probably was key in the retention of the historical character in this, the Kerry Corner neighborhood.
The first two blocks north of Harvard Law School were also downzoned by a petition written by me.
There is a former parking lot between Alewife Station and Route 2 which is being returned to nature as a result of another zoning change I wrote. This is the only meaningful environmental victory in the Alewife area in spite of a Cambridge related group which claims to be protecting Alewife.
2. The Viaduct.
MassDOT is to be commended in its efforts in the planning of the replacement of this structure. There are two key factors for which it deserves praise.
a. Southern Boundary.
It is my understanding that the southern boundary of the viaduct will be rebuilt in place. This is excellent because it retains the possibility of running a Green Line spur off Green Line B just west of the BU Bridge which could connect to Harvard Square with stops at Boston University, Harvard Medical School, North Harvard and Cambridge Street, North Harvard and Franklin Street, and at Harvard’s Business School / Stadium. A proposed map is attached.
[ed: As relevant, the proposal has operating commuter rail tracks to the right of the triangle with West Station vertically in the middle to the far right. Left of these tracks is the commuter rail layover yard with the Mass. Pike to the left of the layover yard. My proposal calls for added layover tracks to the left of the Mass. Pike and streetcar layover to the left of that. This explanation deliberately omits other uses in the area.]
I have published photos of the area where the Green Line spur could go at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-green-line-streetcar-light-rail.html. .
Clearly, building a streetcar line in this area would be close to Boston University buildings, but no building need be harmed, plus Boston University would get a stop at the level of their plaza in the new residential housing behind their sports arena, and would get convenient transportation to and from Harvard Square.
On the Harvard Square end, the streetcar line could connect into the existing Harvard Station complex in a subway tunnel which remains from the days when Red Line trains were stored between Harvard Square and Memorial Drive. Direct connection to the busway would be simple since the only separation is a not overly thick wall.
By contrast, Harvard University’s proposal is for a horribly expensive deep bore Red Line spur with one stop, the Medical School, between Harvard Square and the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area. It is expensive and bizarre. The Harvard proposal would require rebuilding of the existing Harvard Station.
b. Northern Boundary.
Environmentally destructive people have argued for connections to the Grand Junction railroad bridge which would be environmentally destructive on the Cambridge side of the Grand Junction bridge. MassDOT has been wise to reject this proposal.
Of major interest is the timing of Harvard’s purchase of the forthcoming Harvard Medical School area. Harvard’s purchase came a few months after the MBTA proved that the Grand Junction railroad bridge could be used for an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge.
Major environmental destruction has been achieved and is planned on the Cambridge side making room for this bridge in place of the ongoing stalking horse argued for. Segmentation and dishonesty by people who do not show their faces.
3. The main part of the proposal.
a. General.
I was generally happy / not greatly questioning this area until I attended the environmental meeting on Tuesday evening, November 18, concerning the South Station expansion.
It became clear during that meeting that the planners are expanding to add South Coast trains ONLY. They see no room for expansion beyond that. The plans at South Station are thus for a total end of transit expansion to the south.
That I find shocking. That directly impacts my thinking with regard to the main part of the Mass. Pike work.
b. Commuter rail layover yard.
The South Station planners’ position on the layover yard proposed as part of the Massachusetts Turnpike Allston facility is that they can live with it for layover of trains from the west. The mentality here exactly fits their mentality at South Station. They can survive with the layover yard as proposed. It is nothing great and it leaves no room for expansion, but they can live with it.
As far as they are concerned the current expansion effort is the end of expansion of South Station service, and thus there would be no value for larger layover service.
The South Station planners are of the understanding that the layover yard has to be located between the relocated Massachusetts Turnpike and the residential neighborhood.
The South Station planners have not even thought of splitting the layover yard with the proposed part between the Mass. Pike and the neighborhood and with additional layover yard space on the far side of the Mass. Pike, to allow expansion in the future.
The South Station planners apparently are aware of the plans for the primary area but do not have an understanding of its relationship to the viaduct. The tracks from South Station come in to the primary area from under the viaduct.
Creating a switch under the viaduct so that layover trains could be directed to layover tracks on either side of the relocated ground level Mass. Pike would be simple.
Easy and effective, and in sharp contrast to a situation which I hope will be corrected at South Station, allows for future expansion, this would allow further expansion of rail service at South Station.
c. West Station.
This, along with at least one other station, is being sold as some sort of improvement to transit facilities available to the neighborhood.
This, to me, makes no sense to the neighborhood. The neighbors have not had a meaningful explanation of the very severe limits of commuter rail. Commuter rail service normally is almost totally rush hour service, Monday to Friday.
The hours availability and accessability limits of West Station are such that folks are very much not likely to use West Station. They will find preferably bus transportation to rapid transit at Harvard Square, Central Square and Allston Village more convenient and ALWAYS available at least by bus.
Additionally, the planning mentality at South Station makes it unlikely that South Station will be able to receive the new traffic. Thus the only viable route for West Station traffic would be through Cambridge. The Cambridge route is environmentally destructive, and destructive to the existing traffic because of its blocking of multiple major roads in Cambridge. I am enclosing a map of the conflicts. This is a map of the Grand Junction in Cambridge prepared by MIT. I have added arrows pointing out the major roads which would be directly impacted.
MassDOT has studied passenger service on the Cambridge route and found passenger service on this route of no value to any location except for Kendall Square.
Since there is no other apparent route which West Station traffic would use, failure to evaluate environmental impacts of trains being serviced by West Station is very clearly segmentation.
d. Green Line A Spur.
Looking at the destructive aspects of the South Station failure to allow for expansion causes me to get more concerned about the failure to allow for streetcar service.
A Green Line A spur, as described in my map, is exactly what is being promised to the neighborhood by West Station. The major difference is that a Green Line spur will readily work to provide the service which North Allston needs. My map is based on MassDOT’s early depiction of the proposal area.
The big problem with the Mass. Pike proposal is that it leaves no room for Green Line service in the main part of the work effort in the future. Failure to allow for real rapid transit in the main part of the area could possibly stick North Allston with a silly West Station and Harvard’s bizarre deep bore Red Line spur with only one stop between Harvard Square and the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area.
Two things are necessary to properly support a Green Line A spur.
(a) An area set aside for layover yard of their own located adjacent to the expansion of the South Station layover yard on the Cambridge Street side of the relocated Mass. Pike.
(b) Preliminary tunnel construction under the work area, plus allowance at the West Station site, with or without West Station.
A station would be appropriate for the Harvard Medical School area. If West Station is built, combining the Green Line A station and West Station would probably be a good idea. Tunnels should be built as necessary under the new streets and coming buildings AS PART OF THIS PROJECT to allow construction of the Green Line A.
The West Station location for the Harvard Medical School stop would complement a station at Cambridge Street and North Harvard, so that one location is convenient for the side of the construction toward Commonwealth Avenue and the other location is convenient for North Allston. Underground streetcar transportation would also allow a station at North Harvard and Franklin, closer to the residential neighborhood.
Future streetcar rapid transit construction is the sensible way to go.
Failure to include these minimal efforts to support a future Green Line A could kill it in favor of the bizarre Harvard proposal.
4. Summary.
The proposal is generally excellent.
The planning for the viaduct is superb.
The planning for the main area should be modified to expand the commuter rail layover yard so that it has tracks on both sides of the relocated Mass. Pike, plus a layover area for Green Line A streetcars. The main area should include preliminary tunneling to allow Green Line A to be built in those tunnels later. And the North Station concept, with or without North Station should allow for Green Line A, although a great deal of expense could be eliminated by eliminating North Station.
Thank you for your kind consideration. In particular, I am strongly impressed with the professionalism of both MassDOT teams, here and at South Station.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
1. Green Line A Spur, based on preliminary project mapping.
2. Conflicts of Passenger rail in Cambridge, based on MIT’s map of a proposal for an interim (interim not mentioned) Grand Junction small vehicle highway.
I. Introduction.
II. Transmittal.
III. Letter of comment.
1. Introduction.
2. The Viaduct.
a. Southern Boundary.
b. Northern Boundary.
3. The main part of the proposal.
a. General.
b. Commuter rail layover yard.
c. West Station.
d. Green Line A Spur.
4. Summary.
I. Introduction.
It is amazing how these various projects interrelate.
I attended two environmental review meetings in the last week, South Station expansion and Mass. Pike rebuilding.
The South Station expansion sounds like an expansion, but it sunk in to me that the expansion is viewed as the furthest that South Station can go. The planners figure that no further expansion of traffic to South Station is possible after this one
That, however, has a caveat. If you cannot further expand to the south, what are the alternatives?
The alternative that impacts the Charles River is the forcing of new trains over the Charles River and the Grand Junction with all the environmental nightmares involved, as a result of the Mass. Pike reorganization subject to the limits in the South Station expansion..
And all new service would wind up going to North Station.
I have filed an ENF comment on the Mass. Pike work and reproduce it below, adding the Internet standard index.
I commend MassDOT for their handling of the rebuilding of the raised portion (viaduct) of the Mass. Pike.
The comment expands on my ideas for a Green Line A route to service North Allston. It proposes areas to be set aside for Green Line A, and additional area for expansion of South Station layover in the future rather than the “We can’t do more” mentality. My comment objects to the new West Station now proposed as part of the Mass. Pike rebuilding for multiple reasons, including the apparent mandatory use of the Grand Junction for all new train service west or south.
The solution to the overload problem at South Station is to expand South Station in such a way as to work to avoid overload in the future. In this document, going over that alternative is not appropriate.
I will put out my South Station Comment in the next week.
Possible added room can be created in South Station by adding one or two tracks closer to Fort Point Channel, and rearranging a choke point at the railroad entrance to South Station.
Larger scale change is proposed by the North - South Rail folks. To alleviate the overload problem, their proposal makes sense.
The first step, and it has to be in the South Station expansion project, is to build two levels of track as part of the expansion of South Station, the level currently existing (proposed by the expansion project) and another level below it.
Doing this now would avoid the overload currently imminent. I would hope the lower level could be expanded in the future under existing tracks.
In order to get into the lower level, a deep bore track would have to be created in the future for access. It would seem to have to come from from the direction of Back Bay Station. The North - South Connector could alleviate a need for further expansion of South Station by routing trains as possible through to North Station.
This is looking increasingly like the only responsible alternative.
The following sections are my transmittal letter and the actual comments. Because of the greater flexibility possible on the blog, the attachments will be inserted into the document copy below.
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us
RE: I90 Allston Interchange Project, EEA #15278, ENF Comments
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Enclosed are three documents, in combination constituting my comments on the Environmental Notification Form on the I90 Allston Interchange Project.
Enclosed are my comments and two attachments. One concerns a possible Green Line A spur which could be impacted by this project. The other concerns the highways impacted by the only currently available route for commuter rail out of West Station, should the current plans for South Station persist.
I hope I got the Secretary’s name correctly. I am afraid that I did not copy it down on Thursday evening, and the on line information has a distressing lack of information as to the identity of the Secretary.
III. Letter of comment.
November 22, 2014
Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Holly Johnson, EEA #15278
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
holly.s.johnson@state.ma.us
RE: I90 Allston Interchange Project
Madame Secretary:
1. Introduction.
I am writing individually and as chair of Friends of the White Geese, a Massachusett Not Profit organized in 2001 with the purpose of protecting the environment and animals of the Charles River and related matters.
I myself have two years of on the ground experience in railroad operations. I have, as part of my railroad position, observed railroad operations first hand from Boston almost to Washington, DC, varying between freight and passenger service. I have major experience in working on transit planning matters in the Boston / Cambridge area over nearly 40 years.
I proposed the Kenmore Crossing on the Urban Ring subway concept five years before it was officially adopted by the MBTA as a recognized alternative route in 1991.
I have major environmental experience. In the last 15 years, this has been on Charles River and related matters. I rather clearly have prevented a mass animal killing in that location.
In the last 40 years I have used my legal training for the benefit of the environment in Cambridge.
I obtained a preliminary injunction on appeal, next to impossible, in a temporarily successful effort to protect one of the best parks in the middle of Cambridge, including more than 20 one hundred year old trees.
I have written more successful zoning changes in Cambridge than any other person not employed by the City of Cambridge. I have used zoning as a tool to force environmental protection on very major parts of the City of Cambridge. My zoning changes have required ground floor open space and more housing on about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue in the area between Harvard and Central Squares and portions of adjacent side streets. My zoning changes allowed fairly large buildings on Mass. Ave. while maintaining environmental protections and protections for neighbors.
The building at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Harvard Street in east Harvard Square, formerly known as the Inn at Harvard was one of my big victories. Harvard wanted that building to be 72% larger and built to the sidewalk. The City Council disagreed. About a block away, I saved the 19th Century building at the corner of Banks and Mt. Auburn Streets from destruction by Harvard using fine print in the Cambridge Rent Control Ordinance. Saving that building probably was key in the retention of the historical character in this, the Kerry Corner neighborhood.
The first two blocks north of Harvard Law School were also downzoned by a petition written by me.
There is a former parking lot between Alewife Station and Route 2 which is being returned to nature as a result of another zoning change I wrote. This is the only meaningful environmental victory in the Alewife area in spite of a Cambridge related group which claims to be protecting Alewife.
2. The Viaduct.
MassDOT is to be commended in its efforts in the planning of the replacement of this structure. There are two key factors for which it deserves praise.
a. Southern Boundary.
It is my understanding that the southern boundary of the viaduct will be rebuilt in place. This is excellent because it retains the possibility of running a Green Line spur off Green Line B just west of the BU Bridge which could connect to Harvard Square with stops at Boston University, Harvard Medical School, North Harvard and Cambridge Street, North Harvard and Franklin Street, and at Harvard’s Business School / Stadium. A proposed map is attached.
[ed: As relevant, the proposal has operating commuter rail tracks to the right of the triangle with West Station vertically in the middle to the far right. Left of these tracks is the commuter rail layover yard with the Mass. Pike to the left of the layover yard. My proposal calls for added layover tracks to the left of the Mass. Pike and streetcar layover to the left of that. This explanation deliberately omits other uses in the area.]
I have published photos of the area where the Green Line spur could go at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-green-line-streetcar-light-rail.html. .
Clearly, building a streetcar line in this area would be close to Boston University buildings, but no building need be harmed, plus Boston University would get a stop at the level of their plaza in the new residential housing behind their sports arena, and would get convenient transportation to and from Harvard Square.
On the Harvard Square end, the streetcar line could connect into the existing Harvard Station complex in a subway tunnel which remains from the days when Red Line trains were stored between Harvard Square and Memorial Drive. Direct connection to the busway would be simple since the only separation is a not overly thick wall.
By contrast, Harvard University’s proposal is for a horribly expensive deep bore Red Line spur with one stop, the Medical School, between Harvard Square and the Longwood / Harvard Medical Area. It is expensive and bizarre. The Harvard proposal would require rebuilding of the existing Harvard Station.
b. Northern Boundary.
Environmentally destructive people have argued for connections to the Grand Junction railroad bridge which would be environmentally destructive on the Cambridge side of the Grand Junction bridge. MassDOT has been wise to reject this proposal.
Of major interest is the timing of Harvard’s purchase of the forthcoming Harvard Medical School area. Harvard’s purchase came a few months after the MBTA proved that the Grand Junction railroad bridge could be used for an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge.
Major environmental destruction has been achieved and is planned on the Cambridge side making room for this bridge in place of the ongoing stalking horse argued for. Segmentation and dishonesty by people who do not show their faces.
3. The main part of the proposal.
a. General.
I was generally happy / not greatly questioning this area until I attended the environmental meeting on Tuesday evening, November 18, concerning the South Station expansion.
It became clear during that meeting that the planners are expanding to add South Coast trains ONLY. They see no room for expansion beyond that. The plans at South Station are thus for a total end of transit expansion to the south.
That I find shocking. That directly impacts my thinking with regard to the main part of the Mass. Pike work.
b. Commuter rail layover yard.
The South Station planners’ position on the layover yard proposed as part of the Massachusetts Turnpike Allston facility is that they can live with it for layover of trains from the west. The mentality here exactly fits their mentality at South Station. They can survive with the layover yard as proposed. It is nothing great and it leaves no room for expansion, but they can live with it.
As far as they are concerned the current expansion effort is the end of expansion of South Station service, and thus there would be no value for larger layover service.
The South Station planners are of the understanding that the layover yard has to be located between the relocated Massachusetts Turnpike and the residential neighborhood.
The South Station planners have not even thought of splitting the layover yard with the proposed part between the Mass. Pike and the neighborhood and with additional layover yard space on the far side of the Mass. Pike, to allow expansion in the future.
The South Station planners apparently are aware of the plans for the primary area but do not have an understanding of its relationship to the viaduct. The tracks from South Station come in to the primary area from under the viaduct.
Creating a switch under the viaduct so that layover trains could be directed to layover tracks on either side of the relocated ground level Mass. Pike would be simple.
Easy and effective, and in sharp contrast to a situation which I hope will be corrected at South Station, allows for future expansion, this would allow further expansion of rail service at South Station.
c. West Station.
This, along with at least one other station, is being sold as some sort of improvement to transit facilities available to the neighborhood.
This, to me, makes no sense to the neighborhood. The neighbors have not had a meaningful explanation of the very severe limits of commuter rail. Commuter rail service normally is almost totally rush hour service, Monday to Friday.
The hours availability and accessability limits of West Station are such that folks are very much not likely to use West Station. They will find preferably bus transportation to rapid transit at Harvard Square, Central Square and Allston Village more convenient and ALWAYS available at least by bus.
Additionally, the planning mentality at South Station makes it unlikely that South Station will be able to receive the new traffic. Thus the only viable route for West Station traffic would be through Cambridge. The Cambridge route is environmentally destructive, and destructive to the existing traffic because of its blocking of multiple major roads in Cambridge. I am enclosing a map of the conflicts. This is a map of the Grand Junction in Cambridge prepared by MIT. I have added arrows pointing out the major roads which would be directly impacted.
MassDOT has studied passenger service on the Cambridge route and found passenger service on this route of no value to any location except for Kendall Square.
Since there is no other apparent route which West Station traffic would use, failure to evaluate environmental impacts of trains being serviced by West Station is very clearly segmentation.
d. Green Line A Spur.
Looking at the destructive aspects of the South Station failure to allow for expansion causes me to get more concerned about the failure to allow for streetcar service.
A Green Line A spur, as described in my map, is exactly what is being promised to the neighborhood by West Station. The major difference is that a Green Line spur will readily work to provide the service which North Allston needs. My map is based on MassDOT’s early depiction of the proposal area.
The big problem with the Mass. Pike proposal is that it leaves no room for Green Line service in the main part of the work effort in the future. Failure to allow for real rapid transit in the main part of the area could possibly stick North Allston with a silly West Station and Harvard’s bizarre deep bore Red Line spur with only one stop between Harvard Square and the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area.
Two things are necessary to properly support a Green Line A spur.
(a) An area set aside for layover yard of their own located adjacent to the expansion of the South Station layover yard on the Cambridge Street side of the relocated Mass. Pike.
(b) Preliminary tunnel construction under the work area, plus allowance at the West Station site, with or without West Station.
A station would be appropriate for the Harvard Medical School area. If West Station is built, combining the Green Line A station and West Station would probably be a good idea. Tunnels should be built as necessary under the new streets and coming buildings AS PART OF THIS PROJECT to allow construction of the Green Line A.
The West Station location for the Harvard Medical School stop would complement a station at Cambridge Street and North Harvard, so that one location is convenient for the side of the construction toward Commonwealth Avenue and the other location is convenient for North Allston. Underground streetcar transportation would also allow a station at North Harvard and Franklin, closer to the residential neighborhood.
Future streetcar rapid transit construction is the sensible way to go.
Failure to include these minimal efforts to support a future Green Line A could kill it in favor of the bizarre Harvard proposal.
4. Summary.
The proposal is generally excellent.
The planning for the viaduct is superb.
The planning for the main area should be modified to expand the commuter rail layover yard so that it has tracks on both sides of the relocated Mass. Pike, plus a layover area for Green Line A streetcars. The main area should include preliminary tunneling to allow Green Line A to be built in those tunnels later. And the North Station concept, with or without North Station should allow for Green Line A, although a great deal of expense could be eliminated by eliminating North Station.
Thank you for your kind consideration. In particular, I am strongly impressed with the professionalism of both MassDOT teams, here and at South Station.
Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille
1. Green Line A Spur, based on preliminary project mapping.
2. Conflicts of Passenger rail in Cambridge, based on MIT’s map of a proposal for an interim (interim not mentioned) Grand Junction small vehicle highway.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 6, photos: place of rape, murder, environment, and mass tree destruction
Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 6, photos: place of rape, murder, environment, and mass tree destruction
1. Introduction.
2. Reality, a reprehensible government, and its friends.
3. The on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge.
4. Formerly vegetated area.
5. Subsequent destruction.
6. The location of the rape.
7. The location of the murder.
8. The location the Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing, and the reason they did not want to know where the rape and murder occurred.
9. The location where the key killer came from.
10. Punishment (?) of other guilty.
11. Prior segments of this analysis.
1. Introduction.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show with my presence.
A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplice.
This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. Reality, a reprehensible government, and its friends.
Yesterday, November 16, 2014, I went to the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River has been confined without food.
This area, even after its destruction for the Department of Conservation and Recreation by Boston University remained lush and green. BU destroyed the native vegetation and created a lawn, but they did not destroy all of the vegetation. The edges remained heavily vegetated and were used for nesting.
The middle had grass sewn and a silly cinder path created.
As part of the outrage, two openings were illegally created by Boston University. I say “illegally” because, after denying the destruction for six months, Boston University was condemned for it by the Cambridge Conservation Commission. Then Boston University proceeded to brag of it. It was accomplished by an illegal agreement between Boston University and the DCR.
3. The on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge.
Here is the photo of the main entrance at the BU Bridge and the on ramp to Memorial Drive.
It has been brought to the attention of the DCR that there is food across the ramp, and they cannot allow the Charles River White Geese to have food. After all, their sanctified formal admission of vileness, the Charles River Master Plan, calls for killing or driving away all resident animals.
So the DCR has blocked off that entrance.
They cannot allow the Charles River White Geese to have food.
Here is the ramp the Charles River White Geese used to carefully cross to get food. They are good jaywalkers. They look both ways before crossing. Their trouble is that they are geese and they do tend to dawdle.
The drivers like all decent people familiar with them, love them. They stand patiently waiting for these beautiful beings to carefully cross.
The magnificent tree is another excellent piece of evidence of the DCR and Cambridge’s vileness. Ch. 286, of the Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways” calls for $20 million for the DCR, with Cambridge’s “neutrality” that has no business being neutrality, to destroy this excellent tree and hundreds more like it.
And I could go on about the Cambridge participation in this outrage. This analysis is long enough.
Here is another view of the photo from the last segment, giving the human opinion of “neutrality” in the face of vileness.
4. Formerly vegetated area.
Boston University left much lush ground vegetation. The DCR used the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” to do environmental destruction for them.
These are the guys, under their original name, who filed the ONLY complaint against the Charles River White Geese produced by the DCR in response to our freedom of information request. That demand letter got from the DCR this nonsense from the CRC plus a letter from the DCR asking for the letter that the CRC wrote.
The CRC destroyed as much ground vegetation as they could get away with, realizing that the DCR anticipated massive destruction for work on the BU Bridge.
All of the areas in these photos were lush with ground vegetation ad the time of the killing of mother geese on their nests. The first destruction was by Boston University. The second destruction finished the job of the first, except for a very limited amount of native vegetation not destroyed by either.
Further outrages occurred that year on a much more organized scale. In particular a large panel of wood which protected a nest was take away. That could not have been done by one person. The mother goose “disappeared” defending her nest and her babies. Only one baby survived. The father goose went crazy with grief.
These large scale instances of destruction reemphasize the file position of destruction endorsed by the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.
The large destruction was clearly done by friends of the vile DCR and Cambridge, clearly “the right kind of people”, clearly a blessing for outrage
There were nests all over the place when the nut copycatted the DCR, Cambridge and its friends by beating nesting geese to death.
5. Subsequent destruction.
Since then, a railroad crew did work on the railroad, using the most sensitive part of the Destroyed Nesting Area for a parking lot.
The Executive Director of the Cambridge Conservation Commission observed this outrage and objected to the DCR.
The same fraud / manager who spent more than a decade lying of “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese told the crew to obey the orders of the Cambridge Conservation Commission WITHIN THE NARROW JURISDICTION OF THE CAMBRIDGE CONSERVATION COMMISSION. That narrow jurisdiction is a tiny strip. The cars moved out of that strip and continued destruction.
In the above photo, the area "protected" by this destructive fraud is the area under the trees straight ahead, plus, perhaps, a few feet this side.
A responsible government would have parked those cars along the on ramp.
This outrageous example of anything but neutrality is the sort of thing praised in that propaganda show as neutrality.
This stone was all dumped in the sensitive area by the railroad crew with the clear support of the DCR. After they left, “somebody” returned and dumped more.
6. The location of the rape.
The woman was raped by the copycats against the foot of the railroad bridge. Here are two angles of the rape site. Remember, the DCR with the blessing / inexcusable indifference of the City of Cambridge has destroyed the dense ground vegetation which was here at the time.
The DCR’s agent for destruction was the folks Cambridge’s propaganda blesses as some sort of neutral party, and the only party on record objecting to the Charles River White Geese.
7. The location of the murder.
Here is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
She was raped under the bridge’s supports. She was murdered on the bridge.
The bridge in the background is the BU Bridge.
8. The location the Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing, and the reason they did not want to know where the rape and murder occurred.
The City Council claimed to be concerned.
The rape and murder followed discussions by the murderous group and the victim in this burial ground in Harvard Square, next to the church. The scaffolding is temporary.
The City Council spent an hour expressing shock at her murder, Harvard Square, Harvard Square, Harvard Square.
The ONLY mention of where she was raped and murdered came from the City Council’s most environmentally destructive member, Henrietta Davis. Naturally she ran as an environmentalist.
I have heard of people swallowing their words. That was the only time I have seen it in person. She swallowed her words, looked around guiltily and joined the lie that Harvard Square was the only place relevant.
People had begged the Cambridge City Council to stand up against the beating deaths of mother geese. People reminded the Cambridge City Council that heartless animal abusers have been known to graduate to humans.
The Cambridge City Council was “neutral” in the manner that the City of Cambridge’s current propaganda defending their impending multiple outrages by distraction, call reponsible.
They were “neutral” with a wink and a nod.
Here, once again, is a message from a responsible person.
9. The location where the key killer came from.
He came from a homeless encampment on the Boston end of the railroad bridge. These were reputed to be bad people. The convicted killer had been seen in the Destroyed Nesting Area looking suspicious.
The bad guys' encampment, probably was near the area at the curve in this photo which I have previously published.
There was an encampment of good guys on the Cambridge side. They defended the Charles River White Geese.
Naturally, the DCR drove out the good guys with the bad.
The key killer got a long sentence..
10. Punishment (?) of other guilty.
Vile members of government got to continue their lies of sainthood. And they got to keep the key government official, Robert Healy in office, even after judge, jury, and appeals court panel gave them ample support to fire him for his administrative destruction of a woman's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The real killer went to jail in response to his copycatting Cambridge and the DCR. Reprehensible (using the civil rights judge’s term for Healy’s actions) members of government got to lie about their sainthood, and to protect Healy from judicial outrage for his administrative killing. Healy’s administrative killing of the female department head occurred pretty much in the same time period as this particular outrage on the Charles River.
The voters may have fired two rotters on the Cambridge City Council.
10, Prior segments of this analysis.
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
Segment 3. “The DCR did it.” This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior, Standard con game, pass the buck. The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems. One very big one is reality. Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html
Segment 4. “DCR did not do it either’. This segment analyzes Cambridge’s claim that the DCR has some sort of right to claim no duty to protect the animals in the care of the DCR. It includes the graduation of copycats of the DCR / Cambridge outrages to rape and murder in the same location. And analyzes the bizarre claim. It defers until later the reality that Cambridge and the DCR really are responsible for the outrages they claim to be neutral on. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless.html
Segment 5. “World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization” presented the above photo, the normal position of decent human beings, in striking contrast to the outrages posted in the propaganda being passed of as an art show. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_15.html.
1. Introduction.
2. Reality, a reprehensible government, and its friends.
3. The on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge.
4. Formerly vegetated area.
5. Subsequent destruction.
6. The location of the rape.
7. The location of the murder.
8. The location the Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing, and the reason they did not want to know where the rape and murder occurred.
9. The location where the key killer came from.
10. Punishment (?) of other guilty.
11. Prior segments of this analysis.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show with my presence.
A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplice.
This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. Reality, a reprehensible government, and its friends.
Yesterday, November 16, 2014, I went to the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River has been confined without food.
This area, even after its destruction for the Department of Conservation and Recreation by Boston University remained lush and green. BU destroyed the native vegetation and created a lawn, but they did not destroy all of the vegetation. The edges remained heavily vegetated and were used for nesting.
The middle had grass sewn and a silly cinder path created.
As part of the outrage, two openings were illegally created by Boston University. I say “illegally” because, after denying the destruction for six months, Boston University was condemned for it by the Cambridge Conservation Commission. Then Boston University proceeded to brag of it. It was accomplished by an illegal agreement between Boston University and the DCR.
3. The on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge.
Here is the photo of the main entrance at the BU Bridge and the on ramp to Memorial Drive.
It has been brought to the attention of the DCR that there is food across the ramp, and they cannot allow the Charles River White Geese to have food. After all, their sanctified formal admission of vileness, the Charles River Master Plan, calls for killing or driving away all resident animals.
So the DCR has blocked off that entrance.
They cannot allow the Charles River White Geese to have food.
Here is the ramp the Charles River White Geese used to carefully cross to get food. They are good jaywalkers. They look both ways before crossing. Their trouble is that they are geese and they do tend to dawdle.
The drivers like all decent people familiar with them, love them. They stand patiently waiting for these beautiful beings to carefully cross.
The magnificent tree is another excellent piece of evidence of the DCR and Cambridge’s vileness. Ch. 286, of the Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways” calls for $20 million for the DCR, with Cambridge’s “neutrality” that has no business being neutrality, to destroy this excellent tree and hundreds more like it.
And I could go on about the Cambridge participation in this outrage. This analysis is long enough.
Here is another view of the photo from the last segment, giving the human opinion of “neutrality” in the face of vileness.
4. Formerly vegetated area.
Boston University left much lush ground vegetation. The DCR used the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” to do environmental destruction for them.
These are the guys, under their original name, who filed the ONLY complaint against the Charles River White Geese produced by the DCR in response to our freedom of information request. That demand letter got from the DCR this nonsense from the CRC plus a letter from the DCR asking for the letter that the CRC wrote.
The CRC destroyed as much ground vegetation as they could get away with, realizing that the DCR anticipated massive destruction for work on the BU Bridge.
All of the areas in these photos were lush with ground vegetation ad the time of the killing of mother geese on their nests. The first destruction was by Boston University. The second destruction finished the job of the first, except for a very limited amount of native vegetation not destroyed by either.
Further outrages occurred that year on a much more organized scale. In particular a large panel of wood which protected a nest was take away. That could not have been done by one person. The mother goose “disappeared” defending her nest and her babies. Only one baby survived. The father goose went crazy with grief.
These large scale instances of destruction reemphasize the file position of destruction endorsed by the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.
The large destruction was clearly done by friends of the vile DCR and Cambridge, clearly “the right kind of people”, clearly a blessing for outrage
There were nests all over the place when the nut copycatted the DCR, Cambridge and its friends by beating nesting geese to death.
5. Subsequent destruction.
Since then, a railroad crew did work on the railroad, using the most sensitive part of the Destroyed Nesting Area for a parking lot.
The Executive Director of the Cambridge Conservation Commission observed this outrage and objected to the DCR.
The same fraud / manager who spent more than a decade lying of “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese told the crew to obey the orders of the Cambridge Conservation Commission WITHIN THE NARROW JURISDICTION OF THE CAMBRIDGE CONSERVATION COMMISSION. That narrow jurisdiction is a tiny strip. The cars moved out of that strip and continued destruction.
In the above photo, the area "protected" by this destructive fraud is the area under the trees straight ahead, plus, perhaps, a few feet this side.
A responsible government would have parked those cars along the on ramp.
This outrageous example of anything but neutrality is the sort of thing praised in that propaganda show as neutrality.
This stone was all dumped in the sensitive area by the railroad crew with the clear support of the DCR. After they left, “somebody” returned and dumped more.
The woman was raped by the copycats against the foot of the railroad bridge. Here are two angles of the rape site. Remember, the DCR with the blessing / inexcusable indifference of the City of Cambridge has destroyed the dense ground vegetation which was here at the time.
The DCR’s agent for destruction was the folks Cambridge’s propaganda blesses as some sort of neutral party, and the only party on record objecting to the Charles River White Geese.
7. The location of the murder.
Here is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
She was raped under the bridge’s supports. She was murdered on the bridge.
The bridge in the background is the BU Bridge.
8. The location the Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing, and the reason they did not want to know where the rape and murder occurred.
The City Council claimed to be concerned.
The rape and murder followed discussions by the murderous group and the victim in this burial ground in Harvard Square, next to the church. The scaffolding is temporary.
The City Council spent an hour expressing shock at her murder, Harvard Square, Harvard Square, Harvard Square.
The ONLY mention of where she was raped and murdered came from the City Council’s most environmentally destructive member, Henrietta Davis. Naturally she ran as an environmentalist.
I have heard of people swallowing their words. That was the only time I have seen it in person. She swallowed her words, looked around guiltily and joined the lie that Harvard Square was the only place relevant.
People had begged the Cambridge City Council to stand up against the beating deaths of mother geese. People reminded the Cambridge City Council that heartless animal abusers have been known to graduate to humans.
The Cambridge City Council was “neutral” in the manner that the City of Cambridge’s current propaganda defending their impending multiple outrages by distraction, call reponsible.
They were “neutral” with a wink and a nod.
Here, once again, is a message from a responsible person.
He came from a homeless encampment on the Boston end of the railroad bridge. These were reputed to be bad people. The convicted killer had been seen in the Destroyed Nesting Area looking suspicious.
The bad guys' encampment, probably was near the area at the curve in this photo which I have previously published.
There was an encampment of good guys on the Cambridge side. They defended the Charles River White Geese.
Naturally, the DCR drove out the good guys with the bad.
The key killer got a long sentence..
10. Punishment (?) of other guilty.
Vile members of government got to continue their lies of sainthood. And they got to keep the key government official, Robert Healy in office, even after judge, jury, and appeals court panel gave them ample support to fire him for his administrative destruction of a woman's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The real killer went to jail in response to his copycatting Cambridge and the DCR. Reprehensible (using the civil rights judge’s term for Healy’s actions) members of government got to lie about their sainthood, and to protect Healy from judicial outrage for his administrative killing. Healy’s administrative killing of the female department head occurred pretty much in the same time period as this particular outrage on the Charles River.
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
Segment 3. “The DCR did it.” This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior, Standard con game, pass the buck. The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems. One very big one is reality. Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html
Segment 4. “DCR did not do it either’. This segment analyzes Cambridge’s claim that the DCR has some sort of right to claim no duty to protect the animals in the care of the DCR. It includes the graduation of copycats of the DCR / Cambridge outrages to rape and murder in the same location. And analyzes the bizarre claim. It defers until later the reality that Cambridge and the DCR really are responsible for the outrages they claim to be neutral on. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless.html
Segment 5. “World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization” presented the above photo, the normal position of decent human beings, in striking contrast to the outrages posted in the propaganda being passed of as an art show. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/cambridge-ma-usa-lies-on-its-heartless_15.html.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 5, the World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization
Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 5, the World Animal Organization on its sick rationalization
1. Introduction.
2. Humanity and the bizarre proclamations of Cambridge and its surrogates.
3. One example from decent human beings.
4. Prior segments of this analysis.
1. Introduction.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show with my presence.
A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplice.
This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. Humanity and the bizarre proclamations of Cambridge and its surrogates.
In our last report, we responded to the bizarre claim by the City of Cambridge’s and its surrogates that Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation has some sort of right to ignore heartless animal abuse of the animals residing of the animals on its land.
This sick claim ignores the fact that the heartless animal abuse that Cambridge is claiming the DCR can ignore originates in the DCR and Cambridge.
But even allowing for the blatant falsity of claims of innocence of the actual heartless animal abuse, the argument itself is sick.
This sort of sick argument is normal in Cambridge when what Cambridge is doing really rotten stuff, and too many politically correct will simply swallow the sick arguments because they are told that Cambridge and its surrogates are saintly and do not make errors.
3. One example from decent human beings.
This photo was posted of facebook by the World Animal Foundation.
But then again, Cambridge and its surrogates disavow themselves from normal human decency. They are above that sort of stuff.
4. Prior segments of this analysis.
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
Segment 3. “The DCR did it.” This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior, Standard con game, pass the buck. The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems. One very big one is reality. Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html
Segment 4. “DCR did not do it either’. This segment analyzes Cambridge’s claim that the DCR has some sort of right to claim no duty to protect the animals in the care of the DCR. It includes the graduation of copycats of the DCR / Cambridge outrages to rape and murder in the same location. And analyzes the bizarre claim. It defers until later the reality that Cambridge and the DCR really are responsible for the outrages they claim to be neutral on.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 4, DCR did not do it either.
Cambridge, MA, USA, lies on its heartless animal abuse, s. 4, DCR did not do it either.
1. Introduction.
2. DCR did not do it either.
a. The Charles River Master Plan.
b. The Cambridge City Council: Rape, murder and not wanting to know where it happened.
c. What business has an environmental agency to be claiming it has no duty to defend the animals under its charge?
3. Coming Next.
4. Prior reports.
1. Introduction.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show.
A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplice.
This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. DCR did not do it either.
The key lie is the very clear communication that the DCR has done nothing to the Charles River White Geese, they have just stood by and very happily watched heartless abuse of them.
a. The Charles River Master Plan.
Cambridge, its friends and a lot of other rotters sanctify this document in which a rotten, incompetent organization puts in print its vile goals and procedures. Since the vile goals and procedure have been written down and everybody knows that government agencies are filled with saints, naturally all parts of their proclamations have a level of infallibility claimed for Pontiffs.
One of the key examples of just how rotten the Department of Conservation and its cheerleaders are is the DCR’s policy on resident animals.
Their goal is to kill them or drive them away.
I have frequently listened to the key DCR manager use this clause as an excuse for his heartless animal abuse. Then he turns around with the flat out lie that he has no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.
I see. So they are just removing protection of resident animals who are their charges, and that has nothing to do with this vile policy?
First of all, they are, in no way neutral on the outrages.
Secondly, they have no business being neutral on the outrages. .
Thirdly (see the next report), they and their friends are the principal practitioners of this heartless animal abuse. And they have created copycats who proceeded to graduate to rape and murder.
Then again, the principal figure on the Cambridge side, then City Manager Robert Healy, has been found by court, jury, and appeals court panel as “reprehensible” (Superior Court judge) for destroying a women’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
And Cambridge's self proclaimed saints on the City Council, after being given blessing to fire Healy by judge, jury, and appeals court panel, saw nothing wrong with his destroying her life either.
b. The Cambridge City Council: Rape, murder and not wanting to know where it happened.
In 2001, about a year after Cambridge and the DCR publicly declared war on the animals living at Magazine Beach with their outrageous plans for Magazine Beach, a nut ran around in nesting season beating to death nesting mother geese.
Decent human beings approached the Cambridge City Council and requested that these self declared saints stand up to the heartless animal abuse. This was paralleled by larger scale outrages including destruction of nests which was better organized and had the stench of folks close to Cambridge / the DCR.
The Cambridge City Council sat on their hands. They clearly communicated their blessing, just as the propaganda claims that the DCR has a right to sit on their hands in response to attacks on animals who are their charges.
The Cambridge City Council sent the same clear message that this propaganda says is appropriate for the DCR: a wink and a nod to the vile people / person copy catting Cambridge and the DCR.
That fall, a woman was raped and murdered exactly where the nut had been beating to death nesting geese, and the Cambridge City Council responded with the behavior the propaganda in the display says is ok.
The key guy convicted in the rape and murder had lived in a homeless camp on the Boston side of the river. He had been looking very suspicious.
The Cambridge City Council showed where they were coming from, and they showed just how vile the claim this show is, just as they showed how vile they realized they are.
The spent and hour discussing the rape and the murder and DID NOT WANT to know where they occurred.
Henrietta Davis, the most environmentally destructive member of the Cambridge City Council during her term, made a boo boo. She mentioned the location of the rape and murder. She swallowed her words. (Honestly, that is the only time I have really seen somebody swallow their words.) She looked around guiltily, and joined the rest of a rotten city council in not wanting to know where this poor woman was raped and murdered.
The location of the rape:
The location of the murder (approximate):
c. What business has an environmental agency to be claiming it has no duty to defend the animals under its charge?
Well, after all, they have declared a policy to kill or drive away all resident animals.
They have made heartless animal abuse their basic policy.
3. Coming Next.
A partial record of the attacks on the Charles River White Geese by this vile entity, along, of course, with the City of Cambridge who, as usual, like a good fellow rotter is claiming sainthood, for the DCR.
4. Prior reports.
Prior segments of this series of reports were published as follows:
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
Segment 3. “The DCR did it.” This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior, Standard con game, pass the buck. The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems. One very big one is reality. Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html
1. Introduction.
2. DCR did not do it either.
a. The Charles River Master Plan.
b. The Cambridge City Council: Rape, murder and not wanting to know where it happened.
c. What business has an environmental agency to be claiming it has no duty to defend the animals under its charge?
3. Coming Next.
4. Prior reports.
1. Introduction.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show.
A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that Cambridge and its friends are behaving responsibly on the Charles River, and don’t look at all the destruction they and their friends have accomplished and are working to accomplice.
This series responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. DCR did not do it either.
The key lie is the very clear communication that the DCR has done nothing to the Charles River White Geese, they have just stood by and very happily watched heartless abuse of them.
a. The Charles River Master Plan.
Cambridge, its friends and a lot of other rotters sanctify this document in which a rotten, incompetent organization puts in print its vile goals and procedures. Since the vile goals and procedure have been written down and everybody knows that government agencies are filled with saints, naturally all parts of their proclamations have a level of infallibility claimed for Pontiffs.
One of the key examples of just how rotten the Department of Conservation and its cheerleaders are is the DCR’s policy on resident animals.
Their goal is to kill them or drive them away.
I have frequently listened to the key DCR manager use this clause as an excuse for his heartless animal abuse. Then he turns around with the flat out lie that he has no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.
I see. So they are just removing protection of resident animals who are their charges, and that has nothing to do with this vile policy?
First of all, they are, in no way neutral on the outrages.
Secondly, they have no business being neutral on the outrages. .
Thirdly (see the next report), they and their friends are the principal practitioners of this heartless animal abuse. And they have created copycats who proceeded to graduate to rape and murder.
Then again, the principal figure on the Cambridge side, then City Manager Robert Healy, has been found by court, jury, and appeals court panel as “reprehensible” (Superior Court judge) for destroying a women’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
And Cambridge's self proclaimed saints on the City Council, after being given blessing to fire Healy by judge, jury, and appeals court panel, saw nothing wrong with his destroying her life either.
In 2001, about a year after Cambridge and the DCR publicly declared war on the animals living at Magazine Beach with their outrageous plans for Magazine Beach, a nut ran around in nesting season beating to death nesting mother geese.
Decent human beings approached the Cambridge City Council and requested that these self declared saints stand up to the heartless animal abuse. This was paralleled by larger scale outrages including destruction of nests which was better organized and had the stench of folks close to Cambridge / the DCR.
The Cambridge City Council sat on their hands. They clearly communicated their blessing, just as the propaganda claims that the DCR has a right to sit on their hands in response to attacks on animals who are their charges.
The Cambridge City Council sent the same clear message that this propaganda says is appropriate for the DCR: a wink and a nod to the vile people / person copy catting Cambridge and the DCR.
That fall, a woman was raped and murdered exactly where the nut had been beating to death nesting geese, and the Cambridge City Council responded with the behavior the propaganda in the display says is ok.
The key guy convicted in the rape and murder had lived in a homeless camp on the Boston side of the river. He had been looking very suspicious.
The Cambridge City Council showed where they were coming from, and they showed just how vile the claim this show is, just as they showed how vile they realized they are.
The spent and hour discussing the rape and the murder and DID NOT WANT to know where they occurred.
Henrietta Davis, the most environmentally destructive member of the Cambridge City Council during her term, made a boo boo. She mentioned the location of the rape and murder. She swallowed her words. (Honestly, that is the only time I have really seen somebody swallow their words.) She looked around guiltily, and joined the rest of a rotten city council in not wanting to know where this poor woman was raped and murdered.
The location of the rape:
The location of the murder (approximate):
c. What business has an environmental agency to be claiming it has no duty to defend the animals under its charge?
Well, after all, they have declared a policy to kill or drive away all resident animals.
They have made heartless animal abuse their basic policy.
3. Coming Next.
A partial record of the attacks on the Charles River White Geese by this vile entity, along, of course, with the City of Cambridge who, as usual, like a good fellow rotter is claiming sainthood, for the DCR.
4. Prior reports.
Prior segments of this series of reports were published as follows:
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
Segment 3. “The DCR did it.” This was Cambridge denying responsibility for Cambridge’s rotten behavior, Standard con game, pass the buck. The trouble with vile Cambridge blaming outrages solely on the Department of Conservation and Recreation has many major problems. One very big one is reality. Cambridge is very vile, and there is a big record. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_12.html
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
City of Cambridge Lies About Its Heartless Animal Abuse, Segment 3. The DCR did it.
City of Cambridge Lies About Its Heartless Animal Abuse, Segment 3. The DCR did it.
1. Introduction.
2. The DCR did it.
3. Rossi, Rossi, Rossi.
4. Non Magazine Beach Areas.
5. Goal of killing off or driving away all animals residing on the Charles River.
6. Destruction / heartless animal abuse at Alewife.
7. City Council “neutral” on the State House supported destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat by the DCR on the Charles River.
8. General.
9. Prior reports.
1. Introduction.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show. A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that it is behaving responsibly on the Charles River.
This responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. The DCR did it.
Very clearly the City of Cambridge show blames all heartless animal abuse on the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation.
3. Rossi, Rossi, Rossi.
The biggest most crucial attack on the Charles River White Geese came in the outrageous project rebuilding the playing fields at the Magazine Beach recreation center. This destruction associated with this outrage itself came from multiple flat out lies. We will analyze them later.
There is nothing complicated about who managed this outrage. It was the current Cambridge City Manager Rossi.
But the Cambridge show gives full credit for destruction to the DCR with no mention of the fact that Rossi led the heartless animal abuse.
And the reality is that the Destroyed Nesting Area which has been made their prison is really part of the Magazine Beach complex.
4. Non Magazine Beach Areas.
The DCR and Cambridge work hand in glove. They play games with money to blame some of the vilest parts of their projects on the DCR to allow Cambridge City Councilors to lie about their supposed sainthood.
Nothing is done in Cambridge by the DCR which differs in policy from the desires of the City of Cambridge.
5. Goal of killing off or driving away all animals residing on the Charles River.
This is the real level of rottenness which is blessed by Cambridge as it and its fake groups sanctify the Charles River Master Plan, the rotten policy document the DCR wrote on its own behalf and changes as it gets caught in lies in the document.
Very clearly spelled out is the policy of killing off / driving away all resident animals. This vile policy clearly comports with the outrage at Alewife.
6. Destruction / heartless animal abuse at Alewife.
Rossi managed this joint project as well. 3.4 plus acres of virgin woodlands was destroyed while the hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council yelled at private developers elsewhere in this irreplaceable woodland.
Massive numbers of animals whose families lives in this woodland which has been sanctified by those Cambridge City Council votes can only be said to have been killed because they did not get away fast enough, and without their homes and their food, these animals were treated just as heartlessly as the Charles River White Geese.
And Cambridge has bragged about this outrage in the puff piece from which the following photo came from. The area of killing and destruction which is shown as flat land used to be filled with the trees on the perimeter.
A truly rotten city government.
7. City Council “neutral” on the State House supported destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat by the DCR on the Charles River.
This was Ch. 286, of the Massachusetts Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways”.
I provided the Cambridge City Council with the destruction plans, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.
This can still be stopped. A miracle is necessary, however, because it could require a responsible Cambridge City Council
Photos of targeted trees:
8. General.
A lot more outrages, including much more destruction on the Charles River belies the Cambridge lie of innocence in this heartless animal abuse. The City of Cambridge is belligerent destructive. Their greatest claim to be decent humans beings on the issue of heartless animal abuse is their hypocritical yelling at circuses who are probably a lot less vile that Cambridge. At least the circuses are not deliberately starving free animals.
Please see Segment 1 of these reports for many more examples of the vile nature of this city government, link immediately below.
I cannot segment the various evidence of vileness. So a lot of other comments are spread out through these reports.
9. Prior reports.
Prior segments of this series of reports were published as follows:
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
1. Introduction.
2. The DCR did it.
3. Rossi, Rossi, Rossi.
4. Non Magazine Beach Areas.
5. Goal of killing off or driving away all animals residing on the Charles River.
6. Destruction / heartless animal abuse at Alewife.
7. City Council “neutral” on the State House supported destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat by the DCR on the Charles River.
8. General.
9. Prior reports.
1. Introduction.
This is the latest in a series of reports responding to lies put out in an art exhibit posted by the City of Cambridge in the art gallery in its City Hall Annex. I did not dignify the main show. A brief glance indicates it looks like the latest propaganda lying to the voters that it is behaving responsibly on the Charles River.
This responds to the segment on the Charles River White Geese, a sweetly worded blatant massive passel of lies.
2. The DCR did it.
Very clearly the City of Cambridge show blames all heartless animal abuse on the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation.
3. Rossi, Rossi, Rossi.
The biggest most crucial attack on the Charles River White Geese came in the outrageous project rebuilding the playing fields at the Magazine Beach recreation center. This destruction associated with this outrage itself came from multiple flat out lies. We will analyze them later.
There is nothing complicated about who managed this outrage. It was the current Cambridge City Manager Rossi.
But the Cambridge show gives full credit for destruction to the DCR with no mention of the fact that Rossi led the heartless animal abuse.
And the reality is that the Destroyed Nesting Area which has been made their prison is really part of the Magazine Beach complex.
The DCR and Cambridge work hand in glove. They play games with money to blame some of the vilest parts of their projects on the DCR to allow Cambridge City Councilors to lie about their supposed sainthood.
Nothing is done in Cambridge by the DCR which differs in policy from the desires of the City of Cambridge.
5. Goal of killing off or driving away all animals residing on the Charles River.
This is the real level of rottenness which is blessed by Cambridge as it and its fake groups sanctify the Charles River Master Plan, the rotten policy document the DCR wrote on its own behalf and changes as it gets caught in lies in the document.
Very clearly spelled out is the policy of killing off / driving away all resident animals. This vile policy clearly comports with the outrage at Alewife.
6. Destruction / heartless animal abuse at Alewife.
Rossi managed this joint project as well. 3.4 plus acres of virgin woodlands was destroyed while the hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council yelled at private developers elsewhere in this irreplaceable woodland.
Massive numbers of animals whose families lives in this woodland which has been sanctified by those Cambridge City Council votes can only be said to have been killed because they did not get away fast enough, and without their homes and their food, these animals were treated just as heartlessly as the Charles River White Geese.
And Cambridge has bragged about this outrage in the puff piece from which the following photo came from. The area of killing and destruction which is shown as flat land used to be filled with the trees on the perimeter.
A truly rotten city government.
7. City Council “neutral” on the State House supported destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat by the DCR on the Charles River.
This was Ch. 286, of the Massachusetts Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways”.
I provided the Cambridge City Council with the destruction plans, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.
This can still be stopped. A miracle is necessary, however, because it could require a responsible Cambridge City Council
Photos of targeted trees:
8. General.
A lot more outrages, including much more destruction on the Charles River belies the Cambridge lie of innocence in this heartless animal abuse. The City of Cambridge is belligerent destructive. Their greatest claim to be decent humans beings on the issue of heartless animal abuse is their hypocritical yelling at circuses who are probably a lot less vile that Cambridge. At least the circuses are not deliberately starving free animals.
Please see Segment 1 of these reports for many more examples of the vile nature of this city government, link immediately below.
I cannot segment the various evidence of vileness. So a lot of other comments are spread out through these reports.
9. Prior reports.
Prior segments of this series of reports were published as follows:
Segment 1. “Lies of Omission,” concentrated on background lies, hiding the basic stench of this vile municipality sweet talked into a false sainthood. This is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html.
Segment 2. “The bad guys told them to do it.” Translation into English of one of the many outrages in such a short posting.
Not, of course mentioning the vile nature of the entity that the Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a negative report.
That report then became the only negative report on file delivered in response to a freedom of information demand. The only paper delivered in addition to this bizarre complaint from this reprehensible entity was the communication of the DCR asking for the outrageous canard. Details posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its_11.html
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
City of Cambridge Lies About Its Heartless Animal Abuse, Segment 2. The bad guys told them to do it.
City of Cambridge Lies About Its Heartless Animal Abuse, Segment 2. The bad guys told them to do it.
1. Introduction.
2. The bad guys told them to do it.
a. The basic lie.
b. These vile individuals kept from harming the Charles River White Geese because they were so popular.
3. The reality of the bad guys told them to do it.
4. One achievement of the only entity to support heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
5. Enough for now.
6. PS: Never forget the Charles River Master Plan.
1. Introduction.
This is the second segment in the City of Cambridge’s latest outrage. Propaganda disguised as an art exhibit.
Key in the propaganda was a brief piece of nonsense which described their heartless animal abuse targeted at the Charles River White Geese as something other than heartless animal abuse.
I apologize for the brevity of the first segment of this series. At http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html, it only ran 7 pages off line. It was a partial list of lies of omission, targeted at general issues.
2. The bad guys told them to do it.
The continuing victims.
a. The basic lie.
The normal lie about the reprehensible people who run around Cambridge lying that they are the good guys is for one liar to praise another liar, and the second guy praises the first guy. So both these truly reprehensible people must be terrific folks. Don’t they keep saying that their coconspirator is so great?
The heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese is justified in this outrageous propaganda piece as a response to “a few Cambridge residents complained.”
b. These vile individuals kept from harming the Charles River White Geese because they were so popular.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation, the destructive bedfellow of the City of Cambridge did not dare harm the Charles River White Geese because they were so popular.
They are loved. They have been the subject of many visits to the Charles River by suburbanites.
An excellent example of the level to which they have been loved was the occasional foray across the on ramp next to their forced foodless ghetto.
They are very responsible jaywalkers. They look both ways before crossing and do not cross until it is safe. Their problem is that they are geese. They meander. They did create back ups of happy drivers admiring them. No horns. Just admiration.
One of the heartless attacks on them has been to close the entrance by them to the on ramp. That is food. They are no allowed to have food.
c. These vile individuals attacked and attacked and attacked, constantly lying about the nature of the attacks.
(1) They would never stoop so low.
The key actions have been smoothed over with flat out lies
I recall when I realized what was up, and tried to convince people.
The response was they would never stoop so low.
(2) Promise to never do harm.
The Boston Globe did a section page 1 story on the heartless commencement of starvation attacking the Charles River White Geese, the beginning of the starvation wall.
Next to the photo of a massive earth mover overwhelming a tiny white goose was a direct quote of the standard lie of the key abuser: “No intention to harm” the Charles River White Geese.
He kept up that lie and kept up that lie and kept up that lie.
People assume we have a responsible government.
Flat out lying simply is not done. After all, do not a bunch of reprehensible people run around calling liars saints?
The destruction has uniformly come through lies, including lies of fake protective groups.
3. The reality of the bad guys told them to do it.
When the vile manager made the outrageous statement of complaint about the Charles River White Geese, Friends of the White Geese made a freedom of information act demand of the DCR.
It produced two documents.
One was a letter from the DCR asking the predecessor of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” for their input.
The other was the letter from this reprehensible entity.
That was it. Nothing else.
4. One achievement of the only entity to support heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
I will get into the record of the reprehensible Charles River “Conservancy” later. One “achievement” should be enough to place this vile excuse for heartless animal abuse into perspective.
The Charles River Conservancy is the prime lobbyist for the impending destruction of hundreds of trees just supported by the State House.
They ran around with a petition asking folks to agree to environmental destruction under the River Street Bridge, the Western Avenue Bridge and the Anderson (Harvard Square) Bridges, the next three after the BU Bridge.
When this fake conservancy got the initial bill for destruction in front of the legislature, they claimed the people supporting the irresponsible behavior under those bridges supported the destruction of those hundreds of trees incidental to the destruction under those three bridges.
This is in spite of the lack of mention of this destruction in the petitions.
The DCR called the destruction of hundreds of trees “incidental” to the irresponsible behavior under those three bridges. The tree destruction, in their announcement, was about ten times the funding as the irresponsible behavior under those bridges.
5. Enough for now.
The latest and incoming victims from the people bad mouthing the Charles River White Geese AT THE REQUEST OF THE DCR..
I am overwhelmed with the feeling of filth.
This is reality on the Charles River in Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
This is reality in the politics of Cambridge, MA, USA.
6. PS: Never forget the Charles River Master Plan.
Totally unmentioned in this piece of fraud by Cambridge on the public is the key policy of the DCR’s Charles River Master Plan — to kill off or drive away all animals residing in the Charles River Basin.
1. Introduction.
2. The bad guys told them to do it.
a. The basic lie.
b. These vile individuals kept from harming the Charles River White Geese because they were so popular.
3. The reality of the bad guys told them to do it.
4. One achievement of the only entity to support heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
5. Enough for now.
6. PS: Never forget the Charles River Master Plan.
1. Introduction.
This is the second segment in the City of Cambridge’s latest outrage. Propaganda disguised as an art exhibit.
Key in the propaganda was a brief piece of nonsense which described their heartless animal abuse targeted at the Charles River White Geese as something other than heartless animal abuse.
I apologize for the brevity of the first segment of this series. At http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/city-of-cambridge-lies-about-its.html, it only ran 7 pages off line. It was a partial list of lies of omission, targeted at general issues.
2. The bad guys told them to do it.
The continuing victims.
a. The basic lie.
The normal lie about the reprehensible people who run around Cambridge lying that they are the good guys is for one liar to praise another liar, and the second guy praises the first guy. So both these truly reprehensible people must be terrific folks. Don’t they keep saying that their coconspirator is so great?
The heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese is justified in this outrageous propaganda piece as a response to “a few Cambridge residents complained.”
b. These vile individuals kept from harming the Charles River White Geese because they were so popular.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation, the destructive bedfellow of the City of Cambridge did not dare harm the Charles River White Geese because they were so popular.
They are loved. They have been the subject of many visits to the Charles River by suburbanites.
An excellent example of the level to which they have been loved was the occasional foray across the on ramp next to their forced foodless ghetto.
They are very responsible jaywalkers. They look both ways before crossing and do not cross until it is safe. Their problem is that they are geese. They meander. They did create back ups of happy drivers admiring them. No horns. Just admiration.
One of the heartless attacks on them has been to close the entrance by them to the on ramp. That is food. They are no allowed to have food.
c. These vile individuals attacked and attacked and attacked, constantly lying about the nature of the attacks.
(1) They would never stoop so low.
The key actions have been smoothed over with flat out lies
I recall when I realized what was up, and tried to convince people.
The response was they would never stoop so low.
(2) Promise to never do harm.
The Boston Globe did a section page 1 story on the heartless commencement of starvation attacking the Charles River White Geese, the beginning of the starvation wall.
Next to the photo of a massive earth mover overwhelming a tiny white goose was a direct quote of the standard lie of the key abuser: “No intention to harm” the Charles River White Geese.
He kept up that lie and kept up that lie and kept up that lie.
People assume we have a responsible government.
Flat out lying simply is not done. After all, do not a bunch of reprehensible people run around calling liars saints?
The destruction has uniformly come through lies, including lies of fake protective groups.
3. The reality of the bad guys told them to do it.
When the vile manager made the outrageous statement of complaint about the Charles River White Geese, Friends of the White Geese made a freedom of information act demand of the DCR.
It produced two documents.
One was a letter from the DCR asking the predecessor of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” for their input.
The other was the letter from this reprehensible entity.
That was it. Nothing else.
4. One achievement of the only entity to support heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.
I will get into the record of the reprehensible Charles River “Conservancy” later. One “achievement” should be enough to place this vile excuse for heartless animal abuse into perspective.
The Charles River Conservancy is the prime lobbyist for the impending destruction of hundreds of trees just supported by the State House.
They ran around with a petition asking folks to agree to environmental destruction under the River Street Bridge, the Western Avenue Bridge and the Anderson (Harvard Square) Bridges, the next three after the BU Bridge.
When this fake conservancy got the initial bill for destruction in front of the legislature, they claimed the people supporting the irresponsible behavior under those bridges supported the destruction of those hundreds of trees incidental to the destruction under those three bridges.
This is in spite of the lack of mention of this destruction in the petitions.
The DCR called the destruction of hundreds of trees “incidental” to the irresponsible behavior under those three bridges. The tree destruction, in their announcement, was about ten times the funding as the irresponsible behavior under those bridges.
5. Enough for now.
The latest and incoming victims from the people bad mouthing the Charles River White Geese AT THE REQUEST OF THE DCR..
I am overwhelmed with the feeling of filth.
This is reality on the Charles River in Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
This is reality in the politics of Cambridge, MA, USA.
6. PS: Never forget the Charles River Master Plan.
Totally unmentioned in this piece of fraud by Cambridge on the public is the key policy of the DCR’s Charles River Master Plan — to kill off or drive away all animals residing in the Charles River Basin.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Charles River: Commuter Rail Use at pending Harvard Medical School / relocated Mass. Pike in Allston, Boston, MA, with maps, including targeted destruction area west of Magazine Beach
Charles River: Commuter Rail Use at pending Harvard Medical School / relocated Mass. Pike in Allston, Boston, MA, with maps, including targeted destruction area west of Magazine Beach
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has been kind enough to present me, as a reviewer, the CD version of the Draft Environment Impact Report for the South Station Expansion project.
Beacon Park Yard is the other current use of the Mass. Pike Allston/Cambridge exit ramps. This area is the topic of discussion in the Mass. Pike rebuilding on the south side of the Charles River from Magazine Beach.
The report includes a couple of excellent maps. The close up includes the area east of the Magazine Beach playing fields that the DCR and the fake group are fighting for destruction in.
The report states on page 3-6 (page 67 on the CD):
*********
. . . An agreement in principal has been reached between Harvard and MassDOT to use approximately 22 acres of Beacon Park Yard for a new commuter rail layover, maintenance facility and rail station.
MassDOT intends to expand layover capacity to the west and south of South Station to provide a more-balanced mix of layover sites. MassDOT has identified the preferred location in the west as Beacon Park Yard. . . .
**********
Here are the two relevant maps, for your information.
The first shows the overall arrangement. South Station is at the top right. The future Harvard Medical School / Beacon Park Yards / Mass. Pike Allston Site are at the top left, close to the Charles River, close to Cambridge, MA, and the Magazine Beach outrages.
The second shows the location in the Harvard Medical School / Massachusetts Turnpike Allston area.
The new layover facility will apparently be located next to the western end of Boston University and a residential part of the Allston neighborhood.
This is the best presentation of these plans I have seen.
At the right end of the map is Magazine Beach. The large rectangular structure is the DCR Swimming Pool. To its right is the little guy’s parking lot the DCR and the fake group are working to destroy.
You will note that the area between the swimming pool and the Charles River is not small. This area is targeted by the DCR and the fake group for destruction of existing responsible grass, and replacement with the sickly stuff sneaked into the playing fields.
Poison maintenance would replace non poison responsible maintenance. The DCR’s favored grass is sickly and exactly fits the definition of invasive, since the poisons it needs are destructive to existing animals. This destructiveness fits the goal of the DCR to kill off or drive away all resident animals. The fine print of DCR initiatives very consistently attacks resident animals, while putting out lies of the DCR's sainthood. The DCR and their cheerleaders are really rotten people.
Pretty close to all of the portion of Magazine Beach viewed would go from environmentally responsible, non poison, maintenance to the DCR’s beloved poisons.
A new bicycle highway is desired by the DCR and the fake group which would be linked to the bicycle highway which is part of the proposed destruction of hundreds of trees in Ch. 286, Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways”. The tree destruction plans are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html. This destruction would be in the existing wetlands and in the middle of what is now a peaceful picnic area.
Dumping of more poisons would require more of the expensive drainage which wasted money and playing field land in the playing fields area.
Individual copies of the environmental filing apparently can be received from Matthew Ciborowski at matthew.ciborowski@state.ma.us, or at 857-368-8845. EEA File number 15028.
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has been kind enough to present me, as a reviewer, the CD version of the Draft Environment Impact Report for the South Station Expansion project.
Beacon Park Yard is the other current use of the Mass. Pike Allston/Cambridge exit ramps. This area is the topic of discussion in the Mass. Pike rebuilding on the south side of the Charles River from Magazine Beach.
The report includes a couple of excellent maps. The close up includes the area east of the Magazine Beach playing fields that the DCR and the fake group are fighting for destruction in.
The report states on page 3-6 (page 67 on the CD):
*********
. . . An agreement in principal has been reached between Harvard and MassDOT to use approximately 22 acres of Beacon Park Yard for a new commuter rail layover, maintenance facility and rail station.
MassDOT intends to expand layover capacity to the west and south of South Station to provide a more-balanced mix of layover sites. MassDOT has identified the preferred location in the west as Beacon Park Yard. . . .
**********
Here are the two relevant maps, for your information.
The first shows the overall arrangement. South Station is at the top right. The future Harvard Medical School / Beacon Park Yards / Mass. Pike Allston Site are at the top left, close to the Charles River, close to Cambridge, MA, and the Magazine Beach outrages.
The second shows the location in the Harvard Medical School / Massachusetts Turnpike Allston area.
The new layover facility will apparently be located next to the western end of Boston University and a residential part of the Allston neighborhood.
This is the best presentation of these plans I have seen.
At the right end of the map is Magazine Beach. The large rectangular structure is the DCR Swimming Pool. To its right is the little guy’s parking lot the DCR and the fake group are working to destroy.
You will note that the area between the swimming pool and the Charles River is not small. This area is targeted by the DCR and the fake group for destruction of existing responsible grass, and replacement with the sickly stuff sneaked into the playing fields.
Poison maintenance would replace non poison responsible maintenance. The DCR’s favored grass is sickly and exactly fits the definition of invasive, since the poisons it needs are destructive to existing animals. This destructiveness fits the goal of the DCR to kill off or drive away all resident animals. The fine print of DCR initiatives very consistently attacks resident animals, while putting out lies of the DCR's sainthood. The DCR and their cheerleaders are really rotten people.
Pretty close to all of the portion of Magazine Beach viewed would go from environmentally responsible, non poison, maintenance to the DCR’s beloved poisons.
A new bicycle highway is desired by the DCR and the fake group which would be linked to the bicycle highway which is part of the proposed destruction of hundreds of trees in Ch. 286, Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways”. The tree destruction plans are posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html. This destruction would be in the existing wetlands and in the middle of what is now a peaceful picnic area.
Dumping of more poisons would require more of the expensive drainage which wasted money and playing field land in the playing fields area.
Individual copies of the environmental filing apparently can be received from Matthew Ciborowski at matthew.ciborowski@state.ma.us, or at 857-368-8845. EEA File number 15028.
Saturday, November 08, 2014
City of Cambridge Lies About Its Heartless Animal Abuse, Segment 1
City of Cambridge Lies About Its Heartless Animal Abuse, Segment 1, Lies of Omission.
0. Photos of the doomed and the destroyed.
1. Introduction.
2. Lies of omission.
a. Goal: Kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.
b. Cambridge is a coconspirator to the DCR. Cambridge and the DCR have outrageous contempt for the environment and resident animals.
(1) The outrage at Magazine Beach.
(2) Chapter 286, acts of 2014, historic parkways, $20 million.
(3) Massive destruction at the Alewife reservation.
(4) Cambridge Common.
(5) Cambridge City Council supported environmental outrages under the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges.
(6) Cambridge is considering further destruction at the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese on an irresponsible route for a bike highway.
(7) Cambridge’s outrage crossing the Charles River.
(8) Use of fake group to fight for outrages. Sample of outrages.
(9) The falsely named “Charles River Conservancy.”
c. The DCR is an entity which is held in contempt by a significant percentage of state legislators.3
d. DCR does a lot of lying.
(1) Heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese — lies achieving them.
(2) The destruction of those hundreds of trees.
(3) In short.
3. Summary.
0. Photos of the targeted and the destroyed.
1. Introduction.
Cambridge has devoted its display room in its City Hall Annex to a puff piece on Magazine Beach.
I did not look much at the main display. It probably says that the outrage inflicted through lies and deception on Magazine Beach was the greatest thing going.
More importantly, it almost certainly tells folks not to look at the hundreds of trees Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation are about to destroy on Memorial Drive.
What I looked at was the part on the Charles River White Geese which was, as usual, beautifully written, and, also as usual when they have been reprehensible, claims exactly the opposite of them being reprehensible.
My thoughts on this outrage are growing to such an extent that this will wind up as several parts.
I will start with Lies of Omission and go from there. I will try not to duplicate any more than I can help.
2. Lies of omission.
Cambridge and the DCR are great achieving their lies of holiness through outrageous omissions of vileness.
The DCR is more blatant. Cambridge is more subtle. The achievement is the same.
Here are a few. I almost certainly missed a lot.
a. Goal: Kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.
Cambridge treats the Department of Conservation and Recreation as equally holy to the City of Cambridge.
Key in their omissions in their analysis of the outrages inflicted on the Charles River White Geese is the omission of a dominant policy of the DCR which we kept hearing about from the DCR each time the DCR made their vile behavior even more file.
They have a sanctified document called the Charles River Master Plan. The fine print in this document makes their intent clear.
This supposed environmental entity has as a prominent goal concerning resident animals.
That goal is the killing off or driving away all resident animals including the Charles River White Geese in spite of their obvious beauty and value.
And they have inflicted this goal on these beautiful, popular, extremely valuable 33 year residents every time the DCR has an opportunity to turn the screws.
This goal directly conflicts with the pitch we were given constantly when they were initially selling these outrages, the goal of valuing water related uses. 33 year resident waterfowl are most definitely water related uses.
There is nothing neutral about the DCR policy on resident animals.
For Cambridge to give any other impression is an outright lie.
b. Cambridge is a coconspirator to the DCR. Cambridge and the DCR have outrageous contempt for the environment and resident animals.
Just a few examples.
(1) The outrage at Magazine Beach.
Rossi, the current Cambridge City Manager managed the outrage at Magazine Beach. The Cambridge City Council spent millions on this outrage.
And Cambridge is blessing the DCR as saints without mentioning that Rossi manage the project.
And the Cambridge City Council is yelling about migrant circus performers with filthy hands of their own.
To make it worse, Cambridge is putting on a display which, quite assuredly (I did not bother look at anything else) lies that the environmental outrage they inflicted is saintly.
(2) Chapter 286, acts of 2014, historic parkways, $20 million.
This year the State House put in $20 million for destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges in Cambridge.
The stated destroyer is the DCR.
This project was vetted with city planners athttp://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.
its origin. The Cambridge City Council received the plans while destruction was in front of the legislature and was belligerently “neutral”.
Here is a photo of the excellent tree overlooking the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese have been imprisoned without food. This tree is just east of the BU Bridge. It is normal size for the destruction being inflicted.
Here are photos of the excellent grove at the Memorial Drive split which is slated to be devastated. These trees are smaller than most of the trees being callously destroyed, but the accumulation is excellent.
Destruction would include construction in that heartless ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese are confined without food.
(3) Massive destruction at the Alewife reservation.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed 3.4 acres of irreplaceable woodlands in the Alewife reservation behind 165 CambridgePark Drive.
The destruction could not avoid mass killings of residents, animals whose families have resided there for Centuries.
Here is a photo of this outrage from a puff piece distributed by Cambridge. The trees on the edge used to occupy the entire area.
A routine lie on this outrage comes out of the Cambridge City Council. They have destroyed 3.4 plus acres of the irreplaceable Alewife woodlands and probably will destroy the rest of their possessions.
What is their explanation? Repeated yelling at private developers in the same woodlands, obeying municipally created zoning.
Hypocrisy, thy name is the Cambridge City Council.
(4) Cambridge Common.
The Cambridge City Council is on the verge of outrageous destruction on the Cambridge Common.
The excellent grove leading from Harvard Square will be devastated.
Here is a photo of the area where destruction is threatened and is clearly imminent if not already accomplished.
(5) Cambridge City Council supported environmental outrages under the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges.
As near as I can gather, AND I COULD BE WRONG, this destruction in the Charles River did not pass with the massive tree destruction voted in at the State House.
The outrages in the Charles River were supported by the Cambridge City Council and condemned by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation which replaced the DCR in responsibility for these bridges. MassDOT considered the project environmentally destructive and wasteful of state funds.
(6) Cambridge is considering further destruction at the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese on an irresponsible route for a bike highway.
This is part of a bike highway which is proposed to run through the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese.
Here is their map. Construction would place a fence dividing into two halves the ghetto in which so much destruction has been done from the adjacent hillside / animal habitat.
The J figure just to the left of the river would devastate the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River White Geese are no confined. A fence would be constructed between the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese and the wild area above the Grand Junction Railroad (running diagonally). The Charles River White Geese have been forced into the wild area for nesting because of all the destruction which has been inflicted on their ghetto home.
Here are a few photos of the area. Please note that the ground destruction was forced on the Charles River White Geese by agents of the DCR. I will go into this area in more detail below.
The railroad is at the top of the hill in the first photo.
Here is a recent photo of the Charles River White Geese hunting for food along the Grand Junction Railroad. This is the proposed location of the Bike Highway with the fence paralleling the track. Above the Charles River White Geese is Memorial Drive.
If Cambridge had a responsible City Government, the bike highway would connect to an end at Memorial Drive. There are two possible alternate routes.
I have proposed cutting through to the curve of Vassar Street and then to Memorial Drive.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology has proposed it connect to Vassar Street at the existing crossing by Fort Washington, go about two blocks on Vassar Street, and connect to Memorial Drive by Amesbury Street.
Here is MIT’s map of the alternate area.
The foodless ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined is at point number 4. The proposed bike highway / current Grand Junction Railroad runs diagonally up and to the right from point 4.
The bend to which Bike Highway construction could readily be made is the blue line directly below the Grand Junction. The connector is currently a parking lot, and a relatively small taking would be necessary.
The MIT proposal is to the right of this, marked “1". The portion of Vassar Street to be used is colored blue and then reddish. The connector over the Grand Junction to Fort Washington Park is colored olive and the word “Fort” off the map.
(7) Cambridge’s outrage crossing the Charles River.
Here is another MIT map showing the crossing of the Charles River which Cambridge is working for.
The proposed bike highway with its fence on land would go over the Grand Junction Bridge which runs left-right under the BU Bridge (diagonal).
Here is a photo of the current situation on the Boston end.
MassDOT has announced its intention to omit related construction on the Boston side as part of its reconstruction of the Massachusetts Turnpike, which is on the far left in the map photo.
According to one fighter for this outrage in a public meeting. MassDOT's decision will mean a minimum of three years delay in destruction for this project.
Cambridge’s City Council has authorized discussions with Boston to get around MassDOT’s pending decision.
(8) Use of fake group to fight for outrages. Sample of outrages
Portions of this subsection could be in the show with major sugar coating. I did not dignify them with examination of their nonsense.
A fake group close to Cambridge and the DCR have been fighting for all these new outrages and to expand them, using corrupt tactics to fabricate supposed actions by the fake group.
The fake group have fought to keep in place outrages at Magazine Beach which are highly destructive and were put in place through outrages lying. Details are presented in subsequent sections.
Key is the company union tactic of claiming concern for the Charles River and calling it anti Charles River to defend the Charles River.
Under their propaganda, it is politically incorrect to look at anything on the Charles River except for a building which has not been used in 80 years that they want to convert to retail.
This clear unwavering claim of demand for political correctness has been expanded to include other DCR goals for new destruction:
(a) Put in a bike highway through the area west of Magazine Beach. This would connect to the outrages in Ch. 286, Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways
(b) Destroy healthy grass in that area to replace it with sickly grass that needs poisons and thus fancy drainage, both as done at the Magazine Beach playing fields.
(c) Probably yet another bizarre wall walling off the banks from the river as was done through lies at the playing fields. The purpose at the playing fields is to starve the Charles River White Geese. Nowhere else on the Charles River Basin is bordering vegetation allowed to grow without being chopped down twice a year. The starvation wall simply grows.
Here are before and after pictures.
(d) Destroy the little guys parking lot on that hill, at the foot of Magazine Street.
Never justified. The DCR and the fake group are currently working on justifying the destruction.
Here are current photos.
(9) The falsely named “Charles River Conservancy.”
This outrage will be extensively discussed in subsequent sections.
c. The DCR is an entity which is held in contempt by a significant percentage of state legislators.3
The DCR was stripped of a lot of its power by the legislature because its apologists would not allow it to lose more power. On the Charles River, significant power has been transferred to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MassDOT is a normal, responsible agency. Cambridge and its bedmate, the DCR, are highly bad entities. The destructiveness and wastefulness of the DCR has earned broad contempt. Cambridge shares the goals of the DCR and blesses very much all major decisions in and around Cambridge.
MassDOT has been a breath of fresh air.
I recently praised MassDOT for its commendable behavior in the area it has replaced the DCR. That commendation was severely inadequate. MassDOT has stood up to outrages stemming from the City of Cambridge in multiple areas and has stood up to DCR initiated outrages, all of which are fought for by the Cambridge Machine.
I will go into the reality of these two entities in the future.
d. DCR does a lot of lying.
The terrible things which have been done at Magazine Beach directly conflict with policies supposedly supported by DCR. I will go into greater detail in the heartless abuse segment.
A couple of key lies have come with regard to (1) the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, as a general matter, and (2) the massive tree destruction just supported by the State House.
(1) Heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese — lies achieving them.
When the attacks on the Charles River White Geese started by friends of the DCR and Cambridge, there was major stink. The press was so strong the reports even ran to the Wall Street Journal.
The concern was deflated by a flat out lie repeated and repeated by the key manager. He has “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese.
Secret definition of “harm” does not include any of the many outrages, including deliberate starvation which Cambridge and the DCR have inflicted.
(2) The destruction of those hundreds of trees.
The Boston Globe did a story when the DCR sought Obama moneys for this destruction in 2009.
The flat out lie then was that ALL the targeted trees were diseased.
ALL DISEASED TREES WERE DESTROYED YEARS EARLIER. But they put out that lie anyway.
(3) In short.
A public entity is assumed to be honorable. The flat out lies are very effective as a result.
People simply assume a public agency has honor. That is a severe error when dealing with the rottenness of the DCR.
3. Summary.
I am much more likely to get this response out if I do it in parts. And it will be more readable.
So I am stopping here. I may add to this list as my mental organization fleshes out.
0. Photos of the doomed and the destroyed.
1. Introduction.
2. Lies of omission.
a. Goal: Kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.
b. Cambridge is a coconspirator to the DCR. Cambridge and the DCR have outrageous contempt for the environment and resident animals.
(1) The outrage at Magazine Beach.
(2) Chapter 286, acts of 2014, historic parkways, $20 million.
(3) Massive destruction at the Alewife reservation.
(4) Cambridge Common.
(5) Cambridge City Council supported environmental outrages under the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges.
(6) Cambridge is considering further destruction at the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese on an irresponsible route for a bike highway.
(7) Cambridge’s outrage crossing the Charles River.
(8) Use of fake group to fight for outrages. Sample of outrages.
(9) The falsely named “Charles River Conservancy.”
c. The DCR is an entity which is held in contempt by a significant percentage of state legislators.3
d. DCR does a lot of lying.
(1) Heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese — lies achieving them.
(2) The destruction of those hundreds of trees.
(3) In short.
3. Summary.
0. Photos of the targeted and the destroyed.
1. Introduction.
Cambridge has devoted its display room in its City Hall Annex to a puff piece on Magazine Beach.
I did not look much at the main display. It probably says that the outrage inflicted through lies and deception on Magazine Beach was the greatest thing going.
More importantly, it almost certainly tells folks not to look at the hundreds of trees Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation are about to destroy on Memorial Drive.
What I looked at was the part on the Charles River White Geese which was, as usual, beautifully written, and, also as usual when they have been reprehensible, claims exactly the opposite of them being reprehensible.
My thoughts on this outrage are growing to such an extent that this will wind up as several parts.
I will start with Lies of Omission and go from there. I will try not to duplicate any more than I can help.
2. Lies of omission.
Cambridge and the DCR are great achieving their lies of holiness through outrageous omissions of vileness.
The DCR is more blatant. Cambridge is more subtle. The achievement is the same.
Here are a few. I almost certainly missed a lot.
a. Goal: Kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.
Cambridge treats the Department of Conservation and Recreation as equally holy to the City of Cambridge.
Key in their omissions in their analysis of the outrages inflicted on the Charles River White Geese is the omission of a dominant policy of the DCR which we kept hearing about from the DCR each time the DCR made their vile behavior even more file.
They have a sanctified document called the Charles River Master Plan. The fine print in this document makes their intent clear.
This supposed environmental entity has as a prominent goal concerning resident animals.
That goal is the killing off or driving away all resident animals including the Charles River White Geese in spite of their obvious beauty and value.
And they have inflicted this goal on these beautiful, popular, extremely valuable 33 year residents every time the DCR has an opportunity to turn the screws.
This goal directly conflicts with the pitch we were given constantly when they were initially selling these outrages, the goal of valuing water related uses. 33 year resident waterfowl are most definitely water related uses.
There is nothing neutral about the DCR policy on resident animals.
For Cambridge to give any other impression is an outright lie.
b. Cambridge is a coconspirator to the DCR. Cambridge and the DCR have outrageous contempt for the environment and resident animals.
Just a few examples.
(1) The outrage at Magazine Beach.
Rossi, the current Cambridge City Manager managed the outrage at Magazine Beach. The Cambridge City Council spent millions on this outrage.
And Cambridge is blessing the DCR as saints without mentioning that Rossi manage the project.
And the Cambridge City Council is yelling about migrant circus performers with filthy hands of their own.
To make it worse, Cambridge is putting on a display which, quite assuredly (I did not bother look at anything else) lies that the environmental outrage they inflicted is saintly.
(2) Chapter 286, acts of 2014, historic parkways, $20 million.
This year the State House put in $20 million for destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges in Cambridge.
The stated destroyer is the DCR.
This project was vetted with city planners athttp://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html.
its origin. The Cambridge City Council received the plans while destruction was in front of the legislature and was belligerently “neutral”.
Here is a photo of the excellent tree overlooking the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese have been imprisoned without food. This tree is just east of the BU Bridge. It is normal size for the destruction being inflicted.
Here are photos of the excellent grove at the Memorial Drive split which is slated to be devastated. These trees are smaller than most of the trees being callously destroyed, but the accumulation is excellent.
Destruction would include construction in that heartless ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese are confined without food.
(3) Massive destruction at the Alewife reservation.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed 3.4 acres of irreplaceable woodlands in the Alewife reservation behind 165 CambridgePark Drive.
The destruction could not avoid mass killings of residents, animals whose families have resided there for Centuries.
Here is a photo of this outrage from a puff piece distributed by Cambridge. The trees on the edge used to occupy the entire area.
A routine lie on this outrage comes out of the Cambridge City Council. They have destroyed 3.4 plus acres of the irreplaceable Alewife woodlands and probably will destroy the rest of their possessions.
What is their explanation? Repeated yelling at private developers in the same woodlands, obeying municipally created zoning.
Hypocrisy, thy name is the Cambridge City Council.
(4) Cambridge Common.
The Cambridge City Council is on the verge of outrageous destruction on the Cambridge Common.
The excellent grove leading from Harvard Square will be devastated.
Here is a photo of the area where destruction is threatened and is clearly imminent if not already accomplished.
(5) Cambridge City Council supported environmental outrages under the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges.
As near as I can gather, AND I COULD BE WRONG, this destruction in the Charles River did not pass with the massive tree destruction voted in at the State House.
The outrages in the Charles River were supported by the Cambridge City Council and condemned by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation which replaced the DCR in responsibility for these bridges. MassDOT considered the project environmentally destructive and wasteful of state funds.
(6) Cambridge is considering further destruction at the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese on an irresponsible route for a bike highway.
This is part of a bike highway which is proposed to run through the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese.
Here is their map. Construction would place a fence dividing into two halves the ghetto in which so much destruction has been done from the adjacent hillside / animal habitat.
The J figure just to the left of the river would devastate the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River White Geese are no confined. A fence would be constructed between the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese and the wild area above the Grand Junction Railroad (running diagonally). The Charles River White Geese have been forced into the wild area for nesting because of all the destruction which has been inflicted on their ghetto home.
Here are a few photos of the area. Please note that the ground destruction was forced on the Charles River White Geese by agents of the DCR. I will go into this area in more detail below.
The railroad is at the top of the hill in the first photo.
If Cambridge had a responsible City Government, the bike highway would connect to an end at Memorial Drive. There are two possible alternate routes.
I have proposed cutting through to the curve of Vassar Street and then to Memorial Drive.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology has proposed it connect to Vassar Street at the existing crossing by Fort Washington, go about two blocks on Vassar Street, and connect to Memorial Drive by Amesbury Street.
Here is MIT’s map of the alternate area.
The foodless ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined is at point number 4. The proposed bike highway / current Grand Junction Railroad runs diagonally up and to the right from point 4.
The bend to which Bike Highway construction could readily be made is the blue line directly below the Grand Junction. The connector is currently a parking lot, and a relatively small taking would be necessary.
The MIT proposal is to the right of this, marked “1". The portion of Vassar Street to be used is colored blue and then reddish. The connector over the Grand Junction to Fort Washington Park is colored olive and the word “Fort” off the map.
(7) Cambridge’s outrage crossing the Charles River.
Here is another MIT map showing the crossing of the Charles River which Cambridge is working for.
The proposed bike highway with its fence on land would go over the Grand Junction Bridge which runs left-right under the BU Bridge (diagonal).
Here is a photo of the current situation on the Boston end.
MassDOT has announced its intention to omit related construction on the Boston side as part of its reconstruction of the Massachusetts Turnpike, which is on the far left in the map photo.
According to one fighter for this outrage in a public meeting. MassDOT's decision will mean a minimum of three years delay in destruction for this project.
Cambridge’s City Council has authorized discussions with Boston to get around MassDOT’s pending decision.
(8) Use of fake group to fight for outrages. Sample of outrages
Portions of this subsection could be in the show with major sugar coating. I did not dignify them with examination of their nonsense.
A fake group close to Cambridge and the DCR have been fighting for all these new outrages and to expand them, using corrupt tactics to fabricate supposed actions by the fake group.
The fake group have fought to keep in place outrages at Magazine Beach which are highly destructive and were put in place through outrages lying. Details are presented in subsequent sections.
Key is the company union tactic of claiming concern for the Charles River and calling it anti Charles River to defend the Charles River.
Under their propaganda, it is politically incorrect to look at anything on the Charles River except for a building which has not been used in 80 years that they want to convert to retail.
This clear unwavering claim of demand for political correctness has been expanded to include other DCR goals for new destruction:
(a) Put in a bike highway through the area west of Magazine Beach. This would connect to the outrages in Ch. 286, Acts of 2014, “Historic Parkways
(b) Destroy healthy grass in that area to replace it with sickly grass that needs poisons and thus fancy drainage, both as done at the Magazine Beach playing fields.
(c) Probably yet another bizarre wall walling off the banks from the river as was done through lies at the playing fields. The purpose at the playing fields is to starve the Charles River White Geese. Nowhere else on the Charles River Basin is bordering vegetation allowed to grow without being chopped down twice a year. The starvation wall simply grows.
Here are before and after pictures.
(d) Destroy the little guys parking lot on that hill, at the foot of Magazine Street.
Never justified. The DCR and the fake group are currently working on justifying the destruction.
Here are current photos.
(9) The falsely named “Charles River Conservancy.”
This outrage will be extensively discussed in subsequent sections.
c. The DCR is an entity which is held in contempt by a significant percentage of state legislators.3
The DCR was stripped of a lot of its power by the legislature because its apologists would not allow it to lose more power. On the Charles River, significant power has been transferred to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MassDOT is a normal, responsible agency. Cambridge and its bedmate, the DCR, are highly bad entities. The destructiveness and wastefulness of the DCR has earned broad contempt. Cambridge shares the goals of the DCR and blesses very much all major decisions in and around Cambridge.
MassDOT has been a breath of fresh air.
I recently praised MassDOT for its commendable behavior in the area it has replaced the DCR. That commendation was severely inadequate. MassDOT has stood up to outrages stemming from the City of Cambridge in multiple areas and has stood up to DCR initiated outrages, all of which are fought for by the Cambridge Machine.
I will go into the reality of these two entities in the future.
d. DCR does a lot of lying.
The terrible things which have been done at Magazine Beach directly conflict with policies supposedly supported by DCR. I will go into greater detail in the heartless abuse segment.
A couple of key lies have come with regard to (1) the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, as a general matter, and (2) the massive tree destruction just supported by the State House.
(1) Heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese — lies achieving them.
When the attacks on the Charles River White Geese started by friends of the DCR and Cambridge, there was major stink. The press was so strong the reports even ran to the Wall Street Journal.
The concern was deflated by a flat out lie repeated and repeated by the key manager. He has “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese.
Secret definition of “harm” does not include any of the many outrages, including deliberate starvation which Cambridge and the DCR have inflicted.
(2) The destruction of those hundreds of trees.
The Boston Globe did a story when the DCR sought Obama moneys for this destruction in 2009.
The flat out lie then was that ALL the targeted trees were diseased.
ALL DISEASED TREES WERE DESTROYED YEARS EARLIER. But they put out that lie anyway.
(3) In short.
A public entity is assumed to be honorable. The flat out lies are very effective as a result.
People simply assume a public agency has honor. That is a severe error when dealing with the rottenness of the DCR.
3. Summary.
I am much more likely to get this response out if I do it in parts. And it will be more readable.
So I am stopping here. I may add to this list as my mental organization fleshes out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)