Sunday, July 19, 2015

Charles River: Destroyers, “Restoration” and Lies

1. One core of the Destructive Governments of Cambridge and the dreaded “DCR” is redefinition so that reality is obscured by fake definitions.
2. The local fake group on the Charles River is calling for “restoration.”
3. Any Questions?
4. Photos.

1. One core of the Destructive Governments of Cambridge and the dreaded “DCR” is redefinition so that reality is obscured by fake definitions.


In Cambridge, MA, USA, when you listen to the IN pols talking about “Environmentalism,” they do not tell you their secret definition of “environmentalism.”  Their secret definition of “Environmentalism” is protection of that part of the environment which Cambridge is not destroying this week.


Cambridge, MA, is now subservient to the third in a line of regents who go by the name “City Manager.”

The first in the line, James Leo Sullivan was rehired in 1974.  He had been fired in the 1960's, along with the second in the line.

The second in the line has had the city’s police station named after him.  This honor was bestowed at about the same time as three levels of courts condemned number 2 for destroying the life of a Black Cape Verdian Woman department head for doing a horrible thing.

The horrible thing she did was to file a women’s rights complaint allegedly that women in Cambridge, particularly, her, were being discriminated against because they were women.

Nine city councilors, including self proclaimed women’s rights and minority rights activists, listened to the Courts calling #2's destruction of that woman’s life “reprehensible,” and worse.  So they named the police station after him.

James Leo was rehired shortly after popular activists prevented an Interstate from destroying Cambridge.

Buried in the current outrages is an off ramp from the Mass. Pike (I90) over the Grand Junction Rail Bridge to Kendall Square, very close to the route those activists prevented in the 1970's.

The City of Cambridge is truly fighting for restoration, restoration of the “Inner Belt” then numbered I95.


James Leo Sullivan promised to create neighborhood associations.

The first such neighborhood association fought to destroy the best park in their Mid-Cambridge neighborhood, behind the Public Library.

In favor of saplings IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

20 years later, Cambridge destroyed the saplings, almost totally destroyed the saplings.

In Cambridge, a lot of groups favored by the city government call themselves “neighborhood associations” and similar lovely names.  And Cambridge does not recognize groups which call themselves “neighborhood associations” unless the groups are blessed by the City of Cambridge.

But the real definition of too many of these groups fits the qualities, most human being would association with “cheerleaders” for a reprehensible city government.

But then again, they have to be blessed by the reprehensible city government they are cheerleading for.

2. The local fake group on the Charles River is calling for “restoration.”


Cambridge is showing what the secret definition of “restoration” means on its Cambridge Common.  It has destroyed the excellent grove at the entrance of the Cambridge Common facing Harvard Square.  Cambridge is bragging about all the saplings Cambridge is providing in a different location than the grove it has destroying, and does not mention the saplings are in a different location.

Cambridge also does not explain why it cannot plant those saplings without destroying the excellent grove.  That would be the behavior of a responsible city government.


Cambridge has shown what it means by “trees” and “restoration” at Porter Station, not far from the Cambridge Common.  When Porter Station was built in the early eighties, a magnificent grove was planted on the plaza created with the station.

In the 2000's, Cambridge destroyed that magnificent grove.  “TOO THICK.”  What about all those saplings on the Cambridge Common in 20 years?

This is Cambridge’s idea of “restoration”.


On the Charles River the fake group put the sanitized version of their plans for the Charles River up for a public meeting in January 2013.  The public meeting was in the process of rejecting the sanitized version.  So the fake group called for a vote in their next monthly meeting in February 2013.

The February 2013 meeting was conducted on April 23, 2013.  Decent people driven away by secrecy.  The fake group conducted  10 minute vote on a horribly complicated motion.  The horribly complicated motion was not meaningfully discussed and was kept secret until the ten minutes allotted.

The horribly complicated motion blessed all of the provisions kept secret in the January 2013.  The secret provisions were worse than the sanitized version which was rejected by the public meeting.  The horribly complicate motion was voted on without meaningful by a bunch of people who could care less because the unacceptable provisions were kept secret and people were driven away.

The fake group is now considering barring people who are interested in the neighborhood but who are not interested in the real purpose of the group, cheerleading and irresponsible city government.

This is “public participation” in Cambridge, MA.

If you are in favor of your neighborhood, it is required that you like cheerleading for a destructive city government and the dreaded DCR, and their friends.


The local fake group clearly communicates the reality of its definition of “restoration” by what it prevents being discussed.

The local fake group prevents discussion of the $20 million State House money for destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between the Longfellow and BU Bridge.

The local fake group’s idea of “restoration” includes destruction of those hundreds of trees.

The local fake group prevents discussion of the poisons which were introduced on the Magazine Beach playing fields in the last ten years by Cambridge and the dreaded DCR.  The local fake group’s corrupt vote rammed through expansion of the poisons to the top of the neighboring hill and to the wetlands behind the swimming pool.

Existence of poisons is kept secret.  Expansion of poisons is kept secret.

And the fake roup fights for expansion of the poisons by suppressing discussion of poisons.  After all, expansion of poisons was blessed by the corrupt vote.

So the fake group fights for more poisons by suppressing discussion of poisons.


The local fake group fights for the continuation of the 14 foot high introduced wall of vegetation put in the by Cambridge and the dreaded DCR.  This was done in secret and is being kept going in secret.

No place else on the Charles River Basin has such a wall of bushes blocking off the shore.

But it has value: it starves the 34 year resident Charles River White Geese.

It furthers the goal of the dreaded DCR of killing off or driving away all resident animals.

There used to be plenty of animals residing on the Charles.

But the fake group wants “restoration.”  And their definition of restoration includes opposition of restoration

The fake groups call for swimming in the Charles River.

And walling off the Charles River by a bizarre wall of introduced 14 foot high bushes prevents swimming.

So the fake groups have a secret definition of “swimming.”  Their secret definition is that swimming does not include swimming.

The building of a fence blocking off the area to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined without food from the adjacent wild area is proposed as part of Cambridge’s bike highway on the Grand Junction.  That fence and related destruction, of course in the starvation ghetto is never mentioned

DCR plans to destroy all but one of the trees in that wild area are never mentioned and are part of the things that are prohibited for destruction.

This secrecy is part of the fake groups’ definition of open government.

And, oh year, the third City Manager of the City Manager regency supervised the destruction which the fake group is fighting to expands in the name of restoration.

3. Any Questions?

Be certain that the fake groups will bar responsible questions.  Honest and sensible questions are prohibited under their definition of responsible government and responsible cheerleaders (or what was the name they call themselves)?

4. Photos.

Sorry.  I just think that text and text can be of value after my photo laden reports.

Lots of (33) photos can be seen at