Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Rose Kennedy Greenway and Memorial Drive

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Summary.
2. Comment of a Key Cambridge Pol.
3. Response to the Bad Guy.
4. Final Comments.

1. Summary.

The Charles River White Geese are the most valuable asset the City of Cambridge and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation have in their part of the Charles River.

They have lived, beloved by the general public, in a mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge since 1981.

Nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council have deliberately starved these beautiful animals since 2004 as part of a truly bizarre project at Magazine Beach, formerly their principal feeding area. The nine heartless abusers now propose to poison their food at Magazine Beach by replacing GREEN playing fields with CHEMICAL maintained playing fields.

The same City of Cambridge has had two findings of probable cause made against them at the state’s Commission Against Discrimination as part of their fight to keep a handicapped elderly woman from using her guide dog.

The fight against the guide dog was punctuated by a group of rogue cops abusing the guide dog in the lobby of the police station by siccing a pit bull on the guide dog.

Keeping this sick situation going is large well organized group, the Cambridge Pols. Their explanation for their behavior are attacks on the beautiful Charles River White Geese and on the handicapped woman with words that sound strikingly like a WIFE ABUSER justifying his abuse of his wife.

But they do do a lot of lying about which side they are on.

Cambridge has a really, really vile political situation.

2. Comment of a Key Cambridge Pol.

The following comment was placed on his listserve on March 11, 2007 by a Cambridge pol who runs an organization he calls a neighborhood organization.


Subject: The Greenway and the Memorial Drive way

Award winning Boston Globe columnist Steve Bailey, (who I am told was asked to leave the Globe as part of cost cutting), wrote a great business section column Friday March 7, 08 on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, and the focus of the column was on limiting height and density to preserve the open space, parkway feeling that was the purpose of the Greenway in the first place. Here is a link to Steve Bailey's column.

The development pressures around the Greenway are phenomenal. Builders are proposing 800 foot tall towers according to Bailey, which would make the Greenway a shadow-way. Anyhoo, these issues are of course almost perfectly parallel to the issues that the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association and others have been addressing regarding open space along Mem Drive, so as we learn about the Mem Drive open space issues, it is certainly relevant to be aware of these looming Greenway debates involving parallel issues.

3. Response to the Bad Guy.

I offered the following response to the listserve. It has not been distributed yet. The Cambridge pols find comments which reflect reality unacceptable, but they sure can heap wife-beater type abuse on their victims when nothing else works.


The obvious response on Memorial Drive is to kill and otherwise reverse the initiatives of the Cambridge Pols and their buddies.

The destruction of Magazine Beach to replace the GREEN there with chemicals, apparently including chemicals to drive away animal life (Ebersol Fields) must immediately be reversed.

Actions to starve local wildlife must immediately be reversed.

The Memorial Drive Overlay District must be killed.

Actions to turn the Grand Junction Railroad into an extension of the Binney Connector, paired with Vassar Street must be killed.

Any and all actions to assist moving the Mass. Pike exit to the Grand Junction railroad bridge (and then by way of the railroad and Vassar Street to the Binney Connector / Inner Belt must be killed.

Plans to destroy from 499 to 660 healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, including every Cherry Tree must be killed.


A lot of stuff the Cambridge pols have been fighting for must die.

Trouble is that the Cambridge pols have been very consistent over the years, great words, exactly the wrong actions.

4. Final Comments.

The language of the bad guy is instructive: "As we learn about the Mem Drive open space issues" gives the impression of good intent.

We have been telling them about the destructive behavior for eight years including very strong documentation, and SOMEHOW, they just cannot understand where the problem is.

I learned quite awhile ago, with regard to another key Cambridge pol, that they just cannot be that stupid.

An excellent example is the "Green" organization this guy's friends have created which claims to represent Cambridgeport, but which does not want to know about the bizarre projects at Magazine Beach.

But the Cambridge pols sure do like Wife Abuser type comments aimed at their victims.

The reality is that, as my comments in 3 above demonstrate, there is a lot going on here, and a fake neighborhood association controlled by them is a well established Cambridge pol tactic to PREVENT ORGANIZATION.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Psychoanalyzing a Heartless Animal Abuser

Bob La Trémouille reports:

When I first became aware of the plans of the City of Cambridge for the Magazine Beach area in Fall 1997, I could not get anybody to believe me.

First of all, there clearly was no need to "improve" Magazine Beach. Second of all, who would be so heartless and wasteful as to harm the habitat of the beautiful and extremely valuable Charles River White Geese.

After the announcement of the City Manager’s plans, the Department of Conservation and Recreation sought to receive complaints against the Charles River White Geese. Cambridge pols who had organized the show-and-tell of the City Manager’s plans happily filed complaint.

After the Cambridge City Manager announced his plans, the Cambridge Pols happily started running around bad-mouthing the Charles River White Geese.

The DCR talked about complaints against the Charles River White Geese as excuse for their heartless treatment of the geese. Friends of the White Geese made a freedom of information demand.

THE ONLY COMPLAINT received against the Charles River White Geese since their first residence in 1981 turned out to be the complaint filed by the Cambridge Pol group IN RESPONSE TO the request of the DCR.

The sort of personal destruction which the Cambridge Pols attempted to inflict on Kathy Podgers in the Cambridge Chronicle was strikingly similar to the activities of the Cambridge Pols against the Charles River White Geese. The Cambridge Pols started badmouthing and belittling beings who were and continue to be the city and state’s most valuable resource on their part of the Charles River.

The geese are the subject of tourist visits. The geese are beloved by commuters, by a large number of locals and by so many people who just happen to encounter them.

The Cambridge Pols got very busy and very nasty.

When Peter Valentine attempted to get Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons to behave like a responsible human being with regard to the Charles River and the Charles River White Geese, Simmons spouted words which reaffirmed the campaign of destruction by the Cambridge pols.

Demeaning your victim is key to an abuser. Dehumanizing, devaluing is key to an abuser.

There was no way Simmons was about to treat the Charles River White Geese as anything of any value whatsoever.

This is not unique to Simmons. It just happens to be specifically recognizable through a recognized third party.

They spout this standard abuser garbage and they fit the mold.

Cambridge politics is a very filthy entity and the heartless animal abusers upon whom Cambridge politics revolve fit the mold.

Monday, March 03, 2008

"Environmental" Councilor Can Be Made to Oppose Destruction of Green?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The letter to the Cambridge Chronicle editor was published in the Chronicle on February 21, 2008.

The following Tuesday one of the usual Cambridge pol type groups held a meeting which discussed the Charles River.

In attendance were the local State Rep, State Senator and a city councilor who has run very beligerently as an environmentalist. The Rep, Walz, continued to support the environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. The Senator was willing to talk and the city councilor offered to allow constituents to talk him into opposing destruction of the Green at Magazine Beach.

I am reminded of an attempt by Peter Valentine, a very fine person and supporter of the Charles River White Geese, to interest the latest Cambridge Mayor in behaving responsibly on the Charles River. She flatly and simply ruled out any discussion of NOT indulging in heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.

An honest translation of her opinion:


The ongoing destruction of thousands of healthy trees at Fresh Pond combines with the destruction of the homes of thousands of animals and the creation of homelessness for them.

That letter published in the Chronicle referred to the abuse of a guide dog in the lobby of the Cambridge Police Station by a rogue cop in a room containing other rogue cops who did nothing. The rogue cop on duty at the desk both did nothing and refused to accept a complaint concerning an outrage which occurred to his face.

A more accurate condemnation of the situation concerning animals in the City of Cambridge is that we have nine belligerent animal abusers who are proud of it except that they try to hide themselves to responsible people.

Those rogue cops in the police station lobby abusing the guide dog were implementing very sick policy coming straight from a truly reprehensible city government.

I have compared the current situation in the City of Cambridge to the stench I noticed when working with the Walsh law firm in the 80's. None of the people from the Walsh law firm who went to jail were jailed for bribery.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Letter Published

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On February 16, I reported on the Cambridge Chronicle shutting down comments in its on line edition on reports published in the Chronicle. I included in my report a letter I had submitted to the Chronicle editor on the subject.

The letter I submitted was published on page 10 of the February 21 edition. Without going into a detailed comparison, it definitely sounds unedited.

Frankly, I was very surprised. I only learned about the publication from a friend on the street this morning. I confirmed it in the back issues rack at the Public Library.

Even with with the moderating edits which I pointed out in my report, that was a strong letter. The Chronicle editor is to be thanked and commended.