Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Charles River: Cambridge Machine Fraud Analyzed, Massachusetts Avenue v. Charles River, very basic reality presented.

00 General Introduction.
I. General Analysis
II. City Manager / City Council Letter.
0. Introduction.
2. “Dead or dying” and reality on the Charles River.
III. Analysis ‒ Cambridge Politics, key duplicity, the lay of the land, Company unions and robots,.
A. General.
B. Very basic reality.
(1) Cambridge politics.
(2) Activist victory 45 years ago is being targeted by duplicity.
(3) The lay of the land.
(A) South / East of the BU Bridge.
(B) West / North of the BU Bridge.
C. Company Unions.
D. Robots.
IV. To be continued.

00 General Introduction.

This is the second presentation on this Blog of deeper meanings in a letter pending delivered on November 14, 2017, for receipt by the Cambridge, MA, USA City Council and City Manager.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the letter to the City has condensed a vast amount of information.  I am not writing a book on this blog.  I am just trying to communicate the reality of the outrage in Cambridge politics which is being reflected in the ongoing and increasing outrages on the Charles River.  The analysis includes my background and my experiences with this outrage.

I am taking portions of the City letter, one at a time, and analyzing those portions, one at a time.  If a portion of the City letter REALLY gets into a lot, the blog posts analyzing that section will be multiple.

This report starts with a general analysis, followed by the relevant section of the city council letter being analyzed.

Following that is the in depth section going into key overall concepts.

I will start with the basic working of politics in Cambridge, MA.

I will then go into perhaps the most crucial  concept, an Interstate highway through Cambridge that was defeated 45 years ago and is being unpdated and resurrected.  That resurrected highway, of course, impacts massive destruction on the banks of the Charles River.

Then I will go into detail as to the portions of the Charles River which are relevant to the fight and to understanding the fight, both in Boston and Cambridge, with maps.  The parts of the Charles River in play run miles, and the relationship can be subtle.

Finally, I will define key terms which I use to explain the corrupt management of the voter in Cambridge, MA, by the government of the city.  The terms are “company union” and “robot.”

I. General Analysis

The ongoing and increasing outrage on the Charles River is impossible to distinguish from the outrage which is the city council, key bureaucrats and their robots in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.  The prior three City Managers were leaders of the outrage working through the Cambridge Development Department.  The outrage has continued after the departure of the last of the three bad City Managers.

There are three new city councilors coming to office in January.  It is uncertain if they, or the continuing incumbents will continue the established bad ways.  The three manager City Manager Machine is very powerful because of the existence of all those fake groups which have accumulated over the 42 year reign of te Machine.  The groups’ string pullers look to the city government and lie that they are defenders of the voters, rather than the reality that they very clearly look like be defenders of the City Manager Machine.

But the City Manager Machine was created under the aegis of the three prior City Managers, and the current City Manager has shown the potential for responsible behavior, plus his background is separate from his three predecessors.

He has been in Cambridge city government as long as the City Manager Machine, and he gives the impression that he wants to serve the people of the City of Cambridge of which he is a lifetime resident.  He is not declared opposed to the tiny number of people who control the machine and who control voters through a lot of corrupt tactics, but the incumbent city manager very clearly has shown independence.  He can possibly clean the mess up.  He has shown skill in key actions.

I have also been active in city government throughout the City Manager machine, with a lot of victories.  This City Council / City Manager letter is the first letter going into my real record, putting reality on the record, both in my experience and in outrages of the Cambridge City Manager Machine.  I have been pushed to communicate my real record by ongoing personal attacks, and outright censorship on the ListServe of the latest fake group in retaliation for OFFERING to communicate one limited item of reality on the ListServ.

A good feel for the outrage which is the government of the City of Cambridge, as stated, can be noted through the first two sections of the letter which was submitted to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager on November 14.  It has not yet been presented to the City Council.  I anticipate they will receive it at their next regular Monday meeting.

The first presentation addressed blatant fraud by the Cambridge Development Department in Harvard Square in response to a pending question by the Cambridge City Council.  It is posted at

Section 2 of the letter is directly relevant to the Charles River, but, on looking at it, splitting it for Blog presentation makes better sense because of its emphasis on more general issues and the record of the Cambridge Machine.

The beginning of section 2 reflects more into the general dirty tricks of the Cambridge Machine.  The latter part concentrates on the Charles River outrages.  The latter part will follow.  I can only make these reports so long.

The first part of Section 2 has considerable overlap with Section 1, and there really are a vast number of issues.

This report will focus on some of the general issues raised, and subsequent report will go further into the multiple issues.

It is becoming increasingly clear that I cannot further avoid the nuttiness which is politics in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.  The complexity of the situation is one reason why I have avoided this.  Another problem is that I really would prefer to discuss the Charles River.

But, here we go.

This series of communications is to give the reader a better understanding of the corrupt practices in Cambridge, MA, which have morphed into the outrages which dominate this reprehensible organization’s fight to destroy on the Charles River.

First the beginning of section 2 of the City Council letter.  Then my first analysis of issues in it.

As with my report passing on section 1, I am quoting section 0 of the City Council letter followed by the relevant part of Section 2 in Section II of this report.

This time, Section III will analyze in detail the communication to the City Council.  Section III analyzes two terms I use extensively with regard to the outrage which is the politics of Cambridge, MA, USA and which come together in the ongoing destruction of the Charles River.

The analysis explains what I mean by “Company Unions” and “Robots.”

II. City Manager / City Council Letter.

0. Introduction.

In what is normal behavior from the Cambridge Machine, situations which should be professionally handled have substituted personal attack, and the personal attacks have become extreme.  This letter and subsequent letters will include response to the personal attacks.  Trying to distinguish between response to personal attacks and normal business issues is impractical.  So these responses will be solely in my name, as opposed to as Chair, Friends of the White Geese.

2. “Dead or dying” and reality on the Charles River.

The situation on the Charles River reflects Robots of the Development Department run rampant.  The C2B areas of Massachusetts Avenue were achieved in spite of manipulation by Development Department Robots.  The current situation is one of years of censorship concerning the Charles River by the Robots (which censorship has been renewed) and fraud originating clearly in the Department of Conservation and Recreation at the most basic and, in the “Dead or Dying”  terminology, probably in the Development Department.

The level of dishonesty in the current situation exceeds what was done in the Massachusetts Avenue area probably because of the much more technical issues at foot and the lack of direct abutters, plus the level of dishonesty has greatly ramped up.  On Massachusetts Avenue, they bragged of their plans.  On the Charles River, they have censored those plans, and gone to extreme measures by which they have kept those plans VERY secret.

Development Department Robots were active on the Massachusetts Avenue changes.  They lost for the most part, although, over the years, they did achieve two clear outrages.  The Massachusetts Avenue area is also a special case in that the Robots functioned as a rogue steering committee to a neighborhood association in an earlier change. That change was initiated by a neighborhood association committee chaired by me.  The rogue steering committee collectively and individually achieved some very terrible things.

In the prior change, the actual neighborhood association forced an organization vote of the neighborhood association and rejected the rogue steering committee’s actions after it was too late.  The rogue steering committee had forced the zoning that created the irresponsible construction in the Bay Street area.  General voter antipathy to that construction was helpful in the subsequent two major zoning changes, in East Harvard Square and Dana / Hancock to City Hall.

That Bay Street area construction was generally hated by constituents throughout the city.  The City Council responded to the demands of their constituents.  I say two major zoning changes because there were several smaller changes as well, refining the zoning in parts of the Massachusetts Avenue corridor.  The minor changes increased zoning modifications to a total of 6 to 10 changes including changes partially or wholly independent of me.

This Massachusetts Avenue area has been carefully worked on.  The City Council was so involved that, in crunch time of the latest major change, the petitioners achieved more than we really asked for.  We suggested a compromise to respond to the complaint of an affected landowner.  Our compromise was rejected by the City Council.

The Robots on the Charles River are very effectively functioning as a Company Union in a situation where the “neighborhood association” has driven away concerned people by constantly telling folks not to look at the destruction they are fighting for, by the lack of direct abutters, by one key corrupt action, by bullying, by outrageous agenda manipulation, and by belligerent censorship.  Their big pitch for the better part of a decade now has been:

* * * *

Don’t look at what we are destroying.  Look at what we tell you to look at.

* * * *

Bushes are bragged about.  Destroying ground vegetation is bragged about.  True outrages are kept secret.  Massive tree destruction, use of poisons on the banks of the Charles River, walling off of the Charles River and heartless animal abuse are kept secret INCLUDING OUTRIGHT CENSORSHIP which OUTRIGHT CENSORSHIP has resumed in recent weeks.  The real neighboring residents are the free animals, some of whom are walking the streets of Cambridge because of habitat destruction, living proof of reprehensible behavior.

Outright censorship of their Listserv has been a major tool of the Robots.  The censorship was stopped after I pointed it out to the City Manager and City Council.  The censorship was just resumed selectively, with a vengeance.   Accurate mention of city council / DCR / related plans for the Charles River is simply not allowed.

III. Analysis ‒ Cambridge Politics, key duplicity, the lay of the land, Company unions and robots,.

A. General.

I keep using the terms, “company union” and “robots.”  Below is what I mean by them.

B. Very basic reality.

(1) Cambridge politics.

The first of the three related Cambridge City Managers who led the Cambridge City Manager Machine was James Leo Sullivan.  The second City Manager was Sullivan’s #2 when in office, Robert Healy.  The third was Robert Healy’s #2, Richard Rossi.  The current City Manager, Louis A. DiPasquale, was in city employment throughout this outrage but he worked in the financial side of government.  He was not directly involved in the nonsense stemming from the heart of the situation.

The current city manager resided for most of this period in a relatively small density neighborhood of Cambridge at its western extreme, adjacent to Belmont, MA.  His neighborhood was also adjacent to the formerly mostly untouched Silver Maple Forest which has been partially destroyed by his predecessors and by the corresponding City Councilors.  The current City Manager moved, prior to entering office as City Manager, to one of the large scale complexes which have been built in the eastern part of Cambridge.

James Leo Sullivan commuted to Cambridge from Lowell, MA throughout his tenure.  Lowell is, much further north in MA, as distances are measured in MA, in which people do not think in terms of traveling long distances.  Cambridge, in particular, is very much self focused.  The mental separation from Somerville to the north, for example, is massive, but the only real difference is lines drawn on the map.  I am pretty certain that Robert Healy did the same.

Sullivan and Healy were rehired in 1974 after the two (I believe the two) lost leadership positions in Cambridge in the mid 60's.  I have no real knowledge of the circumstances of the separation.  My gut feel is that it was related to the very real and powerful activist activities in Cambridge during that period.

Shortly before the rehiring, the activist victories peaked with the defeat of an Interstate highway which was slated to devastate the area about a block east of the Grand Junction Railroad in the area of concern to this blog and to continue destruction through the eastern part of Cambridge to connect with what is now Interstate 93 running north from Downtown Boston.  In the Boston mentality, the connection was to an extension of what Bostonians call the Southeast Expressway, or simply now, “The Expressway.”  The defeated project was called the “Inner Belt.”

The Southeast Expressway is also now part of Interstate 93.  The I93 / Southeast Expressway combination provides north - south connection to Downtown Boston, including Cambridge.  Cambridge is physically a northern part of Boston, but is separately governed and is proudly and meaningfully independent.  I93 / Southeast Expressway combines with Interstate 95 to form a beltway with downtown connection by the Southeast Expressway / Interstate 93.

(2) Activist victory 45 years ago is being targeted by duplicity.

Here is a marked up state plan showing the Grand Junction railroad, which is targeted for an updated Inner Belt to give the Massachusetts Institute of Technology a personal exit from Interstate 90 (Massachusetts Turnpike).  I90 is the east -,  west connector to Downtown Boston.

The Inner Belt defeat was a major milestone in Boston area government.  The fight for a new Inner Belt is thus being done with maximum secrecy in recognition of the strong, proud history of victory over destruction by highway.

This secrecy combined with the fight for an updated and partial Inner Belt highway is at the core of so many of the outrages on the Charles River.

On this plan, the Grand Junction railroad is marked by the black arrows which indicate major street crossings.  The Inner Belt proposal followed the Grand Junction Railroad below and to its right.  The arrow to the left is at Massachusetts Avenue, the heart of MIT.  The next arrow is at Main Street, near Kendall Square, currently the northern edge of MIT.

MIT is closely related to very major development in both areas.  Much if not most of the development amounts to land-banking with buildings rented to tenants closely related to MIT and the possibility of later conversion to formal parts of the MIT campus.

The area west / south of Mass. Ave. to its bend is rather clearly admitted to be land-banking for campus expansion.

The crossing of the Charles River by the Grand Junction Railroad to the left goes to I90 which shows as the dark yellow line rising to the left.  That is the area where the off ramp for the updated and limited Inner Belt will go.

On this map, areas formally part of Boston are below the Charles River and to the right.  The large green area to the far right toward the bottom is the Boston Common and Public Gardens, very important parts of the City of Boston.  The dark yellow line roughly forming a triangle with the upper corner of the map is I93.

The squiggly black line which runs from the upper left corner to I93 and than turns around and follows the Charles river approximates the municipal boundaries of the City of Cambridge, with as the most obvious exception the fact that the city line runs in the middle of the Charles River.

(3) The lay of the land.

(A) South / East of the BU Bridge.

Here is a Department of Conservation and Recreation map of the Charles River Basin, the area which was so viciously destroyed in January 2016, with more destruction slated to come.

Magazine Beach is to the left, off the map.  Boston’s Public Gardens are at the right toward the bottom.

Directly on the opposite side of the Charles River from Cambridge and next to the BU Bridge is the main part of the campus of Boston University.  On the Cambridge side of the Charles River in this map, running most of the area between the BU Bridge and the second bridge to the east, the Longfellow Bridge, is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Green Area abutting the Charles River on the south / bottom is the Charles River Esplanade a formal garden managed by the DCR.

The reddish line which starts at the right about a quarter of the way from the top is one of the primary subways in the Boston subway system, known at the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority).  This subway line is the Red Line, a heavy rail system, i.e. its cars are very similar in size to train passenger cars.  The Red Line runs from the western-most part of Cambridge, Alewife, to two terminals in the south, one in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston and, much further south, to the Town of Braintree.

Looking at the map, you will see that the Red Line suddenly turns as it goes to the left.  This turn is at the beginning of Central Square, Cambridge.  The Red Line proceeds off the map at the top left, going to Harvard Square and, eventually, to Alewife.

On the south side of the Charles on this map east of Boston University is the dense, heavily historic, exclusive and core Back Bay neighborhood of Boston.  To the right of where the river turns is the Foot of the Hill, the lower part of the historic and exclusive Beacon Hill neighborhood of Boston.  After the Longfellow Bridge is the Massachusetts General Hospital.

(B) West / North of the BU Bridge.

Here is a map to which I was directed by the Boston planners, and which I have marked up for related purposes.  I think the map is from Google, fair use.  The main area of interest runs from the BU Bridge at the bottom right to the third bridge to its west / north, called the Anderson Bridge, better known as the bridge to Harvard University.

At the bottom right of this map is the BU Bridge.  connection to Commonwealth Avenue, a major boulevard of Boston.  Commonwealth Avenue comes from the bottom right, indicated by the yellow line.  About 2/3 of the way to the left margin is a fork.  Commonwealth Avenue goes left at the fork.

Up to that fork, Boston University owns most of the land between Commonwealth Avenue and the Charles River.  As you get closer to the Charles River, where the added blue line gets complicated, you get into land purchased not that long ago by Harvard University.

That land, for the last 50 years of so was occupied by a major railroad yard and by I90, the Mass. Pike, with ramps to Cambridge and to the Brighton and Allston neighborhoods of Boston.

The dark orange line following the Charles River is the Soldiers Field Road boulevard.  The balance of these markings are I90.  The lighter colored roads in the very middle are the current ramps to and from I90 at this point.

Above and to the right of the river is Cambridge.

The large green area to the left of the BU Bridge in Cambridge is the Magazine Beach recreation area, slated for the next phase of outrageous destruction, except that the area closest to the BU Bridge is a sensitively designed sewerage treatment plant.  To the right of the BU Bridge above the Charles River is the ghetto to which the Charles River White geese have been forced.

Most of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese during their 36 years of residence has been destroyed to them.  That habitat, to the left / west extended far along Magazine Beach.  To the east, in the prior graphic, the habitat extended almost to the green area above the highway on the Cambridge side.  That highway shows on both maps next to the Charles River.  The highway is Memorial Drive.  Memorial Drive saw outrageous destruction in January 2016 with more to come, according to the plans.

This map gives a closer view of the area where the new Urban Ring highway would come, but does not show the Grand Junction railroad.  The off ramp from I90 (Mass. Pike) would be connected to I90 left / west of the BU Bridge.  It would cross over Soldiers Field Road and cross the Charles River under the BU Bridge.  The right portion of the Goose Meadow to the right of the BU Bridge currently holds the Grand Junction.  That is where the highway would go.  Early maps from the MBTA, which proved the highway feasible, showed an off ramp through the narrow area to the right.  That narrow area, the Wild Area is also part of the remaining habitat of the Charles River White Geese.  They nest in the Goose Meadow and in the Wild Area.

Following the above map, the next bridge to the west / up from the BU Bridge is the River Street Bridge.  It is followed by the Western Avenue Bridge, and then the Anderson Bridge / bridge to Harvard.  To make the bridges more confusing, the middle bridge in the prior map, connecting Mass. Ave. in Cambridge and Boston, is officially known as the Harvard Bridge.

Harvard purchased much of the land across from Magazine Beach which is not owned by Boston University.  Their holdings are shown on the map bounded on the south by a greyish / blue line which connects the straighter legs of I90 / the Mass. Pike.  The holdings generally form a triangle with the extension of the River Street Bridge in Boston / Allston, Cambridge Street, being the top left side of the triangle, and Soldiers Field Road being the other boundary.  There are some non-Harvard holdings in that triangle, at its extreme upper point.

The land is very clearly intended by Harvard to be the next home of the Harvard Medical School and related educational, university housing and parking facilities.

Harvard owns most of the land between Cambridge Street and the next street up, Western Avenue.  Then the holdings get big.  Harvard is currently building next to Western Avenue  The left boundary before Western Avenue is NOT QUITE to the drawn dark blue line.  Above Western Avenue, Smith Playground forms the western / left boundary and Harvard owns everything else between there and Soldiers Field Road.  The Harvard holdings go beyond the fourth bridge west of the BU Bridge.

On the north side of the Charles River, Harvard’s holdings start at Western Avenue.  They widen on occasion to Putnam Avenue, the Cambridge major street generally parallel to the Charles River.  The western extremity is a couple of blocks west of the extension of the Anderson Bridge, John F. Kennedy Street, varying back and forth.

The forking road at the top of the Map is the eastern end of Harvard Square.  The upper side of the fork is Massachusetts Avenue.  The lower part of the fork is Mt. Auburn Street.  Portions of this area were downzoned by a group which I advised, as reported in my last report.  My activities in the area are MUCH LARGER than that particular effort.

This area gets into the core Harvard campus.  The holdings by Harvard and related extend to and beyond Mt. Auburn Street, although the further north toward Mt. Auburn Street and Mass. Ave., the greater the non Harvard holdings.  The most extensive non Harvard holdings start south of Mt. Auburn Street and include property in Harvard Square proper which extends to Mass. Ave.  The green area at the top middle is Harvard Yard.

The markings on the map are my idea for a street car subway to service
Boston University,
Harvard Medical School,
the Allston neighborhood of Boston, a very vibrant neighborhood, located below Western Avenue and to the left,
Harvard Business School which is well established and which totally occupyies the area above Western Avenue and to the right of my blue pen and ink line, and
the Harvard Stadium athletic complex which occupies most of the green area above Western Avenue and to the left of my dark blue line.

The subway would commence as a branch of the Green Line streetcar line on Commonwealth Avenue just west of the BU Bridge and would connect to Harvard Station on the Red Line through tunnels which formerly connected the Red Line to a subway yard at JFK Street and Memorial Drive.  The solid blue line is the main proposal, with a proposed yard for train storage.  The broken red lines are alternate suggestions.

An alternative subway route  mentioned by Harvard would be much more expensive and of negligible value to the Boston residents.  It would be a Red Line, heavy rail, spur from Harvard Station constructed way underground and only connecting to the Harvard Medical School area.  From there, Harvard’s Red Line spur would approach the Harvard Hospital area known as the Longwood Medical Area.  The area it is approaching has another major transportation project under consideration which the Red Line spur would connect to.  That area currently includes the Harvard Medical School.

The Harvard / Longwood Medical Area is one of the bigger cash cows in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The hospitals are expanding rapidly.  The Medical School and related are much easier to relocate than the hospitals.

My Green Line spur suggestion would connect the Harvard Medical School to the Harvard Medical area by existing Green Line / streetcar service.  It would connect to the proposed transportation construction at Kenmore Square.  Kenmore Square is a third of the way from the left in the first map.

Harvard thinks in centuries.  The relocation of the Harvard Medical School could be a century from now, or it could be a decade from now.

The state is rearranging I90 to simplify its structure and correct age related problems.  If the state does no allow for less expensive meaningful public transportation, the project could prevent responsible alternatives such as the street car subway concept I have presented.  That could stick the state, a few decades hence, the much more expensive Red Line spur proposed by Harvard which would resemble a private transportation entity for Harvard, as opposed to the much more generally valuable and less expensive option I have pointed out.

The Harvard construction south of Western Avenue is for uses which would relate to a moved Harvard Medical School.

C. Company Unions.

One of James Leo Sullivan’s declared goals in 1974 was to create a system of “Neighborhood Associations.”  The system appeared piece by piece over the next 30 years, supposedly spontaneously.

Pieces with which I am familiar had a tendency to be created at the same time as city planners were working for destructive goals.  The pieces with which I am familiar have been notable for core groups which function to control the larger organization.  The core groups, in turn, are controlled by much tinier groups.  The much tinier groups in the various parts of the structure clearly work together. I have witnessed a member bragging about going to the Cambridge Development Department to learn what he thinks on development issues.  The lockstep with the CDD is inconceivable without talking to the CDD.

The pieces of the Cambridge Machine I am familiar with reflect heavy emphasis on supporting city development policies or worse.   Mention of particular such entities in these reports by no means should be interpreted as total communication of all such entities or any claim that all of their activities are destructive.  After all, positive actions by the “protective” groups set up the victims for the really important stuff, and makes the “protective” groups look meaningful.  On the Charles River, the pitch, very blatantly is to look at what they tell you to look at, not at what they are trying to destroy.

“Company Unions,” historically are “unions” created by companies to fill a void.  Company Unions function to control workers instead of the other way around, but they function in such a manner as to hide the real control.  Dealing with these entities always represents a bunch of fog and mirrors as who is what.  The reality, however, is that, whether or not strings are obviously pulled from City Government, it is highly silly to assume that the entities are other than cheerleaders for the City Government.

However, these overall groups are not directly controlled.  They are controlled by skillful, frequently corrupt, tactics.  These entities can be defeated internally.  The level of internal control varies from group to group, just as the level of destructiveness probably varies from group to group.  I do not have personal knowledge of more than just some of the worst., but the stench and the interrelationship is clear.  I have won with quite major successes by out-organizing string pullers.

D. Robots.

The leadership, the core group of the core groups, constantly is very much indistinguishable in its policies from city government as far as meaningful matters go, or worse.  The lockstep mentality, or worse, is so close that it is silly not to use the word “robot.”

Additionally, however, the leaders exert great control on participants in the entities with which I am familiar so as to dominate the thinking of a very significant percentage of the group.  Once again, lockstep.  It is silly and counterproductive to consider a very significant portion of people visible in company unions as other than “robots.”  And the tiny cores use a whole bunch of techniques, including corrupt techniques, to create this situation.

I have given up trying to figure out which of the robots are bad guys and which are well intentioned victims.  They cannot be distinguished from each other, and people who come into the groups are strongly pushed to become further robots.

At minimum, it can be safely said that a lot of people who try to participate in such entities are driven away by the lockstep unanimity forced on the groups by the core groups.  People who think for themselves can be very much driven away by the extreme pressures.  Tactics include outrageous manipulation of agendas in meetings, censorship, bullying, personal attacks and other techniques that work.

So, in Cambridge, the smart way to organize to get responsible things done is to keep as far away as possible from robots or likely robots.  I have done that with great success.

The fake group which is fighting for massive destruction on the Charles River has used a whole bunch of corrupt practices.

Until I went public, the fake group on the Charles openly censored their ListServ to prevent comments negative to the City of Cambridge and its friends.  Now they have just thrown a member off the ListServ for having the nerve to offer to express a negative opinion.  NOT FOR EXPRESSING AN OPINION, BUT FOR OFFERING TO EXPRESS A NEGATIVE OPINION.

Independent interpretations of reality are not acceptable to the Cambridge Machine.

IV. To be continued.

Saturday, November 25, 2017

I just received the following report from Phil Barber:

1. Report.
2. Analysis.
3. Censorship.

1. Report.

I saw no less than six adult swans at Magazine Beach the other day, and two scaups.

I note with dismay the work of the “cleanup” of the phragmites in the wild area there. The tampered with area is ankle deep in standing water now, while the other recessed wild area that hadn’t been denuded had absorbed all the recent rain. This got me to thinking about “invasives” and their removal. I’m wondering whether, as we see the accelerating human destruction of the ecosystem, these hardier plants are naturally replacing the original species, which can no longer tolerate the climate changes we have wrought. Seeing the effect at MB, where a verdant marshland is now a breeding pool for algae, bacteria, and mosquitoes, strikes me that here perhaps is yet another example of human arrogance, imagining we know better than nature and instead making a mess of things. In a functioning healthy ecosystem it might, perhaps, be reasonably to minimize disruptive species, but perhaps we are actually seeing nature adapting to humanity’s stresses.

[Ed: Here are photos of swans at Alewife from Phil, and a photo of mine of the poison drainage system from which the fake protectors were destroying ground vegetation.]

2. Analysis.

I am pleased to get Phil’s reports on the visiting swans.  It definitely is lovely that wild animals are visiting.

Phil is a lot nicer than I am when it comes to the initiatives of the fake protective group, but it is well expressed.

I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission absolutely shocked at the outrages inflicted by by “volunteers” working for the DCR.  Get away from the influence of Cambridge’s Robots and Company Unions plus similar groups and attitudes change.

3. Censorship.

Business as usual with the group fighting for destruction while lying about which side they are on.

They have gone from pre-censoring all posts on the ListServe to unilaterally expelling folks for OFFERING to make statements contrary to that which they call “The Truth.”

Occasionally, they do stop the saccharine and go public with reality.  Here is a photo of a plaque they included in a propaganda show in City Hall Annex.

Here is a photo of the TRUTH from fraudulent “protectors” when they let their guard down.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Charles River: Sample of how badly the Cambridge, MA, USA, City Government is / has been, “conserving” Harvard Square.

Charles River:  Sample of how badly the Cambridge, MA, USA,  City Government is / has been, “conserving” Harvard Square.

I. General Introduction.
II. City Manager / City Council Letter.
III. Supporting Photos.

I. General Introduction.

The ongoing and increasing outrage on the Charles River is impossible to distinguish from the outrage which is the city council and key bureaucrats of the City of Cambridge.  The prior three City Managers were leaders of the outrage.  The outrage has continued after the departure of the last of the three bad City Managers.

A good feel for the outrage which is the government of the City of Cambridge, as stated, can be noted through the first two sections of a letter which was submitted to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager on November 14.  It has not yet been presented to the City Council.  I anticipate they will receive it at their next regular Monday meeting.

The Subsequent Section is directly relevant to the Charles River and will follow.  I can only make these reports so long.

II. City Manager / City Council Letter.

0. Introduction.

In what is normal behavior from the Cambridge Machine, situations which should be professionally handled have substituted personal attack, and the personal attacks have become extreme.  This letter and subsequent letters will include response to the personal attacks.  Trying to distinguish between response to personal attacks and normal business issues is impractical.  So these responses will be solely in my name, as opposed to as Chair, Friends of the White Geese.

1. Harvard Square “Conservation” District.

I note that Awaiting Report 16-74 [ed: of the City Council Agenda] asks for a report on the Harvard Square “Conservation” District’s effectiveness.

I am very close to that matter since I wrote the zoning change which succeeded in modification of the zoning in East Harvard Square to make that zoning compatible with the residential  neighborhoods to the North and to the South.  I advised the neighborhood group with great success.  The C2B district [ed: the principal zoning in East Harvard Square] was suggested by Councilor William Walsh.  The Walsh suggestion received my enthusiastic support.  We only had one negative vote (1 probable supporter in the hospital) on a zoning change about which Harvard University was decidedly opposed.

This zoning forced the former Inn at Harvard building (Mass. Ave. and Harvard St.) on Harvard University.   The requirements of the C2B district were refined in the downzoning of the Dana / Hancock to City Hall area of Massachusetts Avenue so that this part of Cambridge reflects large scale zoning with great sensitivity to residential neighbors, retaining the residential nature of this part of Mass. Ave. [ed.: This is the one example of recent construction in Harvard Square which is generally loved.]  I was highly visible in that particular change.

I have 42 years experience with the Development Department under the three manager Cambridge City Manager Machine, [ed.: does not chastise the current City Manager] including very major experience in zoning myself.  In sharp contrast to too many initiatives by the Development Department and its Robots under the three manager City Manager Machine, my zoning does what I said it does.  Based on my experience, I interpret the request as to the “Conservation” District’s effectiveness on two levels.  It looks like the “Conservation” district has achieved both its real goals.

First,  It lied to the well intended that a “Conservation” District was being created and thus gave the well intended a false impression that Conservation was occurring.

Secondly, under the claim of “conserving” Harvard Square, the “Conservation” District destroyed the historical building at the northwest corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Remington Street.  It replaced that historical building with a faux historical building.  This destruction looks like the intention of the zoning change.

As such, there is a great deal of value in simply deleting this zoning.  It has passed its sunset provision anyway.  The continued presence on the books of this nonsense is an affront to people who want honesty in government.  It is most definitely not an isolated incident from the Development Department under the three member Cambridge City Manager Machine and its Robots.

Far less offensive an action is what Harvard did to the nearby 1890's historical building at 10 Mt. Auburn Street after I saved it in an action under a provision of the Rent Control Ordinance.  Harvard saved the exterior, and, in its later construction in the area, possibly built up the area in a more sensitive manner than Harvard would have done without 10 Mt. Auburn Street’s continued presence.  Nothing REAL was saved at Massachusetts Ave. and Remington Street.

Another very major change in the zoning in the area came in the early 2000's when, in the name of “improving” zoning, a citywide atrocity was accomplished by the Development Department and its Robots.  That zoning outrage trashed all the residential zoning in the City in favor of office districts which require more housing than office use.  Naturally, that was not meaningfully communicated to the voters.

That change, as part of destroying all residential zoning in the city, converted East Harvard Square’s residential district into an office district which requires more housing than office use in buildings.

III. Supporting Photos.

Not part of the letter to the Cambridge City Council.  Not needed for the Cambridge City Council, but possibly of value to non Cantabridgians.

Here is the building formerly known as The Inn at Harvard, forced on Harvard by my East Harvard Square Downzoning, instead of a building possibly 72% larger and built to the lot line.  First, the side facing Harvard Square proper, then the side facing Mass. Ave.

This is not a tiny building, but it could have been much more intrusive and non residential.  It is the only recent construction in Harvard Square generally loved.

Those trees are on Harvard property and would not be there if built to the lot line.

Here is the faux historical building which was the apparent purpose of the fake conservation district.  The historical building was destroyed, it would appear, primarily to add parking underneath it.  It is a copy of the original building above ground, with a floor added and and very significant added construction toward its rear (note the difference in style).  It is in the same block as the former Inn at Harvard, the far end of the block, three buildings to the east, Remington Street and Massachusetts Avenue.

The yellow building to the far right in the above picture is to the left of the faux historical building.

Here is 10 Mt. Auburn Street, maybe 1000 feet south of the faux historical building which pretty much faces it, with two buildings in between.  10 Mt. Auburn Street dates to the 1890's.  I saved it using fine print in the Rent Control Ordinance.  It was, instead, rebuilt in a “gut rehab” which is now highly common in the development of older historical buildings in Cambridge, MA, USA.

Here are historical structures on the south (opposite) side of Massachusetts Avenue between The Inn at Harvard and the faux historical building.  These almost certainly are being protected by the zoning I created.

Not that visible is a replacement park on the left in the photo, almost across from the faux historical building.  The then Cambridge City Manager destroyed it about 10 days after the City Council passed our zoning.  Expansion was intended to expand a business which could no longer legally expand under our zoning change, which the City Manager opposed.  I leafleted.  The City Manager apologized to the City Council with this glorious, but necessarily tiny park.

Below is a slightly better photo of my lovely little park.

The building behind it we had to compromise on to get the downzoning.  The back side is kitty corner, albeit the top of a T intersection, from 10 Mt. Auburn Street.

The photo of 10 Mt. Auburn Street, above, is taken from the direction of the back side of this building.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Charles River: Wild Falsehoods, Responses and Reality in election season ‒ the last few days with the Cambridge Machine

Charles River:  Wild Falsehoods, Responses and Reality in election season ‒ the last few days with the Cambridge Machine

Normally these reports are published in three versions.  This version, the blog version, is the full analysis on any particular issue.  Condensed versions are posted on Facebook and in an email newsletter with links to this commonly much longer blog report.

Things have been getting nasty on the Charles River.  The following is a very slightly clarified version of a report which went out to the email report system.  The distribution was normal distribution minus news media.

I usually try to keep these reports strictly concerning the irresponsible government entities.  The reality, however, is that the irresponsible government entities work through controlled Company Union groups which claim to be defending the world and which, altogether too often, do exactly the opposite while proclaiming their own sainthood.

Hopefully, this report will give you a feel for the reality of on the ground work defending the Charles River.  It is based on a ListServ managed by the bad guys.

Two Cambridge City Councilors are named in the report.  That is highly appropriate for a report which went solely to Cambridge, MA and closely related.  I am changing to #1 and #2 to reflect the international audience of these blog reports.

The election which is related to this report is in progress as this report is published.

I normally include photos in these reports.  I have considered adding photos in relevant locations.  Photos were not provided in the original report.  It just does not seem proper, and would require more changes than I feel comfortable with.

* * * *

The fake protective group which is fighting for and has achieved massive destruction on the Charles River was forced into ending censorship of their ListServ when I publicized the censorship as demonstration of the lack of meaning of the entity.

A few days ago, an operative who has been very visible with most of the fake protective groups in the City of Cambridge made a flat out lie about me on line.  Flat out lies and wild accusations commonly become THE TRUTH with these people so I responded, denied the flat out lie, and went into my record standing up against outrages by this individual’s friends in the Cambridge Machine.  A couple of these exchanges got quite strong and nonsensical on his part, so I passed on my collection of reality to people to whom these memoirs of reality could be valuable.

The thing which apparently got me thrown off the Listserv was misbehavior on the Listserv by Councilor #1.  I really had not been bothered by #1 putting a prohibited list of his record and pitch for votes on the ListServ.  A number of other people were.

The candidates for City Council number somewhere in the 20's.  Equal time for the others would be nonsensical.  So the folks were condemning #1 repeatedly.  One other candidate alleged this was not #1’s first such violation.

#1 happens to be one of the two worst members of the current City Council with regard to his record on the Charles River.

In the on line discussion, one woman was the only visible member of the group which pulls the strings on this entity.  So I suggested to her that a one on one response from a person who strongly disagrees with #1 would be an excellent way to neutralize the effect of this action by #1.

I got no answer to my offer.

The condemnations of #1 proceeded on line, so since I had received no response on my offer, I pointed out that I had suggested to the string pullers that I be allowed to respond to him, without going into meaningful detail.

The key string puller (a different woman), not long after that post by me, posted a strong comment with a wild falsehood, aimed at me without naming me.

I have seen nothing of what had been an active ListServ since then, so I must assume I have been thrown off the list because I OFFERED to respond to #1.  I did not put my response on line and I made no attempt to do so.

Since a very busy ListServ has suddenly gone silent, I have to assume that I have been evicted.  I have just checked and received a bounce.

But, as with the FLAT OUT LIE that started this busy period of several days, I am faced with the reality that, with the Cambridge Machine, wild statements become THE TRUTH.  I responded to the original FLAT OUT LIE in overwhelming detail.

If I had not been shut off the ListServ, I would have been very happy to simply let things lie with the public statement that I had offered a response.  But since I have been shut off the ListServ, the likelihood of yet another massive personal attack is a certainty.

The sooner the better to squelch such further outrages.  My pulling off the ListServ was preceded by an email with fraud aimed at me without naming me.

Nastiness will be used to smokescreen the ongoing fight of this destructive group of people for more horrible things on the Charles River.  The nastiness will use this latest outrage by them as an example of why their terrible goals are justifiable.  As usual, the fully predictable nastiness will not mention the very terrible goals.  Their very terrible goals will obscured by yet more delicately and “quietly” worded, but truly LOUD yelling..

So here goes.  Here is the comment offered to the string pullers with key sections analyzed.

* * * *

Councilor #1 wrote the April 24, 2017, motion to destroy the 56 mostly excellent trees and do other terrible things at Magazine Beach.  That motion was the first use that I am aware of the “dead or dying” fraud.

#1 fought for the outrages of the 2000's.  His explanation on that fight was that he was only responsible for the good parts of his actions, not the bad.

His explanation was that he was improving the playing fields.  But a significant part of the playing fields were destroyed to put in that poison drainage system.

To the best of my knowledge, he has never complained that, by reducing playing field size, he achieved EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what he said he was fighting for.

And bees are dying on Magazine Beach because of poisons that initiated in the 2000's operation.

Their beloved poisons are apparently being expanded to the top of the hill, plus to behind the swimming pool, and probably to east of the BU Bridge.  These actions, of course, are part of continuing destruction of habitat and of animal abuse, and of the Charles River.

* * * *

The only part of this package I have possible second thoughts about is saying #1 “wrote” order 1 of April 24, 2017.  The exactly correct terminology is that he, and #2 SPONSORED that order.  So “wrote” is technically slightly off exact center.  That order has the stench of the Development Department who probably WROTE it.  #1, by cosigning that motion, took credit for authorship.  There are more than one person who can be blamed for this outrage.  If #1 wishes to specify the actual author, I will be pleased to be more exact in my terminology.

The “dead or dying” fraud appears to be the offshoot of skillfully worded fraud by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.  The DCR and Cambridge are destroying truly excellent and massive trees.  These trees are so old and so excellent that many have probably passed their peak of beauty.

The skillful fraud from the DCR claims that, without spelling it out, a tree which has passed its peak of beauty is in "decline." To my understanding that is the definition of the term, "decline." "Decline" is the term the DCR skillful fraud used. Once it is "in decline (very fraudulent language in this situation), the DCR claims to have a RIGHT to destroy it.

The DCR also admits they want to destroy a lot of excellent trees which have not reached their peak of beauty.  Those are a very significant part of the number of trees the DCR, and nine members of the Cambridge City Council want to destroy, destroy, destroy.

In addition to the many excellent trees which are not yet at their peak, most of the trees being destroyed are excellent trees which have “passed their peak” and still have ONLY (they always use that word) 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years of fruitful beauty left.  The lie here is that these excellent trees are in “decline.”

And there are a tiny percentage which are dead.  My June 4, 2017 51 page letter to the Cambridge City Council  analyzed the situation in detail with photos and plans INCLUDING PHOTOS OF THE DEAD TREES.  My analysis is posted in the city record at, pages 198 to 249.  I also offer email sized PDF’s, five in number, to those who are overwhelmed by the amount of time it takes to download the 400 or 500 page document which includes my report.

The #1 / #2 motion rather clearly took the skillful fraud in the word “decline” and spouted “dead or dying” from the skillful fraud.

“Dead or dying” is outrageous fraud, worse than skillful fraud.  ‘Dead or dying” is loudly repeated by the individuals fighting for this outrage.

“Dead or dying,” an unjustified expansion of skillful fraud, has become “REALITY” in the eyes of the Cambridge Machine.

I have elaborated and clarified my June 6 analysis in several subsequent letters.  That includes reports of destruction already accomplished including destruction of two trees which the shopping center across the street had lovingly cared for and which were not in the destruction plans.

* * * *

The other oddity which can use explanation is #1’s comment that he was only responsible for the good stuff, not the bad.

That comment was made outside a candidate’s night in North Cambridge where he was running for School Committee.

#1 was, to my recollection, the only figure visibly supporting the outrages inflicted on Magazine Beach in the 2000's outside of the bureaucrats implementing it.  The City Councilors, as is their wont, voted for the terrible things and then ran away from their guilt, letting the bureaucrats take the blame.

#1 was bragging that he was improving the playing fields.  It turned out to be exactly the opposite.  Playing fields were destroyed to put in a drainage system to drain off poisons being added to the Magazine Beach playing fields by Cambridge and the DCR.  #1 apparently supported the reversal with silence.

#1 probably was inflicting the usual Cambridge Machine bullying fraud on me with those words, but he said those words loudly and strongly.  What he said had a lot of meaning, and the Cambridge Machine rubber stamps everything.

I have published Phil Barber’s report on the bee sickness, and gone into detail about the love of the DCR for poisons on the banks of the Charles River, including the annual algae infestation of the Charles River which dates back use of probably the same poison at Ebersol Field because the DCR’s less powerful beloved poisons were not working.

I proposed to the string pullers of this fake protective group a short document which is made much longer by this analysis.  I kept quiet about the content until it would appear that I have been pulled off the ListServ. It is thus necessary to respond to the fully predictable nastiness which will be done by word of mouth, and which has already started with the falsehood in that key email.

I have lived with this terrible Cambridge Machine organization for way too long.  The three bad City Managers who thrived with this terrible organization are gone.  City Manager DePasquale looks like he is standing up to this terrible organization.

In the trenches, I, as usual, will be the victim of a terrible personal attack campaign.  I believe in reality.  Giving in to bullies emboldens them.  Their cause has no value.  It is a very terrible cause.

The Cambridge Machine has great antipathy toward reality.  I have communicated reality.