Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Cambridge City Council takes ANOTHER SECRET VOTE ON THE CHARLES. Disrespects public speakers in main meeting.

RE: Cambridge City Council takes ANOTHER SECRET VOTE ON THE CHARLES.  Disrespects public speakers in main meeting.

Last night, I watched the entire Cambridge City Council meeting on the Internet.  I noted one HIGHLY improper vote, plus disrespect of the public in its on line presentation of public comments.  


At the end of the meeting, three “late motions” were presented to the council in a group, BUT THE MOTION ON THE CHARLES RIVER WAS NOT PUBLICLY READ AS FAR AS I COULD HEAR.

The only public communication was a correction on the subject.  Apparently the original motion referred to I95.  That was changed IN THE CLEAR to I90, the Mass. Pike, about which MassDOT has been proposing changes to its plans, to the detriment of the dirty tricks coming out of the City of Cambridge.

As far as I could gather last night, yet another dirty trick.

2. Public disrespected in comments.

I have long demanded that the Cambridge City Council, IF IT IN REALITY REFLECTED THE LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY IT CLAIMS should seek transfer of Charles River responsibilities from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

MassDOT has been the adult in the room on Charles River matters in comparison to the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.  If the Cambridge City Council resembled the holier than thou entity its keeps calling itself, it would seek to have the legislature transfer Charles River responsibility to MassDOT.

Another example of that was the new reality of the City Council’s public broadcast of its meetings as done last night in comparison to the public meeting MassDOT just had on its latest changes in plans for the I90 rebuild.

Every member of the public who wished to be shown publicly who spoke at the MassDOT meeting was so shown.

The City Council showed the faces of City Councilors not in their meeting room, but kept the faces of members of the public secret from viewers.

This was, of course, in addition to the secrecy of the I90 vote.

Yet another example of just how much more responsible MassDOT is than the Cambridge City Council.

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

I90 Rebuild Moves Forward on Charles River in spite of pols.

 I90 Rebuild Moves Forward on Charles River in spite of pols.

1.    Initial Report, October 21, 2020.

Last night, October 20, 2020, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation presented a virtual show of the status of the work on rebuilding Interstate 90 (Mass. Pike) across from the Magazine Beach Recreation Area.

This has been the usual situation over there.  MassDOT has a raised highway which is running a million dollars a year to keep from falling down, and MassDOT is trying to go forward with construction.  At the same time, destructive entities are trying to sneak in very major environmental harm to Cambridge WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED WHEN MEANINGFULLY PRESENTED.

Here are drone shots which are are currently accurate although taken a few years ago.

The main part of the project is an abandoned rail yard which is combined with a confusing combination of off ramps.

Here is a still from From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw,  minute 2.33.  It shows the main work area, at the top.  Magazine Beach is at the bottom right.  This citation without the minute designation will be referred to as Drone 1.

The disposition of this area is pretty much settled.  I had a major impact on it.

Here is the big problem area now, from “Flying Along the Charles River, From “BU and MIT to Harvard, DJI Inspire 1 Pro Drone Footage”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlFfZHeMIpI, minute 0:36.  Without the minute citation, I will refer to this as Drone 2.

The BIG building is a Boston University dorm.  To its left is I90 (Mass. Pike).  Then is the boulevard on the Boston Side of the Charles River, Soldiers Field Road, followed by the Charles River, a glimpse of the Magazine Beach playing fields and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority pollution controlled plant.

At the top just below the center, you see I90 travelling under Commonwealth Avenue, Boston / Allston neighborhood, part of Boston University here.  To its left, SFR and I90 diverge.  SFR goes under the BU Bridge.  The immediate left of SFR is the Grand Junction railroad bridge first following SFR and then going under the BU Bridge.  This bridge’s supports can be seen under the BU Bridge to the left.

  The view turns.  On the left is the Magazine Beach playing fields.  This view is at minute 0:38.


Going back to Drone 1, from minute 4.40, here is a closeup of the BU Bridge / Grand Junction Bridge / Destroyed Nesting Area.  The angle is more overhead.  The thick trees first blocking the view of the railroad are in the Destroyed Nesting Area.  The trees beyond the railroad are in the Wild Area.  The building beyond the Wild Area is BU’s Cambridge Boat House.  Following the railroad tracks to the far left middle, they can be seeond a large Harvard building.  Above that track is a major part of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus, plus some non college buildings below the tallest spire, which is an MIT dorm.

The Grand Junction is key to the dirty tricks which Cambridge entities are trying to sneak into the I90 plans.  They are sneaking in major environmental harm.  One of the hopefully losing I90 plans has shown destruction of the Wild Area as part of vast increase in use of the Grand Junction which they could not get sneaked in through honest above board attempts.  “Incidental” to a whole bunch of outrages, as usual, would be significant harm to the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, including nesting areas.

On the Boston side, the plan apparently blessed by the Cambridge City Council would, in addition to the destruction along the Grand Junction Railroad, include a new pedestrian / bike highway on STILTS building up above 22 feet of the Charles River with major reconstruction of the river bank.  

I will not go into the various options and great detail of the I90 plans.  A few months ago I reported on the MassDOT head’s announcement of a major modification in her department’s plan which is one of the three alternatives being considered to do the dirty stuff the Cambridge destroyers have been fighting for.  This new passenger service has been found by MassDOT in the above board planning TO BE USELESS EXCEPT TO ENTITIES IN KENDALL SQUARE CAMBRIDGE (much further to the left on that track).  Entities .benefitting, of course, include MIT.

The MassDOT proposal would deny the massive increase to the Grand Junction from I90 while allowing a comparable rebuilding of the existing pedestrian / bike highway in Boston in a responsible manner.  Very clearly through the YEARS of study, MassDOT has insisted the I90 rebuild only impacts Boston.  Very clearly the friends of the Cambridge destroyers have been fighting to turn the BOSTON project into one destructive to Cambridge.  The version destructive to the Charles is an ARCHITECT GROUP’S “lovely” idea.

The alternatives to the I90 work INCLUDING THE MASSDOT CHANGE, the Modified Highway Viaduct, are up for comment now, ending October 30, 2020, comments to i90Allston@state.ma.us.

The state’s compilation of materials on the “Allston Multimodal Project” are allegedly findable through https://www.mass.gov/info-details/about-the-allston-multimodal-project

Afraid I have repeatedly tried to find the exact plans through public channels.  It is always an unending nightmare.

I have spent several months trying to write a detailed and VERY LONG analysis.  Afraid I do not have the time right now, before the October 30, 2020 comment due date this time.

2.    Update, October 24, 2020.

Phil Barber has passed on to me a Boston Globe report from October 6 which was in an email to him.

According to the Boston Globe, Boston University is offering use of some of its land for the rebuild.  The report is prior to the presentation above, but was not mentioned in the presentation.

The Globe report quoted from Boston University but BU’s offer was not specific as to the amount of land.

The Globe stated:

* * * *

BU hopes the land from its campus would provide enough room to move construction work inland from the river while squeezing in the eight-lane turnpike, four-lane Soldiers Field Road, two adjacent rail lines, and a riverfront recreational path - all at grade level.

* * * *

Note that the quotation DOES NOT MENTION access changes to the Grand Junction in Cambridge, something which MassDOT has repeatedly fought against..

Here is a crop provided in one MassDOT slide of the relevant portion of a cross-section of the project from the ARCHITECTS GROUP with modifications already.  This slide is looking eastward, the same direction as the last three photos above.

Note the construction on stilts in the Charles River on the left. 

The issue would appear to be whether the BU property being offered would be sufficient to move the construction out of the Charles River.  Note, however, that the ARCHITECT GROUP includes access to and work on the Grand Junction for the related environmental destruction there.

As I said, MassDOT does not want the destructive Grand Junction work.

Friday, October 16, 2020

Recent Charles River Outrages by Cambridge, Part 1, The Current Poisoning of the Charles River

Recent Charles River Outrages by Cambridge, Part 1, The Current Poisoning of the Charles River

I. Introduction.

A few weeks ago, the Cambridge City Council demonstrated their most important tactic in their ongoing attacks on the Charles River: lying about which side they are on.

I have mailed (no in hand because of the Trump Disease) a 32 page response which sketchingly provides part of the very terrible record of this very destructive body in a city which expects exactly the opposite.

Following is the first part of this letter.  It will be reproduced in full.  Regrettably, the app in this blog cannot recreate the beauty of so many EXTREMELY LARGE photos.  They are more damning than what I can do here, but I do what I can do.

The following letter is on the letterhead of Friends of the White Geese, which bears the following message:  

* * * *

An Attorney General Registered Charitable Organization since 2001, Defending the Charles River, its Animals, Trees and Water From destructive Governmental Entities..

* * * *

This does not provide all of section 1 of the letter.  Too long itself.

II. Part 1: The Current Poisoning of the Charles River.

1. Latest Nonsense.

2. Poisoning of the Charles.

A. Destruction Rewarded.

B. Destruction Coming.

3. City Council Direct Destruction.

A. Destroyed Boat Dock.

B. Ongoing and accelerating riverbank and tree destruction.

4. Core Destruction in the Magnificent Park.

5. Destruction of the Excellence at the Overpass.

6. Destruction in January 2016.

7. Coming destructive of magnificent woods PRAISED with deniability.

8. Destruction coming, care of the replacement (?) point person, the Harvard Square Destroyer.

9. Coming Destruction apparently being prevented by the CEO of MassDOT?

Gentlemen / Ladies:

RE: City Council claims of concern for the Charles belied by the City Council’s record, the poisoning of the Charles, massive vegetation & animal harm, and sought outrages in the I90 Rebuild

1. Latest Nonsense.

Order 7 of September 21, 2020 is yet another example of extreme hypocrisy on the part of the Cambridge City Council.  The council, YET AGAIN, piously proclaims concern for the Charles River AGAINST THE OTHER GUYS.

The lovely concerns are blatantly belied by many actions by the City of Cambridge including by explicit votes by the Cambridge City Council.  Thus, these lovely concerns WITH THEIR EXTREME HYPOCRISY certainly look like the Cambridge City Council is doing little more OF MEANING than lying ONCE AGAIN to its voters about which side the Cambridge City Council is on.

On page 1 [ed.: above] is a photo of the Charles River Poisoner blocking the EXPENSIVE drain system created by the City Council and the Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation to prevent poisoning of the Charles with poisons which the City Council and the DCR should not even be using on the banks of the Charles.  She did this WITH CITY OF CAMBRIDGE ASSISTANCE PICKING UP- DESTROYED VEGETATION.

Here is a drone footage of the poison drainage area which was blocked by the Charles River Poisoner AS AGENT FOR THE DCR WITH CITY OF CAMBRIDGE assistance.  It is taken from minute 10.26 of “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw.

Here is Phil Barber’s photo of 5/2/18 of the land next to the upper left of the poison blockage area shown above.

There is even a sign posted in the area from the Department of Conservation and Recreation BRAGGING that blocking the drainage would result in poisoning of the Charles River.  It does not mention the wildlife and humans being poisoned by this outrageous use by the Cambridge City Council and the DCR.

On this page and following are photos of some of the results of the poisoning which the City Council has rewarded with its funding of her hiring, photos courtesy Phil Barber.  

This sort of outrage is exactly what the Cambridge City Council falsely CLAIMED TO OPPOSE by Order 7 of September 21, 2020.  

These Charles River Photos were taken September 2018, the season before THE FIRST SEASON it became obvious in that part of the Charles cherished by organized Friends of the DCR.  The Friends of the DCR are allegedly concerned about the area east of Magazine Beach. 

The actual poisoning which the City Council has rewarded occurred in December 2017 in Cambridge WITH ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, funding and provided through the principle of the Charles River Poisoner, the DCR.  The poisoning became noticeable at Magazine Beach and off it in 2018.  In 2019 and 2020 it has been visible in the area being yelled about by FRIENDS OF THE DCR who, of course, never identify the DCR, the villain for whom the Charles River Poisoner was doing the poisoning.  


It is not possible to tell if the Charles River Poisoner is still point person on Charles River Destruction since the most recent outrage was led by the Harvard Square Destroyer.

Both outrages are related inasmuch as the biggest beneficiary of the coming Harvard Square Destruction is Harvard University.  The Harvard Square Destroyer is, but never mentions it, an employee of Harvard University.  In her fight for destruction on the Charles, she stated that the outrage she supported (and which was voted for by the Cambridge City Council, at least in part) was supported by Harvard.

The poisons which the Charles River Poisoner rerouted into the Charles River are poisons first introduced into the environment of the Charles River in the late 2000's when the City Council and the DCR replaced the ONE HUNDRED PLUS YEAR LONG responsible maintenance of grass at Magazine Beach with poison maintenance.  The manager of the project was the previous City Manager before his promotion.  The award of funds for further environmental destruction included praise for this outrage and encouragement to follow up on it.