Charles River: Trust Cambridge, MA, USA’s Development Dept.?

Charles River:   Trust Cambridge, MA, USA’s Development Dept.?

This report is the latter half of a pair with my report on my letter to the Secretary / CEO of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  Dominant in that letter was my objection to a con game which was the basis of a letter from the Cambridge City Council to her.  The letter is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/charles-river-con-game-fights-for.html.

The letter I am transmitting here was used as an attachment to that letter to give the new Cambridge City Manager a feel for who can be trusted on development matters.

I have hesitation reporting this letter because I respect and have high hopes for the new City Manager.  In particular, I suggested in my letter that he keep the contents confidential until he had a chance to test the Development Department to see if the outrageous lie they had told for 21 years was still being claimed to be “reality” 26 years after it became an outrageous lie.

Six months has passed.  The letter was very well written and communicated reality in the City of Cambridge on development matters.  I am trying to communicate reality in the City of Cambridge on a subsequent matter which has the stench of the Cambridge Development Department.

It is well written.  The purpose for suggesting confidentiality has long since passed.

So I used the letter for the purpose for which it was originally used, and I am going public for the same purpose.

A technical matter:   This letter was created in WordPerfect and saved in PDF.  I cannot find the WordPerfect original, so I have used WordPerfect to translate the PDF back to WordPerfect.  I think it is clean.  If I missed some sort of stupid translation, I apologize.

The letter:

* * * * *

November 16, 2016

City Manager Louis A. DePasquale
City of Cambridge
City Hall
Cambridge, MA 02139

RE: Greetings, misleading voters, Charles River, long term KEY falsification by Development Department

Dear Mr. Manager:

Congratulations on your appointment and welcome to a very strange situation.

Enclosed are three letters from me individually and as chair of Friends of the White Geese to you and to the City Council.

Last night, you were scheduled to attend a meeting of a group in Cambridgeport which calls itself a “neighborhood association.” It has a very telling rule on its Listserv. People are CENSORED from SAYING NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND CAMBRIDGE’S FRIENDS NO MATTER HOW VALID THE COMMENT. More blatant control is exercised in control of the entity’s agenda and similar tactics.

This bizarre situation is part of a pattern which dates back to the return of James Leo Sullivan to the City Manager position in 1974. He had been fired in the late 60s and declared, as one of his major goals, that he would create a system of “neighborhood associations.” Last night you saw the most recent incarnation of what is presented to the public as “neighborhood associations.”

“Neighborhood Associations” / “protective groups” have had an amazing tendency to appear when Cambridge and friends are proposing destructive actions. Groups like this have had an incredible tendency to achieve the opposite of what they claim to stand for. At least for a while, no “neighborhood association” was recognized unless it had been blessed by the City Manager / Development Department.

Among other things, for environmental purposes, I have had a hand in the writing of more of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge. My biggest problem, too often, has been people who control these “neighborhood associations.” When I have won, and the victories have been in the majority, there have been a lot of instances in which the City Council has taken my side and stood up to city appointees including the Planning Board, and to friends of the Development Department.

I think it is rather certain that the current effort to take zoning away from the voters in the name of a “Master Plan” wipes out zoning which the City Council put in place over the wishes of the City Manager and the wishes of the always present “activists.” The corrupt tactics which have been used by the core group of that group which you met last night are only part of the control techniques of supposed protective groups by which a lot of destruction has occurred while they loudly proclaimed that they are a protective entity. They tell people not to look at destruction. They even tell people to support it, claiming “you can’t win.”

The technical term is “company union.”

War stories including the very terrible achievements and goals of the falsely named group you met least night and similar groups would take too much time. Communicating part of my record is more useful.

Among other things, I have victories at Alewife, in the Harvard Law School area, in the Cambridge Hospital area both between the hospitals and in the neighborhood south of the hospitals, in the Harvard Houses area, in Kerry Corner, at Guffey Park, and in about 85% of Mass. Ave. and side streets between Harvard and Central Square, including the former Inn at Harvard.

Mass. Ave. included three major zoning petitions and participation / drafting in smaller petitions. Most won. The biggest shortcomings resulted from corrupt tactics by people such as tactics of the folks who control the group you saw last night.

I wrote the first three neighborhood zoning petitions for the area in Cambridgeport which has been developed by MIT.

It would be a horrible tome to attempt to present all these oddities. I direct you to one very major flat out lie ON A STATE / REGIONAL MATTER promulgated by the Development Department and by ALL of the visible and SUPPOSEDLY EXPERT and “independent” “LEADERS” in this collection of “protective” groups. Their supposed understanding of reality directly conflicts with REALITY AS SEEN BY PEOPLE OUTSIDE CAMBRIDGE INFLUENCE.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE VERSION OF REALITY PUT OUT BY CAMBRIDGE AND COMPANY DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE VERSION OF REALITY PUT OUT BY THE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE IN STATE GOVERNMENT WHOSE POSITION, OVER MANY YEARS, HAS BEEN FALSELY REPORTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
This major, outrageous situation ran from 1991 to AT LEAST 2012. The reason my understanding ends at 2012 is that that was the last time I checked. It is highly certain that this key, highly provable and very major FLAT OUT LIE continues to exist.

There is a mass transit proposal which has been under consideration since 1985 called the Urban Ring. Most recently it has been warped into a higher priority for bus routes, but, as recently as, I believe, 2015, the City Manager reaffirmed Cambridge’s interest in the rapid transit rail aspects in a comment during the environmental review of the South Station “Expansion.” The South Station Expansion, in turn, has fine print destructive to eastern Cambridge, when you understand a key omission.

Since 1991, the MBTA has had two crossings of the Charles River on the books for the Urban Ring rail proposal, the BU Bridge crossing, and the Kenmore Crossing. I proposed the Kenmore Crossing in 1986 because of the environmental destructiveness of the BU Bridge Crossing. Since 1991 and, as recently as 2012, the Development Department and people influenced by the Development Department have denied the existence of the Kenmore Crossing. This flat out lie was communicated to the City Council and was the key basis of zoning changes in the area of the Grand Junction Railroad near the Charles River in the 2000s.

Here are Cambridge and Boston maps of the BU Bridge Crossing from the MBTA. This is the one which the Development Department and influenced “activists” have spent a minimum of 21 years lying is the only alternative under consideration.

Here are Cambridge and Boston maps of the Kenmore Crossing from the MBTA. This is the Charles River Crossing option the Development Dept. and influenced “activists” have spent a minimum of 21 years denying exists or has ever existed as an option.

There are three keys in this situation.

First is that the BU Bridge Crossing is destructive of the environment in Cambridge. Secondly is that the Kenmore Crossing uses Orange Line technology whereas the BU Bridge Crossing uses Green Line technology.

A third key difference is Yawkey Station on the Commuter Rail, across from Fenway Park. The BU Bridge Crossing would move Yawkey about .5 miles, to Mountfort and St. Mary’s, about a block from Boston University’s Marsh Chapel.

The Kenmore Crossing makes Yawkey part of a super station in which Yawkey connects to an Orange Line quality Urban Ring station under the Brookline Avenue Bridge over the Mass. Pike and from there to the existing Kenmore Station on the Green Line. Above, on the right below “Kenmore Square,” Yawkey and Urban Ring stations show as right-left and diagonal black rectangles.

There would be direct connections among (a) the Urban Ring (direct Orange Line quality service to Harvard Medical Area and Downtown Boston through Ruggles Station, plus direct service to Cambridge (MIT, Kendall, East Cambridge) and to the northern end of the Orange Line), (b) the Commuter Rail to Worcester / South Station, and to ( c ) the Green Line B, C and D branches, plus Downtown / Back Bay , and, of course, (d) excellent access to Fenway Park. The Orange Line connection through Ruggles and Charlestown should be accomplished in a manner similar to the split into the two Red Line branches at JFK Station.

The BU Bridge Green Line quality crossing is far inferior. It connects to Commuter Rail and Green Line B (Boston College) from an Urban Ring station at Mountfort and St. Mary’s. Green Line B access would involve a tunnel and a walk in the elements from the south sidewalk of Comm. Ave. It would connect to Green Lines C (Cleveland Circle) and D (Riverside) through an Urban Ring station under Park Drive between the C and D lines. There would be either a new station or a walk of two blocks at Beacon Street to connect with C. It would provide transfers to the Orange Line but could not provide direct rapid transit rail service to Downtown Boston or to the northern reaches of the Orange Line.

The legislature has since spent construction money upgrading Yawkey Station in place. This makes a Yawkey move to Mountfort and St. Mary’s (required by the BU Bridge Crossing) that much more silly. This station upgrade could be related to a conversation in which I informed that developer of the possible move of Yawkey under the Cambridge / BU Bridge alternative.

Here are photos of the upgraded Yawkey Station which would have to be abandoned if the inferior crossing pushed by the Development Department were implemented, with harm, at minimum, to the major project going in above the station.

I recommend that you keep this communication confidential UNTIL YOU HAVE DISCUSSED THE URBAN RING RAPID TRANSIT PROPOSAL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, and that you NOT INITIALLY TELL THEM WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOVE. If you do as I recommend, there is a good possibility that you will get a repeat of the outright and bizarre lie that was put out by the Development Department and its influenced “expert” “activists” for a minimum of 21 years, 25 years if it this bizarre lie is still the Development Department’s official (and blatantly false) view of reality.

An alternative method of proving this outrageous lie can be found in the files on the zoning changes in the 2000s of areas around the Grand Junction near the Charles River. These changes, in writing, were based on the flat out lie that the Kenmore Crossing, an official MBTA Urban Ring Rail Charles River Crossing Option for more than a decade at that time, did not exist.

But this nonsense is not isolated. It is simply that this nonsense is readily provable. Hundreds of trees were just destroyed based on lies of omission and bureaucratic dirty tricks, with the destruction of another 54 being fought for with yet more misbehavior.

Congratulations and welcome again.

Sincerely,
Robert J. La Trémouille

Charles River: Con Game fights for Destruction.

RE: Charles River:   Con Game fights for Destruction.

1. Prequil.
2. Introduction.
3. Letter to Massachusetts Secretary / CEO of Transportation.


1. Prequil.

I have not been personally posting very much in recent weeks.  The bad guys in Cambridge have been keeping me busy.

The action right now is the Cambridge City Council.  They have not had a business meeting in at least three weeks and things are accumulating.  I have three communications pending in front of them:

(1) A response with copy to them of my letter to the Massachusetts Secretary of the Department of Transportation concerning “protection” with disguised attack (the purpose of this post);

(2) The Cambridge City Council’s seeking of money from the City Manager toward the destruction of 54 trees at Magazine Beach along with continuation of multiple outrages there.  That item is 51 pages long and will be broken into a series of reports after this one to minimize the material in each.  I will be pleased to provide a direct copy to interested folks with lots more than a 100 graphics, copy in PDF and divided into 5 files, email, request to boblat@yahoo.com; and

(3) an email I made part of the formal City Council record which  seems like ages ago.  I will remember its topic when I see it.

2. Introduction.

The key document in this report is my response to a letter to the Massachusetts Secretary / CEO of Transportation from former (and highly destructive) Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis.  The Davis letter presumably backs my concern about the destruction of the connection to Cambridge from the Charles’ southern boulevard (Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive) by the River Street Bridge.  In reality, it fights for destruction in the last home of the Charles River White Geese, plus the construction of a super highway across Cambridge similar to one which was defeated by real activists fifty years ago, plus a new commuter rail line across Cambridge which was rejected by MassDOT two years or so ago.

And all of this in a document which is skillfully worded to give the impression that she is concerned about that highway connection, a matter of Cambridge concern on which she was on the wrong side in committee vote.

Her document was endorsed by the Cambridge City Council in spite of, or perhaps because of, her duplicity.  Her letter also went through the Cambridge City Manager.  Her letter is organized with a whole bunch of bullets with destructive detail to the bullets.  Naturally, both the Cambridge City Manager letter and the Cambridge City Council motion repeat the bullets without the details.

The impression is given to me that the lovely bullets are supported and the real meaning was not noted.  The irresponsible mess is hidden because her meaningless nonsense about the highway access from Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive dominated the package with a whole bunch of attachments.

The whole thing stinks of drafting by the Cambridge Development Department.

My letter of objection to the Secretary / CEO of Transportation included a copy of a letter welcoming the new Cambridge City Manager six months ago which I have not previously released in public.  It went into the terrible record of the Cambridge Development Department and the fake Neighborhood Association.

This report is too long with just the secretary / CEO letter.  I will defer the attachment to later.  I would be pleased to provide a PDF of it as well to concerned people in the meantime.  Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com if you would like the PDF.

Copies to Cambridge City Council / Cambridge City Manager.  With the six month old letter to the incoming Cambridge City Manager as attachment.

3. Letter to Massachusetts Secretary / CEO of Transportation.

May 30, 2017

Stephanie Pollack, Secretary and CEO
Massachusetts Department of Transporation
10 Park Plaza, Room 4160
Boston, MA   02116

RE: Communication from Cambridge City Council concerning I90 Allston Work

Madam Secretary:

I am in possession of a strikingly deceptive document which I understand that has been passed on to you by vote of the Cambridge City Council on May 22, 2017, City Council Order Number 1.  It concerns the ongoing planning of the I90 (Mass. Pike) rebuild in Allston..

This document purports to be an independent vote of the Cambridge City Council passing on a recommendation of the City Manager which in turn passes on a letter in the name of former Cambridge City Councillor Henrietta Davis who, in turn, is a late appointed member of the I90 Allston Task Force.

The City Council and City Manager documents are essentially identical and omit key subordinate items in the Davis document.  The Davis document is dominated by attachments which are difficult to describe as other than a smoke screen.

I am writing individually and as chair of Friends of the White Geese, a non profit recognized by the Attorney General since 2001.  I personally have been active on Cambridge environmental and transportation matters since 1974 with major victories.

I have followed I90 Allston planning as I can, including Task Force meetings I have been aware of.   I have worked on Urban Ring and Red Line extension planning before that.  The Urban Ring Kenmore Crossing of the Charles River alternative was initially proposed by me in 1986, before it was independently adopted by the MBTA in 1991.  A good taste of the lack of credibility of perhaps the key factor in the current situation, the Cambridge Development Department is its incredible dishonesty on the Kenmore Crossing.  Commencing with the adoption of the Kenmore Crossing as a formal alternative in 1991 and extending, at minimum, to 2012, the Cambridge Development Department consistently denied the existence of the Kenmore Crossing.  My analysis of the situation to the Cambridge City Council is attached.

Cambridge has a new City Manager who may or may not be independent of his three predecessors.  The predecessors seemed to be interchangeable with the situation in the Cambridge Development Department.  The communication you have received could be the last gasp of a dishonest situation.

A brief example of my successes against this machine can be demonstrated by the fact that I have had a hand in the rewriting (for environmental purposes) of the zoning of about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue and abutting streets between Harvard and Central Squares, usually defeating, in front of the Cambridge City Council, the Cambridge Development Department and its never identified as, but very truly existing, machine in the community.  One very major example of my successes is the former Inn at Harvard building at Mass. Ave. and Harvard Street in east Harvard Square, which Harvard, the Development Department and the machine wanted to be significantly more intrusive and less environmentally responsible than it is.

The package in front of you is visibly dominated by the very large package of attachments to the supposed Davis letter expressing concern about the loss of the exit ramp from Soldiers Field Road westbound to the River Street Bridge and then to many parts of Cambridge.  Most Cambridge destinations are not close to the Charles River.

The purported interest, and very major package of documents, of Davis in this off ramp is belied by an exchange I had with Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis (Nate) who is the key organizer and the most visible part of the I90 Allston project.

The exchange came as part of my public testimony in December 2016 at MassDOT’s public presentation in Union Square Allston.

I opposed killing this off ramp and pointed out that it had never before been presented in public.  Nate very strongly replied that Henrietta Davis supported the change.

And you have a package dominated by Davis presenting all those documents giving an impression that Davis has concerns which are strikingly different from her position in the advisory committee.

And you have two IDENTICALLY WORDED documents from the Cambridge City Council and Cambridge City Manager supporting the MAIN PARTS of the Davis document without really indicating any meaningful understanding of the fine print.

The reality is that the fine print, in part, conflicts with public positions taken by the Cambridge City Council and, in part, with findings of MassDOT.  MassDOT, after extended review of the use of the Grand Junction for commuter rail purposes, rejected passenger rail on the Grand Junction.  MassDOT reviewed commuter rail in great detail with much public participation, and found no value in Grand Junction commuter rail except to Kendall Square.

The letter’s communications if carefully read directly contradict the detailed MassDOT study WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC INPUT, COMMUNICATION OR EXPLANATION.  This incredible situation (1) comes in a document dominated by River Street Bridge purported concern which contradicts Davis’ position in the privacy of the review committee, and (2) contradicts Cambridge City Council claims of environmental sainthood most recently propounded on the steps of Cambridge City Hall the Monday before May Day.

This sort of behavior exactly fits the pattern of lies by the Cambridge Development Department as analyzed in the attachment.  It is entirely possible that the recently appointed City Manager will clean up this mess and end the opaqueness of the carefully crafted machine through which these bureaucrats dominated a lot of Cambridge politics for 42 years.

To give you a few specific bullets:

1. Commuter Rail would severely mess up major intersections in the heavily traveled City of Cambridge, a factor of major consideration in PUBLIC PROCESS which resulted in MassDOT opposition to Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction.  Here is a MassDOT map with the impacted intersections marked by me.

2. A very major factor in the fine print is the determination of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, with Cambridge Development Department support to kill or drive out all resident animals on this part of the Charles River.  This is a basic goal of the supposed Charles River Master Plan.

The supposed Master Plan has been blatantly violated, for the purposes of heartless animal abuse, at the Magazine Beach playing fields where the playing fields have been walled off from the Charles River by a starvation wall preventing access between the playing fields and the Charles River for the Charles River White Geese, 36 year residents of this part of the Charles River.  They lived and fed there.  The Master Plan publicly promised a “lawn to the river.”  The promise was changed AFTER the creation of the starvation wall.

The DCR is working on plans which the legislature attempted to destroy when the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission.  The planners were transferred to the DCR and went forward and are going forward with their decade old plans with NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC INPUT ALLOWED.  They destroyed hundreds of trees east of the BU Bridge.  They created very real obstacles to access from the Charles River to food at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

The next step, destruction of the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined and destruction of the Wild Area on the Charles River east of the Grand Junction, is casually mentioned in the fine print as access from the BU Bridge to the Grand Junction, etc., and by details of the alternate Mass. Pike relocations proposals.

Here are photos of the starvation wall, of the carefully placed stone obstacles at the Hyatt, of obstacles to even deny the Charles River White Geese food under Memorial Drive, and of the ghetto to which they have been confined and abused through dirty tricks, NEVER PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.  These actions attacked  this EXCELLENT TOURIST ATTRACTION AND HIGHLY APPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR INTELLECTUAL STUDY.  36 years of FREE existence surrounded by heavy population would certainly be of academic interest.

3. Creation of a Mass. Pike exit providing MIT direct access to the Mass. Pike, in violation of Cambridge’s successful fight which prevented an Interstate in pretty much the same exact location.  The success came before the Development Department’s organizing.

There are a whole bunch of lovely euphemisms.  The reality is the 2003 / 2004 study of the MBTA proving an exit ramp possible over the Grand Junction railroad bridge, IF THE GRAND JUNCTION BRIDGE IS WIDENED.  The bridge is proposed to be widened “for” all those lovely purposes.

AND, LIKE THE COMMUTER RAIL, after very visible and very successful opposition, this extremely hot button issue is being pursued in fine print.  Never mentioned, but very truly there.

Here is a file photo of the Grand Junction railroad bridge, the target of these maneuverings.  The green sign, at an angle toward the top in the middle, is above I90 (the Mass. Pike).

And I am confident that the Secretary will see a whole bunch of letters of “support” by people who have not been told what they are supporting, including letters from people who oppose what is really being proposed.

* * * *

I PROPOSE THAT THE SECRETARY disregard the Cambridge City Council communication of May 22, 2017, in the hopes that the Cambridge Development Department will be cleaned up and end these outrages which were so dominant (and which I frequently defeated) under the three prior Cambridge City Managers.

In any case, the Secretary, at absolute minimum, should force honesty and lack of opacity on the Cambridge Development Department in place of the current whatever dirty trick works situation.

Hopefully, the latest Cambridge City Manager, who appears independent of his three predecessors, will clean up the mess.
Sincerely,


Robert J. La Trémouille, Individually and as
Chair, Friends of the White Geese

Attachment: Letter to Cambridge City Manager DePasquale, November 16, 2016.
            Pages 2 through 4 document the Urban Ring lies from the Cambridge Development Department [Ed:  To be provided later, this report is big enough now.].

cc: Cambridge City Manager DePasquale, by hand to office
I have never previously disclosed the attachment.  I do not wish inconvenience or embarrassment to you.  The letter is now six months old, and I hope no longer needs to be confidential.  I am using it because it is a very good summary to give to a transportation knowledgeable outsider to communicate the situation with the Development Department which, it would appear, had major input on the City Council order.

cc: Cambridge City Council, by hand to City Clerk for next council meeting
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis for the I90 Allston Task Force

Charles River: A visit to the Destroyed Nesting Area, and Related

Charles River:   A visit to the Destroyed Nesting Area, and Related

While I was at the Destroyed Nesting Area this morning, I was pleased to see rabbits scurrying about.

The Charles River White Geese are the most visible victims of the attacks on the Charles River by the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation and by Cambridge.  Other free animals have been severely harmed by the repeated destructiveness of the two.

On May 22, 2017, in a strikingly deceptive document, the Cambridge City Council encouraged the Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation to destroy significant parts of this last remaining habitat of the Charles River White Geese for a small vehicle highway, with tree destruction.

I will follow up with details in the next few days.

I have received the following good news on the Charles River from Phil Barber:

* * * *

Thanks again for all your good work, by the way, at Magazine Beach and elsewhere. I went over to the area we discussed yesterday and observed a catbird and a redwing blackbird in the trees. There are many rabbits this year. The wild areas are growing fine new cottonwoods and sugar maples and a few mulberries.

* * * *

I believe the bird observation is at the Magazine Beach hill, where the Cambridge City Council, on April 24, sought funds toward the destruction of 30 trees, part of the 54 trees they want to destroy in the Magazine Beach reservation.

Here is a photo of the current entrance to the Destroyed Nesting Area.

To the left you can see the overpass for Memorial Drive with luscious grass under it.  With the walling off of their food for most of the last 36 years at Magazine Beach and at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, this tiny area was the last remaining food readily available to them.

The Charles River White Geese are highly responsible jaywalkers.  They used to stand at the edge of the on ramp waiting for cars to stop coming and then cross.

Being geese, however, there were stragglers.  Since they were so careful at the beginning of crossing, they were across or in the road when cars returned.  The drivers would wait for them to cross with very big smiles on their faces.

The blockade of the entrance makes the fight to starve them by the DCR and Cambridge even clearer.

Report from Alewife: The Swans Live?

I have given you two reports from Phil Barber about a swan nest he observed at Alewife.  The second report was ominous.

Here is the third report.  It is encouraging.

* * *

Hi Bob, I bear happier tiding from Alewife today [May 31]. There is another nest on the small pond where I reported the loss of a swan nest the other week. There appear to be two eggs in it though these might be shadows.

I hope my fears about the depredation of the turtle (or whatever agent) were misplaced. I don’t know if it’s the same pair though I would think it would be. The male appears to be the same one I observed looking so dejected. I notice both their necks are discolored from plunging into the waters of Alewife. I once saw swans in Salem harbor with ‘bathtub rings’ around them from the polluted water. Anyway I’ll keep an eye on them as I get out that way relatively often, and keep you posted.

Nesting Swan killed at Alewife?

Nesting Swan killed at Alewife?


1. Phil Barber reports:
2. Exchange.
A. Your Editor.
B. Phil.
3. Editor’s Analysis.
A. Disappearance.
B. Nesting Geese killed on their nests.
C. Cambridge City Manager on Women’s Rights, City Council response.
(1) Actions.
(2) City Council position.


1. Phil Barber reports:

Ed: This follows on Phil’s initial report on these nesting swans at Alewife, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/cambridge-ma-usa-nesting-swans-at.html.

I first learned of this update from Phil yesterday, May 22, 2017, everything before my analysis in section 3 below is verbatim:

* * * *

Sorry to report things are not well with the swans. The nest is abandoned and one swan is missing. The remaining swan looks unwell. I observed him yesterday just bobbing in the current with his head under his wing, rising up a little now and then to survey the scene. I also discovered what I suspect may be the cause, a massive old snapping turtle paddling along in the pond. I’d say he’s 30” – 36” from beak to tail, and here’s a photo of him among the algae which also seem to be degrading the pond.

2. Exchange.

A. Your Editor.

In your knowledge of animals, is a large turtle capable of killing a swan?

My gut reaction is human destruction.

The surviving swan, I should think, is in mourning.

B. Phil.

I thought the same thing about the surviving swan. I believe I've heard they mate for life. It certainly is possible that the swan who seems lost was done in by humans. It would have been an effort to get to the nest, but it was plainly visible from the walkway, where anyone with evil designs could have spotted it.

The snapper I saw was very large, so my first thought was that it might be capable of taking a large waterfowl. I did a little research online about such a possibility but haven't yet come up with a definitive account. They do regularly catch ducks and young swans, I found. This link says they can't kill an adult swan http://www.enterprisenews.com/article/20100824/News/308249717 while this one says they can http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatreptileblog/2008/06/06/the-snapping-turtle-chelydra-serpentina-miscellaneous-facts/

A coyote could do the damage as well, I found in another article.

3. Editor’s Analysis.

Two examples at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

And one broader example, following up on the argument to the Cambridge City Council when decent human beings were trying to get responsible behavior there that bad people graduate from animal abuse to abuse of human beings.

A. Disappearance.

I recall so many nests being suddenly destroyed and Mother Geese “disappearing.”  One featured a nest under a large board against the BU Bridge.

Suddenly, the board and the Mother Goose was missing, the babies were all over the place and the Father Goose was nuts.

B. Nesting Geese killed on their nests.

Another example came when a nut ran around killing nesting Mother Geese on their nests.

Concerned people begged the Cambridge City Council to stand up to the outrage, reminding the Cambridge City Council that heartless animal abusers are frequently graduates to attacking humans.

The Cambridge City Council was silent, the “wink and a nod” support common of fellow travelers.

Several months later, a young woman was raped in the Destroyed Nesting Area and murdered on the Grand Junction railroad bridge, above where she was raped.

Evidence which came out, and the looks of the key convicted murderer, rather clearly indicated a graduation from heartless animal abuse to rape and murder.

The Cambridge City Council discussed the rape and murder for an hour.  They somehow could not mention where she was killed.  They spent a lot of time talking about Harvard Square.

Councilor Davis (remember her?) briefly mentioned the location of the rape and murder, looked around guiltily, swallowed her words and resumed the lack of knowledge practiced by her fellow councilors.

C. Cambridge City Manager on Women’s Rights, City Council response.

(1) Actions.

City Manager Robert Healy led the destruction at Magazine Beach and the subsequent deliberate starving of the now 36 year resident Charles River White Geese.

There has been a parallel case concerning a female, black Cape Verdean department head, Ms. Monteiro, who had the nerve to expect the City of Cambridge to, in reality, implement its claimed support of women’s rights.

Judge, jury, and Appeals Court all agreed that  Healy destroyed Monteiro’s life in retaliation for her efforts supporting women’s rights in the City of Cambridge workplace.

“Reprehensible” said the judge of the behavior of Healy.

“Ample evidence of outrageous . . . misbehavior” said the Appeals Court panel.

More than a million dollars individual damages, and more than triple penal damages said the jury.

(2) City Council position.

The Cambridge City Council named the Police Station after Healy.

Charles River Attacks Renewed, in VERY IMPORTANT fine print, of course.

Charles River Attacks Renewed, in VERY IMPORTANT fine print, of course.

1. Same two Cambridge city councilors on the attack.
2. Right turn off the southern Charles River Boulevard to Cambridge.
3. Conclusion.


1. Same two Cambridge city councilors on the attack.

Games get played in the City of Cambridge, very dirty games, always very loudly sounding great.

Vice Mayor Marc McGovern and Mayor Denise Simmons were the writers of the outrageous Cambridge City Council motion to fund destruction of 54 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach with the usual heartless animal abuse side effects.

Tonight, May 22, 2017, they have another motion concerning the Charles River which SOUNDS great, particularly if you look at the size of the attachments.

Basically, they are rubber stamping one of the two most environmentally destructive Cambridge City Councilors of the 2000s, now retired City Councilor Henrietta Davis.  Naturally, Davis then and now has the very strong odor of Cambridge Development Department influence.

The noise expresses concern over a matter which I have led.  She expresses APPARENT opposition to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s intended killing of a ramp to Cambridge from the boulevard on the southern side of the Charles River as part of MassDOT’s I90 (Mass. Pike) reconstruction project.

The very prominent fine print attacks the Grand Junction railroad tracks and the Charles River White Geese, without, of course, mentioning the heartless animal abuse or the very real destruction proposed.

In the middle has been placed the new Cambridge City Manager who passed on to the Cambridge City Council a detailed letter from Davis as his appointee to the advisory committee on I90, and it SOUNDS SO GOOD.  In the background, almost certainly, is the Cambridge Development Department.

City Manager DePasquale, quite certainly, has not been advised about the highly destructive aspects of the package.

Either about the heartless attacks on the Charles River White Geese and the free animal part of the Cambridge Charles River, or about Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction carefully mentioned but not mentioned.  Commuter Rail received major opposition from voters when it was publicly proposed and was then killed by MassDOT.  This time it is highly visible but buried by the visibility of those lovely attachments.

Particularly interesting is my part in that right turn issue, and the related comments of MassDOT, and how reality conflicts with the impression which is being given by this package.

2. Right turn off the southern Charles River Boulevard to Cambridge.

In December 2016, MassDOT first announced at a meeting in Union Square, in the Allston neighborhood of Boston, that MassDOT wanted to move all traffic currently traveling from Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive (the southern boulevard) westbound to the River Street Bridge to Cambridge.  The River Street Bridge is the next bridge west from the BU Bridge over the Charles River.  The BU Bridge, in turn, dominates the Destroyed Nesting Area, the ghetto to which the 36 year resident Charles River White Geese have been confined as part of many outrages.

The traffic would all be moved over Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive by a new highway bridge to be installed a bit east of the River Street Bridge.  The new bridge would run from the outbound, riverside of the boulevard over the boulevard to new streets proposed to take traffic from I90 (Mass. Pike) to Cambridge.  The local traffic which currently uses Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive (the boulevard) as a lightly traveled means to get to the River Street Bridge to get to Cambridge would be moved into the midst of commonly VERY HEAVY TRAFFIC from the Interstate to Cambridge.

I strongly objected in the December meeting.  I had a very visible discussion with the key MassDOT presenter.  Because this change had never been presented in Cambridge, there have proceeded limited contacts by MassDOT with Cambridge, primarily through the fake neighborhood association which is fighting for destruction on the Charles River, which has obvious connections with the Cambridge Development Department and which has indulged in corrupt practices to further their nefarious goals.

Needless to say, the fake neighborhood association was recommended by Cambridge Development Department.  Also of relevance is that the traffic pattern using the threatened traffic move features much more traffic to other parts of Cambridge than traffic to the neighborhood which the fake group claims to represent.

It is no coincidence that the goals of the fake neighborhood association are compatible with the long established destructive behavior of Ms. Davis.

So you have a Davis letter turned into a City Manager letter turned into a City Council motion propounded by two city councilors who propounded the motion to get the City Council on record in favor of mass environmental destruction on the Magazine Beach complex which runs from the BU Bridge to the River Street Bridge.

One of the strongest points made in favor of closing the off ramp made by MassDOT at the December meeting was that the change was supported by Davis.  I snorted at his use of her name, being distressingly aware of her record.

And now, Davis, through an amazingly misleading letter and those two city councilors, is putting the Cambridge City Council on record in favor of destruction at the Destroyed Nesting Area and at the Wild Area across the Grand Junction from the Destroyed Nesting Area.

And now, Davis, through an amazing misleading letter and those two city councilors, is putting the Cambridge City Council on record in favor of Commuter Rail which would mess up five major and busy Cambridge City highways, and which has been visibly, strongly opposed by voters who objected to the same project WHEN IT WAS NOT BURIED IN MISLEADING FINE PRINT.  AND WHO SUCCEEDED IN KILLING THAT PROPOSAL WHEN IT WAS PROPOUNDED IN PUBLIC.

And NEVER MENTIONED, of course (another highly volatile Cambridge issue) is the 2004 study which proves that, once you widen the Grand Junction bridge over the Charles River for those lovely purposes, it will be simple to create a highway off ramp from I90 (Mass. Pike) to the various speculative / educational holding of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which abuts the Grand Junction railway.

45 years ago, a super highway in the same area was killed by Cambridge activists.

3. Conclusion.

Unfortunately, I have a prior commitment tonight.  This report will be transmitted by email to all relevant officials.

For photos and plans, please see multiple prior reports on the Charles River White Geese blog, charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com, and shorter versions on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page, with links to the blog.

* * * *

They always sound so good.

Charles River, more detail on the April 24, 2017 Cambridge City Council vote supporting the funding of more outrages on the Charles River.

The Cambridge City Council is going into its budget for the next fiscal year, with the intent to get it completed this month.

The outrageous vote of April 24, 2017, order 1 seeking funding for the destruction of 54 mostly excellent trees, and a bunch of other terrible stuff, came on the exact day that the City Manager submitted his budget for formal consideration.  That is way too much of a “coincidence.”

The fact that members of the City Council preceded this environmental outrage with a demonstration on the steps of city hall in which they proclaimed their environmental sainthood adds to the outrage.

The following is a follow up letter to the City Manager and City Council delivered to the two offices on May 18, 2017, and reformatted for this medium

* * *

Gentlemen / Ladies

RE: More detail on the April 24, 2017 vote (Order 1) by  City Council to destroy at Magazine Beach, Communication 8 in a series.

■ Introduction.
■ Heartless animal abuse.
■ Walling off the Charles River from the Magazine Beach playing fields to starve the 36 year resident Charles River White Geese, and continuing this outrage.
■ Dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles, both in keeping poisons initiated in the 2000s, and in expanding use of poisons.
■ Abbreviated analysis of tree destruction supported by Order 1 of April 24, 2017.
□ The magnificent grove which dominates the playing fields.
□ Memorial Drive Frontage of the area between the Pedestrian overpass and the Swimming Pool.
□ Hill Trees abutting swimming pool
□ Excellent grove across from the MicroCenter parking lot, west of swimming pool.
■ Trees being destroyed NOT IN Magazine Beach Facility.
■ Fake Neighborhood Association Suppresses Information on Tree Destruction, heartless animal abuse, use of poisons, walling off of the playing fields and other really bad stuff.  Thus ALL expressions of support are support of everything but the bad stuff.
■ Attachments.
1. Western end, including boat club.
2. Swimming Pool
3. The hill, between the swimming pool (left) and the pedestrian overpass (right).  Memorial Drive is at the top.
4. Eastern portion of the hill with the fraudulent identification of 10 trees as 3 toward the bottom right
5. Destruction in front of MicroCenter.
6. Western Portion of Playing Fields.
7. Eastern Portion of Playing Fields

■ Introduction.

On April 24, 2017, members of the Cambridge City Council conducted a cheering session for themselves on the steps of Cambridge City Hall, loudly proclaiming their sainthood on environmental issues.

They then went into work and the first order passed sought appropriation of funds for environmental destruction on the Charles River.

I previously reported this vote, and have given you many photos concerning the outrage the Cambridge City Council IN REALITY supports.

My report only emphasized the outwardly fraudulent part of the motion, the part which expanded on skillful fraud by the Department of Conservation and Recreation falsely supporting mass tree destruction.  The skillfully worded fraud was converted into absolute reality in City Council Order Number 1 of April 24, 2017.

But the real environmental harm being proposed gets worse, based on lies of omission.  Lies of omission are the most common fraud which comes out of destruction proposed by the Cambridge Development Department.  My most recent prior reports have emphasized the outright but skillful fraud which was worded as reality in the City Council motion.  Lots of details were submitted in prior reports.  A partial list of my prior reports are at the end of this letter.

The lies of omission put Order number 1 of April 24, 2017 on record in favor of:

● heartless animal abuse.
● walling off the Charles River from the Magazine Beach playing fields to starve the 36 year resident Charles River White Geese, and continuing this outrage.
● dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles, both in keeping poisons initiated in the 2000s, and in expanding use of poisons.

And, of course,

● The destruction of 54 mostly excellent trees.

I took a bunch of photos on May 13, 2007 which go far to spell out the outrage.  All of the photos below were taken as part of this shoot except as particularly stated.


■ Heartless animal abuse.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation has a goal of killing off or driving away all residential animals on the Charles River.  The most visible victim is the 36 year resident Charles River White Geese.

● Walling off the Charles River from the Magazine Beach playing fields to starve the Charles River White Geese, and continuing this outrage.

For most of the last 36 years, the Charles River White Geese have lived most of the time on the Magazine Beach playing fields, feeding off its grasses, until the outrages of the 2000s.

In the outrages of the 2000s, Cambridge and the DCR walled off the Magazine Beach playing fields from the Charles River with a bizarre wall of bushes so that the playing fields might as well be ten miles inland.  This outrage is admitted to be a failure by the DCR as far as public use goes.  The public keeps away from this bizarre wall.

As far as heartless animal abuse goes, the bizarre wall is a success because Cambridge and the DCR are deliberately starving the 36 year resident Charles River White Geese in support of the DCR’s goal of killing off or driving away all resident animals in this part of the Charles River, as stated in its “Master Plan.”

There is great value in reality of the Charles River White Geese to tourists and to scientists concerned about how such a gaggle could live so long wild surrounded by civilization.  The hostility of the DCR and Cambridge “planners” strongly demonstrates their incompetence, in general, and with regard to their fitness to manage the Charles River.

The Charles River “Master Plan” called for a lawn to the river at the Playing Fields.  That portion was changed to allow the starvation wall AFTER THE FACT.

That casual rewriting of this flat out lie shows the extreme lack of value of the Charles River “Master Plan” and of the bureaucrats of the DCR and the Cambridge Development Department.
Here is what the starvation wall looks like now.

The Charles River is on the opposite side of the greenery above, and it CANNOT BE SEEN except for a tiny opening.  This was installed by a team led by later Cambridge City Manager Rossi.

The wear and tear in the [first photo] is an example of the failure of poison drinking grass discussed below.

This bizarre waste is extended by City Council Order 1 of April 24 taken WITHOUT THE CITY COUNCIL BEING MEANINGFULLY INFORMED OF WHAT IT WAS SUPPORTING.

As part of this outrage, the DCR and Cambridge have denied the Charles River White Geese access to the banks of the Charles River at the playing fields, their food of most of the last 36 years, at the Hyatt Regency (file photos, December, 2016):

The stones prevent access by the Charles River White Geese.  The area in front of the Hyatt Regency was excellent and was destroyed by Cambridge and the DCR in January 2016.  My video of the overall destruction inflicted in January 2016 is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  An independent video showing the Charles River White Geese feeding here is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.  My video analyzing the supposed “improvements” with before and after photos is posted at https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA.

The Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River White Geese have been heartlessly confined had access to food across the periodically quiet on ramp to Memorial Drive.  The DCR with Cambridge approval sub silento have corrected that food source to remove this tiny bit of food from them by walling off the entrance to their ghetto.

The Charles River White Geese crossed the access ramp north of their Destroyed Nesting Area shown in the first photo.  This was to access the food shown in the second photo.

They were very careful jay walkers.  They stood on the side of the ramp until cars were clear before crossing.  They did have a problem in crossing in that they are geese, and do dawdle.  But the drivers were regularly seen happily admiring the Charles River White Geese while they were finishing their crossing to get food.

Now denial of that food is added to the starvation attacks by DCR / Cambridge.  Access is barred by the orange wall blocking egress from their FORCED ghetto.

The area to which they are heartlessly confined to has had almost all of its ground vegetation destroyed by agents of the DCR / Cambridge.  All part of the OUTRAGES SUPPORTED BY BUT NOT MENTIONED IN ORDER 1.

A propaganda show presented in the Cambridge City Hall Annex included a plaque which summarizes what the Cambridge City Council voted in favor of (file photo) in order 1 of April 24, 2017:

I have done a report on heartlessly starved Turkeys wandering the streets of Cambridge near its main street which I have previously submitted.

■ Dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles, both in keeping poisons initiated in the 2000s, and in expanding use of poisons.

The 2000s destruction was managed by later City Manager Rossi.  Cambridge / DCR replaced grass on the playing fields which had survived a century with introduced poison drinking grasses which has been a failure.  So the DCR with Cambridge’s support (as part of City Council Order 1 of April 14, 2017) is replacing the failed poison drinking grass with new poison drinking grass.  Plus Cambridge / DCR are newly introducing these proven failures, poison drinking grass, at the top of the hill to the west of the playing fields, and around the swimming pool.

Here and [in the first photo above] are examples of the failure of the poisons.  The poisons are proven failures.  So, naturally, the DCR with the support of the Cambridge City Council (order 1 of April 24, 2017), are expanding the outrage.

In the 2000s, the DCR and Cambridge installed expensive drainage to drain off poisons which the DCR and Cambridge should not even be using on the banks of the Charles.

At the same time, they lied that they were expanding the playing fields.  They decreased the size of the playing fields to drain off poisons they should not be using.

And Cambridge and the DCR are clearly expanding poison usage to the west and the east.  The DCR, in particular, loves poisons.

A few years ago, the DCR was distressed that their beloved poisons were not working as well as they would like at Ebersol Fields on the Charles River across from Massachusetts General Hospital, the Boston / south side of the Charles.

So they dumped poisons marked “DO NOT USE NEAR WATER” on Ebersol Fields.  The next day, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge, and the first annual Charles River Swim was postponed.

The contagion comes back every year, and, as usual, the “experts” cannot “understand” why.

The "experts" cannot possibly be that stupid.

■ Abbreviated analysis of tree destruction supported by Order 1 of April 24, 2017.

I have provided detailed plans and photographs of the destruction of 54 mostly excellent trees supported by Order 1 of April 24, 2017.  Here are a few more.

□ The magnificent grove which dominates the playing fields.

The DCR’s documents LIE that these 10 trees are three.  I have presented an excellent analysis by Phil Barber, the foremost expert I am aware of, concurring that SOME of these trees in that TEN TREE GROVE (NOT THREE) need to be pruned, but flatly stating that most are excellent and clearly better than comparable trees elsewhere in Cambridgeport.

□ Memorial Drive Frontage of the area between the Pedestrian overpass and the Swimming Pool.

Slated to be devastated by the DCR lack of responsibility and by City Council Order 1 of April 24, 2017.

□ Hill Trees abutting swimming pool

Every one of the row of four trees directly abutting the swimming pool are admitted by the DCR to be healthy and have many, many years of life remaining.

The DCR, WITH THE SUPPORT of Order 1 of April 24, 2017, wants to replace them with picnic tables.

Neither the DCR nor Order number 1 explains why putting in picnic tables MANDATES the destruction of these trees.

□ Excellent grove across from the MicroCenter parking lot, west of swimming pool.

Once again, EVERY TREE in this five tree grove is admitted by the DCR to be healthy and have many, many years of life remaining.  The DCR, WITH THE SUPPORT of Order 1 of April 24, 2017, wants to move the parking lot currently between this grove and the Charles River, and put it ON TOP OF THIS ADMITTEDLY HEALTHY GROVE.

■ Trees being destroyed NOT IN Magazine Beach Facility.

The subsequent, not properly formatted, plan with skillfully worded, and fraudulent, word games added destruction of trees on the northern side of Memorial Drive.  This destruction is part of the NOT MENTIONED destruction supported by Order 1 of April 24, 2017.

Here is the row of trees targeted in front of MicroCenter, along with that portion of the plans with the fraudulent word games.  The two circles in the upper right are the MicroCenter trees.  The similarly marked circles at the bottom are PART of the Memorial Drive frontage destroyed by Order 1.  The nearer two trees in the photo appear to be doomed by Order 1 and by the DCR.

● Fake Neighborhood Association Suppresses Information on Tree Destruction, heartless animal abuse, use of poisons, walling off of the playing fields and other really bad stuff.  Thus ALL expressions of support are support of everything but the bad stuff.

Caveat.

Exactly ZERO communications received by the Cambridge City Council MEANINGFULLY support this destruction.

No meaningful mention of the destruction has been allowed at the meetings of the fake neighborhood association since April 23, 2013.  On that date, the string pullers, through corrupt tactics, reversed antagonism to destruction expressed in their January 2013 public presentation.  This was done by submitting to the entity IN THE LAST TEN MINUTES OF A TIME LIMITED MEETING, a horribly complex motion KEPT SECRET until the last ten minutes.

These ARBITRARY TIME LIMITATIONS and abuse of the agenda have prevented meaningful discussion.  Councilor Devereux’ mention of tree destruction was a glaring exception.  Councilor Devereux, INCORRECTLY, assumed she was dealing with a meaningful neighborhood association.

Participants in the January 2013 meeting were informed that that discussion would be continued at the February 2013 meeting.  The February 2013 meeting was held on April 23, 2017 after driving away the concerned people and putting out negligible publicity on the intent to fight for massive destruction.

The fake neighborhood association IMMEDIATELY went from monthly meetings to much less frequent meetings to assist the current destruction and the destruction this fake group, the City of Cambridge and the DCR achieved east of the BU Bridge in January 2016.  “NO TIME, NO TIME” was always yelled to censor discussion of destruction.

■ Attachments.

Attached are the destruction plans I have previously provided the City Council.

These plans are fraudulent inasmuch as they describe the TEN TREE GROVE which dominates the playing fields and which they want to destroy as THREE TREES.  They are also out of date because the DCR has submitted a subsequent, not formal format plan which are dominated by fraudulent word games which were converted to absolute “truth” in City Council Order 1 of April 15, 2017.

The absolute horror of the situation is that there are truly good trees being destroyed at the playing fields as well as those in the analysis above.  I am overwhelmed by the massiveness of the destruction supported by Order 1, and just cannot handle this destruction which normally would be horribly irresponsible.  But I am overwhelmed, and Order 1 supports the destruction with a nonsensical claim which turn a skillful fraud into absolute truth.

Perhaps I will be able to do a supplement.  NOTE THAT THIS 10 page letter is, for the most part, based on photos done on one day.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille
Individually and as Chair,
Friends of the White Geese

Enclosures as stated, City Manager copies of #1 to 3 provided after entry into office, on November 16, 2017.  Dates are date delivered to City Clerk [ and, once he was in office, to the City Manager [ed addition for accuracy]].

0. Email communications, from the placement of the work office in 2015 to the end of January 2016, up to 3 or more times a week, particularly extensive during the destruction in January.
1. Governmental Destruction on the Charles River, October 5, 2017, City Manager copy delivered promptly after commencing employment.
2. Governmental Destruction on the Charles River, Late 2016, Part 2, City Manager copy delivered promptly after commencing employment.
3. Charles River Destruction 3, the Magazine Beach hill, DVDs of destruction accomplished so far, November 1, 2016, City Manager copy delivered promptly after commencing employment.
4. April 5, 2017.  Update on the Destruction of Memorial Drive by Cambridge and the DCR, part 4.
5. April 19, 2017.  Update on the Destruction of Memorial Drive by Cambridge and the DCR, part 5, proposal to destroy direct access to River Street Bridge from Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive Westbound.
6. May 1, 2017, Update on the Destruction of Memorial Drive by Cambridge and the DCR, part 6, massive tree destruction proposal around the pool, heartless animal abuse, use and expansion of poisons.
7. Email of May 10, 2017 through City Clerk, Charles River - Skillfully worded fraud becomes absolute truth and “request” for destruction, corrected.  Copy direct to City Manager’s email. * * * *

Attachments, formal plans submitted to Cambridge Conservation Commission.  X’d trees are doomed.  Fraud as stated above.


1.  Western end, including boat club.

Throughout these plans, Xd trees are supported to be destroyed under City Council Order 1 of April 24, 2017, with nonsensical explanation as detailed in main letter and prior communications.

2.  Swimming Pool

The subsequent “plan” with the fraudulent word games added a fifth tree (to the left of the identified four) to be destroyed.  The DCR admits all five trees are healthy with many, many years to live.

3.  The hill, between the swimming pool (left) and the pedestrian overpass (right).  Memorial Drive is at the top.

This area was analyzed in great detail in prior communications.  A lot of trees, of the 30 slated for destruction are not shown in the attached photos.  This plan is too large to get into one page.  The eastern portion follows.  Fraudulent identification of TEN TARGETED TREES as THREE TREES may be observed toward the bottom right.

4.  Eastern portion of the hill with the fraudulent identification of 10 trees as 3 toward the bottom right.

5.  Destruction in front of MicroCenter.

Presented for first time in main document, Trees being destroyed NOT IN Magazine Beach Facility. [excerpt from fraudulently worded follow on with word games.]

6.  Western Portion of Playing Fields.

7.  Eastern Portion of Playing Fields.