Friday, October 06, 2017

Charles River: Cambridge City Manager on Magazine Beach - Dock Proposal Analysis

Charles River:   Cambridge City Manager on Magazine Beach - Dock Proposal Analysis

1. Prelude.
2. Magazine Beach, More Dirty Tricks, CPA funds.  Solution for continuing outrages.
3. What You Can Do.
A. Introductory.
B. General.
C. The Institutions.

1. Prelude.

This is the third blog report forwarding our analysis to the Cambridge City Council on October 2, 2017 of three communications to them by the Cambridge City Manager the prior Monday.

We have praised the Cambridge City Manager for his response to the unanimous vote of NINE city councilors in favor of destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach, and of providing funding for destruction.
The City Manager’s response was that, if the Cambridge City Council wants these outrages, he will do as he is directed.  The City Manager pointed out that moneys devoted to destruction of those 56 excellent trees and toward heartless animal abuse.  His statement is not directly in those words, but in reality, as is the City Council’s support of poisons on the banks of the Charles], he would take the money from other project which are responsible (again, not his words, but obvious reality).

We have analyzed the City Manager’s comments on the outrages proposed for the Grand Junction railroad tracks, including the reality that the stalking horse bike highway proposal is certain to make possible a personal exit for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from the Mass. Pike (I90) over a stalking horse widened Grand Junction Railroad Bridge with connection to Memorial Drive.  We provided an expanded MIT photo of a responsible alternative for the Bike Highway without creating this updated version of the Cambridge detested Inner Belt proposal of the 60's.

Our original letter was made part of the public record by the Cambridge City Clerk at, , pages 153 to 158.

The blog reports presenting our analysis are posted at, and

The official copy is part of a file containing hundreds of pages of documents, and is time consuming to download.  We would be pleased to provide a PDF as an email attachment, should you wish to ask at

2. Magazine Beach, More Dirty Tricks, CPA funds.  Solution for continuing outrages.

The City Manager gave the City Council an allocation of Community Preservation Act funds.  I will not give the statutory details which spends money on the Magazine Beach playing fields.  A common dirty trick procedural game was played in which public input was obtained with the usual lack of meaningful communication to the public about what was REALLY voting on.

Here is a the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s general map of Magazine Beach destruction with my blue marking of entrances being rearranged to smooth out traffic from the Inner Belt off the Mass. Pike (I90).  .

The area being targeted by this outrage is the area to the far right with a soling line perpendicular to the river and two lines to the right of the line.  The convergence of the two lines in the Metropolitan District Commission sewerage treatment plant.  The location apparently being developed is the area between the solid line and the Charles River.

This is the photo like description provided to the voters WITHOUT MEANINGFUL COMMUNICATION and my analysis in the third part of my letter to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager.

* * *

On page 192 of the September 25, package calls for moneys to be spent on Magazine Beach:

Request Open Space funds to complete the building of an ADA-accessible canoe/kayak launch at Magazine Beach and tree cutting and pruning work as part of the park infrastructure.

In its photo like description, this item is described as a “canoe and kayak launch at the end of the Cottage Farm Plant at Magazine Beach.”  Here is the supposed photo like presentation.

As is usual with Cambridge Development Department projects, the dirty tricks are buried in the fine print.

Tree destruction is simply tossed in several levels down from reality with no more detailed explanation.

And the photo provided bears no known relationship to the area where this item has been proposed to go.

Following are photos of this location.  (Unless there has also been a secret change in the specific location).

The opening where the dock is proposed is directly south of the main parking lot at the Magazine Beach playing fields.  It is the only opening in the Starvation Wall which was introduced with the promise of a “lawn to the river.”  The Starvation Wall runs from the MWRA property almost to the excellent Willow which the City Council voted to destroy in the April 24, Order 1 vote.

Here is a several years old photo of an adult woman standing in the opening.  It is my understanding that the structure is intended to go to her right, replacing a small amount of Starvation Wall with a structure.  The entire Starvation Wall should be chopped down.

The DCR admits that the starvation wall is held in contempt by public visiting the playing fields.  The DCR refuses to get rid of it.  The DCR has defiantly said that what it has created is impossible to tear down.  But the proposal, according to that photo / diagram, would do exactly that.  It would tear down and remove what appears to be a vast amount of vegetation.  Including Starvation Wall, and INCLUDING “TREES” WITHOUT THE TREE DESTRUCTION SPECIFIED, just more added destruction kept secret except for quick mentions in the fine print.

Key is always in the frauds of omission.  Would this entrance be rendered a new obstacle to the Charles River White Geese?  Right now, it is the only accessible part for them at the shore.

The real obstacle to resident animals AND TO BOATS is the bizarre bridge over artificially created wetlands.  The photo / diagram gives the impression that this nonsense is being destroyed.  Is it just another lie?

The artificial wetlands are a deliberate obstacle to boat and animal access, as is the weak bridge over them.  The massive amount of introduced vegetation between the wetlands / bridge and the parking lot is just another deliberate barrier to the Charles River White Geese.  These destructive people have gone to very major efforts to kill and abuse as long as it is deniable, especially by the Development Department’s Robots.

The weak bridge which works with the artificial wetlands to block boat and animal access shows in the middle of this last photo, the trash receptacle

The known proposal promises to lower part of the Starvation Wall.  It does not mention that it created the current outrage with the DCR’s traditional refusal to maintain, and continues to prevent animal access by the continued deliberate separation of Charles and playing fields.  Non maintenance will continue, of course, another key omission, and will let this outrage, promised as a “lawn to the river,” grow and grow.

This Starvation Wall has value to these heartless animal abusers whose goal is to kill off or drive away all resident animals in this part of the Charles River.  The goal is part of the “Charles River Master Plan” whose nonsensical status is demonstrated by the promise of the “Lawn to the River” which wound up as this outrage.  Very clearly, this policy of heartless animal abuse is a goal which disqualifies the DCR planners from fitness to manage the environment.

Which trees are to be destroyed appears to be totally secret, along with any claim of “dead or dying.”  Or rather, the real claim before the CDD’s rewording, beyond peak beauty, a claim deliberately obscured by the word games in which the bureaucratic con game, “decline” became the blatantly fraudulent “dead or dying.”

And the 36 year residence of the most obvious targets with great love from decent human beings is a lot better established than this bizarre wall which is admitted by the DCR to be hated by thoughtful human beings.  Plus the 36 year resident Charles River White Geese have true value as targets for visitors.

The City Council should get rid of the DCR and replace it with MassDOT, acting through the legislature.  To the City Manager, this is situation is pointed out as yet another reason to prune the Cambridge Development Department, but, as noted, we appreciate the difference in document signatures.

3. What You Can Do.

A. Introductory.

What we need is:

End the accelerating Charles River destruction by the DCR and by Cambridge.
Give DCR duties, powers & funds on the Charles River to MassDOT.  Trash the bizarre bush wall walling off Charles.  End poison use on the Charles’ banks.
Tell the Cambridge City Council and new City Manager Louis DePasquale to end the destruction, the fake groups and the 42 year long 3 City Manager Machine.
There are two general categories of possible assistance.

B. General.

There are two entities who are a waste of time, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Cambridge Development Department.

These entities as they have existed for the last 42 years (counting the prior entity which was replaced by the DCR) need to be destroyed, not talked to.

The Cambridge City Manager needs to clean house, plus he has been helpful.  A much more detailed analysis is in my letter of welcome to him, posted at

Here are the key contacts.  I hope you can make them.  I apologize that a lot of contacts are given through yet another link.  The reason for the additional link for legislators is that that gives me only one place to change rather than trying to change every document.

Governor Charles Baker (Department of Conservation and Recreation / CR): 617-725-4005,   email form:

Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale,  617-349-4300,

Legislators: 617-722-2000,

Cambridge City Council.  Call them at 617-349-4280, or  

Email your comments care of the Cambridge City Clerk. Request that the City Clerk present your entire message to the Cambridge City Council at their next meeting. The Email address is:

C. The Institutions.

Since 2011, these reports have been read in 106 countries, at last count.  It is reasonable to assume that such vast a variety of reading may be by people with contacts in the three key institutions.

The three key institutions involved are:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  MIT is fighting for its personal exit from I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in a situation where meaningful activists previously defeated a super highway going through pretty much the same area.  So fraud is normal.  Similarly, most of Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge has been and is being turned into an area which is effectively the personal enclave of MIT.

Boston University.  This is turf which BU has started to claim for itself.  BU did the first destruction as part of its seeking to make this more clearly its turf.  A lot of the fine print makes the key areas more hospital to BU.  Boston University has conducted graduation activities in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

Harvard University.  Harvard is turning the Boston side of the Charles River even more into its private domain with its impending relocation of Harvard Medical School and other facilities into an area in Boston visible from the Cambridge side of the Charles River.

Anybody with contacts with MIT, BU and Harvard knows the contacts better than we do.

Please contact.


The Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles River since 1981.  They are beautiful and loved, a very real tourist attraction.  Having lived so long so close to densely populated cities, they well deserved to be studied and praised, not destroyed piece by piece.  Their habitat can and should be returned.  The barriers to their long time home and food should be removed.

Where they live, other much less visible but very real free animals also live.

Cambridge and the DCR are heartlessly abusing free animals on the Charles River.  The DCR PUBLICLY states a desire to kill off or drive away all resident animals on the Charles River Basin.  Cambridge and the DCR are unfit to manage the environment.  They, particularly the Cambridge City Council, combine their lack of fitness with non stop lies of environmental sainthood.

In the fine print is that proposed off ramp from I90 to MIT in a location where Cambridge brags a super highway was killed by MEANINGFUL PROTECTIVE GROUPS 50 years ago, as opposed to highly visible but fake protective groups with connections to the Cambridge government which have been carefully created and nurtured in the decades since that victory.  The replacement highway is having its grounds set through stalking horses, deception and multiple outrages.  Naturally, the replacement highway would destroy areas most valuable to free animals.

Here is a plaque which was included in a propaganda show about the Charles River conducted over an extended period in the Cambridge City Hall Annex.

Animals should not be driven off the face of our earth.  It is outrageous that these reprehensible government entities, lying about themselves, want to destroy what little sanctuaries free animals have left.  Their sanctuaries should be cherished and returned to the status quo of the beginning of this Millennium.

It is reprehensible that, lurking behind the government destructions, are institutions which proclaim themselves throughout the world as enlightened.

The Charles River White Geese are a very visible and beloved symbol of what should be cherished, not destroyed.

The list of friends on Facebook is a very visible show of decency standing up to truly vile government entities and their related “non profit” institutions.