Saturday, August 10, 2013

Analysis of Governor Patrick’s Environmentally Destructive Environmental Bond Bill, H3332

1. Introductory.
2. Transmittal Letter.
3. Specific dangerous categories.
A. Summary.
B. Pages 5-6.
C. Page 6.
D. Page 19.
4. Contacts, Miscellaneous.

1. Introductory.

The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has bragged that Governor Patrick is seeking bonds for massive environmental destruction on the Charles River.

I have researched the matter further, based on my prior reports on this blog and review of the destructive bill in question as stated by this falsely named group.

The bill in question is on the Internet at

It was submitted on March 15, 2013 and is scheduled to be presented in legislative hearing in September 2013.

Here is my analysis of the bill. I would appreciate input at

2. Transmittal Letter.

The following are excerpts from the Governor’s Transmittal Letter:

On page 1, the Governor states:


Last October, my administration published our sixth capital investment plan, which presented a responsible capital investment strategy for fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017. In order to provide for continued investment in our Commonwealth’s infrastructure and innovation economy, I am filing a series of bond bills, in addition to this bill to support this plan’s future funding needs through fiscal year 2017.


On page 2, he lists the following suspect categories. Pleased be advised that the destructive people we deal with commonly lie that they are doing the opposite of reality.


$121 million for Department of Conservation and Recreation for parkways, trains, recreation facilities, waterways and flood control,

. . .

$124 million for land and park programs.

3. Specific dangerous categories.

A. Summary.

Continuing analysis of the bill, I see three highly suspect categories under the rubric of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

It is unfortunate that the terms are so broad.

The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” bragged of $2 million to $4 million for its “underpasses” which are opposed by the department responsible for the underpasses, the Department of Transportation because of the proposals destructiveness. They also bragged of approximately $24 million for associated paths. This euphemism for destruction has also been referred to as bike paths. Reality is destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge plus massive destruction of animal habitat and wetlands between the Anderson Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. This impacts all the Charles River from Harvard Square to Beacon Hill.

The last allocation is particularly suspect because it uses the “historic parkways” term.

This term has been used in the past by the destroyers of the DCR to justify environmental destruction on the historic Memorial Drive parkway. They previously sought destruction of these hundreds of trees through Obama anti Great Recession funds. They lied that 100% excellent, healthy trees were “diseased.” The lie was proven in their filing with the City of Cambridge.

I have inserted paragraphing but no paragraphing exists. I am trying to make it readable.

B. Pages 5-6.


For natural resource restoration and protection and to ensure compliance with storm water management and the federal Clean Water Act, including enhanced environmental compliance with laws and regulations, and improvements, and costs associated with site assessment, containment, clean-up, control, removal of, or response actions concerning hazardous materials or substances at forests, parks, reservations and other properties of the department of conservation and recreation.


C. Page 6.


For the design, construction, reconstruction, improvement or rehabilitation of department or navigable coastal and inland waterways projects, including but not limited to coastal protection, structures, dredging, rivers and stream cleaning, costal structure maintenance, piers, dune stabilization, culvert repair, re-nourishment, erosion control and waterfront access and transportation improvements and related facilities and equipment.


C. Pages 18 - 19.


For the design, construction, reconstruction, removal, improvement or rehabilitation of department reservations, forests, parks, harbor islands, skating rinks, swimming pools, golf courses, tennis courts, basketball courts, playgrounds, other recreational facilities, beaches and related facilities, storage buildings, office buildings and other parks buildings and equipment and for the planning, design, construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or improvement of department bike paths, greenways, recreational trains, and related facilities and equipment.


D. Page 19.


For the design, construction, reconstruction, repair, improvement, or rehabilitation of department of conservation and recreation parkways, boulevards, multi-use trails, internal state park roads, pedestrian bridges and related appurtenances and equipment including, but not limited to, the consts of engineering and other services for those projects rendered by department of conservation and recreation employees or by consultants; provided, that funds may be expended for pedestrian and bicycle safety, traffic calming, landscape improvements, street lighting, and safety equipment; provided further, that all work funded by this item shall be carried out according to standards developed by the department of conservation and recreation pursuant to historic parkways preservation treatment guidelines to protect the scenic and historic integrity of the bridges and parkways under its control.


4. Contacts, Miscellaneous.

Massachusetts Governor’s Office email form:

State environmental people, DES Hotline:

MassDOT Accelerated Bridges Program: 857-368-8904 or

All Massachusetts Legislators’ emails:

Cambridge, MA, USA city councilors:


For people listening to Boston Sierra Club endorsements of environmentally destructive members of and candidates for the Cambridge City Council, you should be aware that

(1) using the world’s definition of “environmentalism,” there are no environmentally responsible members of the Cambridge City Council; Cambridge’s definition is that environmentalists protect that which Cambridge does not feel like destroying; the Cambridge pols are oh, so pious using their secret, fraudulent definition;

(2) the school committee member running for Cambridge City Council fought for the outrages at the Magazine Beach playing fields;

(a) his indignant explanation is that he claims to be only responsible for the good stuff;

(b) that explanation is combined with exactly no demonstration of any meaningful opposition whatsoever to the outrages; and

(c) as is usual in Cambridge, his claims of “improvements” are belied by reality. The playing fields have been decreased in size by his project!!!!! This is to drain off the poisons being dumped to keep alive sickly introduced grasses which replaced healthy grass that survived the better part of a century without poisons; and

(3) there are Cambridge Machine activists very visible and apparently very active in the Boston Sierra Club.

If you are talking to a person associated with the Boston Sierra Club, do a credibility check. Ask if they are familiar with the “Urban Ring” rapid transit proposal. This is a subway proposal designed to link the existing subway spokes. I have been working on it since 1985. Cambridge raised the project in a comment to an environmental Impact Statement in the last month or so.

If the Boston Sierra Club “expert” answers “yes,” that he / she is familiar with the Urban Ring rapid transit proposal, ask how many rail options there are. If the answer is “one,” you are getting the flat out lie put out by the City of Cambridge.

Cambridge’s flat out lie is that, of the TWO rail options, the only one that exists is the environmentally destructive streetcar option which the City of Cambridge supports. This option would be highly destructive to the environment near the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

The reality is that THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SUBSIDIZED THE OTHER OPTION, the responsible Orange Line / heavy rail option, the Kenmore crossing. The state legislature has subsidized the expansion of Yawkey Station as part of the massive Fenway Park area project which has gotten recent press.

Cambridge’s nonsensical proposal would move Yawkey Station three blocks. The Cambridge proposal would not work without moving Yawkey Station. The Kenmore Crossing uses the now subsidized and being expanded Yawkey Station as part of a brilliant megastation.

You should immediately respond to such nonsense from a Sierra Club “expert” by having nothing more to do with this person. Whether the person is stupid or venal is irrelevant, the person has no credibility and is not worthy of your time.

It is frequently difficult to pin these irresponsible people down in general. The deviant behavior in my test is extreme. They are pious in their demands that, if you are politically correct and pro environment, you have to rubber stamp them. Please do not waste your time arguing about destruction they can try to wiggle around.

Turn your back on them and walk away fast.