The following has been received from Mr. Peter Valentine through a third party. It seems to be speaker’s notes for the September 24 meeting of the Cambridge City Council. He is speaking in support of the communication I had on the list.
I have posted links to the communication I sent. My principal point was to object the highway the Administration proposes to destroy the core goose habitat with and propose a responsible alternative which would do the job better for less.
In support of that I included detailed response to the non stop lies by the administration that the Kenmore Crossing does not exist as part of Urban Ring plans, analysis and photos of destruction at Alewife, and analysis and photos of destruction at Magazine Beach including the core goose habitat. Mr. Valentine had three communications on the list Monday night. This is in addition to them.
My communication was placed on file.
The third party communicates as follows. My most significant edits are to remove Peter’s address and to add asterisks for clarification.
***********
Peter has asked me to give you a copy of his communication to the City Council, stamped as submitted September 24 at 5:09 pm:
********
Peter Valentine
What I have to say will take approximately 2 1/2 minutes
And since the Massachusetts constitution guarantees the people in Article 19 the right to give instructions to their representatives
And since the mass Constitution and US Constitutions prevail over any and all city constitutions And since the council has sworn oath to uphold both I'm sure everything will be all right.
The flock of geese long residing near magazine beach both. Have a location Harvard, MIT and Boston University specifically on the Cambridge side. There is no such flock anywhere in the Boston area or surrounding area, specifically on the Cambridge side. And also chose a location where there were citizens available to protect them and feed them if necessary against the brutalities of man, who have recked havoc on The Earth destroying the air, poisoning the land and polluting the oceans with garbage and all manner of junk.
Anyone aware of the infinite subtly with which the Creator brings for The Glory would know that these birds having done such are very intelligent and have come to be with us to assist in protecting our intelligent quality way of life.
Although I know that this city government does a highly qualified job in its city operations, it doesn't have the understanding to see the meaning of why these birds have come to be with us and stayed with us so long.
I would ask them to stop there plan of slowly killing off these creatures for the sake of increasing traffic, parking and profits.
But I know they won't.
I so I ask The Creator to protect this flock of intelligent creatures and provide a good place for them to live with us.
And also I ask The Creator to see to it that magazine beach is kept as a well taken care open field for the people of Cambridge to get away to and relax from the tensions of city activity and to refresh themselves sitting by a beautiful calming river.
Peter Valentine
9/24/2012
*********
His cover note says in part, "I was inspired to do it by Roberts' extensive report also submitted to the Council.
"So be sure he gets a copy.
"Best to you and our Geese”,
Peter Valentine
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Communication on Grand Junction, Alewife, Charles River, attacks on Charles River White Geese nearly fully posted on the Internet by Cambridge City Clerk.
I reported yesterday that I had filed this package with the Cambridge City Clerk for the Cambridge City Council, with copies to Councilor / Representative Toomey, and the two state agencies.
The communication responds to the Development Department’s attacks on the environment in many ways. The immediate cause is the direct attack on the Charles River White Geese with their proposed highway, especially since the alternative is unharmful, more direct and thus more functional, and much cheaper. Sounds like business as usual from the City of Cambridge.
I am nevertheless impressed by the on line publication by the City Clerk.
Key in this reprinting are the 4th and 5th pages, showing the damage being inflicted on the Charles River White Geese and the alternative. I will post my report anyway but cite these pages since they are much easier to access than the version buried in the archives and cross references of the Development Department.
The 6th page of the posting does show the limitations of the City Clerk’s procedures.
This is the map by Mr. McKinnon showing the situation at Alewife and his project's part in it. The trouble is that his map is in color and the repro in black and white. It loses a lot in black and white. This I am pretty certain I can upload.
The only omission I have been able to find so far is the second page of Appendix 2 concerning McKinnon’s project and its interrelationship to the wanton and wasteful destruction at Alewife. The second page shows the parking lot where his project currently is. Failure to print that page does a lot to gut the argument, although my analysis in the main letter points out (referring to colors in a black and white reprint) that McKinnon’s project along with the adjacent row of parking lots plus the new project between his and the destruction at Alewife should be used for the underground flood storage, not the apparently planned near total destruction of the Alewife reservation.
The black and white conversion, however, really does a job on my beautiful package.
With these shortcomings, please review this strikingly good posting. I will follow up with my own posting on these pages, with my own shortcoming.
My commendation to the Cambridge City Clerk.
The on line posting is at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/LaTremouille%20com.pdf
The communication responds to the Development Department’s attacks on the environment in many ways. The immediate cause is the direct attack on the Charles River White Geese with their proposed highway, especially since the alternative is unharmful, more direct and thus more functional, and much cheaper. Sounds like business as usual from the City of Cambridge.
I am nevertheless impressed by the on line publication by the City Clerk.
Key in this reprinting are the 4th and 5th pages, showing the damage being inflicted on the Charles River White Geese and the alternative. I will post my report anyway but cite these pages since they are much easier to access than the version buried in the archives and cross references of the Development Department.
The 6th page of the posting does show the limitations of the City Clerk’s procedures.
This is the map by Mr. McKinnon showing the situation at Alewife and his project's part in it. The trouble is that his map is in color and the repro in black and white. It loses a lot in black and white. This I am pretty certain I can upload.
The only omission I have been able to find so far is the second page of Appendix 2 concerning McKinnon’s project and its interrelationship to the wanton and wasteful destruction at Alewife. The second page shows the parking lot where his project currently is. Failure to print that page does a lot to gut the argument, although my analysis in the main letter points out (referring to colors in a black and white reprint) that McKinnon’s project along with the adjacent row of parking lots plus the new project between his and the destruction at Alewife should be used for the underground flood storage, not the apparently planned near total destruction of the Alewife reservation.
The black and white conversion, however, really does a job on my beautiful package.
With these shortcomings, please review this strikingly good posting. I will follow up with my own posting on these pages, with my own shortcoming.
My commendation to the Cambridge City Clerk.
The on line posting is at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/LaTremouille%20com.pdf
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Plans for more destruction attacking the Animals of the Charles River.
A few weeks ago, I reported on a city council hearing concerning a new highway proposed to be constructed along the Grand Junction Railroad which would directly impact the Charles River White Geese.
I have submitted an extended analysis of the package to the Cambridge City Council, Councilor Toomey, the state’s Department of Transportation and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation.
I will post my communication in parts shortly. I have been trying to figure out how to handle a massive PDF document of more than a hundred pages.
The document can be obtained at http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/search.aspx?q=Grand Junction Rail-with-Trail&site=cdd, by doing a search for “Grand Junction Rail-With-Trail” and then going to PDF Page 37 (officially page 3-5).
If you look at the lower right, you will see a good map representation of the area we are mostly concerned about, the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The Destroyed Nesting Area and its environs are in the right hand portion of the bottom.
The BU (Boston University) Bridge is clearly marked and the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge is clear above it and traveling under it.
The area between these structures is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
Memorial Drive is to the left of the DNA and raised. The hash marks to the right of Memorial Drive are on the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge. Most of the area next to the on ramp is a steep slope and I have shown you photos of the slope.
The outrage is the marking in the middle of the DNA. This, casually presented, is a proposal to destroy the DNA for animal habitat. The euphemism is “bike path”. The reality is massive destruction. This highway would follow the Grand Junction Railroad to the bridge. It would travel down a slope heavily used by the Charles River White Geese and their friends. It would go straight ahead through favored animal habitat on the edge, continue around the nesting area on the edge and go up that hill to the ramp again.
The portion which follows the Grand Junction would have a fence constructed along its length, preventing access to the wooded area above railroad by the Charles River White Geese.
So they are fully destroying the Nesting Area for animal use and preventing access to the area they have not destroyed.
To make it worse, as usual, there is a responsible alternative which would do the job better and cheaper.
In about the middle portion of the map, this highway called a bike path crosses another proposed roadway which is a solid gray.
Until the bike highway gets to this point, coming from the Nesting Area, it follows a building which faces on Memorial Drive.
The opposite side of that building is Vassar Street, which ends on Memorial Drive. Vassar Street turns at a point which is very close to the crossing of those two proposed highways. Vassar Street is only separated from this intersection by a parking lot.
It would be simple and very direct to turn the bike highway at this point, run it through the parking lot, along Vassar Street and end it at Memorial Drive.
The markings which follow Memorial Drive to its right are an existing bike highway to which the proposed bike highway is intended to connect.
Compare the difference between running the new bike highway through animal habitat and running it down Vassar Street?
Which is more direct? Which is shorter for the bicycle operators? Which is shorter, cheaper and more efficient?
Vassar Street, of course, by a long shot.
But there is a value to running the Bike Highway through the Destroyed Nesting Area. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has a goal of killing off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. It is buried in their secret definition of parkland. The long route, at the expense of the supposed purpose of the highway, gloriously kills off animals, the Charles River White Geese and other free animals living there.
Here is a photo from the ramp / existing bike highway, perhaps where the new and very destructive highway would go.
We are dealing with really rotten people.
I have submitted an extended analysis of the package to the Cambridge City Council, Councilor Toomey, the state’s Department of Transportation and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation.
I will post my communication in parts shortly. I have been trying to figure out how to handle a massive PDF document of more than a hundred pages.
The document can be obtained at http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/search.aspx?q=Grand Junction Rail-with-Trail&site=cdd, by doing a search for “Grand Junction Rail-With-Trail” and then going to PDF Page 37 (officially page 3-5).
If you look at the lower right, you will see a good map representation of the area we are mostly concerned about, the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
The Destroyed Nesting Area and its environs are in the right hand portion of the bottom.
The BU (Boston University) Bridge is clearly marked and the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge is clear above it and traveling under it.
The area between these structures is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
Memorial Drive is to the left of the DNA and raised. The hash marks to the right of Memorial Drive are on the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge. Most of the area next to the on ramp is a steep slope and I have shown you photos of the slope.
The outrage is the marking in the middle of the DNA. This, casually presented, is a proposal to destroy the DNA for animal habitat. The euphemism is “bike path”. The reality is massive destruction. This highway would follow the Grand Junction Railroad to the bridge. It would travel down a slope heavily used by the Charles River White Geese and their friends. It would go straight ahead through favored animal habitat on the edge, continue around the nesting area on the edge and go up that hill to the ramp again.
The portion which follows the Grand Junction would have a fence constructed along its length, preventing access to the wooded area above railroad by the Charles River White Geese.
So they are fully destroying the Nesting Area for animal use and preventing access to the area they have not destroyed.
To make it worse, as usual, there is a responsible alternative which would do the job better and cheaper.
In about the middle portion of the map, this highway called a bike path crosses another proposed roadway which is a solid gray.
Until the bike highway gets to this point, coming from the Nesting Area, it follows a building which faces on Memorial Drive.
The opposite side of that building is Vassar Street, which ends on Memorial Drive. Vassar Street turns at a point which is very close to the crossing of those two proposed highways. Vassar Street is only separated from this intersection by a parking lot.
It would be simple and very direct to turn the bike highway at this point, run it through the parking lot, along Vassar Street and end it at Memorial Drive.
The markings which follow Memorial Drive to its right are an existing bike highway to which the proposed bike highway is intended to connect.
Compare the difference between running the new bike highway through animal habitat and running it down Vassar Street?
Which is more direct? Which is shorter for the bicycle operators? Which is shorter, cheaper and more efficient?
Vassar Street, of course, by a long shot.
But there is a value to running the Bike Highway through the Destroyed Nesting Area. The Department of Conservation and Recreation has a goal of killing off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. It is buried in their secret definition of parkland. The long route, at the expense of the supposed purpose of the highway, gloriously kills off animals, the Charles River White Geese and other free animals living there.
Here is a photo from the ramp / existing bike highway, perhaps where the new and very destructive highway would go.
We are dealing with really rotten people.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Boston University presents its plans for the Boston side of the Charles River
Boston University is making a presentation on its plans for Campus expansion. It is tonight, 6:00 PM, September 10, 2012 at the Boston University School of Management Building – Room 424 (4th Floor), 595 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA.
I have done a cursory review of the Institutional Master Plan Notification form.
With that brief review, I note that the massive double dorm behind BU’s Athletic Arena which dominates the Boston view from Magazine Beach, will become three towers with another tower built to the west on top of a parking lot.
Additionally, please note the Institutional Master Plan Notification Form, http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/DevelopmentProjects/PipeDocs/Boston%20University%20IMP%202012/Boston%20University%20IMP%202012_IMPNF.pdf, page 40 in PDF reading, figure 6-4.
This shows planned development from Commonwealth Avenue to Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road of all the property on the Boston side near the BU Bridge. Their plans start slightly west of the curve of the Grand Junction just after the Railroad Bridge crosses Soldiers Field Road. The plans run east to include the western portion of the Student Union.
This area includes major open space west of the BU Bridge and major undeveloped land between the BU Bridge and University Road, which serves as access to and from Storrow Drove / Soldiers Field Road east bound. The portion of the Student Union considered for development is just east of University Road.
The plans also include I90, the Massachusetts Turnpike from the same western end to Beacon Street, near Kenmore Square in Boston. BU owns all the land to the north of the Mass. Pike in that area. Interestingly, the plans do not include the rather small area between Beacon Street and Brookline Avenue. This area includes Yawkey Station which features very prominently in Urban Ring rail planning.
Mention of the Cambridge side of the Charles River is negligible. The presentation is made under the aegis of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the City of Boston’s planning agency.
ADDENDUM:
A friend on facebook wished me good luck at the meeting.
My response:
Thanks for the good wishes.
The reality is that I have been through too many meetings with too many unthinking cheerleaders. I thought these plans, in particular, might interest folks.
They are being very non specific and very early on particular plans near the Charles other than the third tower. This is except for an addition to the Law School which, in reality is a 5 story increase in height on top of the existing campus steam heat plant.
That addition to height will not, supposedly be any closer to the Charles than the existing building.
The perhaps meaningful heavy hitters lost a long time ago on the dorm fight.
Interesting omission: I do not recall seeing in the report their very major games with regard to boathouses on the Boston side of the Charles. That effort was a typical game from the "activists". As I recall, the "activists" were bragging about size or location of a new massive building in the Charles near Kenmore. The last thing the "activists" would consider was whether this new construction in the Charles is responsible or even whether it made sense.
Boston University is making a presentation on its plans for Campus expansion. It is tonight, 6:00 PM, September 10, 2012 at the Boston University School of Management Building – Room 424 (4th Floor), 595 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA.
I have done a cursory review of the Institutional Master Plan Notification form.
With that brief review, I note that the massive double dorm behind BU’s Athletic Arena which dominates the Boston view from Magazine Beach, will become three towers with another tower built to the west on top of a parking lot.
Additionally, please note the Institutional Master Plan Notification Form, http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/DevelopmentProjects/PipeDocs/Boston%20University%20IMP%202012/Boston%20University%20IMP%202012_IMPNF.pdf, page 40 in PDF reading, figure 6-4.
This shows planned development from Commonwealth Avenue to Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road of all the property on the Boston side near the BU Bridge. Their plans start slightly west of the curve of the Grand Junction just after the Railroad Bridge crosses Soldiers Field Road. The plans run east to include the western portion of the Student Union.
This area includes major open space west of the BU Bridge and major undeveloped land between the BU Bridge and University Road, which serves as access to and from Storrow Drove / Soldiers Field Road east bound. The portion of the Student Union considered for development is just east of University Road.
The plans also include I90, the Massachusetts Turnpike from the same western end to Beacon Street, near Kenmore Square in Boston. BU owns all the land to the north of the Mass. Pike in that area. Interestingly, the plans do not include the rather small area between Beacon Street and Brookline Avenue. This area includes Yawkey Station which features very prominently in Urban Ring rail planning.
Mention of the Cambridge side of the Charles River is negligible. The presentation is made under the aegis of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the City of Boston’s planning agency.
ADDENDUM:
A friend on facebook wished me good luck at the meeting.
My response:
Thanks for the good wishes.
The reality is that I have been through too many meetings with too many unthinking cheerleaders. I thought these plans, in particular, might interest folks.
They are being very non specific and very early on particular plans near the Charles other than the third tower. This is except for an addition to the Law School which, in reality is a 5 story increase in height on top of the existing campus steam heat plant.
That addition to height will not, supposedly be any closer to the Charles than the existing building.
The perhaps meaningful heavy hitters lost a long time ago on the dorm fight.
Interesting omission: I do not recall seeing in the report their very major games with regard to boathouses on the Boston side of the Charles. That effort was a typical game from the "activists". As I recall, the "activists" were bragging about size or location of a new massive building in the Charles near Kenmore. The last thing the "activists" would consider was whether this new construction in the Charles is responsible or even whether it made sense.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
NOW joins the Cambridge Machine, abandons women?
On September 6, 2012, the Cambridge Chronicle, on page A10 of its hard copy, printed a letter supporting Cambridge City Councilor Marjorie Decker for State Representative. I do not see it on line. The following is my proposed response with some edits:
**********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I am fascinated by the letter written by Aliza Chimene-Weiss apparently on behalf of NARAL, Pro-Choice Massachusetts, National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.
She says that Marjorie Decker is well qualified as State Representative because Decker fills the mandates for a member of the US Congress. Ms. Decker has stayed in office as a city councilor perhaps because she claims she would make a great congressperson.
I can see 3 of the groups, with pro abortion emphasis, going along with this letter but I am very disappointed in NOW.
I was a feminist before significant numbers of women were feminists and I am very disappointed in NOW for supporting a candidate with Decker’s real record.
Decker’s real record on feminism and women’s rights is very real and very practical. It is MONTEIRO, MONTEIRO, MONTEIRO.
The Cambridge City Manager has been condemned in court up to the level of the Appeals Courts because he destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for Monteiro filing a complaint alleging mistreatment because she is a woman.
The Appeals Court panel said: “Ample evidence of . . . outrageous behavior.”
The Superior Court judge said “reprehensible,” summarizing an extended analysis of misbehavior by the Cambridge City Manager.
The Superior Court jury said: $1.1 million real damages, MORE THAN triple penal damages, $3.5 million.
This combination of decisions empowers the Cambridge City Council to fire the Cambridge Manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
There are exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council who seem to be meaningfully working to implement the core opinions in the Monteiro Case. There are exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council who support meaningful implementation of the Monteiro case, firing the Cambridge City Manager because he destroyed a woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a women’s rights complaint. Decker is one of the people who stand for ZERO.
But Decker sounds so great when she is talking things not part of her responsibilities.
I am very disappointed in NOW for apparently supporting a candidate with this irresponsible a record. NOW is looking like the members of the Cambridge Machine, or is it (and I do not know) controlled by the Cambridge Machine?
I think NOW should reverse itself and support women’s rights in a meaningful manner. NOW should condemn Decker, not endorse her.
**********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I am fascinated by the letter written by Aliza Chimene-Weiss apparently on behalf of NARAL, Pro-Choice Massachusetts, National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.
She says that Marjorie Decker is well qualified as State Representative because Decker fills the mandates for a member of the US Congress. Ms. Decker has stayed in office as a city councilor perhaps because she claims she would make a great congressperson.
I can see 3 of the groups, with pro abortion emphasis, going along with this letter but I am very disappointed in NOW.
I was a feminist before significant numbers of women were feminists and I am very disappointed in NOW for supporting a candidate with Decker’s real record.
Decker’s real record on feminism and women’s rights is very real and very practical. It is MONTEIRO, MONTEIRO, MONTEIRO.
The Cambridge City Manager has been condemned in court up to the level of the Appeals Courts because he destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for Monteiro filing a complaint alleging mistreatment because she is a woman.
The Appeals Court panel said: “Ample evidence of . . . outrageous behavior.”
The Superior Court judge said “reprehensible,” summarizing an extended analysis of misbehavior by the Cambridge City Manager.
The Superior Court jury said: $1.1 million real damages, MORE THAN triple penal damages, $3.5 million.
This combination of decisions empowers the Cambridge City Council to fire the Cambridge Manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.
There are exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council who seem to be meaningfully working to implement the core opinions in the Monteiro Case. There are exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council who support meaningful implementation of the Monteiro case, firing the Cambridge City Manager because he destroyed a woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a women’s rights complaint. Decker is one of the people who stand for ZERO.
But Decker sounds so great when she is talking things not part of her responsibilities.
I am very disappointed in NOW for apparently supporting a candidate with this irresponsible a record. NOW is looking like the members of the Cambridge Machine, or is it (and I do not know) controlled by the Cambridge Machine?
I think NOW should reverse itself and support women’s rights in a meaningful manner. NOW should condemn Decker, not endorse her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)