Thursday, November 25, 2021

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council to devote special meeting to discussing the election.

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council to devote special meeting to discussing the election.


1. Statement of context.

2. Clearly biased analysis of election.

3. Will the Cambridge City Council act in a manner which resembles the City Council it claims to be?

4. Three relevant photos.


1. Statement of context.

The Cambridge City Council, on Monday, November 29, 2021, will devote an entire meeting to discussing the just completed election.  Such an action, to my recollection, is unprecedented.

Three recent blog posts are relevant.  All but the third were blog transmittals of formal letters to the Cambridge City Council.

A. “Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Funds Major Environmental Destruction at the Magazine Beach Recreation Area on the Charles River,” October 16, 2021, at: https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-funds.html.

B. “Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Proud of Environmental Destruction?,” October 21, 2021, at: https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-proud-of.html.

C. “First Term Cambridge, MA, USA, City Councilor Fired by the Voters,” November 4, 2021 at:  https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/11/first-term-cambridge-ma-usa-city.html.

The Cambridge City Council has a distressing record of unanimous very terrible votes associated with unanimous votes yelling at the other guy.  The latter unanimous votes are bragged about and tend to lie to the voters about records belied by the former unanimous votes which are kept as secret as possible.


2. Clearly biased analysis of election.

The Monday meeting is conducted under conditions that formal votes will not be taken and public comment will be prohibited.

The City Council had referenda passed greatly increasing its powers.  I hope that it will take appropriate actions to undo the most terrible “achievements” of the term coming to a close.

The voters have spoken in a manner which last occurred about a decade ago.

About a decade ago, the judicial system provided written actions with explanations that put the Cambridge City Council in a position to fire the then City Manager Robert Healy for malfeasance in office, WITHOUT FEAR OF RETALIATION IN COURT because the opinions gave them just cause.

Instead, Healy was allowed to finish his term in honor and the City Council named the Police Station after him.  The court action came in response to Healy taking action against the Administrator who headed the Cambridge equivalent of a police review board.  The trial court decisions and memorandum called the actions “reprehensible.”  The appeals court panel responded to Cambridge’s appeal with an opinion which the panel explicitly refused to call an opinion because, AS IT STATED, it did not want to dignify the appeal by calling its opinion an opinion.

The formal name of the court case is Monteiro v. Cambridge.  The respective court decisions may be read at:

A. Trial Court opinion:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

B. Appeals Court Panel non opinion opinion:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

Then, as now, I roundly condemned the City Council outrages.  Then, as of now, they ignored my condemnation, but as stated in item 2.B. this time publicly communicated their “lack” of action.

After the Monteiro outrage, as in this election, the electorate fired one member of the city council who most embodied the outrage.  That time, in the second following election, another city councilor was fired in an action which may or may not have followed on the initial firing.

Under the distinctive at large system of voting in Cambridge, the actions taken by the voters then and now are about as extreme as would be considered possible.

My first communication, 1.A. above, ADDRESSED IN THE HARD COPY MILIEU to the Cambridge City Council, concluded by calling for the voters to stack their ballots in this year’s election in a manner which would result in what just happened.


3. Will the Cambridge City Council act in a manner which resembles the City Council it claims to be?


4. Three relevant photos.







Thursday, November 04, 2021

First Term Cambridge, MA, USA, City Councilor Fired by the Voters

 First Term Cambridge, MA, USA, City Councilor Fired by the Voters

Tuesday, November 2, 2021, the voters of Cambridge, MA, USA, selected the City Council which will take office in January.

A first term Cambridge City Councilor was removed by the voters.  The voters could hardly have selected a more appropriate City Councilor to remove.

One of his first actions as City Councilor was to vote for a massive and highly irresponsible upzoning of Harvard Square which rewards destruction of valuable historical buildings which are still located less than ten buildings from his then residence.

One of the supposed “benefits” of the vote was a 200 page document which is separately being created which tells developers the politically correct way to destroy historical buildings in Harvard Square.  


The soon to depart city councilor moved to Cambridgeport.  Cambridgeport is the residential neighborhood closest to the outrages supported by nine Cambridge City Councilor on the Charles River.

One of voted out city councilor’s most recent actions was to vote to fund the destruction of the excellent Micro Center Grove.

The voters selected an excellent incumbent to vote out.

Of major importance is that NEITHER OUTRAGE HAS YET COME TO FRUITION.

Will the Cambridge City Council change to a City Council which reflects the wishes of its electorate?

Thursday, October 21, 2021

Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Proud of Environmental Destruction?

 I. General.

In our last report on this blog, at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-funds.html, we presented a truly damning response to a vote by the Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council to pay for the destruction of the excellent MicroCenter grove in the Magazine Beach recreation area on the Charles River.

That analysis was received by the Cambridge City Council at its meeting this past Monday, October 18, 2021.  I watched the entire meeting, and was struck by the, to put it nicely, strikingly unusual handling of that letter at the meeting.

I have responded to this latest outrage with the following letter.  To be accurate, I am including a correction in the letter to which was made in our blog posting.  I realize this is duplicative, but I am trying to be honest in my communication.  There is a fancy word that would be used by the bad guys for this type of action, but I would not dignify their nonsense by using it.

Obvious typos corrected, plus I am adding one explanatory photo.


II. Communication.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

RE: Massive Environmental Destruction by Cambridge City Council at Magazine Beach:   Correction with Acknowledgment of Understanding of City Council Position.


1. Introduction.

2. Correction.

3. Receipt of City Council Communication.

4. The outrage in which NINE members of the Cambridge City Council have pride while keeping it as secret as possible.

5. Other possible “explanations.”

A. MIT’s private off ramp from I90 / Mass. Pike.

B. The destructiveness from which the legislature tried to protect the Charles River should be ended.


1. Introduction.

This follows up on my letter which was published as communication 11 in the City Council meeting of October 18, 2021.

It was published I the City Records at https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3527&Inline=True, pages 154 to 172.

It was published on the Charles River White Geese Blog at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-funds.html, with the correction stated in section 2.


2. Correction.

At least three times we cited our communication signed on June 6, 2017 and published in the records of the Cambridge City Council.  The Cambridge City Council has rather consistently not wanted to know the contents of this communication.  The contents provided in detail the plans of the Department of Conservation and Recreation for destruction at Magazine Beach and presented to the Cambridge Conservation Commission, along with our photos of the outrage, an outrage which has repeatedly been praised by the Cambridge City Council, with funding including really destructive parts AS SECRETLY AS POSSIBLE.

We provided an incorrect URL for Friends of the White Geese’ communication as published by the City Clerk. 

The correct URL for Friends of the White Geese’ publication of this crucial document which the Cambridge City Council has spent four years not wanting to know about is at http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm, item 4.


3. Receipt of City Council Communication.

I watched the October 18, 2021 meeting in totality.

The handling of our communication was striking.

First of all, communications are pretty much never discussed.  At this meeting, at least 3 communications were discussed, at least one with the City Manager.

Our communication 11 was damning, a strikingly clear in communication of the environmental destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council and of the SECRECY involved in its ongoing efforts at destruction on Magazine Beach.

The nice way to describe the activities by the Cambridge City Council is “Silence under circumstances which call for outrage is consent.”

But, more importantly, my interpretation is clear:

THIS WAS A STATEMENT OF PRIDE, 

PRIDE in environmental destructiveness;

PRIDE in the ongoing FRAUDULENT claims of Environmental Sainthood it being the combination of destruction as SECRET as possible with lying by YELLING at the other guy and thus falsely claiming the side your are on;

PRIDE in the outrageous procedure used on at Magazine Beach on the Charles River by which massive environmental destruction is kept as SECRET as possible, and buried in massive and IRRELEVANT fine print while fraudulently claiming some sort of proper procedure; and  

PRIDE in deceiving your constituents.

The SECRET presentation by itself could possibly have been claimed to be something missed, a reality which is nonsense and contrary to the duties of each member of the City Council in voting for this; however, the handling of the communications says everything which needs to be said.


4. The outrage in which NINE members of the Cambridge City Council have pride while keeping it as secret as possible.

Here are two photos of the environmental outrage supported by NINE MEMBERS, plus the only known publication of the purpose of the outrage by the Charles River Poisoner, the woman getting paid for her part in these terrible things, and repeatedly PRAISED by the Cambridge City Council.

Two photos of the excellent grove which NINE MEMBERS of the Cambridge City Council want destroyed.

Our photo dating back to 2016, repeatedly presented to the Cambridge City Council.


Still from “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw, minute 2.33, showing the outrage from above.


Here is the only known publication of WHAT NINE CITY COUNCILORS are destroying this excellent grove for, WITH MAXIMUM SECRECY.  The parking lot under the number “3" is what NINE CITY COUNCILORS WOULD LOVE TO REPLACE THESE EXCELLENT TREES.

This is a crop of PREVIOUSLY SECRET PLANS SUBMITTED BY the woman getting paid for her part in these outrages, the Charles River Poisoner. 

The Charles River Poisoner submitted these plans in the February 25, 2019 Cambridge City Council meeting.  

These plans are even more SECRET than items in the rest of the repeatedly SECRET votes by the Cambridge City Council concerning Magazine Beach.

We, of course, can guarantee nothing in this plan.  All we have is a brief opening in the NON STOP SECRECY.


Plus the statements of the DCR in the show and tell to the Cambridge Conservation Commission that they were destroying THIS ADMITTED EXCELLENCE to move the parking lot on top of it.

And the two fit very clearly.


5. Other possible “explanations.”

A. MIT’s private off ramp from I90 / Mass. Pike.

Reality probably is that this is part of reducing curb cuts to speed up Memorial Drive to handle traffic from MIT’s desired private off ramp from I90 / the Mass. Pike, first floated in 2003 by an MBTA study.  The plans coordinate with the connector built behind the former Ford Plant, now owned by Harvard.  Oh yeah, the vegetation plans for the connector had omissions exactly where the highway would connect to the connector.

That fits the nonstop AND CONSTANTLY SECRET fight to destroy the Wild Area, the excellent woods east of the BU Bridge for.  Those 2003 MBTA plans put another off ramp through it.  Key in standing up to this destruction is the agency which a responsible city government would have replace the DCR by vote of the legislature, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

[Ed.  The following photo was not included in the letter, but the Cambridge City Council, supposedly, knows what it is doing.

]

B. The destructiveness from which the legislature tried to protect the Charles River should be ended.

About a decade ago, the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission and, on the Charles River, substituted the Department of Conservation and Recreation and, on the bridges, and substituted the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

One very visible explanation for the destruction of the MDC was the destructiveness of the MDC.

So, naturally, “planners” and “managers” of the MDC moved to the DCR.  

The “planners” brought their destructive plans and the destruction on the Charles with active support or silence from the Cambridge City Council.  The outrages supported by the Cambridge City Council give the impression that they are items supported by the DCR and the Charles River Poisoner AND NOBODY ELSE.  The SECRECY constantly involved in the funding and praise from the Cambridge City Council comes from those SECRET and destructive agreements.

By contrast, MassDOT has been notable for standing up to SECRET deals being pushed by controlled activist.  MassDOT has been the Adult in the Room concerning these multiple destructive initiatives.  MassDOT has fit the wishes of the legislature in its destruction of the MDC.  The DCR has been the antithesis of what was desired by the legislature.

Action by a City Council which constantly proclaims its environmental sainthood would be to work to finally implement the goals of the legislature when they destroyed the MDC.

If Cambridge had a responsible City Council, the City Council would be going to the legislature and asking the legislature to finish the job it attempted when it destroyed the MDC.

The Cambridge City Council should be asking the legislature to finish the MDC work by transferring the DCR’s responsibilities on the Charles River to MassDOT.  MassDOT is not perfect, but the DCR approaches being perfrect from the opposite direction.

SECRECY and destruction should end.  We need a City Council which stands for Environmental Saintliness which it constantly claims to stand for, not for the destructiveness and SECRECY of the MDC which the legislature was trying to protect us from.   

Transfer by the legislature of the DCR duties to MassDOT would achieve the goals of the legislature in destroying the MDC and would be responsible behavior consistent with the non stop claims of Environmental Saintliness from the Cambridge City Council.  The City Council should change its positions to be consistent with its claims of environmental saintliness.  It should request the legislature to transfer the DCR responsibilities on the Charles River to MassDOT.

Sincerely, 


Robert J. La Trémouille, Chair

Friends of the White Geese

Friday, October 15, 2021

Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Funds Major Environmental Destruction at the Magazine Beach Recreation Area on the Charles River

Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Funds Major Environmental Destruction at the Magazine Beach Recreation Area on the Charles River

The Cambridge City Council has dropped “the other shoe.”  They have voted to destroy the excellent MicroCenter grove at Magazine Beach across from the MicroCenter store and next to the MDC Swimming Pool.  The following is our letter of response scheduled to be delivered to the Cambridge City Council on Monday, October 18, 2012.  As is the custom of the Cambridge City Council in votes concerning Magazine Beach, this action was taken as secretly as possible WITH NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC NOTICE OR HEARING.

The hard copy of the letter has been posted by the City Clerk in Council records at https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3527&Inline=True, pages 154 to 172.

This is the first page of our file copy of the letter.  Page 2 and the balance of the letter follow.

1. Destroy and Destroy and Destroy.

A. Latest SECRET Action on Magazine Beach.  

B. Selected items kept SECRET.

(1) January 2016 outrage.

(2) General Magazine Beach Plans filed in Cambridge by the DCR and blessed and repeatedly denied by the Cambridge City Council.

(3) Drone Photos.

(A) The current outrage.

(B) PART OF THE DESTRUCTION ON THE CHARLES BY THE CHARLES RIVER POISONER.

(4) Provided by the Charles River Poisoner.  PLANS AFTER DESTRUCTION OF MICROCENTER GROVE SHOWING COMING PARKING LOT BEING  FUNDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REPLACE THE MICROCENTER GROVE.

(5) More general documentation.

(A) The City Council condemned Excellent Grove.

1 From us.

A Page 45 from my letter listed above that the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about.  Show the excellent MicroCenter grove being destroyed by this vote.

B Our photo of CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO DESTROY GROVE VIEWED FROM MICROCENTER SIDE.

2 The DCR destruction plans the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about, BUT REPEATEDLY VOTES TO PRAISE / IMPLEMENT.

2. Part of the always SECRET Record of the Cambridge City Council and of the PAID Proponent, the Charles River Poisoner.

A. The DCR admits guilt.

B, Poisoning of the Charles River.

C. Results of this attack.

(1) Poisoning on the Ground.

(2) Poisoning of the Charles River.

D. City Council Rewards the Charles River Poisoner.

E. The City Council targeted MicroCenter Grove.

(1) Drone Photo.

(2) View from MicroCenter side.

(3) Cropped destruction plans in DCR plan submitted to Cambridge Conservation Commission, passed on to Cambridge City Council and ignored.

(4) Formerly SECRET after plans provided to Cambridge City Council by Charles River Poisoner, cropped accordingly.

3. Reality of ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION  REWARDED BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL.

4. Proper Voter response.

A. Referendum.

B. City Council Reelection goals.



1. Destroy and Destroy and Destroy.

A. Latest SECRET Action on Magazine Beach.  

We note with distress but no real surprise the latest SECRET vote on Magazine Beach.

This is part of a continuing pattern of City Council votes on the Charles River in such a manner as to keep them as secret as possible.

On September 20, 2021, this was voted in in City Manager Agenda 1, vote 2C by the usual unanimous vote buried in a very large document.  There were exactly no communications from the public on the topic, showing exactly how secret the matter is kept.

The grand total of the information provided FOR THE PUBLIC was:


THIS SAYS THE MONEY INCLUDES THE “Phase II-2 PARKING LOT.”  SO THE CITY COUNCIL IS PAYING TO DESTROY THE MICROCENTER GROVE which is BEING REPLACED BY the moved parking lot on which the Charles River Poisoner has already been paid to do work preparatory to the destruction of this excellent grove.  

Note that that EXCELLENT grove to be destroyed and the RELOCATION OF THE parking lot are not shown.

OUTRAGEOUS.

B. Selected items kept SECRET.

(1) January 2016 outrage.

The nominal actor here is yet another front name by the Charles River Poisoner, a person very highly favored by the Cambridge City Council.  She, under various front names, has been involved in a whole bunch of outrages.

Using blatant Company Union prevention of action tactics, she and her friends were key in the destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges in January 2016.  Our video on that outrage is posted at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  The City Manager mentioned in this video is Richard Rossi.  The video includes destruction at the Wild Area which has been recently blessed as well, with deniability, by the Cambridge City Council.  It also includes the ongoing outrages at Magazine Beach of which the current action is part.

(2) General Magazine Beach Plans filed in Cambridge by the DCR and blessed and repeatedly denied by the Cambridge City Council.

These are posted at http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm, Item 4 [ed.  This is a correction of the letter filed which included an outdated reference.  That will be corrected by a follow on letter.  IT GETS VERY ODD.  Very clearly, software robots delete the “1", the number 1.]  This includes the plans filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation along with our photos of targeted excellence.  

This document has been filed more than once and repeatedly referred to.  Initial filing was in response to a Mayday celebration on the City Hall steps by City Councilors bragging about their environmental sainthood, followed by sitting down in Council and voting in support of the outrage.   Destruction plans at Magazine Beach SUPPORTED BY THAT VOTE included 54 mostly excellent trees then.  With SECRET destruction not disclosed in those plans, destruction now exceeds 60 mostly excellent trees.

The X’s indicate destruction of the excellent MicroCenter Grove next to the DCR’s Magazine Beach Swimming Pool (below the line markings at the bottom right).

(3) Drone Photos.

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

The following stills are identified by minute in the video with regard to the latest outrage:

(A) The current outrage.

Minute 2.33.  The white rectangle is the DCR Swimming Pool.  The area BRAGGED ABOUT is to the upper left of the swimming pool.  The IMPORTANT STUFF, ALWAYS KEPT SECRET is the grove of trees to the upper right.  

The Cambridge City Council was already paying the Charles River Poisoner for advance work on destroying this excellent grove.  This latest secret vote INCLUDES FUNDING OF THE MOVING OF THE PARKING LOT BEING MOVED ON TOP OF THESE EXCELLENT TREES, and thus of destruction of those trees.

The Cambridge City Council LIES to its constituents by keeping this and other items of supported destruction as secret as possible and YELLING AT THE OTHER GUY on matters which are a pittance of the destruction being paid for / publicly supported by the Cambridge City Council.

The ONLY INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY PLACED ON RECORD BY THE CITY COUNCIL, OF COURSE, ONLY MENTIONS THE PARKING LOT TO THE UPPER LEFT OF THE SWIMMING POOL This language reference the COMING PARKING LOT AND THUS THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS EXCELLENT GROVE.

At the DCR’s show and tell to the Cambridge Conservation Commission, the DCR bragged that it is destroying this excellent grove to replace the parking being destroyed by the Cambridge City Council in this outrage.

THE LATEST VOTE ADMITS THAT THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL IS PAYING TO DESTROY THIS EXCELLENT GROVE TO “MOVE” THE PARKING LOT.  The euphemism is to describe the outrage by the technical phase number,

Here is a blow up, from the above crop, of the excellent grove whose destruction the Cambridge City Council is supporting by this latest SECRET vote.

Here is a close up of the AREA to be destroyed under the Cambridge City Council’s USUAL UNANIMOUS VOTE.


(B) PART OF THE DESTRUCTION ON THE CHARLES BY THE CHARLES RIVER POISONER.

The City Council, through Richard Rossi’s actions in the 2000's introduced the use of poisons into the environment at the Magazine Beach Playing fields.  The City Council created this poison drainage area through Mr. Rossi to drain off poisons which should not be used next to the Charles River.  Minute 10.26.  Dead bees have been seen

Dead bees have been seen in the area of poisoning BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL.  Other free animals, MOST VISIBLY THE TOURIST LOVED 40 YEAR RESIDENT CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE, are attacked by this outrage.

The Charles River Poisoner, with multiple objections to the Cambridge City Council by the undersigned blocked this poison drainage area using DCR / Trump moneys and DCR provided “volunteers.”  No other “volunteers” were used.  SECRECY in Cambridge, of course.  SECRECY, SECRECY.

As with the current vote, the last thing the Cambridge City Council wants the general public to know is its real record.  Naturally, the City Council is consistently SECRET about its constant destruction.

More photos of this and related outrages are provided below at the beginning of Section 2.

(4) Provided by the Charles River Poisoner.  PLANS AFTER DESTRUCTION OF MICROCENTER GROVE SHOWING COMING PARKING LOT BEING FUNDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REPLACE THE MICROCENTER GROVE.

The following FORMERLY SECRET PLAN was submitted to the Cambridge City Council AFTER part of SO MUCH SECRET destruction was voted.  The Charles River Poisoner provided these plans to the Cambridge City Council on February 24, 2019.

There is nothing secret going on here, except when City Councilors or their stand-ins are talking. 

The AFTER STATUS of the excellent trees which the Cambridge City Council paid the Charles River Poisoner to do the ground work for destruction are designated by the number 3 on the left.  Destruction moneys HAVE NOW BEEN PUBLICLY PROVIDED, ALBEIT AS SECRETLY AS POSSIBLE.  Note the UNDESTROYED trees around the GREY area which designates the future  parking NINE City Councilors are NOW paying to move on top of these excellent trees AS PART OF THE LATEST SECRET VOTE.

This is our crop of the plan submitted to the Cambridge City Council on February 24, 2019.  This is what the usual UNANIMOUS City Council voted for.

In the NON SECRET part of the plan, the area which was being “improved” so that these excellent trees can be destroyed is below the DCR Swimming Pool (the white area at the bottom of this crop).  We provided the NON SECRET part of the plan at the top of this letter.  It is the “public” part of this SECRET vote.

Of course, this nasty stuff, the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about.

Across from THE TO BE DESTROYED EXCELLENCE is the parking lot of MicroCenter.  The plans are before destruction which has be praised and funded now for years by the Cambridge City Council.  

The DCR has since destroyed the left two of the four trees abutting that parking lot, part of the SECRET destruction SUPPLEMENTING the DCR’s destruction plans submitted to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which we passed on to the City Council with photos by us in my letter http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm, Item 4 [ed.  This is a correction of the letter filed which included an outdated reference.  That will be corrected by a follow on letter.  IT GETS VERY ODD.  Very clearly, software robots delete the “1", the number 1.].  

In the plans submitted by the Charles River Poisoner, above, the MicroCenter building is the large structure in the upper middle.  Trees destroyed on the Memorial Drive side of the building were included in the original 54 tree destruction plans submitted to the Cambridge Conservation and which we passed on to Cambridge City Council.  The Cambridge City Council, of course, has ignored all communications.

We had hoped that this wanton destruction would eventually be corrected, but this previously  SECRET plan delineates areas of work by the Red Lines.  The destruction which the City Council supports on the MicroCenter side has no markings.  THUS THIS WANTON DESTRUCTION WILL NOT BE “IMPROVED.”  And the Cambridge City Council’s vote copied in Section 1.A skillfully commits them to fund the destruction of this excellent grove WHILE YELLING AT CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS WHO ARE FAR LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE.

(5) More general documentation.

(A) The City Council condemned Excellent Grove.

1 From us.

A Here is page 45 from my letter listed above that the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about.  It shows the excellent MicroCenter grove being destroyed by this vote.

B. Our photo of CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO DESTROY GROVE VIEWED FROM MICROCENTER SIDE.

Here is a photo of ours from the MicroCenter side.  These trees block each other, so, from the ground, it is very difficult to really repeat the drone shot.

The parking lot being moved on top of this excellence is visible beyond the doomed grove.  The which has been subsidized to be done by the Charles River Poisoner BY A UNANIMOUS (AS USUAL) CITY COUNCIL is to the left of the main parking lot.

What little is said in the description of the vote is that CITY COUNCIL MONEYS ARE BEING USED FOR THE PARKING LOT TO GO INTO THIS LOCATION.  Obviously that includes destroying these excellent trees.

2. The DCR destruction plans the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about, BUT REPEATEDLY VOTES TO  PRAISE / IMPLEMENT.

Taken from the official filing, appropriately cropped.  As mentioned, the filing the City Council does not want to know about has repeatedly provided.  It is at:  http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm, Item 4 [ed.  This is a correction of the letter filed which included an outdated reference.  That will be corrected by a follow on letter.  IT GETS VERY ODD.  Very clearly, software robots delete the “1", the number 1.].  At least one more tree has been added to the destruction plans.

“X” means tree to be destroyed as stated in the plans filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  This latest SECRET City Council vote brings destruction that much closer.  SECRECY of planning, of course, is so massive that we cannot guarantee what is currently planned, and the Cambridge City Council has just voted for destruction funding without wanting to know what it is destroying.  But they loudly yell at the other guy.


2. PART OF the always SECRET record of the Cambridge City Council and the  PAID  proponent, the Charles River Poisoner.

A. The DCR admits guilt.

The Cambridge City Council has expressed concern about the poisoning of the Charles River and has subsidized the DCR’s boondoggle to “clean up” the mess.

Nothing is said or done about cleaning up the problem, the Department of Conservation and Recreation,  the Cambridge Development Department, and the Cambridge City Council, who are doing the poisoning of the banks of the Charles River, poisoning which has been rerouted into the Charles River by the Charles River Poisoner, who keeps getting funding from the supposedly environmentally concerned Cambridge City Council.

Magazine Beach was pristine until the outrages started from the Cambridge City Council and the Department of Conservation and Recreation [footnote 1] 1 started destruction in the 2000's.

[footnote 1:  About ten years ago, the state legislature tried to clean up the outrages on the Charles River by destroying the then “Metropolitan District Commission” and replacing it, on the Charles, with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Department of Transportation.  Regrettably, the “planners” of the MDC went to the DCR with their destructive plans AND THEIR FRIENDS IN CAMBRIDGE GOVERNMENT.  These destructive people have continued without a blink.  We do not HONOR the change be recognizing differences between the MDC and the DCR, just calling it always the DCR.

[Interestingly, until, then Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy presented the DCR with “lovely” plans, the DCR bragged about the beautiful Charles River White Geese in signs along Memorial Drive.  

[Three levels of Court tried to persuade the Cambridge City Council to get responsible government in place of Healy in the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html,  The Appellate Court panel had such great disgust for the situation, it refused to call its opinion an opinion, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.  The actual issue was women’s rights (she had had the nerve to want equal pay for equal work), but Cambridge women’s groups showed the uselessness of the most visible Cambridge organizations by word of mouth smearing of the victim BECAUSE THE COURT ORDERED SUCH MAJOR DAMAGES TO HER.

The voters clearly fired one guilty councilor in the next election and probably fired a second in the following election at least in part because of this outrage.]

THE POSSIBILITY OF ENDING THE DUMPING OF POISONS ON THE BANKS OF THE CHARLES RIVER IS KEPT AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE.

But the Cambridge City Council is very happy to PAY the Charles River Poisoner to do further “environmental work” such as the current outrage.

We have shown you above the drone photos of the EXPENSIVE DRAINAGE facility to keep poisons out of the Charles WHILE POISONING RESIDENT ANIMALS.

Following is a sign posted by the DCR next to the EXPENSIVE DRAINAGE facility.  It brags that the drainage is keeping poisons out of the Charles River, WITHOUT MENTIONING, AS USUAL, the guilt of the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.  This is our collection of relevant parts of three photos from Phil Barber.

As we have stated, the destruction was accomplished with DCR money including Trump money, and DCR volunteers provided rather clearly to minimize the knowledge and experience of Cambridge residents.

B, Poisoning of the Charles River.

Poison use on the banks of the Charles River dates back to management of the Magazine Beach playing fields by (subsequent City Manager) Richard Rossi representing the City of Cambridge.  For more than a Century before then Magazine Beach was pristine.  


Dead bees, supposedly subject to the concern of the Cambridge City Council have been seen in the playing fields.

Part of the Cambridge / DCR response is stated in a sign posted by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation near the most blatant environmental attack of recent years.  (Phil Barber photos, collated)

The DCR is bragging that POISONS BEING DUMPED ON THE MAGAZINE BEACH PLAYING FIELDS which originated in Cambridge management is being neutralized by expensive drainage systems installed by Cambridge and the DCR.

Here is a cropped still from “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw, minute 10.26, showing the part of the drainage which has since been attacked by the Charles River Poisoner with DCR / Trump funds and DCR “volunteers.”

Here is a photo of the drainage after being blocked by the Cambridge City Council’s friend, the Charles River Poisoner.  We have repeatedly objected to the Cambridge City Council.  We have consistently been ignored.

B. Results of this attack.

Here are Phil Barber’s photos of algae creation next to the blockage and in the Charles River next to Magazine Beach:

(1) Poisoning on the Ground.

(2) Poisoning in the Charles River.





The City Council has since assisted in a DCR boondoggle to respond to the much larger and clearly related subsequent poisoning downriver from the Mass. Ave. Bridge.

There has been exactly ZERO discussion of getting a responsible entity to manage the Charles River by order of the legislature.  The Massachusetts Department of Transportation shares responsibility for the Charles River.  It has not been perfect but it has had significant instances of disagreements with Cambridge and the DCR in which MassDOT has looked like the Adult in the room.

I have observed DCR representatives refuse to deny intent to introduce poisons into the Boston side of the Charles River into open spaces being created in the I90 Rebuild Project IN SPITE OF THE OUTRAGES THAT THE DCR HAS CREATED WITH THESE POISONS WHICH IT / Trump funded, with poisons which would not even be on the banks of the Charles River if it were not for the INCREDIBLE IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE DCR AND CAMBRIDGE.

C. City Council Rewards the Charles River Poisoner.

A very visible Cambridge City Council’s response to the actual poisoning has been to PAY the CHARLES RIVER POISONER to assist in plans to destroy the excellent MicroCenter grove next to the DCR Swimming Pool.

The DCR in its show and tell to the Cambridge Conservation Commission said that it intended to destroy the MicroCenter grove to move a parking lot on top of the grove.

Here is a drone photo crop, minute 2.33, of the part of the parking lot assigned to the Charles River Poisoner.


She was assigned to beautify the portion of the TO BE MOVED PARKING lot which is the grey area to the upper left of the white swimming pool.   Beautifying the parking lot creates the DCR and CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL's "needed" move on top of the MicroCenter Grove.

This latest outrage by the Cambridge City Council is EXTREMELY VAGUE BUT RATHER CLEARLY INCLUDES DESTRUCTION OF THE EXCELLENT MICROCENTER GROVE.

E. The City Council targeted MicroCenter Grove.

(1) Drone Photo.

Minute 2.33

This is a further cropping of the above still.


(2) View from MicroCenter side.


(3) Cropped destruction plans in DCR plan submitted to Cambridge Conservation Commission, passed on to Cambridge City Council and ignored.

(4) Formerly SECRET after plans provided to Cambridge City Council by Charles River Poisoner, cropped accordingly.

The grey area is the tree destruction to be at least partly paid for by the Cambridge City Council.  

The pool, as usual, is the white area. 


3. Reality of ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION  REWARDED BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL.

Rather obvious.  But they love to yell at the other guy.  It gives the voter a fraudulent impression.


4. Proper Voter response.

The bad stuff is always unanimous and kept as secret as possible while yelling at the other guy.

A. Referendum.

The grossly irresponsible Cambridge City Council wants its power increased by a referendum.

Nonsense.  The voters should vote against it.  They are clearly unfit to manage their current very important duties.


[Caption:

[The 40 year resident Charles River White Geese, beloved by tourists for generations.  They are under attack by the Cambridge City Council along with less visible wildlife.

[The Cambridge City Council recently yelled about “rodents” arriving unwanted in Cambridge residential neighborhoods.  With all the HABITAT destruction by the Cambridge City Council, the City Councilors cannot be so stupid as to claim surprise at animals whose habitats has been destroyed moving elsewhere.  

[The Charles River White Geese’ habitat has been vastly destroyed from its mile length in the past.  They cannot move.]

B. City Council Reelection goals.

This is just a tiny part of the reality that is the Cambridge City Council.  

Just to name one other outrage from this City Council.  It also voted UNANIMOUSLY for a massively irresponsible upzoning and related destruction for Harvard Square.  

The zoning pays Harvard to move dorms from Harvard Square to Harvard’s coming I90 / Mass. Pike campus.  It is in planning in relation to the I90 rebuild project on the Boston side of the Charles River.  This new Harvard campus is coming in Boston’s Allston neighborhood between the Charles River and Allston Village.  Allston Village would benefit from tourists following relocated Harvard students to the already student popular Allston Village.  A large number of historical buildings will be destroyed in Harvard Square with related harm to the value of Harvard Square.  Destruction encouraged includes historical housing.

[Caption:  Some of the Harvard Square Historical Buildings Under Attack by all nine  members of the current Cambridge City Council.]

Apparently there is a city created 200 page or so document dictating the politically correct way to destroy historical buildings.

The voter should vote for every candidate on the City Council proportional representation ballot, putting ALL incumbents at the end.

The way proportional representation works, no city council incumbents would get “transfers” until after ALL NON INCUMBENTS NO LONGER HAVE USE FOR THE TRANSFERS, very clearly a NO vote against the unanimously destructive Cambridge City Council nine.

Sincerely, 



Robert J. La Trémouille, Chair

Friends of the White Geese 

Saturday, September 25, 2021

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council yells at the other guy on the environment, as usual. A VERY LIMITED response.

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council yells at the other guy on the environment, as usual.  A VERY LIMITED response.

1. General.

2. Part of the Real Record of the Cambridge City Council.

A, Poisoning of the Charles River.

B. Results of the attack.

(1) Poisoning on the Ground.

(2) Poisoning in the Charles River.

C. City Council Rewards the Charles River Poisoner.

D. The City Council targeted MicroCenter Grove.

(1) Drone Photo.

(2) View from MicroCenter side.

(3) Cropped destruction plans in DCR plan submitted to Cambridge Conservation Commission, passed on to Cambridge City Council and ignored.

(4) Formerly SECRET after plans provided to Cambridge City Council by Charles River Poisoner, cropped accordingly.

3. Reality of victims REWARDED BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL..

4. Proper Voter response.

A. Referendum.

B. City Council Reelection goals.


1. General.

On September 12 order 4, the Cambridge City Council stood up against “rodents.”

Looking up the definition on Google, I find a definition of rodents as “mice, rats, squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, and hamsters.”  It is entirely within the character of the Cambridge City Council to stand up to mice (including pets), squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, and hamsters.

The Chronicle reported that the attack was on rats.

The ongoing environmental destruction under the aegis of the irresponsible funding and irresponsible zoning of the Cambridge City Council includes massive habitat destruction.  Victims must go somewhere.  The rat victims which concern the City Council, according to the Chronicle, are creating use of poisons with environmental destruction.


2. Part of the Real Record of the Cambridge City Council.

A, Poisoning of the Charles River.

Poison use on the banks of the Charles River dates back to management of the Magazine Beach playing fields by (subsequent City Manager) Richard Rossi representing the City of Cambridge.  For more than a Century before then Magazine Beach was pristine.  

Dead bees, supposedly subject to the concern of the Cambridge City Council have been seen in the playing fields.

Part of the Cambridge / DCR response is stated in a sign posted by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation near the most blatant environmental attack of recent years.  (Phil Barber photos, collated)


The DCR is bragging that POISONS BEING DUMPED ON THE MAGAZINE BEACH PLAYING FIELDS which  originated in Cambridge management is being neutralized by expensive drainage systems installed by Cambridge and the DCR.

Here is a cropped still from “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw, minute 10.26, showing the part of the drainage which has since been attacked by a friend of the Cambridge City Council with DCR / Trump funds and DCR “volunteers.”


Here is a photo of the drainage after being blocked by the City Council’s friend:


B. Results of the attack.

Here are Phil Barber’s photos of algae creation next to the blockage and in the Charles River next to Magazine Beach:

(1) Poisoning on the Ground.


(2) Poisoning in the Charles River.





The City Council has since assisted in a DCR boondoggle to respond to the much larger and related subsequent poisoning downriver from the Mass. Ave. Bridge.

C. City Council Rewards the Charles River Poisoner.

A very visible Cambridge City Council’s response to the actual poisoning has been to PAY the CHARLES RIVER POISONER to assist in plans to destroy the excellent MicroCenter grove next to the DCR Swimming Pool.

The DCR in its show and tell to the Cambridge Conservation Commission said that it intended to destroy the MicroCenter grove to move a parking lot on top of the grove.

Here is a drone photo crop, minute 2.33, of the part of the parking lot assigned to the Charles River Poisoner.


She has been assigned to beautify the portion of the TO BE MOVED PARKING lot which is the grey area to the upper left of the white swimming pool.   Beautifying the parking lot creates the DCR's "needed" move on top of the MicroCenter Grove.

D. The City Council targeted MicroCenter Grove.

(1) Drone Photo.

Minute 2.33


(2) View from MicroCenter side.

(3) Cropped destruction plans in DCR plan submitted to Cambridge Conservation Commission, passed on to Cambridge City Council and ignored.


(4) Formerly SECRET after plans provided to Cambridge City Council by Charles River Poisoner, cropped accordingly.

Area 3 is the tree destruction.  The pool, as usual, is the white area.  At the top is, at the right, MicroCenter, and, in the middle, the MicroCenter parking lot.


3. Reality of victims REWARDED BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL..

Rather obvious.  But they love to yell at the other guy.  It gives the voter a fraudulent impression.


4. Proper Voter response.

The bad stuff is always unanimous and kept as secret as possible while yelling at the other guy.

A. Referendum.

The City Council wants its power increased by a referendum.

Nonsense.  The voters should vote agains it.

B. City Council Reelection goals.

This is just a tiny part of the reality of the Cambridge City Council.

The voter should vote for every candidate on the City Council proportional representation ballot, putting ALL incumbents at the end.

The way this works, no city council incumbents could get “transfers” until after ALL NON INCUMBENTS NO LONGER HAVE USE FOR THE TRANSFERS, very clearly a NO vote against the unanimously environmentally destructive Cambridge City Council.

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.