Sunday, September 05, 2021

The Charles River White Geese and power plays of MIT, Harvard and the Cambridge City Council.

The Charles River White Geese and power plays of MIT, Harvard and the Cambridge City Council.

CAVEAT: This post was significantly amended on September 6 at 4:21 pm.

1. Charles River White Geese in difficult weather.

2. Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation Attack their biggest tourist attractions.

A. State attempts cleanup.  Cambridge City Council on Wrong Side.

(1) Court decision: REPREHENSIBLE behavior by City Manager.

(2). The legislature destroyed the state agency which owned the Charles River.

B. Heartless Abuse of the Most Valuable Tourist Attraction on the Charles River: A Very abbreviated list of outrages.

3. The refuge during the worst environmental attacks.

4. Attacks by destructive governmental entities.

A. One decades long lie proven to be yet another lie.

B. Part of many massive destructive plans, the hidden reality.

5. Just one part of the accelerating outrages.

A. Harvard University’s Future Mass Pike (I90) Campus.

B. Historical Harvard Square being destroyed by upzoning which subsidizes Harvard’s Future Mass Pike (I90) Campus.

6. What the voters can do.

INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM

OFFICIAL ADDENDUM



1. Charles River White Geese in difficult weather.

During the past month or so, the Charles River White Geese have lived through three heat waves and two drenchings from hurricanes which only had rain left.

Here they are soaking in shade during extreme heat.  The stones and dirt under them used to be lush ground vegetation until destroyed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and its friends with support, assistance and NON STOP praise from the Cambridge City Council.




2. Cambridge City Council and Department of Conservation and Recreation Attack their biggest tourist attractions.

A. State attempts cleanup.  Cambridge City Council on Wrong Side.

(1) Court decision: REPREHENSIBLE behavior by City Manager.

The most significant ATTEMPTED change was not on the Charles River.  It was the very strong suggestion from three levels of court that the Cambridge City Council should fire the Cambridge City Manager for behavior succinctly described by the Trial Court Judge as “reprehensible” including extended QUOTATIONS from the testimony of City Manager Robert Healy.  

Please see the Trial Judge’s Opinion in Monteiro v. Cambridge at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.  And see the Appeals Court’s “non opinion” opinion at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.  The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify the appeal by calling its very clear opinion an “opinion.”

Not only did the Cambridge City Council fail to get the message conveyed by TRIPLE PUNITIVE DAMAGES, the Cambridge City Council happily spent more than $10 million dollars in Court and on Court ordered damages, and the City Council allowed Manager Robert Healy to retire with great honor.  It hired his assistant to replaced him.

The voters happily fired one of the guilty councilors based on this outrage in the next election and probably included this outrage among the reasons for the firing of a second guilty councilor in the following election.

The assistant promoted to City Manager personally managed the outrages on the Charles River during the 2000's and his staff, with his public expressions of praise, happily assisted the DCR (see below) in the later outrages.  

The City Council sat on its hands during the destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat on the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges in accordance with the very accurate statement: “Silent during circumstances which call for outrages is support.”

My video on this issue, with some foretelling of subsequent outrages is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  The City Manager condemned in this video is the promoted assistant, not the current City Manager.

(2). The legislature destroyed the state agency which owned the Charles River.

The destructiveness of the Metropolitan District Commission was one of the stated reasons for its wiping out the MDC.  Unfortunately, the legislature did not keep GUILTY staff from transferring to the Department of Conservation and Recreation which received possession of the banks of the Charles.  

The Department of Transportation has been the Adult in the Room in its dealings with the DCR and the City of Cambridge.  MassDOT now, with the initiative of a responsibly behaving City Council, should replace the DCR by vote of the legislature.

Any and all comments about MDC behavior in this communication do not recognize any difference between it and the DCR and accordingly use “DCR” for references to “MDC.”  There has been no meaningful difference that I am aware of.

B. Heartless Abuse of the Most Valuable Tourist Attraction on the Charles River: A Very abbreviated list of outrages.

The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River for 40 years.  

During that period people came from any number of different places to admire them.

Their primary residence for most of the year was the playing fields of Magazine Beach.  They lived in the Destroyed Nesting Area for nesting and in the cove in front of the Wild Area for protection from bad weather.

They had a habitat of a mile of the Charles River adjacent to and on the Cambridge shore centered on the BU Bridge.

That habitat has been destroyed, reducing the habitat to the current pittance, through multiple actions by the DCR and Cambridge.

The DCR was so proud of the Charles River White Geese that it had traffic signs bragging about them.

That came to an abrupt end in the late ‘90's when the later Court condemned City Manager presented the DCR with plans for the Charles.  When I got “her” plans for the “improvements” from the head of DCR “planning,” she pointed out to me the tiny difference between “her plans” and the plans first announced by one of the usual fake protective groups on behalf of the Cambridge City Manager in 1996.

For one lovely homage to the Charles River White Geese see “White Geese of Cambridge” by Ernie Sarno, November 2009 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.  Mr. Sarno spent a night with them and was wakened near dawn for the gaggle to go to feed on the luscious grass across from the neighboring Hyatt Regency Hotel.  The DCR with Cambridge assistance destroyed every tree across from the Hyatt Regency as part of the January 2016 outrages.

The DCR with Cambridge leadership POISONED the grass at the Magazine Beach playing fields and walled the playing fields off from the Charles River taking all their food from them. 

Here are a photo of the Charles River White Geese, on September 4, 2008, learning that they were being starved, and a photo of the Starvation Wall from the drone tapes, “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw, at minute 10.26. 



Recent City Council votes, kept as secret as possible, have made the starvation tactics more effective.

Additionally, a friend of the Cambridge City Council using DCR / Trump moneys and DCR “volunteers” blocked the drainage pits (the L shaped vegetation area) created to keep the poisons out of the Charles and rerouted those poisons INTO THE CHARLES creating an algae blight.  The Cambridge City Council has helped with funds for a boondoggle to “clean up” the algae blight WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING TO CORRECT THE BLOCKING OF THE DRAINAGE.  And, naturally, praising instead of condemning the DCR for creating the outrage through the City Council’s friend.

This Charles River Poisoner has been awarded more moneys by the City Council to set the ground work for destruction of the excellent MicroCenter grove as part of the ongoing destruction of 61 or more trees at Magazine Beach by the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.  For plans, with my photos, of this outrage BEFORE SECRET EXPANSIONS, see my letter (ignored, of course) to the Cambridge City Council at http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar.htm.

3. The refuge during the worst environmental attacks.

Source: “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw, minute 9.10.


This is the wild area (vertical with curve to the left) east of the Destroyed Nesting Area (between the Wild Area and the BU Bridge, at top).

The curve is a protected cove to which the Charles River White Geese repair during the worst of days.


4. Attacks by destructive governmental entities.

A. One decades long lie proven to be yet another lie.

The Wild Area, like so much of natural value in and near Cambridge, MA, USA, is under attack by the Cambridge City Council and the DCR.

One of the lies is that the two are fighting to destroy the Wild Area for a subway line which involves moving a commuter rail station from a mile away across from Fenway Park to about half a mile away near the heart of Boston University.  This is Landsdowne (formerly Yawkey) Station.

The biggest problem with that lie is that responsible governmental entities have rejected the lies as responsible entities continue to reject so many other outrages.

Here is that supposedly being moved commuter rail station UNDER A PROJECT WHICH WILL NOT MOVE and proves that particular lie to be just another lie.


B. Part of many massive destructive plans, the hidden reality.

Below is the Grand Junction railroad bridge which crosses the Charles under the B.U. Bridge and extends between the Wild Area and the Destroyed Nesting Area.  It was proven to be expandable so that it could hold an off ramp from I90 (Mass. Pike) on the Boston side to give Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Cambridge side its own I90 exit.  There are, oh so,  many alternate “projects” which NEVER mention reality.  Reality is an update of the “Inner Belt” which a lot of Cantabridgians are proud of destroying FIFTY years ago.

This photo was taken at the same time as the above photos of the Charles River White Geese IN THE SHADOW OF THIS EXPANDABLE Railroad Bridge.

And here, from the same drone stills,  minute 4.40, is the carefully hidden reality.


The bridge is the BU Bridge.  Under it is the Grand Junction railroad bridge which extends both to the upper left and the middle right.  On the left is the Destroyed Nesting Area.  On the right is I90 going under Commonwealth Avenue, Boston and the BU Bridge.

The plan would connect the right (inbound) side of I90 by a ramp over I90 to a widened Grand Junction railroad bridge, and connect the left, outbound side to the Grand Junction railroad bridge by a simple connection.

This and so many other plans and fraudulent “protections” which require a book to present are part of the accelerating outrage.


5. Just one part of the accelerating outrages.

A. Harvard University’s Future Mass Pike (I90) Campus.

A unanimous Cambridge City Council has voted an upzoning for massive destruction in Harvard Square.  Part of that destruction pays Harvard University to move part of its Harvard Square campus to Boston’s Allston neighborhood.  Here is a cropped still from that same drone video, minute 10.02, showing  Harvard’s new campus in Allston before construction of the relocation of so many parts of Harvard’s empire.

The upper part of this wasteland is about a block or so from Allston Village which could become a replacement tourist trap for Harvard Square.  WITH ZONING SUBSIDIES IN CAMBRIDGE FROM THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation  is studying the future of this area as part of the I90 Rebuild Project.  This is the western end of the study.  The eastern extreme is the targeted location of the beginning of the long standing plans for creating the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s updated Urban Ring / private off ramp to MIT.  See above in section 4.B.

B. Historical Harvard Square being destroyed by upzoning which subsidizes Harvard’s Future Mass Pike (I90) Campus.

Here is just part of what all nine Cambridge City Councilors voted to encourage being destroyed in Harvard Square.  

Dormitories which could be converted to retail and students  moved to Allston are not far from these historical buildings.


6. What the voters can do.

City Council election is coming up.

People who oppose destruction supported by NINE city councilors have the power to vote for every candidate on the City Council ballot and put all nine City Councilors at the bottom of the ballot.  By voting this way, the voter says every incumbent City Councilor can only get that vote if every non incumbent candidate cannot use the vote.

The City Council is also seeking votes to change the City Charter which would give those destructive people more power.

Of course this destructive City Council should not be given more power.


INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM.

This report has been submitted in hard copy to the Cambridge City Clerk for transmission to the Cambridge City Council on September 13, 2021.  The hard copy version may be viewed in the official Cambridge City Record at https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3508&Inline=True, pages 151 to 158.

It could be considered prettier.


Thursday, August 12, 2021

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge. IV. A nightmare begins.

 Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   IV.  A nightmare begins.


1. The purpose of this series, a Change From the Cambridge City Council.

2. The nightmare gets created.

A. Outline of an outrage.

(1) James Leo Sullivan

(2) Environmental Outrage.

(3) Women’s “Activists” Condemn a Woman for getting a Court Award Against the City Manager because he destroyed her life for working for Equal Pay for Equal Work.

B. City Manager Succession.

C. The low point.

D. The Radicals.

(1) Victory succeeded by defeat.

(2). The Inner Belt and Related, “Simplex.”

E. The 70's, the destruction of Library Park.

F. Later victories in front of that fake protective group.

3. Prior reports.


1. The purpose of this series, a Change From the Cambridge City Council.

This series responds to an announcement from the Cambridge City Council that they are going to seek to change the “City Charter,” the legal foundation for City Government at the state level.  Prior reports are listed at the end.

I assumed the City Council would do the responsible thing and change the way they get voted in.  Instead, I once again have had the Cambridge City Council communicate that the last thing you should do when dealing with the City of Cambridge is assume responsible behavior.  

If the Cambridge City Council were working to responsibly change the way Cambridge government is elected, the voters might possibly get a responsible city government.  That is not what the Cambridge City Council is doing.

Instead of giving the voters some meaningful control over the government, the City Council wants to increase the powers of the City Council in their control of the government.

I am not going to go into general details about this latest item, especially since there are a lot of parts of the government with which I am quite pleased.  What really bothers me is the environmental destructiveness from a government which lies about its environmental sainthood.  The lies are obviously pandering to well intentioned voters who expect environmental responsibility.

The problems very clearly are in the City Council’s continued support of the horribly irresponsible Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and of the Cambridge Development Department. 

In the area which is most to my concern, environmental matters, the City Council very clearly has been reaffirming a bureaucracy way out of whack with the voters and with basic levels of responsibility.  

The trouble at least in part is that the Cambridge City Council constantly rubber stamp outrages coming out of the Cambridge Development Department and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.  Given the very terrible synchronization of the City Council with these entities, irresponsible entities are almost certainly not targeted for change.

Instead of bothering with whatever increase in their power they are fighting for, I have started my history of the governmental nightmare with regard to the environment in the City of Cambridge.  I will proceed with my history.  This will involve the very terrible things I have been fighting for so many years.  Those things are related to a bureaucracy out of voter control, but a bureaucracy apparently in lockstep with a very bad city council.


2. The nightmare gets created.

A. Outline of an outrage.

(1) James Leo Sullivan

The City Council fired City Manager James Leo Sullivan and his Assistant City Manager Robert Healy in the mid 60's.  I have no particular knowledge of exactly how James Leo was fired.  The circumstances of his rehiring and comments by him associated with his rehiring were telling.  

James Leo’s comments communicate to me that Cambridge’s apparently well organized radicals in the 60's were highly involved in James Leo’s firing.  James Leo very clearly wanted to create a Company Union situation in “protective” groups.  The company union fraud is based on fake protective groups blessed by the Development Department, with the rather clear odor that responsible entities need not waste their time seeking blessing.

James Leo announced when he returned that he wanted to encourage the creation of “Neighborhood Associations.”  I have very high level experience in negotiations.  Although I certainly am not familiar with all entities claiming to be working to protect Cambridge from harm, there are too many apparently fake protective groups in the City of Cambridge.  

Fake protective groups have had a lovely tendency to appear when the City bureaucrats have destructive goals.  The pitch from the fake groups is that they represent something or other whether or not they have any meaningful record behind the predictable absolutist claims.  Responsible groups look at their real status and describe themselves accordingly.  Most people do not have the time to live their lives fighting for a cause.  They have particular interests RIGHT NOW.  They want to correct those problems and go back to their lives.

The fake groups in Cambridge are interrelated at the top levels.  Those “leaders” have a very strong tendency to loudly praise each other, commonly without meaningful justification.  Fake protective groups have had a distressing tendency to achieve the opposite of what they claim to stand for while working in lockstep with the goals of the Cambridge Development Department on the stuff which counts.

Whether the fake groups are controlled by the Development Department or the Development Department adapts to the wishes of other entities in the City of Cambridge is not a matter subject to meaningful absolutes.  The reality is that a lot of fake groups look like they are controlled by the Development Department, in particular by mimicking blatant stupidities being put out by the development department.

(2) Environmental Outrage.

An excellent example of the problem lies in the “Urban Ring” subway planning.  I went into great detail on this nonsense in part III of this series posted at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/06/.  Subway planners were working on subway plans crossing the Charles River.  Cambridge loved the very destructive plans which first were proposed.  I proposed a responsible alternative which not only is going forward, but is the basis for major construction in the Fenway Park - Kenmore Square area.

Nevertheless, for a minimum of 20 years, the bureaucracy lied that the responsible alternative did not exist.  No one outside the city of Cambridge with relevant knowledge would even dream of such a stupid statement, but this stupid statement continued to be said for a minimum of 20 years.  Somebody was controlling something.  It definitely looked like the Development Department.  It is reasonable to say that these fools were repeating the stupidity being put out by the Development Department, and, at minimum, a responsible cleaning up of the Development Department could have nicked this nonsense in the bud.

(3) Women’s “Activists” Condemn a Woman for getting a Court Award Against the City Manager because he destroyed her life for working for Equal Pay for Equal Work.

Another excellent example of fake “protective” groups was the destruction of the life of Department Head Malverna Monteiro by City Manager Robert Healy.  Healy was roundly condemned by three levels of Court because she wanted equal pay for equal work.  The Cambridge City Council spent a minimum of $10 million dollars as a result of orders of Court and Court Costs.

Organized Cambridge “women’s rights activists” clearly condemned Montero in a whispered campaign.  In direct contrast to NORMAL WOMEN’S RIGHTS POSITIONS, they blamed Monteiro because she got paid so much money as a result of the court decisions in response to Healy’s “reprehensible” (judge’s word) behavior toward her.  

This is the sort of outrage done in Cambridge Fake “Protective” Groups.  DEFINITELY NOT DONE IN RESPONSIBLE WOMEN’S RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS.

B. City Manager Succession.

James Leo was promoted to head of the Boston area Chamber of Commerce after about a ten year tenure.  His replacement was his Assistant City Manager Robert Healy.  Robert Healy served for decades and was then replace by his Assistant City Manager Richard Rossi for a few years.  The replacement had a strikingly bad environmental record as Healy’s assistant.  He personally and very visibly  managed major destruction of the environment on the Charles River and at Alewife during the latter years of his tenure as Assistant.  He did not improve as City Manager, to put it nicely.

From a development point of view there was no change during the three tenures except that things got worse.  My activities varied with the situation in the City Council.  I emphasized initiatives when I saw openings.  In this Millennium, the City Council has gotten increasingly bad.  

The Monteiro outrage is an excellent, very visible example of how low “protective groups” can stoop in the City of Cambridge, not just on environmental matters.

The current City Manager, Louis A. DePasquale, appears clean of the aggressive and destructive “leadership” of his three interlocked predecessors.  The hiring this time was not that of the number one Assistant City Manager, but rather the hiring of the person who spent decades creating a truly spectacular credit rating in the City by his management of the budget.

It certainly is impossible to say what, if anything, the Development Department has not been able to get past Mr. DePasquale, but at least, he does not look like the guy giving direct and nasty orders.

C. The low point.

The most visible low light of the City Manager monarchy was Healy’s condemnation by a Judge, Jury and Appeals Court for his destruction of the life of a female department head because she had the nerve to expect to be treated equally with male employees.  

The key word used by the Trial Judge in her 100 plus page written opinion was “reprehensible” with regard to his behavior.  The Appeals Court panel reviewing the decision was not so kind.  In their written opinion the Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Healy and Cambridge’s appeal by calling its written opinion an opinion.

All levels of Court agreed in their contempt for the behavior of the City of Cambridge.  The purpose of penalty payments is as a tool to communicate disgust / contempt for behavior with the intention of creating responsible behavior in the future.  The situation in Cambridge government was one of total refusal to listen.

The low point of the City Manager monarchy was mirrored by the low point of every incumbent City Councilor.  They were all very loudly silent about this outrage while spending more than 10 Million Dollars in payments in court and in response to court orders.  

The bankruptcy of CONTROLLED “activists” in Cambridge was demonstrated by “WOMEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS” attacking the massive payments made, after a ten year fight to a victim put into penury for which actions, Healy was roundly condemned with massive punitive payments.  

The bizarre behavior of Cambridge “women’s activists” was that “women’s activists” condemned THE VICTIM for the payments.  They in no way joined the courts in condemning the very cruel oppressor.  This filthy behavior strongly communicated the level to which Cambridge based “protective organizations” sank.

One GUILTY councilor stooped so low as to run for State Representative as a women’s rights activist.

Another GUILTY councilor almost certainly lost reelection over this outrage.  A second lost in the following election for, at least in part, the same reason.

The trial judge’s opinion is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.  

The Appeals Court panel's NON OPINION opinion is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.  

D. The Radicals.

(1) Victory succeeded by defeat.

The radical movement was active in the City of Cambridge from the 1960's through the 2000's.  It very clearly had a hand in the defeat of the “Inner Belt” superhighway which was put to a final death by Governor Sargent in the early 1970's while I was an intern in his office.  I had nothing to do with the death of the inner belt.

I wanted to be active in the community.  There were a lot of folks doing a lot of good work in the tenant movement.  At the same time, there clearly was need for meaningful work for environmental responsibility.  I emphasized environmentalism while supporting tenant protections because environmentalism was where workers were needed and where I could do good.

The Radicals defense of tenants was consistent and commendable until the final days of Rent Control.  Until and beyond the death of Rent Control, I supported, assisted and participated in tenant activism.  In one or two instances my behavior was spectacular in support of the cause.

During the final days of Rent Control, the Radicals pulling the strings in the tenant movement prevented tenant action in such a way as to make Cambridge tenants look self serving and nothing better.  This was a striking change from the lofty goals of the movement.  I think that that negative behavior probably was contributory to the loss of Rent Control AND IT WAS AN EXTREMELY CLOSE VOTE.  

(2). The Inner Belt and Related, “Simplex.”

The inner belt did a lot of destruction in the City of Boston.  That destruction was put to good use in Boston by using the area destroyed by the Inner Belt project to move the Orange Line subway line underground.

Over  30 years, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology created a multi acre wasteland southeast of Central Square  Cambridge that included part of the Inner Belt target area.  I am not familiar with whether its activities were part of the Inner Belt problem itself.  

MIT expanded its ownership and simply did not replace industrial uses as they left.  The “Simplex” wasteland created by MIT did very severe harm to Cambridge in general and to Central Square in particular.  This business district lost workers and other people associated with the industries which left and were not replaced.

The Radicals submitted a number of zoning proposals for this wasteland.  I did the legal drafting for the first three.

Current activities of the government are such that they are working for an updated version of the Inner Belt outrage.

The Inner Belt was slated to be built just east of the BU Bridge and to run parallel to the east of the Grand Junction.  That has become a private off ramp from I90 to Massachusetts Institute of Technology under a whole lot of fake excuses.  My recent analysis to the Cambridge City Council is posted in their records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2394&Inline=True, March 15, 2021, pages 131 to 161.  The latest claim is a “bike path” but the bureaucrats keep the plans south of Memorial Drive secret from their supposed review committee.

This photo is a still from minute 9:28 of  “Flying Along the Charles River, From BU and MIT to Harvard, DJI Inspire 1 Pro Drone Footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlFfZHeMIpI.  The brownish area on the far left is the Grand Junction Railroad, the target of the latest incarnation of the “Inner Belt.”  Area to its right were targeted for the Inner Belt.


Part 3 of this series goes into a whole bunch of fraud from the Cambridge bureaucrats and CONTROLLED ACTIVISTS.  They claimed they have a subway line going down the Grand Junction and destroying the Wild Area.  It is known as the Urban Ring.  Their trouble is that I proposed an alternative Urban Ring Charles River crossing to Kenmore Square which was adopted as an alternative by the state transportation people in the early 90's.  

A key difference has turned out to be that the Kenmore Crossing includes the Landsdowne (formerly Yawkey) commuter rail station located near Kenmore Square and the Red Sox’ Fenway Park, whereas the Cambridge bureaucrats / CONTROLLED ACTIVIST insisted only option would move that station about half a mile toward the BU Bridge.

After I communicated the situation to the developer, Landsdowne Station was greatly upgraded by the legislature.  The local developer has since built two buildings of a four building project using Landsdowne Station as a key part of the project.  I do not know if the bureaucrats and the CONTROLLED ACTIVISTS are still claiming that the Urban Ring ONLY has one option, destroying the Wild Area, AND MOVING THIS STATION about half a mile or so.  They definitely did so for twenty years at minimum.


Here is a recent shot of the larger of the buildings at Landsdowne Station above the station platform and I90.

E. The 70's, the destruction of Library Park.

In 1974, the Cambridge City Council rehired James Leo Sullivan as City Manager.

One of James Leo’s key goals in his return was the creation of a system of “neighborhood associations.”

I chose my Cambridge residence while post grad at Boston University  in part because of an excellent park, Library Park, down the street.

The first such “neighborhood association” which “appeared” after the return of James Leo made a lot of concerned noises but, in reality was controlled by a core group to assist in the destruction of Library Park.  The details of the fight are beyond the scope of this report, but destruction of the park was very much not necessary to do the major changes James Leo wanted in the city’s High School which was both to the east and the west of the park.


As a recently graduated and admitted lawyer, I obtained a Preliminary Injunction ON APPEAL against the destruction of that park.  Obtaining an injunction ON APPEAL was next to impossible, but I did it with the City Manager’s fake protective group on the other side.

The judge who was overruled on the granting of the Preliminary Injunction ultimately found that that beautiful park was not a park, and it was needlessly destroyed.

F. Later victories in front of that fake protective group.

Over the years I have been familiar with it, that fake protective group very consistently assisted the goals of city employees and worked closely with the Cambridge Development Department.  The Development Department has the duty of approving “neighborhood associations” to ensure they SUPPOSEDLY are meaningful groups.

During the years after finally losing that park, I had a number of successful fights for the environment in which I defeated the goals of the City Manager and friends by getting concerned people to show up for meetings of that fake protective group and winning.  The first such proposal was written by a committee of the fake group chaired by me.  The coordinating body refused to present the committee’s proposals to the “neighborhood association” and ran around proposing a very destructive alternative, UNTIL MY PEOPLE FORCED A MEETING OF THE “NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION” which rejected the actions of the rogue steering committee.

It was too late, however, and the rogue steering committee got two major projects built which were so detested in the rest of Cambridge that they assisted my future activities between Harvard and Central Square.  

We salvaged what we could after we got the rogues steering committee’s actions rejected and achieved a downzoning of Green Street near City Hall to neighborhood zoning rather than Massachusetts Avenue zoning.

Key changes in the group’s charter allowed the core group more and more control.

Nevertheless, in spite of increasing dirty tricks, responsible zoning for Massachusetts Avenue got the votes of the fake protective group because my people called out responsible residents for the appropriate meetings.  

A lot of these fake protective groups suddenly appeared when projects came into play in the “neighborhood” and, to no surprise, while sounding great, those fake protective groups had a strong tendency to assist the Cambridge government and James Leo / the Development Department in their goals.  These fake protective groups did a lot of scratching each other’s backs and vouching for the saintliness of each other.

Not all such groups were fake, but, over the years, domination has gotten more and more extreme, with a lot of lovely sounding entities fighting for destructive development while having beautiful names.


3. Prior reports.

This is the fourth report in a series   

(1). The first segment was: “Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   I.  A personal prequil,” at  https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/.  

(2). The second segment was: “Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   2.  Very early history. PARTIAL transportation analysis” at:  https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/06/Cambridge-city-council-considers.html

(3). The third segment was:  Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   III.  Major  transportation “planning” problems at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021_06_15_archive.html.


Thursday, July 29, 2021

Response ON MANY ISSUES to Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council’s environmental Con Game.

 Response ON MANY ISSUES to Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council’s environmental Con Game.

It is election year.  The Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council is indulging its constituents with nonsense that they are pro-environment.  I have devoted a 20 page letter of response to the Cambridge City Council on behalf of Friends of the White Geese.  

Here is my answer to this nonsense, as best as it can be translated into this form, and the hard copy contains some very beautiful debunking pages.  The reality is that the fraud that is coming out of this entity is WRONG on so many counts that I have had to leave out a lot of detail.

The letter was sent Express Mail next day on July 26, 2021 and should be formally received at the City Council’s mid-summer meeting on August 2, 2021.

* * * *

RE: Open Space, Tree, and other Environmental Actions with City Council Support.

1. City Manager Communication 2, March 22, 2021.  

A. General.

B. DCR Explains Why Blocking the Created Drainage is Grossly Irresponsible.

C. Poisoning the Charles.

D. Magazine Beach portion of the Algae Blight created by the Charles River Poisoner, etc..

E. Ongoing destruction of Magnificent MicroCenter Grove

F. Secret votes by the Cambridge City Council. [ed: section is EXTREMELY LARGE]

G. The fight to destroy the Wild Area.

H. Flat out lies “supporting” Wild Area destruction.

I. Cambridge Government Shoots itself in the foot.

J. Just part of the outrage of January 2016.

2. City Council Order 7, June 14, 2021.

3. Deafening Silence on the Destructive DCR.

4. The tree, open space, and historical destruction in one outrageous package in the destructive upzoning of Harvard Square accomplished at the beginning of the current term of the Cambridge City Council.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

I regret that I was not be able to comment verbally at the June 28, 2021 meeting with its vote on UNRESTRICTED spending money on open space.. At the time of the meeting, I was working on the movie “Confess, Fletch” in Boston’s Chinatown.

Misleading on environmental issues seem to be coming to a head in this election year.  A couple of allegedly lovely City Council “environmental” actions follow:

[The first page of the letter had the right half occupied with two photos and labels as follows, but prettier:]


[Label:]

The DCR [ed: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation] poisoned the Charles River by 

Led by Cambridge, Introducing poisons into the formerly pristine Magazine Beach Playing Fields.  Creating expensive drainage to keep the poisons out of the river.

Through an agent friendly with the Cambridge City Council, blocking the drainage thus dumping the poisons into the Charles.

Now the DCR wants somebody else to help clean up THEIR poisons in the Charles WITHOUT STOPPING THEIR ACTIONS WHICH POISON THE CHARLES.

And the Cambridge City Council is paying as demanded.




[Label to Photo:]

Barber


1. City Manager Communication 2, March 22, 2021.  

A. General

City Council voted money to assist a cleaning of the Charles River in response to the poisoning of the Charles River, poisoning done by an agent of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.  The agent has separately been funded by the City Council for work preparatory to destruction of the excellent grove across from the MicroCenter on Memorial Drive.  The vote included code words praising the words the Charles River Poisoner used to justify her poisoning.

B. DCR Explains Why Blocking the Created Drainage is Grossly Irresponsible..

This is a combined photo of a sign posted by the DCR AT THE LOCATION WHERE THE DCR AND THE CHARLES RIVER POISONER BLOCKED THE CREATED DRAINAGE. 

The Algae blight which followed was not only predictable.  It was PUBLICLY warned against BY THE AGENCY THAT FUNDED THE BLOCKAGE.

The DCR brags of money being paid to the Charles River Poisoner to fool people into favorable ideas of the ongoing outrage Part of the nonsense they are getting is non stop lies that no trees are being destroyed.

This combination is a merger of three prior photos.  I apologize for the lack of perfection in the combination.

C Poisoning the Charles

Notably missing from the Cambridge City Council’s funding of the latest boondoggle was any expression of concern about the rerouting of poisons used on Magazine Beach into the Charles River.  These poisons were introduced on the PREVIOUSLY PRISTINE Magazine Beach playing fields during the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields managed by City Manager Richard Rossi in the late 2000's while he was still assistant to Robert Healy.  

The poisons were then rerouted (top photo, page 1) into the Charles by that “activist” of whom the City Council is fond, with funding from Trump/the DCR, and assistance by Cambridge DPW in removing irresponsibly destroyed vegetation.  


[Label:] Cambridge DPW picks up valuable vegetation destroyed by the Charles River Poisoner as part of the poisoning of the Charles River.

At the bottom of page 1 [ed: following the index] is early poisoning of the playing fields next to the destruction.  

I complained to the City Council with the City Council‘s usual deafening silence.  But  Cambridge City Councilors loudly claim environmental sainthood

In one of the many situations of environmental hypocrisy by the Cambridge City Council, it claims to be concerned about bees.  Claims of concern are belied by the  introduction of poisons into Magazine Beach during the Rossi management of “improvements” in the 2000's and the City Council’s continued lack of concern for the continued poison use  It is silly to think that dead bees observed at Magazine Beach are independent of the poisons added to the environment.  

Those beloved poisons are clearly attacks on other resident animals, yet one more heartless outrages inflicted on the Charles River White Geese and less visible residents..

D. Magazine Beach portion of the Algae Blight as created by the Charles River Poisoner, etc.

At the bottom of the first page [ed: 2d photo after the index] is the algae infestation created next to the blocking of the poison drainage on land at Magazine Beach.  

Here are photos of part of the algae blight as it has been created off Magazine Beach.  As I said, the algae blight was created by the DCR and rewarded by the City Council, with the actual dirty work by the City Council’s beloved Charles River Poisoner.  Photos by Phil Barber.  This is money SPENT ON OPEN SPACE.


[Label:  Barber]


[Label:  Barber]

E. Ongoing destruction of Magnificent MicroCenter Grove

Here are photos of just one excellent grove targeted by City Council and DCR actions: the excellent grove across from the MicroCenter.  The destruction of this grove is included in the 60 and increasing mostly excellent trees being destroyed at Magazine Beach with praise and funding by the Cambridge City Council, as documented by me in my letter reproduced at http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar.htm, just one of many objections raised by me to the Cambridge City Council.  The destruction count was 54 in the plans, a number which is steadily increasing  This letter provides the City Council with the Destruction Plans filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission along with extensive photos of targeted excellence.  The City Council praised those plans and has helped with funding under essentially secret  maneuvers.   


During the DCR show and tell of the plans to the Cambridge Conservation Commission, the DCR admitted that the grove is excellent.  That grove is marked excellent in the destruction plans.  But the DCR said they were improving things by moving the parking lot now south to put it on top of the excellent trees.  The City Council’s funding of the Charles River Poisoner includes her planning destruction of part of the parking lot which is being “moved.”  Here are two photos of the doomed AND EXCELLENT grove.

The first photo [ed: above] is taken from “Flying Along the Charles River, From BU and MIT to Harvard, DJI Inspire 1 Pro Drone Footage,” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlFfZHeMIpI, Minute 2.33.  

The second photo is my photo from the MicroCenter parking lot.  The parking lot being “moved” on top of this excellent grove may be viewed in the rear.  It is very difficult to do this ongoing outrage justice, but then again, responsible people have trouble believing that the Cambridge City Council would be part of this ongoing destruction of 60+ trees of Magazine Beach, let alone the rest of the massive destruction which has been accomplished on the Charles River and/or is being planned.

The difficulty of the average voter in realizing the environmental bankruptcy of the Cambridge City Council is deliberately created by the constant yelling at the other guy COMBINED with the maximum secrecy of so many outrages.


Here is the drone photo from Minute 2.33 showing the MDC Swimming Pool (the white rectangle).  


This is the location in which the City Council’s beloved Charles River Poisoner is / has been paid to plan removal of the parking lot to give the DCR part of its excuse to destroy this excellent grove.

The portion of the parking lot which would be “planned” by the Charles River Poisoner UNDER CITY COUNCIL PAYMENT, preparatory to tree destruction is the grey swath left of the top of the swimming pool.  The parking would be placed on top of the trees between the upper right corner and Memorial Drive.

The City Council’s funding award to the Charles River Poisoner included language praising her poisoning of the Charles.   The language praised  code words the Charles River Poisoner used to justify her destruction.  This is part of the ongoing destruction which started with the DCR announcement of intention to destroy 54 mostly excellent trees.  

The City Council praised the ongoing destruction immediately after city councilors praised themselves for their environmental sainthood during a rally on City Hall steps.  Multiple outrages have followed as secretly as possible.  My letter to the City Council MATCHING the then disclosed 54 TREE DESTRUCTION PLANS TO PHOTOGRAPHS is posted at http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar.htm.  MANY OTHER LETTERS HAVE FOLLOWED.

On February 25, 2019, the Charles River Poisoner presented the City Council with PREVIOUSLY SECRET plans for the situation after the City Council and DCR finish their outrages.  Here is the portion showing the AFTER plan for this excellent grove once the bunch of destroyers do the destruction.  NOTE THE PARKING LOT IN PLACE OF THIS EXCELLENT GROVE THANKS TO THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL and the DCR.  It is under the 3 mark.


The DCR has since refused to deny plans to introduce poisons into the I90 rebuild area in Boston across from Magazine Beach.  This came in a meeting of the stakeholder advisory group on the I90 rebuild, IN RESPONSE TO MY PUBLIC QUESTIONING.

I have had two very meaningful victories in which my suggestions in this committee were implemented by MassDOT for the benefit of Cambridge.  One victory was clearly major.  The other victory was major as far as Cambridge is concerned.  The latter victory reversed a vote supported by the two Cambridge appointees.  

Cambridge needs meaningful representation on this committee.  I have proven that I work effectively with MassDOT with major benefit both for Cambridge and the project.  I would be pleased to be appointed to the committee by Cambridge to protect Cambridge interests.

F. Secret votes by the Cambridge City Council.

The City Council brags about yelling at the other guy, and lies through omission.  The yelling at the other guy is proudly and very visibly bragged about.  Outrageous destruction is kept as secret as possible.  That is blatant hypocrisy.

Multiple environmentally destructive votes have been taken.  The key, as with the continued poisoning is to attack free beings by any secret manner possible.  How dare water fowl be the target of tourists.  CONTRACTORS DO NOT MAKE MONEY OFF FREE ANIMALS.

THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL VERY CLEARLY DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS DOING.  It votes for outrages sneaked through by the Development Department and its friends WITHOUT MEANINGFUL PLANS.  Private contractors building signs over the sidewalk are required to provide extreme detail.  The City Council DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS DOING and most definitely DOES NOT WANT THE DETAILS WHICH SHOW THE VOTERS WHAT IT IS DOING.

The most visible target of the heartless animal abuse has been and would continue to be, without the abuse,  a major tourist attraction, the 40 year resident Charles River White Geese.  This stupidity is yet another example of the extreme incompetence of the DCR, the Cambridge Development Department and the Cambridge City Council.


This magnificent mulberry was destroyed as a result of one of the secret votes.  The City Council did not want to know what it was doing.


[Caption:  Barber]

This is what it looked like after one of the SECRET votes of the Cambridge City Council.


[Caption:  Barber]

The City Council’s solution for its own SECRET votes is to give itself more power, power to select department heads.

More power to an irresponsible city council is irresponsible.  If Cambridge had a responsible City Council, it would be demanding responsible plans.  Look at the massive documentation required for signs being constructed over PUBLIC WAYS.  Massive detail.  THE OTHER GUY IS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE MASSIVE DETAIL.  THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT EVEN DEMAND MEANINGFUL PLANS.

But when the City Council is doing the construction WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, the detail in support of what there are voting for is non existent.  IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE.

To the right [following]  is another achievement of the SECRET actions of the Cambridge City Council.  Yet more destruction from a project which has been described by the Charles River Poisoner as NOT DESTROYING TREES, and pretty much the same impression has been given during the SECRET City Council votes.


[Caption:  Barber]

The SECRET votes taken by the Cambridge City Council are EXACTLY THE REASON why the most destructive entities, the DCR and the Cambridge City Council,  are exempt from the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Highlighted in this photo are two trees in the middle of the thick park area, BEFORE.  Games are played on funding to allow the City Council to lie about its destructiveness.  I could care less who got assigned the money for this.  If the DCR does it, the City Council includes the destruction in its GENERAL NON STOP PRAISE FOR THE DCR.

[Caption:  Barber]

It clearly will not stop praising the UNFIT DCR.  It clearly is not competent to select department heads.

Below is the photo of those trees after destruction by the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.



[Caption:  Barber]

Here is a view of the shoreline of the Magazine Beach playing fields on July 23, 2006.  The blue tint is in the original.  It was taken by a Metropolitan Water Resource Agency manager.  She was participating in the memorial for the assassinated long time leader of the Charles River White Geese, Bumpy, on the fifth anniversary of that outrage.


[Caption:  MWRA]

Here is the shoreline created by Cambridge and the DCR during the outrages of the late 2000's after several years of growth, viewed from Boston..


The only opening was formerly a boat launch for pretty good sized boats.  The destructiveness is created by a silly “bridge” which prevents moving of larger boats by larger vehicles, plus by more blocking vegetation.  The bridge goes over a first created silly manufactured body of water.  The Charles River White Geese loved that body of water, so it was replaced with wetlands.

Combine this outrage with the dumping of poisons on the playing fields, and the food of the Charles River White Geese for most of the last 40 years was not only denied to them, but POISONED.

Here is the before situation at Magazine Beach showing a boy at play, and the after situation at the same location showing an adult woman in the opening, overwhelmed by the Starvation Wall.



Here from April 9, 2008, is the reason for the change, the Charles River White Geese.  This was the day this magnificent and loved tourist attraction learned they were being starved by having the Magazine Beach playing fields denied to them.  The heartless City of Cambridge and the DCR decided to bar the resident (for most of the last 40 years) Charles River White Geese and STARVE THEM BY TAKING AWAY THEIR PRINCIPAL FOOD SOURCE.


Starving the Charles River White Geese by this outrage is comparable to the massive building allowed by irresponsible zoning game which probably denied a north - south subway to the eastern part of Cambridge.  This is demonstrated in Section I, below.  Here, they destroyed our most valuable tourist attraction.  There, they destroyed Cambridge’s chance to get a north south subway line.

Destructive incompetence has been way too normal in Cambridge government.  In another major example, heartless animal abuse correlated with heartless human abuse: the destruction of a department head’s life because she had the nerve to expect equal pay.  See the Trial Judge opinion in Monteiro v. Cambridge, posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and the Appeals Court panel’s opinion in which the panel refused to call an opinion lest it dignify the reprehensible government of the City of Cambridge, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.  “Reprehensible” is the word the Trial Judge used to describe the behavior of the City Manager of Cambridge. behavior on which the Cambridge City Council spent more than $10 million in court costs and court ordered sanctions.  The Court was trying to communicate a need in Cambridge government to behave responsibly.  The sanctions did not communicate.

The Starvation Wall was targeted at the Charles River White Geese, but DESTROYED the Magazine Beach playing fields by making them no different from playing fields ten miles from the Charles River.  

Cambridge City Council through Healy / Rossi in the process succeeded in starving the most valuable tourist attraction on the Charles River.

So the Cambridge City Council in SECRET votes has been making the situation worse while lying of “improvements.”

Above, I have gone into some of the tree destruction falsely called “improvements” while the City Council YELLS at private citizen and businesses FAR LESS IRRESPONSIBLE then the Cambridge City Council and the DCR.

The City Council has chopped down parts of the Starvation Wall along with that tree destruction through SECRET votes designed to keep the public from understanding what the City Council is doing, in striking contrast to the detailed plans demanded by the City Council THE OTHER GUY when putting up signs over sidewalks.  The demands made of the public on sign construction are reasonable.  Exempting the Cambridge City Council from its own reasonable demands is belligerently irresponsible and lying to the public.  “Reprehensible” is not a bad word to use.

That tiny opening left in the Starvation Wall used to be an active boat dock.  The City of Cambridge LIED in the SECRET vote that it was CREATING a boat dock there.  Part of the Starvation Wall was destroyed and a viewing point created walling off the area previously walled off by the Starvation Wall.  Additionally thick stones were introduced creating an effective blockade.

Here is one of my reports to the Cambridge City Council from Council Records:  http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2012&Inline=True, pages 58 to 68, January 7, 2019, communication.

The Cambridge City Council has devoted two SECRET votes to this area plus additional destruction by other votes.

The destroyed dock continues to be destroyed because of keeping the key obstacle, the introduced wetlands and the silly bridge above them which prevent the access to the dock area which had been available for a Century.

Here is a drone photo from minute 03.44 of the drone footage.


The destroyed boat dock is to the far right, to the right of the grey area which is the silly bridge.  Running top to bottom, the Starvation Wall dominates and it continues to dominate in spite of the SECRET construction.  Created “openings” start immediately below this photo.  In this before view, note the INNER wall of BLOCKING VEGETATION.  

The silly wetlands are above the silly bridge in this picture.  The introduced silly wetlands are so thick as to prevent access by the Charles River White Geese SHOULD THEY GET THROUGH THE DESTROYED DOCK AREA.  That inner wall “corrected” any ability to get beyond the silly wetlands by BLOCKING access as solidly as the Starvation Wall.

The “plan” voted on by the Cambridge City Council bore no SANE resemblance to what they SECRETLY constructed.  The good part was that they destroyed part of the Starvation Wall.  They replaced the starvation wall with greater obstacles to access by the 40 year resident and beloved TOURIST ATTRACTIONS, the Charles River White Geese.  So, FRAUD.

Here are some recent photos.

First is the continued BLOCKING “BRIDGE”.  The big “improvements” made to it is a widening of the areas nearest the Charles and nearest the parking lot.  YET MORE FRAUD. 




TO THE EXTENT THIS SILLY “BRIDGE” CAN HANDLE THE WEIGHT, IT IS STILL TOO NARROW FOR THE TYPE OF VEHICLES WHICH HAD ACCESS FOR A CENTURY BEFORE THE OUTRAGES OF THE 2000'S DESTROYED THE BOAT DOCK.

While bragging nonsense, the “widening” does not include the middle segment.  And it very definitely bars the Charles River White Geese at the water end.

The observation deck creates an obvious wall to prevent access by the Charles River White Geese.  As can be noted from the prior picture, both the fake bridge and additional obstacles prevent access to food.

What do you think is the impact on webbed feet of these large stones placed where the boat dock of a Century was, to the left (east) of the observation deck.  


The raised platform is a solid wall to the Charles River White Geese. 




To the left [below]is a better view of the SECOND barrier.

No way the incompetently and heartlessly  attacked tourist attractions are going to get through this barrier.

To the right [below] are two views of the space between the platform and the continued starvation wall.



Very clearly NOT SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC RECORD..

The outrage across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel destroyed the magnificent SMALLER Cherry Orchard there.  Every tree across from the Hyatt was destroyed in the January 2016 outrage.


An excellent documentary of this part of the outrage is ‘White Geese of Cambridge’ by Ernie Sarno, November 2009, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o.

Mr. Sarno spent a night with the Charles River White Geese at their Destroyed Nesting Area, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-xSIYrB5o..  Close to dawn, the gaggle was awakened.  It happily went to feed across from the Hyatt, as he documented.  

The heartless, destructive incompetents at the DCR and Cambridge will not allow that.  The blockage they created after the January 2016 outrage preceded this starvation wall.  This stone wall is even more blatant than the stones and walls at the destroyed boat dock which follow the wall’s lead.

The most obvious part of the second SECRET vote at the Magazine Beach playing fields involved the central part of the Starvation Wall, running from ball field almost to the far left part of the poison drainage ‒ left of the visible tree.  This particular photo is drone photos, minute 10.26.

LEFT UNTOUCHED was almost all of the middle starvation wall, almost all that can be seen from that point to the right.  This is the most overwhelming part of the Starvation Wall.  And it is untrouched.


Most of the close ups were taken on July 24, 2021.  The next to the last photo shows the ball field in the background, which can the galso be seen in the corner of the above photo..

One photo, from March 2021, is of the area to the right of this picture.  It is the last photo in this section.

The reality is that the DCR claims to be satisfying the HATRED decent people have had for the Starvation Wall, but the untouched area is so large, and the “new” area still prohibits humans at the river bank, thus the biggest beneficiaries of this work are the contractors, as usual, and the users, animal and humans, are still walled in from the Charles.

As far as heartless animal abuse goes, the Charles River White Geese continue to be starved and I am uncertain if they possibly can get through the created mess to POISONED grasses, and the key word is POISONED.  






To the west of the destroyed boat dock, in another SECRET vote, the Cambridge City Council tore down part of the irresponsible Starvation Wall, and replaced it with vegetation which LOOKS different, BUT CONTINUES THE STARVATION.

The Cambridge City Council it has the advantage of continuing the most HATED aspect of the 2000's outrages, the blocking of the Charles from physical access by humans or water fowl through most of the walled off area.  BUT IT LOOKS DIFFERENT.

The City Council SPENT MONEY.  THE CONTRACTOR LOBBY  LOVES SPENT MONEY.  HUMAN BEINGS DEMAND RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR.  

RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR DOES NOT SEEM TO BE PRESENT.  BUSINESS AS USUAL.  But the City Council is demanding the City Manager SPEND MONEY WITHOUT REQUIREMENT TO BE RESPONSIBLE on a whole bunch of open space.

Note also above pictures of destruction as part of this SECRET vote, remembering that this analysis is very large.  As a result, I am forced to omit A LOT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY.

This latest outrage is more subtle but also effective.

AND THE POISONS REMAIN!

G. The fight to destroy the Wild Area.

Here are the DCR’s destruction plans for the area east of the BU Bridge including the magnificent Wild Area on the right.  These plans are part of the plans which created the destruction of 150 or more mostly excellent trees in January 2016.  


A photo of the Wild Area, trees corruptly omitted from the plans, is on the next page [follows].  The Cambridge City Council clearly seems to want these trees destroyed.  At minimum, the City Council praised the most recent iteration in the “deniable” manner which is extremely common on the Charles..

The plans show the Wild Area on the right, WITH EXACTLY ONE TREE NOT DESTROYED, #535, as shown better in the blow up of the Wild Area, below

Here, further enlarged, is the section showing the Wild Area, clearly showing the one tree “not destroyed.” BUT WITH THE USUAL DISHONESTY, KEEPING THE TREES BEING DESTROYED SECRET.  


Destruction of more than a hundred trees IS KEPT SECRET by omission.

The magnificent Wild Area brilliantly adorns the Charles River and the BU Bridge..  The figures below it are a gaggle of the Charles River White Geese, being heartlessly abused by the Cambridge City Council and the DCR.  I have gone into detail about their heartless starvation in my letter to the Cambridge City Council recorded in the City Records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2422&Inline=True, pages 237 to 241


The presentation by the Development Dept., at which I viewed plans for the fake bikeway running along the Grand Junction to its review committee, included predictable tactics.  The Development Dept. has been selling that bike path IN DETAIL to this committee and the public WHILE KEEPING THE PORTION SOUTH OF MEMORIAL DRIVE SECRET.  A direct question about tree destruction by a member of the review committee was walked around by the staffer, clearly denying the existence of so many destructive plans already in the record, including the one above.

H. Flat out lies supporting Wild Area destruction.

One of the various excuses for destruction of this excellent treasure was the Development Dept. supported, BUT LOSING alternative plan for the “Urban Ring” subway system.  The City Manager reaffirmed Cambridge interest in the Urban Ring in his letter concerning MassDOT planning for South Station expansion in the mid 2010's.  

For at least 20 years, the Development Dept. kept secret the existence of the MassDOT alternative Urban Ring route to the one supported by the staff.  I first proposed the alternative in 1986.  That Development Dept. alternative would move Landsdowne (formerly Yawkey) Station near the heart of the Boston University campus.  A major developer was planning a project which would feature Landsdowne Station IN PLACE.  I do not know if the Development Dept. and their CONTROLLED ACTIVISTS ARE still denying the existence of the alternative which would keep Landsdowne Station in place, rather then the nonsense they put out for at least 20 years that it was being moved to Mountfort and St. Mary’s. The Developer is half finished with his project including Landsdowne in place.

It was very strange discussing the Urban Ring plans with normal human beings FROM EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE BOSTON AREA versus CONTROLLED CAMBRIDGE ACTIVISTS who denied the existence of the CLEARLY winning route for the Urban Ring.  CONTROLLED REALITY IN CAMBRIDGE has difficulty denying the continuation of Landsdowne Station IN PLACE as needed for the WINNING Kenmore Crossing, as opposed to the alternative that is one of the excuses for destruction of yet another excellent woods, the Wild Area.

Here are recent views of the REAL  project.  Two of four buildings completed, Landsdowne Station UNMOVED beneath. .


I honestly do not know if the Development Department and its CONTROLLED ACTIVISTS are now denying the continued presence of this massive project WITH LANDSDOWNE STATION UNMOVED.  Reality has long been irrelevant to so many lies put out in the name of Cambridge. 

I. Cambridge Government Shoots itself in the foot.

Zoning manipulations by the Cambridge City Council allowed MIT to build a massive dormitory blocking the winning Kenmore Crossing alternative in Cambridge.  

Here is a cropped shot from minute 8.12 of the drone footage.  This MASSIVE building allowed by City Council zoning games is between the Grand Junction right of way (where the Urban Ring would go) and Vassar Street across from the playing fields.  It is the three part, BUT SOLID building toward the lower left of the photo.

As stated in my Blog analysis, it is my opinion that the manipulations have killed that portion of the Urban Ring subway in Cambridge with this building in the way while in Cambridge, saving the much more valuable part of the route in Boston.

Much greater details are provided in my Blog post, although I did not think of using the drone photos during that writing, “Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   III.  Major  transportation ‘planning’ problems.”   June 16, 2021, posted at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/06/.

The distinctive part of this action, however, is that the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area is one of the biggest cash cows in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  MIT’s development in Cambridge is a comparable  pittance.

It is highly likely that MassDOT will do the responsible thing and END the Urban Ring at Kenmore.  That would satisfy the very major needs associated with the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area.  The Cambridge Council by the zoning games in the construction of that building very clearly is encouraging MassDOT to drop continuing the Urban Ring subway through Cambridge.  My Green Line A proposal would reduce Red Line traffic at Kendall to MIT’s benefit.  The more direct impact will be transportation for Harvard’s relocated Medical School as part of the I90 rebuild, also responding to the massive growth in the Harvard / Longwood Medical Area.

J. Just part of the outrage of January 2016.

My detailed video of this outrage is posted at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  

Here are before and after pictures of the destruction at the Hyatt Regency.



Here are before and after pictures at the Memorial Drive Split: the destroyed Cherry Grove.





Destruction of the magnificent Cherry Grove at the split, continued.






[Caption;  DOOMED]

2. City Council Order 7, June 14, 2021.

This is the item I was not able to speak on because I was working in “Confess, Fletch.”

This is a usual piece of Cambridge City Council double talk.  It asks the City Manager to SPEND MONEY on a list of open space areas.  

SPEND MONEY includes SPENDING MONEY ON THE SORT OF MASSIVE DESTRUCTION that the Cambridge City Council wants to keep as secret as possible from its voter, INCLUDING ALL OF THE ABOVE OUTRAGES.

The order listed a whole bunch of open space items that the City Council wants money spent on.  

Here is 3.4 acres at Alewife, the City Council has already SPENT MONEY ON.”  Until the City Council spent money on this magnificent Silver Maple Forest, the trees on the edge filled the entire area.

“SPEND MONEY ON” SOUNDS GREAT UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THE GROSS ENVIRONMENTAL IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL AND YOU IGNORE ITS NONSENSICAL YELLING AT THE OTHER GUY.

Really, I have said way too much already.  This photo combined with the previous pages says everything that needs to be said about this nonsensical AND POTENTIALLY HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE order.


3. Deafening Silence on the Destructive DCR.

The legislature attempted to protect the Charles River and near Cambridge by the Destruction of the Metropolitan District Commission.  The legislature replaced in this terrible entity in and near Cambridge by the DCR and the Department of Transportation.

Instead of HIGHLY ambiguous words about SPENDING MONEY which could CONTINUE TO DESTROY, DESTROY, DESTROY, the Cambridge City Council should be petitioning the legislature to replace the DCR with the Department of Transportation WITHOUT transfer of “planners” and “managers” to MassDOT.  Transfer of incompetent, destructive “managers” and “planners” from the Metropolitan District Commission to the DCR nullified the legislature’s intent to protect the Charles River by destroying the MDC.  Further continuation of these destructive incompetents should not be allowed to create the opposite of responsible maintenance of the Charles River.


4. The tree, open space, and historical destruction in one outrageous package in the destructive upzoning of Harvard Square accomplished at the beginning of the current term of the Cambridge City Council.

More outrages kept as SECRET as possible.

Sincerely, 


Robert J. La Trémouille, Chair

Friends of the White Geese