Friday, November 30, 2012

Cambridge Chronicle: Good Handling of Cambridge, MA, USA Corruption

1. General.
2. VanBeuzekom, the chair, and reality.
3. Analysis of issues.
4. Practical handling by the Chronicle.

1. General.

The editorial page of yesterday’s (11/29/12) Cambridge Chronicle was nicely laid out.

The main editorial page, page A10 had three letters to the editor with a fourth on the continuation page.

The first letter was given the heading, “Bercaw hurls ‘generalities without specificity’”.

The letter responded to Roy Bercaw’s attack on corruption in Cambridge government as his farewell to the departing last Chronicle editor. Roy thought he did some good work standing up to corruption in Cambridge government. The writer called Bercaw’s letter an attack on the municipal-paid employees of the City of Cambridge. He said:

“Hurling generalities without specificity, as Bercaw did, is the hallmark of a ‘gutless wonder’”.

The third letter was mine, headlined “‘Dishonesty in environmentalism is the norm’”.

I led with “Roy Bercaw’s analysis of Cambridge as a corrupt community was astute.” I followed with the ongoing con game of the Cambridge Machine fighting for destruction of the Alewife Reservation and featured my analysis of the destruction in light of a supposed environmental meeting by The Machine.

I previously posted my letter at It was my second posting concerning this typically bizarre Cambridge, MA “environmental” meeting.

2. VanBeuzekom, the chair, and reality.

First of all, by this posting, I am presenting my third report on this meeting. There is, however, one point I have not hit on with regard to this meeting yet.

Possibly key in the last election was a letter that was distributed quoting a flippant comment by an incumbent city councilor about Malvina Monteiro. Monteiro is the female Cape Verdean who had her life destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

That letter could have been a key factor in that councilor being fired and Councilor vanBeuzekom replacing him. Identified in my first post but not identified in the letter was the councilor I was responding to, Councilor vanBeuzekom.

The meeting’s chair, who shut me up when I tried to get Councilor vanBeuzekom back on the issue, was the woman who distributed the letter which could have resulted in vanBeuzekom replacing the incumbent.

Particularly striking about that letter was the fact that the chair is a long time and very visible member of The Machine, and The Machine simply does not publicly make such statements. The chair did and the woman she protected at that meeting is the one who possibly got elected because of her letter.

3. Analysis of issues.

These letters are limited to 400 words. My reading of Roy’s letter was that he did an excellent job of presenting the problem within the constraints of 400 words.

Realizing the constraints Roy was working on and reading the rest of the lead letter, the lead letter yesterday is difficult to evaluate except as a bunch of cheap shots.

I have had a lot of letters published in the Cambridge Chronicle recently. Because of this, I did not expect to see this particular letter printed.

The editor, however, had my letter in hand. Roy did an excellent job in his letter given the word limit, and my letter exactly provided at least one specific example destroying the gutless wonder attack.

4. Practical handling by the Chronicle.

Neither of these two letters were published on line, nor was Roy’s original letter. The other two letters printed were published on line.

The Chronicle has printed a lot from me in the hard copy, but it has been many months since I was published on line.

The Chronicle has a record of publishing an excellent letters column. Many politically active Cantabridgians could be thought to read it primarily for the letters column.

You will see this sort of thing a lot in papers publishing on line versions. The really juicy stuff only appears in the hard copy.

I think that is what the Chronicle is doing with its choice of on line printing.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Cambridge Day: Cambridge, MA, USA Common tree destruction already approved.

A report dated November 20, 2012 in Cambridge Day states that the environmental destruction and mass tree destruction I reported on a week or so ago has already been approved. This is in the second paragraph of a follow on report.

That existing approval makes the pious noises in Councilor Kelley’s motion about tree destruction of 100 trees as part of the project that much more typical Cambridge nonsense.

The Cambridge Day report may be read at:

My most recent prior report may be read at:

Kelley’s motion mentioned in my report was approved at the November 19, 2012, city council meeting. This sort of nonsense is how an environmentally reprehensible city government stays in power.

I do not know, but can guess, how Kelley voted on the vote for the destruction. Very clearly the Cambridge City Council voted for it. Following up a vote to destroy with saccharine of concern for the destruction they have approved is typical Cambridge hypocrisy.

This fits Roy Bercaw's analysis of Cambridge as a corrupt government. Dishonesty in fact.

It can be certain that The Cambridge Machine will brag about the expression of concern and suppress the reality.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Environmental response to objection to Cambridge, MA, USA corruption

In the November 15, 2012 Cambridge Chronicle, they printed a letter from Roy Bercaw praising the outgoing editor for standing up to the corruption in Cambridge. It is not published on line and I have not been able to get a URL if Roy put it on his Blog.

I have submitted the following suggested response.


Roy Bercaw’s analysis of Cambridge as a corrupt community was astute.

An excellent example of corruption on the environment is the public meeting conducted by The Machine on 11/17/12.

The Machine claims that Cambridge is “Pro Environment.” It yells about matters in which Cambridge is not being destructive. The Machine suppresses Cambridge’s inexcusable environmental destruction.

On 11/17/2012, a city councilor bragged about Cambridge’s holiness at Alewife. The Machine has been fighting for destruction of the Alewife reservation for more than 14 years. It cried about this irreplaceable virgin woodland. It yelled at private developers. It told people not to look at public destructiveness.

Last October - November, Cambridge destroyed acres of irreplaceable woodlands and killed hundreds of resident animals. The Machine bragged about the destruction in the pages of the Chronicle. So now, The Machine yells about protecting air quality and forgets its inexcusable woodland destruction and the massive increase in destruction it works for.

At the meeting, the councilor mentioned two pending developments on opposite sides of CambridgePark Drive. The parcel on the north side directly abuts the area where Cambridge ruthlessly destroyed acres of irreplaceable woodland and killed its animals. The southern development is in the middle of a massive parking lot which should be used for the flood storage which Cambridge claims it is providing.

Cambridge is protecting against the worst storm in an average two year period. Alewife has seen two fifty year storms in the last twenty years. Protection should be provided against 100 year storms.

The building on the south side of CambridgePark Drive is providing flood protection underground for its building.

All Cambridge has to do to expand that buildings protections deeper and put the protection under the two developments and under the parking lot.

But the Machine tells responsible people to yell at the developers and tells folks to keep away from telling the City Council that Cambridge should be doing its job. Then, when it is “too late”, Cambridge will perhaps destroy all of Alewife.

The councilor responded to my question about her destructiveness by bragging about another part of town. When I tried to get her back to her claims of “environmentalism” at Alewife, I was shut up by the chair.

This is one example of endemic corruption in Cambridge. Dishonesty in environmentalism is the norm. Pious mouthings and misleading directions are the tactic to hide reality.

Thank you, Roy.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Cambridge City Councilor vanBeuzekom shows she supports further massive destruction of Alewife Reservation

1. Brief summary.
2. Meeting Saturday night.
3. Analysis.
A. General.
B. The Machine’s goals.
C. VanBeuzekom’s goals.
D. Summary.
4. Prior reports.

1. Brief summary.

I have repeatedly condemned eight members of the Cambridge City Council for their irresponsible and soon to accelerate destruction at the Alewife reservation.

I have exempted from my condemnation Councilor vanBeuzekom because she just joined. She just lost my new member presumption of innocence.

2. Meeting Saturday night.

Saturday, November 17, 2012, The Cambridge Machine conducted an environmental meeting with emphasis on transportation. It was conducted at the city building across from City Hall. They had a good attendance.

These “environmental protection” meetings are part of the nonstop lies that an environmental destructive city government is holier than thou on the environment.

I popped in at exactly the right moment. Councilor vanBeuzekom was bragging about protecting the environment at Alewife. She even mentioned the two imminent projects on both sides of CambridgePark Drive.

So I asked her one question in the question period following her presentation.

She very clearly is aware of the two key coming projects. One directly abuts the destroyed virgin woodlands with its acres of destruction and massive animal kill. The other is across the street and is part of a massive parking lot stretching to the Alewife Brook Parkway.

I pointed out the fact that North Cambridge and Alewife have severe flooding problems, two 50 year storms in the past 20 years. I pointed out that Cambridge has destroyed acres of Alewife reservation for flood protection against the worst possible storm in TWO YEARS. The two year “protection” is kept as secret as possible. The Machine just claimed to be providing flood protection. Protection against a two year storm is not flood protection. I pointed out the uselessness of the accomplished destruction for flood protection.

I pointed out that the massive parking lot on the opposite side of CambridgePark Drive and those two projects could provide the needed protection. Without that protection, greater, perhaps total, destruction of the Alewife reservation would almost certainly follow. The victims in North Cambridge would learn they have been lied to after the first big storm.

Councilor vanBeuzekom responded by talking about other protective projects she has been working on. When I tried to get her to discuss the ongoing destruction of the environment at Alewife since she had given the idea she was protecting Alewife, the chair told me to sit down.

The immediately following speaker was Stephen Kaiser. He got a great introduction from the speaker. Kaiser is a key part of The Machine and has been for many years. Kaiser has been involved in a lot of destruction. He sounds great. He is just on the wrong side.

I walked out.

3. Analysis.

A. General.

Last year vanBeuzekom posed for a “protective” photo which was used by The Machine in its fight for the environmental outrage achieved at Alewife in October - November 2011.

The Machine ran around lying of their “concern” for Alewife for 14 years, telling people to look at everything except for what its friends are doing. After the acres of destruction and mass animal kill occurred in October - November 2011, the leader of the fake group which was The Machine’s front organization bragged about the destruction. At minimum, the 14 year leader of the fake group printed a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle. She then gave her pitch to The Machine’s fake environmental group in Cambridgeport.

Currently, The Machine has been yelling at the developers of the two projects. This is a standard pitch. ALWAYS do exactly the wrong thing and keep people doing the wrong thing as long as possible, until the outrage is accomplished.

The Machine will not talk with the Cambridge City Council, the people responsible for the accomplished environmental outrage at Alewife, the people who will be responsible for the future destruction. These are the people who should be IMMEDIATELY talking bout the taking of easements needed on the two properties and under that massive parking lot.

A responsible city government would be building flood protection underground, under those buildings and under the parking lot. The building proposed for the far side is doing exactly what is needed in all these locations, just at a size only useful for its project alone. A much larger version of the flood protection under this building can and should be used under the parking lot and under the two proposed buildings. This is essential for the needed flood storage in order. The obvious alternative is the future destruction at Alewife.


One of the key lies is nonstop nonsense in which The Machine is bragging falsely about the environmental sainthood of these environmental destroyers.

The Machine, as is usual with The Machine, tells people to look at everything except what counts.

B. The Machine’s goals.

The Machine is stalling until those two projects are too far along to take easements. Then the choice will be between

(1). building under a much smaller area, the remnants of that very large parking lot; this would clearly be a lot more difficult and expensive, or

(2). accomplishing further massive destruction and killing of resident animals in the irreplaceable Alewife reservation to do what The Machine is lying is being done by the accomplished and totally wasteful destruction.

The technique is ALWAYS to discuss everything except what counts, AND PREVENT DISCUSSION OF REALITY.

C. VanBeuzekom’s goals.

VanBeuzekom, by her detailed publicly stated knowledge of the two key projects has shown that she knows what is going on at Alewife.

VanBeuzekom, in her response to my question, tried to switch to areas where Cambridge and she do not have filthy hands and filthy coming destruction. VanBeuzekom showed:

(1). she knows exactly what she is doing and

(2). that she does not want to know herself what she is doing and,

(3). more importantly, that she does not want the voters to know how environmentally destructive she is.

D. Summary.

The count is now NINE BAD CITY COUNCILORS out of nine on the Cambridge, MA, City Council, if you are pro environment.

4. Prior reports.

My most recent report on Alewife was on August 30, 2012, at

This report is extensive. It includes photographs and links to prior reports.

Before that, I included an appendix on Alewife in my detailed letter to the Cambridge City Council reported on August 8, 2012 at This appendix is much less detailed that the August 30, 2012 report. It was the least reported part by me on this Blog. My emphasis was on the Charles River.

The Machine non stop brags that it is holier than thou on environmental issues.

The Machine non stop lies on the important stuff and tells people to look at everything except what counts.

You can bet The Machine will continue to yell about everything except what Cambridge is destroying.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Environmental Destruction at Cambridge Common to be worse than stated in Environmental Notification Form?

On October 4, 2012, at, I reported major environmental destruction slated for the Cambridge Common. The Environmental Notification form, at announced Cambridge’s intention to destroy 22 trees because they are blocking the view.

Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley announced in a motion in front of the Cambridge City Council last Monday, that

1. the project includes “plans to remove close to one hundred significantly sized trees; and”

2. “There has been no tree hearing for these trees nor is there any clear indication on the Cambridge Common or readily available online to help people determine which trees will be removed”.

Cambridge being Cambridge and Kelley being Kelley, Kelley does not object in his motion to this massive destruction of trees, he just wants to know if the public objects. He wants the slated trees to be marked so that the public can tell him if he objects to the destruction.

Kelley delayed action on his motion to November 19.

Kelley fits the lack of environmental conscience of all long term Cambridge city councilors except possibly for the Councilor who was added in the last election. He has no problems with the outrages on the Charles River. He voted for the outrages at Alewife. He has no problems with the outrages at Fresh Pond.

His people are treating the very clear plans to massively increase destruction at Alewife in the usual Cambridge Machine fashion. They are loudly proclaiming their concern and telling those who respect them to look at everything other than the outrages Cambridge is accomplishing.

Destruction at Alewife is for “flood storage” the project cannot provide and which can be provided next door and across the street. All Cambridge has to do is take easements under a massive parking lot and under two condo projects which WILL GO FORWARD WITHOUT THE PROTECTION because the “protectors” as usual are telling people to look at everything else. Trouble with the one possible “protector” is that she posed for a publicity shot telling people to look at everything else.

I have gone in great detail lately as to the outrages on the Charles River and to the fake “protective” group fighting for the outrages in the manner of the Cambridge Machine.

And the City Councilors constantly yell about everything except for the destruction they support. As I said, Kelley does not object to the destruction of 100 trees on the Cambridge Common (or to the many other outrages), he just wants to find out if people will persuade him to be outraged.

I certainly do hope people MEANINGFULLY concerned about the many environmental outrages including the Cambridge Common will communicate to this very bad city council their outrage.

Monday, November 05, 2012

Boston University, the Charles River, and our world

1. Boston University’s Photo of Boston University.
2. Analysis.

1. Boston University’s Photo of Boston University.

This photo is taken from the cover on the on line version of Boston University’s Boston University Charles River Campus Master Plan. It is dated August 10, 2012, submitted by Trustees of Boston University, submitted to Boston Redevelopment Authority, prepared by FortPoint Associates, Inc., in association with CBT Architects, Greenburg Consultants, Inc., Tetra Tech.

[Editor's comment: I am trying to insert the key photo. It is on the front page of the report found through the second link immediately below. I get confused every so often. I push the envelope and it pushes back. So far, I have saved the photo in PDF but am bewildered as how to upload it from there. Help from somebody who knows what he / she is doing will be appreciated.]

The plan was last updated with the BRA on September 20, 2012. The BRA’s on line page is

You may get a copy of the complete document at

2. Analysis.

This photo shows, from Boston University’s point of view, the problems on the Charles River.

The river is to the right.

Crossing the river is the BU Bridge. Under the BU Bridge is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

The treed area between the two on the right is the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. This is the area to which they have been confined since Cambridge, MA and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation started massive destruction of the environment and animal habitat on the Cambridge, right, side of the Charles River.

The building on the right below the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge is the BU Boathouse.

Since 2003, when the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” started destroying the environment for the DCR almost all ground vegetation between the BU Boathouse and the BU Bridge has been destroyed.

Above the BU Bridge is Magazine Beach. The bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which has been created blocking off Magazine Beach from the Charles River is so massive it can seen from this aerial / satellite view.

At the top right of the photo is the railroad yard / turnpike exit now owned by Harvard University where Harvard plans to move the Harvard Medical School.

The Massachusetts Turnpike itself (I-90) is below the Harvard holdings and raised above the Charles River.

The smaller highway between the Turnpike (I-90) and the Charles River is Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive.

If you look carefully at Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive as it extends toward the camera (east), you will see, first the Grand Junction Railroad crossing Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive and then the BU Bridge crossing it.

The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority did a study which determined that an off ramp could be built from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90) to the Grand Junction Railroad at this point or to the left of this point.

Within months, Harvard owned the highway exit.

That portion of Boston which can be seen abutting the Charles River is approximately equal in size to the habitat of the Charles River White Geese on the Cambridge side before Cambridge and friends starting their heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.

The first entity to attack the Charles River White Geese was Boston University. BU accomplished destruction at the destroyed nesting area in Fall of 1999 and lied for six months that they did not do it. After the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned BU for the destruction, BU started bragging about it. BU blamed its president’s secretary for the false denials, but there is no record of any sanctions being applied to her.

Saturday, November 03, 2012

Monteiro wins again. Appeals Court awards $300K in lawyers fees and costs from Cambridge, MA, USA, in this Women’s Rights Decision.

1. The Decision.
2. Summary of the case.
3. This decision.
4. Application.

1. The Decision.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court, on October 10, 2012, awarded $298,349.33 in lawyers fees and Court Costs to Malvina Monteiro as perhaps the final decision in a court case in which Courts and Jury have strongly condemned Cambridge’s destruction of a Black female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complain.

The Appeals Court docket number is 2010-P-1240. My source is Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, October 22, 2012, page 20, Lawyers Weekly No. 11-152-12.

2. Summary of the case.

For the Superior Court judge’s key opinion, please see

For the Appeals Court panel’s key communication, please see

Malvina Monteiro was head of Cambridge’s Police Review Board until the consequences of her filing a civil rights action alleging disparate treatment because of her sex.

According to judge, jury and appeals court panel, she was fired in retaliation for the women’s right complaint.

She lost on the merits of the actual complaint.

The jury awarded $1,062,040.00 in actual damages and $3,500.000 penal damages.

The judge supported the jury decision. Her opinion goes into great detail analyzing the testimony of the Cambridge City Manager and using his testimony to condemn his behavior. The key word she used was “reprehensible” with regard to his behavior.

The appeals court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion.

“Ample evidence” of “outrageous conduct.”

The check to Monteiro ran $8,300,000.

The Cambridge City Manager, on June 12, 2012, reported to the Cambridge City Council payments to outside counsel of $2,144,000 from the 1998 complaint to the 2008 trial, and $288,409.00 for the appeal.

Cambridge Day, on June 21, 2012, calculated payments on this and four related cases to come to $14,469,558.00

3. This decision.

The court stated, quoting the most relevant part of the MLW entry:

“. . .(i) We agree with the petitioning counsel that an extremely aggressive appellate campaign by the City demanded proportionate response work. (ii) The extensive supporting materials for the petition show that Monteiro’s appellate counsel responded with disproportionately less expenditure of time than exercised by counsel for the City. In particular, the materials show that counsel for the City employed nine attorneys upon the appeal and accumulated 1,368.8 hours of work, so as to generate a cumulative bill of fees and costs of $693,623.55.. . . .

“By contrast, counsel for Monteiro employed four attorneys, accrued 650.8 hours of work and generated the itemized fees of $284,420, and costs of $13,929.33, for a total of $298,349.33.

“Beyond the comparison of hourly volumes, several features of petitioning counsel’s itemization of time and services support our impression of their work. . . .

“Lead counsel at trial performed 84% of the hourly work invested in the appeal. That allocation employed the knowledge of the attorney most experienced with the litigation. In particular, it eliminated the dangers of excess and duplication most commonly generated by the assignment of multiple attorneys ato an appeal, especially attorneys who are unfamiliar with the earlier phases of a case.”

4. Application.

Jury, judge and appeals court panel are in agreement that the Cambridge City Manager committed malfeasance in office in his destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.

The Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge Machine see no problems. There has been exactly zero attempts to implement the Court decisions by firing him even though the decisions would justify firing him without golden parachute and possibly without pension.

But The Cambridge Machine and the Cambridge City Council love to claim they are pro Civil Rights, pro Women’s Rights and much, much, much holier than thou.

Friday, November 02, 2012

Environmental Destroyers Pushing Governor for Charles River Destruction

1. Introduction.
2. Background.
3. The CRC’s highways.
4. This week’s approach.

1. Introduction.

The Charles River “Conservancy” is conducting a campaign against the governor to implement their latest destruction plans for the Charles River.

2. Background.

There are a lot of very destructive people fighting for environmental and animal harm in and near the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.

A very major part of the problem is The Machine which formed around the two consecutive City Managers which has been of such great value to them in their destructive ways. Entities of this nature organized to this extent and so dominant in city government are highly unusual.

The latest attack comes from the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy”. Machine groups do a lot of lying and lying as part of the name is not at all unusual. This entity for a number of years was the only visible group attacking the Charles River.

The attack more visibly from more traditional parts of the Cambridge Machine was the usual company union approach. They claimed to be concerned about the Cambridgeport neighborhood. They did not want to know about the destruction on the Charles River. Therefore, by definition, there was no destruction on the Charles River.

The Charles River “Conservancy” is the second name for this group. They first called themselves Friends of Magazine Beach. This fake friends group did nothing but fight for the destruction which has been achieved and for an annual cleanup the week before Boston University conducted part of its graduation there. Naturally, the CRC did not mention the BU use. One of the first achievements of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit that incarnation of the CRC. Dah, dah, maybe six months later a group with many familiar faces announced a “new” group.

The CRC has been in the middle of massive amounts of environmental destruction lying that they are “improving” the environment.

3. The CRC’s highways.

The CRC loves highways and they mouth so good about them. Naturally, they do not mention the environmental destruction. They do not mention massive destruction of trees. They do not mention heartless animal abuse. But they sound so good.

The latest outrage is a small vehicle highway the CRC wants to put everywhere abutting the Charles River, no matter how irresponsible.

The latest euphemism is “underpasses.” They do not mention the damage, but how could anybody be against underpasses?

The key state agencies could. A joint committee of the Department of Transportation and Department of Conservation and Recreation condemned CRC’s highway proposal on the Cambridge side as environmentally destructive.

So the CRC sobbed about being mistreated and decided to fight for destruction in Boston instead.

I have published several reports on this outrage. The one with the photos may be read at:

4. This week’s approach.

The CRC in its monthly newsletter brags that it has conned people into supporting this outrage, naturally without mentioning the destruction. They brag of the number of people who have emailed the governor. And they non stop lie about which side they are on by using their name and sounding like other than what they are.

This is all part of a pattern of deception which is very broad and very consistent.

If you get a chance, the Governor’s contact page is now

Thursday, November 01, 2012

Charles River White Geese are safe after Superstorm Sandy

On Monday and Tuesday, October 29 and 30, a very major storm wracked the northeast including the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

I have visited their home since the storm.

I was immediately struck by the cleanliness and the emptiness.

I walked in through the newly planted bushes over the new small highway. I was amazed to see absolutely nothing on the ground other than what has been installed in the last six months. All the trash which the irresponsible managers from the state have not cleaned up was gone.

Equally clean was the deliberately destroyed core area to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined through the heartless abuse of Cambridge and its friends.

Once I got past the large remaining native vegetation, I reached the deliberately destroyed ground where they are confined. I could see under the large trees which line the eastern and southern end of their home. Then I could see the geese, in rapid motion. Looking closer, it was clear that they were being fed by the folks from the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.

Without these devoted folks, Cambridge and its friends would have starved the Charles River White Geese long ago.

The nesting area is that part of their habitat to which the Charles River White Geese traditionally turned in all forms of bad weather. It is well protected with the BU Bridge to the west, the raised on ramp to their north, those major trees to the east and south, plus the raised Grand Junction Railroad and Bridge to the east and, above the Charles River, to the South.

Even before the heartless abuse from Cambridge, MA, USA and its friends started, this was where they would go to get protection from the storms.

Now it is all they have and half is being taken away with the coming massive thicket of introduced bushes and Cambridge is planning a major small highway to dominate the area.