Friday, May 30, 2008

On Open Space in Cambridge, MA and Con Games?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.

What would you say about a “community leader” faced with an issue of use of open space in his neighborhood, about which the following applies?
a. The city has destroyed the best park in the neighborhood TWICE.
b. First they destroyed something like thirty out of 40 one hundred year old trees, promising they would provide perhaps 50 saplings as “replacements” in a nearby, inferior location.
c. The city has just destroyed the 50 replacements.
d. The “leader"’s constituents want protection for the pittance of open space which has not been destroyed yet.
e. In the key meeting, this “leader” introduces his wife.
f. His wife was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit which obtained ON APPEAL a preliminary injunction against the destruction of the original park with its hundred year old trees. It is next to impossible to get injunctions on appeal.
g. The judge eventually allowed destruction of the park and most of the hundred year old trees based on his interpretation of a state statute protecting parks.
h. At the key meeting, the “community leader” suppresses providing his constituents with the the judge’s decision on the meaning of the statute protecting parks in the case in which his wife was lead plaintiff.
i. Instead the “community leader” bullies his organization to obey the “legal opinion” of the attorney for the city government which destroyed the hundred year old park and just destroyed the supposed replacement trees.
j. The “legal opinion” quoted by the “community leader” certainly seems to be exactly the opposite of the clear language of the statute and the opposite of the judge’s opinion concerning the exact same open space.
k. The “legal opinion” would have the constituents chase their tails for a few years.
l. Cambridge Pols have a long record of getting well meaning people to chase their tails.
m. The “community leader” orders that the “opinion” of the city solicitor be obeyed and posted on the neighborhood association website.
n. The “community leader” orders that the court decision WHICH HIS WIFE GOT, be ignored and not be posted on the website.
o. The “community leader” is the head of a group with a long record of Cambridge Pols control.
p. The Cambridge Pols have a long record of getting constituents to chase their tails.
q. Is it any wonder that Cambridge is so terrible on environmental matters?

2. The bitter details:

a. Fake groups dominated by the Cambridge Pols.

The front organizations controlled by the Cambridge Pols and through them, by the City of Cambridge, date back to the 1970's.

In my opinion, the worst, as far as getting damage to their OWN supposed causes, has long been the “Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association.”

This sort of group commonly “appears” when a developer has a project and the group purports to represent the neighborhood with regard to the project.

A very tiny group then selects a slightly larger coordinating group. They all join together to stomp people who are really concerned about the supposed cause of the group.
It is possible to get things done in such a group BUT you commonly have to beat the people who dominate it. The technical name for such a group is “company union.”

b. Some of my experience with the Mid-Cambridge group.

I have downzoned about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares in Cambridge working with various groups and I have downzoned many other parts of Cambridge.

The purpose of the downzonings has been to protect sidewalk level open space, to protect housing and to minimize the environmental impact of excessively commercial development. Office uses generate three times the vehicular traffic as residential uses, and retail uses generate nine time the vehicular traffic as residential uses. Cambridge has approximately twice the jobs it needs for its population.

Cambridge Pols have been consistently on the wrong side of the Massachusetts Avenue downzonings and have done severe harm, commonly with outrageous lies. The key to these flat out lies has been to troop [people] into a meeting PEOPLE who will vouch for frequently outrageous nonsense.

I, however, have more than once beaten the Cambridge Pols and gotten support of this group.

(1) The La Trémouille Petition.

In 1980, the first zoning petition on Mass. Ave., the petition was written by a committee appointed by the Mid- Cambridge group, and the committee did what it was appointed to do on the downzoning petition it wrote.

The Cambridge Pols tried to bully the committee into turning the downzoning proposal into an upzoning. When the committee would not violate its orders from the group, theCambridge Pols then ran around claiming to represent the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association not only with no vote of the association but also pushing those goals which conflicted with the vote that formed the committee.

We finally forced another vote of the Mid-Cambridge group. We won again. HOWEVER, since we spent so much time fighting the bastards, their rogue effort destroyed the important parts of the initiative. This initiative changed zoning in the middle portion of Mass. Ave.

(2) The Natalie Ward Petition.

In 1989, we achieved a major downzoning of East Harvard Square.

After we had made the key agreements with members of the Cambridge City Council the Cambridge Pols spoke to the neighborhood group which was doing the work with the key lie:

You have made your deal with the City Council, now you have to deal with the Planning Board.

A flat out lie, but it bullied major concessions out of the petitioners.

In spite of the backstabbing, this downzoning forced the Inn at Harvard building on Harvard. Harvard wanted a building 72% larger and built to the lotline.

(3) The Anderson Petition.

In 1998, the Anderson Petition downzoned that portion of Massachusetts Avenue nearest Cambridge City Hall. This area had been in the original La Trémouille petition and had been lost because of the malfeasance of the Cambridge Pols. We got the same residential zoning we achieved in East Harvard Square with ciutywide improvements to reflect lessons learned from the Inn at Harvard building. We provide clear protection for adjacent owners and for trees on the site.

c. The latest outrage.

I attended a meeting of the Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. I spoke quite a bit. My biggest regret is that I was not belligerent enough. There were at least three terrible actions. Key was the behavior of the chair and his buddies. I will only report on one of the outrages right now.

Key in the Cambridge Pol group structure is a small core controlled by an even smaller group. The small core does the wishes of the smaller group. The small core is selected by the smaller group. Such sub groups commonly make it impossible to get Cambridge Pol groups to work for the supposed goals of the group.

That Wednesday the bad guys, as usual, were well organized, knew what they wanted and did not give a damn about reality.

d. Open space at the Public Library / High School site.

(1) The history.

Destruction of Library Park located between the Public Library and Cambridge Street could have been the reason why the Mid-Cambridge group was created in the mid-70's. The average member would have no knowledge of these machinations. The ones with knowledge would be the city employees who got their buddies to form a group.

Very promptly as these things go, after the group was created, the key organizers worked for the destruction of the best park in the neighborhood.
They promised a “better” park.

Better than a park dominated by 30 to 40 one hundred year old trees, creating an excellent visual connection between the two major streets of the neighborhood, exceeded in quality only by the Cambridge Common as a city neighborhood park?

The Cambridge Pols got their “improvement” with serious harm to the neighborhood and the destruction of irreplaceable beauty.

Part of the deal was a large number of trees in front of the Public Library building. The city, with help from Cambridge Pols, destroyed those trees last year.

(2) The bad guy’s forced decision this time.

Now, decent people want some sort of guarantees that the little which has not been destroyed of their park will not be destroyed. They want the park protected as a park. The Cambridge Pols came up with the usual bizarre solution.

They say they have an opinion from the Cambridge City Solicitor saying that they have to get permission from the legislature to protect parks.

The Cambridge City Solicitor is the same guy who, a couple of years ago, told the Election Commission that they do not have to obey the OBVIOUSLY APPLICABLE Jack E. Robinson decision.

Blatant lawlessness is not unusual in Cambridge government. There frequently is seen in Cambridge the mentality:

If you want me to obey that very clear law, sue me.

This could stem back to the city solicitor situation. So the Cambridge City Solicitor told the good guys to chase their tails.

The relevant statute is Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 45, section 5, which reads:

"Land taken for or held as a park under this chapter shall be forever kept open and maintained as a public park, and no building which exceeds six hundred square feet in area on the group shall be erected on a common or park dedicated to the use of the public without leave of the [state legislature]. . ."

The statute says “no building shall be erected on a common or park dedicated to the use of the public without leave of the [state legislature].”

The City Solicitor, according to the Cambridge Pols, says exactly the opposite from the very clear wording of the statute: protection is not legal without leave of the [state legislature].

So the Cambridge City Solicitor’s “opinion” is exactly the opposite of the law.

So the Cambridge Pols are passing this nonsense on to their victims as gospel.

(3) Legal history on that site.

In the 70's, I represented a 10 taxpayer group which fought against the destruction of that park. The case was sufficiently strong that I obtained a preliminary injunction ON APPEAL. Getting a preliminary injunction on appeal is, for all practical purposes, impossible. But I had a good case. I got it on appeal.

(a) The gift in trust.

We primarily based the suit on the terms under which the property was given to the city by a major donor who gave the city a very significant part of its key buildings. The City of Cambridge has contempt for the terms of gifts if Cambridge can evade the terms of gifts. The donor gave the property for use as a library.

He specifically said he did not want the property used for ordinary city purposes such as a school building. The donor gave the adjacent property for use as a school building. He also gave the city its city hall.

Trouble was that, after the suit was filed, the state Supreme Court came down with a charitable trust decision which was not fully thought out. The decision seemed to wipe out the distinction between two lines of cases to our severe detriment. A decision in the 80's clarified the situation. That decision in the 80's confirmed the legal rationale for our original filing, but when we got to court, we were going to have to appeal to get what we wanted. We needed to win on other grounds and to appeal to clarify the trust decision.

(b) General Laws, chapter 45, section 5.

We tried the case on General Laws, chapter 45, section 5. The judge, under chapter 45, section 5, found that our magnificent park was not a park but library grounds. There was no contention whatsoever that the nonsense currently being handed by the Cambridge City Solicitor had an relation to anything.

In the current situation, all that is necessary is for the City of Cambridge to say that the City of Cambridge is using the property as a park and has been using the property as a park since 1968. PERIOD. According to the Cambridge Pols, the City Solicitor says protection of open space cannot be achieved without vote of the State Legislature.

(4) City Solicitor’s Opinion being placed on website.

The chair announced that his organization was putting this bizarre piece of paper on their website as an example of The Truth. Earlier in the meeting, the chair introduced his wife. I commented that his wife was my lead plaintiff. The chair was not at all impressed with the idea that I suggested: put the judge’s decision in the 1970s case on the website. The case’s lead plaintiff is now the chair’s wife. Reality is not the sort of thing that concerns the Cambridge Pols.
The Cambridge Pols do not want the decision in ““Carmean v. Cambridge”” on their website. The Cambridge Pols have no interest whatsoever in a COURT DECISION DECIDING HOW THE SITE SHOULD BE USED.

The Cambridge Pols want to publicize an apparent piece of nonsense which conflicts with the court decision and with the clear statutory language, the “legal opinion” for the attorney for their most destructive enemy.

Note, however, that I have never seen this “Legal Opinion,” this piece of nonsense. I have only heard the con job presented to the group as to its contents.

3. More to Come.

I have written enough for now.

I will proceed later.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Deer Sighting on Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge

Karen Parker reports with Bob La Trémouille analysis:

Saturday evening at about 10 pm, saw a deer on Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge. She called the police to get help for the deer with no success.

When she last saw, the deer was last seen heading up Rindge Ave. That is a good direction. The urban wilds are in that direction.

This is not at all a surprise. Nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council are destroying animal habitat on a large scale at Fresh Pond. Smaller animals have been seen at the Fresh Pond Shopping Center, driven there when these heartless bastards destroyed their homes.

Why are their homes being destroyed? So that the nine hypocrites can put in saplings and brag about the saplings. They will not want to hear about the thousands of healthy trees and animal habitat destroyed to put in the saplings. If they knew what they were doing, they would not have such a good lie to tell about themselves.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

DCR's BU Bridge sidewalk repairs and the White Geese

Marilyn Wellons reports on the May 20, 2008
Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting:

I spoke with the DCR representative at the Cport NA
meeting last night about the DCR's nighttime work
under the BU Bridge on the Boston side. We agreed the
[DCR] flyer was confusing. She said she'd look into it.

Today [May 21] she says the night work is to put shielding
under the bridge. It'll take 10-14 days.

I said the contractor had told me that work would be
from the barge, and it's supplied by pickup truck
through the goose meadow. (As the resident engineer
and I stood there last week a pickup did drive over
the curb at Memorial Drive, into the meadow, and down
the hill. Someone got out, went to the base of the BU
Bridge, got into a boat, and went out the barge.)

I asked the DCR representative whether the barge would
be supplied through the goose meadow at night. She
said she'd find out. I think we agreed that if that
was the case it would be a problem for the geese.

I told her I was glad the DCR press release said there
would be no harm to the White Geese. But, I said, the
DCR's history is to say just that even as they are
harming the geese. For example, in September 2004 the
Globe quoted DCR planner Richard Corsi as saying the
DCR wouldn't harm the geese--even as the agency and
Cambridge were keeping the White Geese from their
primary source of food at Magazine Beach, i.e.,
starving them.

(As we know, the geese haven't starved only because of
the heroic work of the people feeding them. I had a
very good visit with Bill N. and the geese Tuesday
morning. It was a beautiful day and the geese were
beautiful. I saw goslings and ducklings. I was
impressed by the logistics, coordination and
dedication of the people involved in that effort.

(Bill told me one of the construction workers had
commented on how beautiful the geese were, how
interesting their urban wild is.)

I believe the workers will be as careful as they can.
However, as I told the DCR lady, since the DCR and
Cambridge decided the White Geese didn't belong on the
Charles, occasions like this provid either cover or
opportunity for people wanting to attack the geese.

Without going into detail, I recounted my conversation
with Julia O'Brien, head of DCR plans, in 2000. Yes,
O'Brien said, destroying the White Geese's nesting
habitat would expose them to predators when they were
most vulnerable, but the DCR didn't intend to harm
them. I told the DCR representative that DCR plans
had in fact solicited a memo that recommended
eliminating all the geese.

I told her about the violent attacks on the geese in
2001, and that the DCR and Cambridge had failed to
condemn them. She knew that people who attack animals
like that are a danger to humans. I told her about Io
Nachtwey's kidnapping, rape, and murder, that the rape
took place exactly where we found the body of the
first goose, that like the human victim, that mother
goose was stabbed and beaten to death. I said the
method of attacking the geese changed radically after
the arrest of her killers.

Again, the DCR representative listened, for which I
was grateful.

I pointed out that the White Geese have been confined
to the goose meadow since 2004. In the old days, the
geese were at the goose meadow for 4 months or so.
Before the DCR and Cambridge changed their policy, the
gaggle would be finished nesting by now, and be
leaving the goose meadow to feed along the river at
Magazine Beach and by the Hyatt Hotel. Now they're
confined to this ghetto year round.

It would be much better if the geese could resume
their mini-migration, if they once again had safe
access to the grass at Magazine Beach and near the
Hyatt. That way work on the BU Bridge wouldn't
endanger them.

And we could all enjoy the White Geese in their entire
habitat. I always think of my friend's son, whom I
knew as a child, bringing his own daughter down to
visit the White Geese not that many years ago. I'm
looking forward to the day when the geese are once
again free animals.

For now, I'm waiting for further word from the DCR
official about how work on the BU Bridge will affect
the geese.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Photos from Phil Barber

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Phil Barber was kind enough to pass on these photos.

The brood of four is clearly larger now. They are beautiful. Their parents are showing them to the world and showing the world to them.

I saw the bunny in that portion of the upper meadow which was not destroyed last week.

These are what Massachusetts' Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge are aggressively destroying on the Charles River, as much as they can get away with.

Cambridge destroys wildlife pretty much as it finds it.

Another very aggressive area of Cambridge destruction is Fresh Pond where massive habitat destruction has now been ongoing for two years. Destruction of thousands of trees is slated along with associated habitat. Those healthy trees and animal habitat are in the way of saplings.

But Cambridge does love to put out nonsense about being pro-environment. The false words appease responsible members of their constituency who make the mistake of thinking they are telling the truth. When dealing with claims which impact the environment that only Cambridge can destroy, claims about behaving responsibly are belied by strikingly irresponsible behavior, on a large scale.

Thank you Phil.

I wish Cambridge, MA had a government which bore meaningful resemblance to the government's lovely words.


I separate sent the first two by email to various friends. I got rave reviews which I passed on to Phil.

Phil responding by passing on the following shot from last winter.

I think it is an oppossum. These are lovely beings who are still struggling and surviving in spite of aggressive destructive actions by some truly reprehensible pols and bureaucrats.

Diversity was heavily and deliberately destroyed by these bastards with their self-serving lies and hypocrisies.

Karen responds with regard to the oppossum:

I have some of them in my yard and they are cute.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Activities in the Fenway, Urban Ring planning

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.
2. The Monday Meeting, Urban Ring Citizen's Advisory Committee.
a. General. Two or three rail crossing options.
b. The consultants.
3. Fenway neighborhood meeting.
a. Longwood Hospital Area Tunnel.
b. Yawkey Station.

1. General.

Last evening, the City of Boston conducted a meeting of residents of the Fenway neighborhood. Monday I attended a meeting of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on the Urban Ring.

2. The Monday Meeting, Urban Ring Citizen's Advisory Committee.

a. General. Two or three rail crossing options.

Urban Ring planning is of major importance on the Charles River. The Fenway neighborhood is smack in the middle of the most complicated maneuverings.

One of the key requirements in the bizarre bus planning in place of the rail transportation that makes sense is that the bus planning do nothing to impact rail in the area. Naturally, the "planners" are working to impact rail planning to push the option favored by Harvard, MIT and Boston University.

There are two key possible crossings of the Charles River. One is the Kenmore Crossing with a station under Brookline Avenue between Kenmore Square and Fenway Park. That station is, from a transportation point of view, excellent. It provides an ideal connector between commuter rail, the proposed Urban Ring Subway and the three Green Line branches, plus it gives excellent support to Fenway Park.

The other option, the BU Bridge crossing, give BU a private station within view of Marsh Chapel, and gives MIT and other Cambridge developers their own private station. There is a third station under Park Drive between the Riverside and Cleveland Circle Green Line branches.

The Kenmore crossing has one station in a part of the proposal where the other has three stations. Two of the BU Bridge crossing stations are so close together as to be silly. This is needed to attempt to duplicate the connections the Kenmore crossing does in one elegant package at Kenmore.

Harvard seems to be pushing a different route for the benefit of Harvard. That route would include the two stations where the Kenmore crossing has one.

The BU Bridge and Harvard alternatives would move the Fenway Park rail station two blocks further away from Fenway Park to connect to the Marsh Chapel station.

b. The consultants.

The consultants dropped the other shoe on Monday. They are proposing that, in the name of buses, the state build one of the two BU Bridge crossing stations as part of the bus planning. And they are supposed to do nothing which will prevent the Kenmore crossing?

The proposed station would be on the edge of the Fenway neighborhood, connecting Fenway Park station to Beacon Street / the Cleveland Circle line.

3. Fenway neighborhood meeting.

The meeting last night impacted two urban ring options.

a. Longwood Hospital Area Tunnel.

The people at Longwood seem to be hardening on a subway tunnel called a bus tunnel to service Longwood and get traffic off their streets. The proposal is firming up as a tunnel to the Riverside line, hitting the Riverside line west of Park Drive and west of the Fenway Park station.
The City of Boston is proposal a small vehicle path in the same area.

I raised the point. They provided two answers: (1) Boston's planning is for the next two years. The Urban Ring is ten years out. (2) They think it all can be fit in.

b. Yawkey Station.

The state people show a bus route to Yawkey Station, the commuter rail station servicing Fenway Park. It seems to do a loop in the large parking lot at that location.

In the fine print of the city's plans for Brookline Avenue, they mention that changes, general, may have to be made for mass transit purposes. That would be the bus maneuverings at Yawkey Station.

More news on Brown Beauty and her babies

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The goose parents take their babies around to show them off, and to show the babies their world.

I understand Brown Beauty even brought her babies over to the traffic island which is their least dangerous source of food.

The reprehensible people from the city and state in their heartless starvation abuse on the beautiful animals have created a situation where they have to cross traffic to get food. Brown Beauty showed her babies that food.

One of the two babies died of natural causes.

The other "disappeared."

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Urban Ring Plans Destructive to Geese; BU Condemns Other Part

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Yesterday afternoon, I attended the meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the plans for the bus / highway phase of the Urban Ring planning.

Their plans are on the Internet. is the indes to the most recent posting. It is not up to date.

The plans include a pedestrian / small vehicle highway through the same area where the DCR / its agents just destroyed vegetation and probably / possibly killed Brown Beauty's babies.

The DCR was represented by the environmentally vile Julia O'Brien. She has been a key part of the leadership in the outrages going on in Cambridge on the Charles river.

Boston University condemned part of the plans which they say are destructive to their campus.

I commented that, given the destruction being inflicted on the environment in Cambridge by BU and the DCR and implemented in the Urban Ring plans, it is a pleasure to see these reprehensible, destructive bastards bitterly objecting to "harm" to them.

Years of heartless abuse, years of heartless starving, the first attack on the Charles River White Geese when BU illegally destroyed the nesting area in 1999 (destruction which is a key part of the Urban Ring plans), probably repeated destruction of nests over the years and killing of geese who defended their nests, lying about the Charles River White Geese in their alumni magazine - there is a lot to have contempt for BU for. Truly reprehensible people.

Brown Beauty Mate Alive; BU Destructiveness

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Yesterday evening after the Urban Ring meeting reported separately, I went to the Goose Meadow to demonstrate the destruction inflicted by the DCR / their agents.

In the grass on the other side of the ramp to Memorial Drive were Brown Beauty and her mate.

I helped them cross the ramp when they had had enough food. They have been forced to make this dangerous trip by their access to food at Magazine Beach being destroyed.

In the Urban Ring report, I mention publicly condemning the environmental destructiveness of BU and the DCR on the north side of the Charles.

In addition to the physical destructiveness, Boston University has stooped so low as to print a false statement by a BU related goose-feeder that the Charles River White Geese cannot survive if feeders stop feeding them. The statement is true NOW because BU, Cambridge and the DCR have been so destructive as to their habitat. The statement is a flat out lie if the destructiveness of BU, Cambridge and the DCR is omitted. The Charles River White Geese survived for 25 years living on the food which BU, Cambridge and the DCR have taken away from them.

The lie was printed in BU's alumni magazine. Friends of the White Geese submitted a response which BU would not print.

It is scary to have such a flat out lie printed. It is scarier still to have these hypocrites refuse to correct it.

It is even more scary that the Charles River White Geese are relying on somebody doing such harm to them. We have no choice. The geese need to be fed.

FOWG did the feeding for a number of months until we could find people who would do the feeding, but these two key feeders with their political harm to the Charles River White Geese are most definitely not friends. We are overworked as it is. The geese need to be fed. We cannot do it, but the two key feeders are a cancer within.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Vegetation Changes - Baby Killers?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Over the fall and winter, severe damage has been done to protective vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting area.

This was rather clearly done by vehicles of government workers and contractors. They trampled over protective briar patches.

Between the main path and the BU Bridge was damage done by workers inspecting the BU Bridge.

Between the ramp to Memorial Drive and the worn out portion brambles were apparently crushed as part of the "sidewalk project."

The wasted area toward the river has heavily been created by nuts from the DCR and their agents. They have, over the years, shown their contempt for nature here and under the trees to the east.

These nuts dug up the protective ground vegetation and dumped poisons. This is an excellent example of man's destroying our world. Vegetation needed by nature and by our world is considered "unsightly" by nuts who have no business managing nature. That is our DCR and its agents.

The damage that was done to the briars has been picked up during the last week.

Prior times when nuts from the DCR and their agents have destroyed nature in the goose meadow, they have destroyed nests as well. The difference between the killing of geese by the rape-murderer who is now in jail and the DCR activities was that the rape-murderer left the dead bodies.

When the DCR / their agents were indulging in their outrageous cleanups, mother geese simply disappeared. We have seen mates become flat out nuts when the DCR / their agents did their vile work. I have seen day old babies wandering the nesting area looking for their mothers, crying for their mothers.

My first indication that somebody other than an individual nut was killing mother geese came after second the brood in the 2001 nesting season was hatched under a large board leaning against the BU Bridge. The board was too big for one person to move, but it disappeared, leaving a missing mother, a mate who had gone nuts and babies crying for their mother.

Brown Beauty has, in the past, been severely beaten protecting her nest.

Mother geese do not abandon their broods. Sick nuts kill mother geese.

The work that cleaned up vegetation that had been trampled was in the area I mentioned above.

Brown Beauty has been nesting in the area toward the on ramp.

Brown Beauty's babies have disappeared. Brown Beauty is very distraught.

Did the sickos from the DCR commit yet another outrage?

Well, we could ask them. These are the guys who promised to do no harm to the Charles River White Geese and then explained that they do not consider starving them to be harming them.

We are dealing with truly reprehensible people. Reprehensible people who are proud of being reprehensible except when they lie to decent human beings.

What do you think?


Has anybody seen Brown Beauty's mate?

When the sick bastard's were "cleaning up" nests, mother geese rather clearly were killed and removed for defending their nests. Brown Beauty was alone yesterday. I have almost never in recent days seen her without her mate.

I have not seen a goose look like that since the rape-murderer apparently killed Bumpy.

Was Brown Beauty's mate killed for defending the nest and babies?

If anybody has seen Brown Beauty's mate, I would very pleased to learn differently.

Brown Beauty: Joy turns to loss

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Brown Beauty has had two surviving broods.

In 1999, she had five babies, three males and two females. Two of the males were shot in the ensuing years. One died rapidly. The second possibly died a year later.

In 2005 or 2006, she had one surviving baby, a male, a white beauty with a black hood.

Last week, I saw two babies huddling up to her under her wing. This was under the vegetation toward the tracks, but near the historical nesting area.

This week, they were no longer there. I found Brown Beauty under the vegetation near the river and not that far from the bridge. She was by herself, no mate, no babies.

She looked bedraggled.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Environmental Destruction and Lying on the Charles River

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introductory.
2. Objection to lying on the Charles River, long form.

1. Introductory.

In my prior blog report, I passed on a letter printed by the Cambridge Chronicle, and commented on a response published on line and probably printed in today's paper.

The response to my letter may, for now, be found at:

After an exchange, I submitted an op ed response. The Chronicle editor has asked me to cut it down to a 400 word letter.

The following is the full version. I will work on cutting it down to 400 words for the Chronicle.

2. Objection to lying on the Charles River, long form.


I have a great deal of difficulty with the Guest Commentary entitled “Should the Charles be a private cooling pond for power plant?”

The difficulty very strongly comes from the fact that one week before the submission of this article, I, yet again in the Cambridge Chronicle, condemned the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the Charles River .

In my letter, I used an indelicate comment with regard to my years of standing up to environmental destruction by these people on the Charles River: “The only thing that has been consistent on the Charles River has been lies and suppression of the truth.”

The variety of lies, deliberate or otherwise, which I have seen has been incredible. The subset of lies to which I have been subjected includes the approach of this op-ed piece, whether deliberate or not:

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge love to point fingers at the Mirant Power Plant, people who are cleaning up their act on the Charles River .

The fact that the DCR and Cambridge are aggressively going in the wrong direction is something that Friends of the DCR and Cambridge DO NOT want to hear about.

Two years ago, in late summer, all of a sudden, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge .

THE DAY BEFORE the Charles River was dead, the DCR applied Tartan fungicide to Ebersol Fields, across the river from the Mirant Plant. Tartan is marked with prohibitions against use near water. But the DCR had replaced GREEN maintenance with CHEMICAL maintenance at Ebersol Fields and their beloved CHEMICALs did not work. So the DCR tossed on Tartan and THE NEXT DAY the Charles River was dead.

Cambridge and the DCR are doing the same thing at Magazine Beach . Cambridge and the DCR have a location which works perfectly well with GREEN maintenance. Cambridge and the DCR want to put in their beloved CHEMICAL maintenance.

Magazine Beach has seen the contempt for the environment practiced by the DCR and Cambridge . The DCR and Cambridge destroyed the wetlands and animal habitat to install a bizarre wall of bushes. Friends of the DCR and Cambridge publicly called this bizarre wall blocking the Charles River from Magazine Beach a way to improve swimming on the Charles River .

This bizarre project walled off the Charles River White Geese from their principal source of food for 25 years. Simultaneous with this project, Cambridge put up a wall barring access from the Charles River to their alternate source of food of the Charles River White Geese for 25 years, the grass across from the Hyatt.

These heartless, cruel people have isolated these beautiful, valuable animals in their nesting area, perhaps 5% of their 25 year habitat. Now these heartless people want to destroy half their nesting area in a project called a sidewalk project.

I complained on the pages of the Cambridge Chronicle. The Cambridge Chronicle got a response which talks about the Mirant plant.

Friends of Cambridge and the DCR do not want to know reality.

Friends of Cambridge and the DCR do not want to know that Mirant is decreasing pollution.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know that Cambridge and the DCR are aggressively increasing pollution.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know that the DCR and Cambridge certainly look like the only current aggressive destroyers of the Charles River environment.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know about DCR’s five years of destroying as many eggs of water fowl as is possible.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know about the DCR’s five years of destroying as much protective vegetation on the Charles River as is possible.

Friends of the DCR belligerently want to believe the DCR’s promise repeated over many years: We will not harm the Charles River White Geese.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know the caveat given after starvation commenced. Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know the caveat that the DCR does not consider starvation harmful to the Charles River White Geese.

As far as I am concerned, whether knowing or not, loudly yelling about Mirant and not wanting to know about Cambridge and the DCR destructiveness on the Charles River is flat out lying.

As far as I am concerned the litany of skillful lying techniques used by the DCR, Cambridge and their stand-ins are all just lying.

The lying techniques I have observed over the years include the technique in this op ed piece, whether the writer is "consciously" aware or not. The lying techniques I have observed include working through agents and denying responsibility. The lying techniques I have observed include playing games with funding.

I object to the ongoing destruction on the Charles River . I object to the decade of lies of so many different techniques which has helped make the destruction possible.

I object to holier than thou’s from Cambridge and the DCR, people who are most definitely not holier than thou.

Censorship in Cambridge, MA - Cambridge Chronicle letter

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Letter in Cambridge Chronicle.
2. Apparent response by bad guys.

1. Letter in Cambridge Chronicle.

The following letter was printed in the May 1, 2008, Cambridge Chronicle minus the paragraph starting with "Nine heartless animal abusers." The entire letter was printed on line, from which this copy is taken.


Cambridge -

The city recently started fining people for posting notices on lampposts.The city of Cambridge and Harvard University are exempt from the fines. Signs have gone up on the BU Bridge announcing “sidewalk improvements.” Typical DCR lies.

The “sidewalk improvements” include major destruction in the last remaining habitat of the Charles River white geese — their nesting area in which they are currently nesting.

Nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council and School Committee member McGovern are imminently destroying the food of the Charles River white geese at Magazine Beach by digging up all seven acres, creating a wasteland in order to replace green maintenance with chemical maintenance.

Censorship of fliers is no coincidence.

The only thing that has been consistent on the Charles River has been lies and suppression of the truth.

These vile people will not behave in a manner consistent with their holier-than-thou pieties, so they are shutting people up.


2. Apparent response by bad guys.

The bad guys apparently responded by submitting an extended piece yelling about the Mirant power plant. It is in the Cambridge Chronicle on line. I do not know if it made today's edition of the paper.

When I refer to non-stop lies, I refer to a pattern of lying using an incredible variety of techniques.

One of the techniques is to change the subject and misdirect from the problem.

Mirant is cleaning up their act. Cambridge and the DCR are aggressively destroying the Charles River environment.

So the bad guys, friends of the DCR and Cambridge, do not want to hear about Cambridge and the DCR, they yell about Mirant.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Holier than thou hypocrisy and censorship: Cambridge, MA

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn Wellons on Censorship and The Law.
Flier Ordinance Cannot be Enforced.
3. Your editor on Cambridge, MA's contempt for The Law.
Flier Ordinance Cannot be Enforced; Response - Cambridge has contempt for inconvenient laws.

1. Introduction.

The following exchange appeared on the Cambridgeport listserve on May 5, 2008.

2. Marilyn Wellons on Censorship and The Law
Flier Ordinance Cannot be Enforced.

If the city's already hired a compliance officer and fined Riverside Neighborhood Association, it may be silly but someone's serious about it. Why, and why now, I do not know, but this move does follow hard upon others to limit public speech, especially in City Council.

How we're to find lost dogs or cats, advertise yard sales or neighborhood meetings without being able to put signs on utility poles I also don't know. Postings like these are a public means of communication unlike the telephone, e-mail, snail mail, or door-to-door leafleting.

Marilyn Wellons

PS Something about this reminds me of the poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoeller: see http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ First_they_ came...

3. Your editor on Cambridge, MA's contempt for The Law.
Flier Ordinance Cannot be Enforced; Response - Cambridge has contempt for inconvenient laws.

Standard game with the City of Cambridge is: "If you want us to obey the law, sue us."

That is the reason they get away with so many truly reprehensible things, all the time putting out "Holier than thou" lies.

One excellent example is Kathy Podgers' case at the MCAD, two findings of probable cause so far in an obvious case.

Another excellent example the flat out refusal of the Election Commission to obey the Jack E. Robinson case. Most sane people do not spend thousands of dollars fighting these bastards.

They wind up in court only when they force somebody into a corner, as those dirty bastards did with Kathy Podgers. With Kathy, however, it says wonders that a roomful of rogue cops have not been punished for siccing a pit pull on her guide dog in the lobby of the Cambridge Police Station.