“Non profit” wants to gold plate the Boston / lower end of the Charles River

Ellen Schloss has posted a link on the facebook page at http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1402556&format=comments#CommentsArea to the Boston Herald’s report on one of the typical non profit’s proposal for the Boston Esplanade on the south side of the Charles River and for the Charles River Dam area.

The non profit claims to love the peace and the beauty of the Charles. The Boston Herald link very prominently shows their proposal for a Ferris Wheel dominating the skyline at the Charles River Dam overwhelming the Museum of Science.

And the non profits, as a group, will keep on telling you how lovely they are. And their proposals are always called "improvements" or the like.

Alewife destruction progresses

Next Monday, February 13, 2012, the Cambridge Conservation Commission will consider a “Request to Amend Order of Conditions” with regard to 150 and 180 CambridgePark Drive.

This is the office project that was delayed because of the Great Recession.

This office project is on top of the parking lot where flood protection for the Alewife Reservation should be placed, across the street from the Cambridge/DCR created strip mine that used to be an irreplaceable forest.

If those buildings go there without the flood protection under them, the Cambridge Pols will have “no choice” but to finish the destruction of the Alewife Reservation for flood storage.

In related news, the falsely named “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” no longer is visible in “fighting to save” the nearby “Silver Maple Forest”, the privately owned property subject to the usual Don Quixote type fight to distract concerned people from the real action, the fully savable Alewife Reservation. The "non profits" are using a different name now and no longer apparently even use the word “Alewife.”

Alewife is fully savable except for the related non profits, fake groups normal in Cambridge, MA, politics which regularly control the population and achieve a lot of environmental destruction.

So a “reprehensible” city government (to quote that civil rights judge) looks like it is getting its destruction, and North Cambridge, Arlington and Belmont neighbors will not find out they have been chasing their tails until it is “too late.”

Oh, and the Cambridge City Council keeps up its very much non stop efforts to “save the world” just as long as the voters do not look at them destroying Cambridge and related environment.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission meeting is of no real significance. The key forum is the Cambridge City Council, which is protected by the massive Cambridge Pol machine.

The core Alewife reservation can still be saved. The acres of destruction which occurred in the last few months can be undone by allowing nature to restore itself.

Those buildings go up without the flood storage and the Alewife reservation will be gone.

Oh, and the “Silver Maple Forest”? A long shot at best, made even longer by support for destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

Orders to review Cambridge City Manager’s contract and to replace retiring Cambridge City Clerk Placed on File

We had a disagreement with the Cambridge Chronicle on the handling of one of the three orders considered by the Cambridge City Council concerning the employment situation of the Cambridge City Manager and the replacement of the retiring Cambridge City Clerk.

My resolution of the employment situation is to fire the Cambridge City Manager for Monteiro and hire the retiring Cambridge City Clerk to act as acting Cambridge City Manager pending international search for a new City Manager.

The third motion, which passed, appointed Donna Lopez, City Clerk Drury’s current number 2 person as Interim City Clerk because of the anticipated late February retirement and to empower the two to set up an orderly transition.

Two motions (1) to establish procedures with regard to the City Manager’s expiring contract and (2) with regard to establishing procedures to replace the City Clerk were initiated by Cambridge City Councilor Kelley and were delayed to last Monday’s meeting (2/6/12) by Councilor Davis under her powers under the city charter.

Kelley was out of state on Monday and no other councilor brought up the orders. The two orders, in accordance with the Charter provision, were automatically placed on file.

The Monteiro decision concerned the City Manager’s firing of Department Head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. Very strong communications were written by a panel of the Appeals Court and by the Superior Court trial judge, plus there was an award of $3.5 million PENAL damages by the jury in addition to $1.1 million real damages. The judicial comments clearly established grounds to fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.

Response to Sea Island Defense

1. Response to Sea Island Defense.
2. Your Editor.


1. Response to Sea Island Defense.

Dear Mr. La Trémouille,

Thank you ever so much for picking our concerns up on your blog. I am the retired Altamaha Riverkeeper®, well at least almost retired. Having said that, if you care about our wildlife and natural resources you can never totally retire. Before I became the Altamaha Riverkeeper® I worked as a blue crab commercial fisherman on the coast of Georgia for almost 25 years until we formed the Altamaha Riverkeeper®, Inc. (ARK) in 1999. We formed the ARK because the State of Georgia had lost site of what our natural resources mean to us as a people. Without going into a long writing spell you can just about figure the rest out for yourself. Just wanted you to know a little bit about us and how much we appreciate your assistance.

Again, thank you very much,

James Holland

P.S.
To learn more about the Altamaha Riverkeeper® go on their web site at www.altamahariverkeeper.org.
To learn more about me and what I care for go on my web site www.jamesrhollandphotography.com/blog.

2. Your Editor.

The parallels between the two situations are striking, except that our enemies have very bad records both on the Charles and in the not too far away Alewife reservation where they indulged in large scale environmental destruction and mass animal killing for "flood storage" the project could not deliver and which could be achieved across the street under a parking lot.

The non profit in that situation was a fake group which fits patterns of fake groups which are associated with Cambridge.

And thank you for friending the Charles River White Geese.

Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?

1. A good friend: Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?
2. Editor’s Reply.

1. A good friend: Why publicize the Charles River “Conservancy”’s Money?

A good friend posted the following question on facebook in response to our partial posting of the funders of the Charles River “Conservancy.”

*********

Robert, I am not clear what this posting is about! Plz clarify in simple terms. The White Geese at the Charles R extremely important 2 me.--thank u Robert!

2. Editor’s Reply.

This posting is a direct response to the posting concerning Sea World below.

The Sea World destruction very closely fits the attacks on the Charles River.

There are a lot of “non profits” whose behavior is destructive.

Some, like the Charles River “Conservancy” are blatant falsehoods. This group is belligerently destructive of the environment. There is a very real problem with groups claiming to be holier than thou who really are not.

The very big problem is their fooling well meaning people into hurting the cause they claim to stand for.

Like so many activists in Cambridge, it is impossible to tell the difference, at face value, from the knaves and those who have been fooled.

One way to try to do so is follow the money.

The good guys will run away from groups running false colors. The bad guys will stay there.

Another interesting point in the funders are the educational institutions which benefit greatly and have been quite active in environmental destruction on the Charles River. These institutions very consistently lie to their students about their environmental destructiveness. Their false colors are a very major factor in fooling well meaning people into destroying the environment.

Selected Non Profits Funding Charles River “Conservancy”

The following is a partial list of nonprofits contributing to the environmentally destructive and falsely named Charles River Conservancy.

This is taken from an attachment to a Fall 2011 fundraising letter bragging, among other things about their fight for a new small vehicle highway on and in the Charles River on the Cambridge side. This major initiative (and not mentioned any more than they can help) would destroy hundreds of healthy trees, wetlands, and animal habitat including major portions of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

The CRC’s highway construction has been rejected as environmentally destructive in a joint report by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The CRC’s list is preceded with the comment: “We are grateful to our corporate sponsors and to the foundations who have supported us over the last 18 months.”

VERY prominently displayed at the top of the list are the following logos:

The Boston Foundation
Intersystems
WilmerHale
Massachusetts Environmental Trust
Bank of America
Fidelity Investiments
Converse

The first two groupings are:

*********

Visionary

Anonymous
George H. and Jane A. Mifflin Memorial Fund
Harold Whitsworth Pierce Charitable Trust

Rejeuvenator

Bilesikian Family Foundation
Elizabeth Taylor Fessenden Foundation
Mahoney’s Garden Center
National Grid Foundation
REI
Sanoli Aventis/Genzyme

*********

Elsewhere on the list are Harvard University, MIT Community Service Fund, Harvard Business School, Boston University and the New England College of Optometry.

Leading Nonprofits Join Sea Island in Destroying Critical Habitat in Marsh Buffer

The following link has the stench of the environmental destruction on the Charles River, right down to “non profits” fighting for environmental destruction.

http://www.protectthemarsh.org.

The title is “Leading Nonprofits Join Sea Island in Destroying Critical Habitat in Marsh Buffer.”

The Charles River Conservancy is lying with its name, but the stench is the same and it is by far not the only actor using “non profit” status. I have its publication of its contributor list.

Fortunately, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation is standing up to the small vehicle highway outrage on the Charles River. It seems to have roped the Department of Conservation and Recreation into a responsible position on that highway but DCR and Cambridge are very, very destructive on their own.

WHY WE LOVE THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE

Archie Mazmanian comments:

Yesterday's (2/5/12) NYTimes Sunday Review section features "Why We Love Zoos" by Diane Ackerman. Here's the closing paragraph:

"What a lonely species we are, searching for signals of life from other galaxies, adopting companion animals, visiting parks and zoos to commune with other beasts. In the process we discover our shared identity. We flock to zoos for many reasons, not least to shed some of the burden of being human."

Zoos are indeed great places to go to. But so is our jewel of the Charles River where for many years we - and especially our children - could enjoy the Charles River White Geese in what ha d developed into a seemingly natural habitat. There were no bars or cages. We did not interfere with the Goose Ghetto, respecting their privacy. But we shared the Charles River with them in mutual respect. Will the Goose Ghetto be restored? Will the destructive vegetation along the banks interfering with the CRWG use of the Charles River be eliminated? Will we once again reside in harmony with the CRWG?

Imagine 50 or a 100 years from now yet another misguided governmental effort to eliminate some other Charles River fauna. Perhaps these government officials might think: "Who remembers the CRWG?"

Let's not forget.

Conflict with Cambridge Chronicle City Council Report: We were right.

I did a double take on reading the report of the Cambridge Chronicle on Monday night’s Cambridge City Council meeting.

We reported that two of the three motions concerning the future of the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Clerk were delayed until the next meeting by Councilor Davis’ exercise of her rights under the Cambridge City Charter.

The only motion to pass was the one appointing Donna Lopez as Interim City Clerk given the stated intention of City Clerk D. Margaret Drury to retire at the end of February. The motion authorized the two to establish transition procedures.

The Chronicle, on page 2 of yesterday’s (February 2, 2012) edition reported that the motion passed which established procedures concerning the future of the Cambridge City Manager. I have not checked, but it is likely the on line equivalent is the same.

The conflict in the reports was a matter of distress to me because the council, by voting to suspend its rules after I left the meeting, could have brought the two “charter righted” orders up and passed them.

I have checked the on line report of the City Clerk and determined that my report is correct.

The report is at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/PolicyOrderList.cfm. The orders “charter righted” are orders 4 and 5. The order passed is motion 6.

Action on Cambridge (MA) City Manager Deferred; Action taken on City Clerk Retirement

Last night, January 30, 2012, the Cambridge City Council had in front of it three proposed actions with regard to the Cambridge City Manager, Robert Healy, and with regard to my choice for acting city manager, Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

The three motions were:

1. Councilor Kelley’s motion to set up a committee to start looking for a new city clerk in light of her impending retirement, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33957.

2. Councilor Kelley’s motion to set up a committee to set up review of the Cambridge City Manager’s status and to discuss his intentions with regard to another contract with him, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33958.

3. Councilor Maher’s motion to appoint Donna Lopez as Interim City Clerk in light of Ms. Drury’s anticipated retirement on February 29, 2012, and to authorize Drury and Lopez to plan the transition, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33977.

Councilor Kelley’s motions were deferred to the next meeting by Councilor Davis’s exercise of her rights under the Cambridge Charter.

Councilor Kelley informed the City Council that he would not be attending next Monday’s meeting but would be amenable to a special meeting earlier than that with regard to the election of the mayor (that city councilor who functions as the chair of the city council and school committee).

Councilor Maher’s motion seemed to pass without negative comment although there were comments from the the councilor sitting as the chair (Councilor Reeves) that confused me.

Donna Lopez is highly qualified to succeed Margaret Drury as Cambridge City Clerk.

Alternates to Cambridge City Manager

1. Introduction.
2. Ellen’s suggestion.
3. Editor’s response.
4. Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.


1. Introduction.

Earlier today, I reported that the Cambridge, MA, City Council seems to be in the process of starting the process of determining whether they will rehire the Cambridge City Manager.

My evaluation is that they should, long ago, have obeyed the directions of the courts and fired him. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-cambridge-ma-usa-city-council.html.

This should link to my YouTube posting on this matter dating back to August 15, 2010, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

2. Ellen’s suggestion.

Ellen responded on facebook:

bob you would make a super city manager - have you thought about it?

3. Editor’s response.

Thank you very much.

Regrettably, we are talking about employment by the Cambridge City Council whose record is strikingly antithetical to the pious claims of sainthood which are very much non stop from the members and their massive machine.

I believe very strongly in what they claim to stand for.

That is a very major point of disqualification.

4. Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

My choice for acting city manager is Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

Margaret Drury is highly respected in the City of Cambridge for good reason. She runs her office well and efficiently. She would be a breath of fresh air.

It is rumored that she is considering retirement at the end of January 2012.

My posting on firing the Cambridge City Manager is dated August 2010. If Cambridge had a responsible city council, a very clean replacement of Healy could have occurred with permission of Court, before the Appeals Court decision.

I do not know just how badly the extreme irresponsibility of the Cambridge City Council has messed things up by failing to act.

I am of the strong opinion, not having discussed anything with Margaret, that finishing off her career as Acting City Manager while the City Council conducts the usual international search would be a major coup by which she could top off her career and probably increase her pension.

I would hope that it can still be maneuvered.

Will the Cambridge, MA, USA City Council rehire the Cambridge City Manager?

Order number O-5 from the Cambridge City Council’s agenda for this coming Monday evening, January 30, 2012 may be read at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33958.

City Councilor Craig Kelley is starting the process of considering whether or not the Cambridge City Manager should be reappointed.

Exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council have expressed interest in implementing the decisions of the Appeals Court panel (“ample evidence [of] outrageous actions”) and the Trial Court Judge (“reprehensible”) and Jury ($3.5 million PENAL damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages) in Monteiro v. Cambridge.

Exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council have suggested the Cambridge City Manager should be fired without golden parachute and possibly without pension in implementation of these very strong judicial communications with regard to City Manager’s Healy’s destruction of the life of department head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Report on Conditions at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese

I was at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese at dusk today, January 24.

All of the staging was gone from under Memorial Drive. No offices, no vehicles, nothing was left THERE.

There were three vehicles left in the Destroyed Nesting Area east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. One small truck was left next to the BU Bridge in the northern portion of the cleared land. There were two other small vehicles all the way in at the eastern end of the northern area, the area which was quite simply not needed and which did great environmental damage. There were some smaller items in the area around the two vehicles.

Many members of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese were grouped between the two vehicles and the big tree they usually huddle under. There were geese resting in the staging / construction zone south of the two vehicles.

I also saw some White Geese in the Charles River and in that portion of the Goose Meadow next to the Charles River but also next to the 50 foot wasteland created for the BU Bridge work. That wasteland was empty south of the parked small truck.

The western side of the BU Bridge still had two large machines on the sidewalk but, while I watched, a bicycle was operated on the sidewalk between the two machines and the Charles River.

The fencing along the BU Bridge side of the Destroyed Nesting Area has been replaced, as has the fencing on the western side of the bridge. The new fencing was identical on both sides, vaguely historical in nature. The new fencing on the western side was extremely close in construction to fencing on that side which connected to it and which was next to the pollution plant. This older fencing had been there, perhaps, since the 80’s or so.

A very nice woman chatted with me while I was watching the White Geese. She strongly condemned the people who have been so heartlessly abusing the Charles River White Geese. We chatted about what kind of person would stoop to such behavior.

This is a normal human being. She is strikingly different from the tiny minority who are the Cambridge Pols. But my times at the Destroyed Nesting Area indicate that she is a normal human. It has always been refreshing to get away from the rotten situation which passes for the norm when you are dealing with the Cambridge Pols.

There are signs (perhaps my imagination) that nature is healing itself in the construction area. Clearly the rest of the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has seen its ground vegetation destroyed and it did not regrow. That indicates poisons, by, very clearly, the Charles River Conservancy.

My gut feel is that the work area will regrow if humans will remove their intrusions. Run the new fence in front of the entries illegally created by Boston University in 1999 and you might give nature a change to heal itself. The poisoned area might need more work although the tiny, very vital growth areas by the construction zone have seemed to expand on their own.

The Charles River Conservancy missed destroying these vibrant areas figuring the construction zone would kill them, and they survived.

Perhaps all that is needed is to leave nature alone and let nature heal the ravages of truly irresponsible government entities.

Further information on Highway Proposal in the Charles River and on its banks. Telling source of information.

1. Update on report.
2. Telling source.


1. Update on report.

I missed part of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy”’s January newsletter.

My quote was based on introductory material only.

The following is quoted from later in the newsletter:

***********

The exchange of the 35 stakeholders at the Issue Forum held on December 15th and moderated by former Governor [ed: omitted to protect a possible victim] was very productive. State Rep. Marty Walz made a strong start by saying that the 2016 deadline that MassDOT claims exists, is a self-imposed policy and NOT a legislative mandate. That means there IS more time to carefully plan these bridges AND add underpasses where needed as this is a chance that will not come back for several generations.

***********

“Carefully plan” is more euphemistic garbage. Buried in the euphemism is the flat out lie that MassDOT and the DCR do not know what they are talking about.

The CRC/Cambridge highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks was clearly reviewed and rejected by MassDOT and the DCR in a separate report as environmentally destructive.

These destructive people want to lie to bystanders and get fooled bystanders to object and reverse a very responsible decision.

My prior report may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/former-governors-name-misused-by.html.

Representative Walz fits the Cambridge pol mode brilliantly although she lives in Boston.

Lots of lovely words come out of Walz. Lots of destruction is implemented by Walz.

2. Telling source.

This paragraph was pointed out by a person on the Cambridgeport list.

She previously put out severe misinformation on the same list on the Alewife destruction after I reported the initial part of the destruction.

The misinformation flatly and simply said that the initial destruction, although shockingly destructive on its own, was minor. She further communicated that no further destruction is coming.

This is the way the Cambridge Machine works.

The machine scratches each others backs and delays or misdirects the good guys by any tactic possible, anything to get their beloved destruction accomplished.

Former Governor’s name misused by Environmental Destroyers?

It is very difficult for well meaning people to do business with the environmental destroyers floating around the Charles River and related target areas.

I have just gotten yet another communication from the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” that a former governor chaired one of their gatherings concerning their highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks.

A number of key questions:

1. Was the former governor informed that the name of the organization, Charles River “Conservancy”, is a blatant lie because their aggressive destructive behavior is anything but the behavior of a “Conservancy”?

2. Was the former government informed that the state Department of Transportation (MassDOT) along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation have condemned their highway proposal for being environmentally destructive?

3. Was the former governors informed of the heartless animal abuse, particularly toward the Charles River White Geese, which is part of the proposal and a continuation of past attacks by the same people?

4. Was the former governor informed that the proposal includes destruction of hundreds of healthy, excellent trees?

5. Was the former governor informed of the decimation of the excellent 104 tree grove of trees at the Memorial Drive split which is part of their highway plan?

6. Was the former governor informed that the highway on the Boston side which their highway proposal duplicates has signs up warning people of muggings and rapes if people use that highway at night?

7. Was the former governor informed that the DCR

A. Has tried to get Obama moneys for the destruction of many of the same trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge;

B. That the DCR lied that all the trees they are destroying are sickly;

C. That the DCR’s filings with the City of Cambridge proved the sickly statements to be a flat out lies;

D. That the Cambridge filings, the proof of the flat out lie, was given to Governor Patrick;

E. And that the DCR does not seem to have gotten the Obama moneys for the tree destruction.

8. There have to be a whole bunch of other concepts relevant, but I think this is enough.

Key in the environmental destruction on the Charles and related areas is gross misbehavior by the people fighting for the destruction because, if they are honest, decent people will not work with them.

Nothing new here. Sounds like a former governor got conned by an entity flying under a false name seeking environmental destruction and working through key omissions.

I consider this pattern lying. I have seen too much of it, and I sympathize with the former governor. I strongly respect him. He should not be abused in this manner.

Boston University on BU Bridge Traffic Rearrangement

Archie Mazmanian reports:

Here's link to a BU Today feature: "BU Bridge Project Nearly Finished - Two new lane configurations being tested"

http://www.bu.edu/today/2012/bu-bridge-project-nearly-finished/

providing diagrams of such configurations. Let's hope that winter weather does not cover the lane markings.

[Note: This was brought to my attention by a notice from the Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association.]


ED: We have done a series on this rearrangement. The most recent, with a summary of prior links may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/bu-bridge-work-archie-responds-to-globe.html.

Evaluation of minutes of city council executive committee meetings on the Monteiro case

1. General.
2. Analysis of minutes.
3. Supplement on remaining plaintiffs.

1. General.

The case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is a case in which the jury awarded $3.5 million penal damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages against Cambridge based on its finding that the City Manager destroyed the life of Department Head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The judge’s opinion was scholarly and very effectively destroyed all arguments of the City of Cambridge, including the arguments raised in executive session. The trial judge’s key opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

The key word used by the trial judge which summarizes the situation was “reprehensible.”

On appeal, the Appeals Court panel reacted to the appeal with disgust. It refused to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion, commenting that there was “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The appeals court opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

There has been considerable press on the failure to release the minutes of the city council discussions of the case including administrative action by the Cambridge Chronicle.

In the Cambridge Chronicle's endorsement editorial with regard to the November city election, the Chronicle specifically lamented the inability of the voters to judge the behavior of individual councilors on Monteiro because of the suppression of the minutes of the executive sessions.

The minutes of the executive sessions are posted at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/Monteiro_sessions.pdf.

2. Analysis of minutes.

The minutes, for almost all practical purposes, are useless.

The only meetings for which substantive comments are reported in any real detail are the last two meetings: the August 19, 2011 meeting at which the City Manager reported the Appeals Court decision to the city council and September 26, 2011 meeting at which a vote was taken on suppressing the minutes of the executive sessions.

In general, while, on occasion, there are talking points stated, who said what is not stated, nor is the extent to which there was meaningful support communicated of any of the stated positions.

The August 19, 2011 goes into apparent detail quoting the city manager’s report to the city council.

On September 26, 2011, the last executive session, there is report of the following vote:

*******

The question came on whether to uphold the Mayor’s decision that the Monteiro case is still pending such that disclosure of the executive session minutes may have a detrimental effect on the City’s legal position in the remainder of the case and therefore the reason for nondisclosure still pertains.

The roll was called and the results were as follows:

Yeas: Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Seidel, Councillor Toomey and Mayor Maher

Nays: Councillor Cheung, Councilor Decker, Councillor Reeves and Councillor Simmons

And the motion was passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 4.

*******

The coalition on either side of the vote is striking in particular for the vote of Councillor Kelley. Kelley has run in such a way as to give the impression that he is the only opponent to the Cambridge City Manager. But his vote could be considered the swing vote to keep things secret.

3. Supplement on remaining plaintiffs.

The Cambridge Chronicle has reposted its analysis of the final two actions in the five related cases of which the most visible case was that of Malvina Monteiro. It is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x167854483/Details-exposed-on-Cambridge-discrimination-case#axzz1jr1zSjnr.

Cambridge, MA Releases Monteiro Records from Executive Sessions

Cambridge Day has posted on line the just release records of the Cambridge City Council’s executive committee meetings on the Monteiro case.

They may be read at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/Monteiro_sessions.pdf.

Fake Environmental Group “Clarifies” Meeting to Sugar Coat Destruction of Core Alewife Reservation

1. General.
2. Meeting for the key Alewife destroyer to lie to people.
3. Analysis of Call to Meeting.
4. Analysis of organizers.


1. General.

The reality of the very destructive situation in the City of Cambridge is that the tactics used to destroy the Core Alewife Reservation are not at all unusual.

The difference from the norm at Alewife is that the tactics and their result were so blatant.

The Cambridge Pols also aggressively create other “environmental” organizations. The common feature is that the Cambridge Pols keep their “environmental organizations” from meaningful concern for the environment.

Environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse which is so normal and so reprehensible among the government and elected officials of the City of Cambridge is kept out of meaningful discussion except to try to fool good people into fighting for environmental destruction or heartless animals abuse.

2. Meeting for the key Alewife destroyer to lie to people.

One of the fake environmental groups claims to be concerned about Cambridgeport. It has routinely suppressed meaningful discussion of the many outrages on the Charles River.

Tuesday night, January 17, they are giving the mike to the woman who ran around for 15 years loudly proclaiming that she was defending Alewife. She spent 15 years telling people to look at everything except for the totally unnecessary and totally avoidable plans of her friends for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation. Now she is running around praising the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

These people and others helped her in her destruction of the core Alewife reservation exactly the way they are helping her pave over the destructiveness and irresponsibility of her achievement. They praised her as a responsible and progressive activist.

The following is their description of this latest fake presentation.

************

The main focus of this presentation will be the storm water wetlands restoration project. The impact of the proposed removal of the silver maple forest on the storm water project has not yet been scientifically established. The forum may include discussion of the silver maple forest and likely impacts of its removal, but with clarity that there is no scientific claim that removal of the forest will ruin the stormwater project.

*************

This presentation is the usual type of lie out of the Cambridge Machine.

3. Analysis of Call to Meeting.

Notice the euphemism “the removal of the forest” with regard to private property away from the core Alewife reservation. They do not even use this euphemism with regard to the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the “storm water wetlands restoration project” cannot achieve its publicly stated goals, that of protecting North Cambridge from massive storms.

North Cambridge needs protection from flooding as the result of major storms. Alewife has seen two fifty year storms in the past twenty years.

Their destruction of acres of excellent forest and killing of hundreds or thousands of resident animals will protect against two year storms.

There is a very big difference between protecting against the worst possible storm in 50 years and protecting against the worst possible storm in 2 years.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the goals of the “storm water wetlands restoration project” can easily be accomplished without massive destruction of an irreplaceable forest and mass killings of valuable animals. The storm water protection can be provided by building under the massive parking lot across the street, and by coordinating the storm water protection with office building construction there on air rights. But the developer will go forward with or without the storm water protection.

So the fake environmental protectors by sugar coating the current totally unnecessary destruction are working for further, larger destruction because the project will not work without further, larger destruction.

4. Analysis of organizers.

And the organizers will run around lying that they are environmental saints.

And the organizers will run around lying that the Cambridge government and elected officials are environmental saints.

As the civil rights judge said “reprehensible.”

Environmentally destructive “Conservancy” vows to fight on

1. General.
2. Mass Tree Destruction and Highway Initiatives on the Charles River.
3. Update on attempts at destruction.


1. General.

The destructive parties in Cambridge commonly fight for their ends through fake groups which give people the wrong impression of which side they are on.

The most recent example is the outrageous environmental destruction and mass animal killing in the Alewife reservation as part of supposed flood protection project which, upon close questioning, cannot achieve its stated ends. The project managers and friends do not want to know about the massive parking lot directly across the street, CambridgePark Drive which can achieve the flood control needs of Alewife.

Crucial in this destruction was a fake protective group which calls itself a protector of Alewife, and which spent 15 years telling well meaning people to look at everything except the totally avoidable destruction which has just been accomplished.

The correlative of this fake organization on the Charles River calls itself a Conservancy, and the use of the word “Conservancy” is a blatant lie.

This group, with major developer funding, including from Harvard, has been fighting for more than ten years for environmental destruction and the destruction of resident animals on the Charles River.

2. Mass Tree Destruction and Highway Initiatives on the Charles River.

The Charles River “Conservancy” was the lead in a fight for an outrageously irresponsible highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks in Cambridge which would be built in the Charles under four historical bridges, the BU Bridge and bridges to its west, the River Street Bridge, and the Anderson Bridge plus under a pedestrian bridge between the last two bridges.

This outrageous proposal would increase the irresponsible environmental destruction at Magazine Beach, under the BU Bridge and in the goose meadow with corresponding increase in the heartless abuse of the valuable 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.

This proposal would be key in the decimation of an excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split.

The highway proposal is key in the plans to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge east of the BU Bridge.

This proposal would duplicate a small vehicle highway on the Boston side which sees overnight closings because of rapes and muggings.

Fortunately, responsible people have stepped in to interfere with the outrageously irresponsible City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Governor Patrick was provided with the DCR plans for the tree destruction as part of the DCR’s attempts to get Obama money for the tree destruction. The DCR was lying that all the trees were diseased. Their lie was proven by their own plans, filed with the City of Cambridge.

The irresponsible highway proposal was called “environmentally destructive” in a report by a joint committee of the Department of Transportation and Recreation and the DCR. Their report recommended against the new highway.

3. Update on attempts at destruction.

The fake “Conservancy” has not given up.

They have announced on their facebook page intention to conduct planning meetings to organize for their destructive efforts on the highway proposal in January and February.

They state: “CRC . . . will present the recommendations [of its organizing meetings] to Mass DOT at the 25% design presentation for the River Street and Western Avenue Bridge projects, anticipated for February.”

Their destructiveness is bad enough. The false name is even more outrageous.

Cambridge Chronicle Op Ed: Republican Leader Cynical about Harvard’s Greenness

1. Op Ed questioning Harvard Environmentalism.
2. Application.
3. Related fake environmental group.
4. Proposed destruction of hundreds of trees lining Memorial Drive.
5. Summary.


1. Op Ed questioning Harvard Environmentalism.

The Cambridge Chronicle regularly publishes a column written by the city’s Republicans. This week’s report is posted at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1015660787/The-Right-View-Harvard-s-deep-green-pockets#axzz1jS50y4oR.

There is a lot to be said about the comments.

Harvard’s excuse for greenness, as quoted and objected to by the author, rings very true.

The ring is that of the lies of environmental sainthood coming from the Cambridge City Council.

2. Application.

At no point does there appear in the Harvard words described by the Republican even the slightest concern for the most basic environmental dangers: the destructiveness of the environment by Cambridge and by one key state agency, the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Cambridge and the DCR are fighting to kill off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. Bizarre projects during the last ten years have gone a long distance in that direction. Their goal looks very much like they are converting all remaining wilderness into something that looks like a college campus.

Harvard is massively expanding on south side of the Charles River and has presented plans to have the state subsidize its expansion. Killing off all animals certainly sounds like that.

I recall that, when the attacks on the Charles River White Geese were just starting, people were running around Harvard bragging that they would replace them with “better” animals, ones without bodily functions. Since lacking bodily functions is patently impossible, that very clearly stated the goals of the organizers for the Charles River.

3. Related fake environmental group.

A fake environment group receiving funds from Harvard and other developers calls itself the Charles River “Conservancy.” It neglects to mention that its use of the word “conservancy” is a flat out lie since it supports the mass animal abuse and massive proposed destruction of trees, plus it runs around destroying ground vegetation and bordering vegetation, totally indifferent to the impact on resident or visiting animals. It very consistenly supports the destructive stuff being done on the Charles.

The CRC held a “swim in” to celebrate the outrages at Magazine Beach. It somehow seems to think that walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles Rive and dumping poisons on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly introduced grass are environmentally beneficial. The CRC sniffs at the idea of resident animals.

The CRC was the most visible advocate of the highway in and abutting the Charles River which was condemned by the state as environmentally irresponsible. Key in the state opposition is the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, a responsible agency which apparently shamed DCR into behaving responsibly as well.

The CRC is key in the current efforts to “protect” Magazine Beach which has such a striking resemblance to the tactics the Cambridge Machine used to destroy the core Alewife Reservation, and a total lack of notice of the bizarre wall, the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, the dumping of poisons to keep alive the sickly grass which replaced healthy grass which survived responsibly for the better part of a century. The initiative is pushing the destruction of the lower class picnic area at the foot of Magazine Beach by destroying its tiny, very environmentally integrated parking lot.

I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission flat out shocked by CRC destruction of protective vegetation on their side of the Charles River.

4. Proposed destruction of hundreds of trees lining Memorial Drive.

Cambridge and the DCR are fighting to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge to the east of the BU Bridge. The DCR has even gone so far as to lie that there are no trees to be destroyed except for diseased trees, a lie proven by their filing on the project with the City of Cambridge.

The reality is that this reprehensible project by straightening out Memorial Drive, makes Memorial Drive more fit to accept traffic off I90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) on the off ramp proven possible by the MBTA over the Grand Junction Bridge.

The reality is that the Cambridge Machine very prominently features Harvard types with a very tut tut ness which has supported massive environmental destruction and animal killing in the truly bizarre Alewife project.

Another beneficiary is Massachusetts Institute of Technology in that removal of parking in this area makes access by non MIT people that much more difficult if not nearly impossible, and MIT lines the area of destruction.

Yet another beneficiary is Boston University which started the attacks on the Charles River White Geese by destroying their nesting area in 1999 with violations of law. BU’s Boathouse is directly east of the small wild area. BU regularly uses Magazine Beach for its graduation ceremonies. The highway proposal hopefully killed by MassDOT included a highway connecting Magazine Beach to the goose meadow running in the Charles River.

I have seen official maps which mark the goose meadow as the “BU Triangle.”

Governor Patrick may have stood up to a very visible attempt to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. That is the one is which the DCR lied that they were all diseased, trying to get Obama moneys. Governor Patrick got the proof that they were lying and the money did not come.

But the destroyers are very determine. The plans are not dead.

5. Summary.

So, I am happy to listen to somebody making responsible noises about the environment in Cambridge. It is interesting that the responsible noises are coming from a Republican leader, although Cambridge politics is owned by the democrats, and the Cambridge Machine definitely has major looks resembling the Cambridge Democratic party.

Harvard University attacks affordable tenants, brags it is benefitting them

1. Harvard empire building - general environmental.
2. Harvard empire building - Allston.
3. Harvard empire building - attack on the needy.
4. Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center today.


1. Harvard empire building - general environmental.

Possibly the biggest environmental problem on the Charles River is the empire building of Harvard University.

In the analysis of traffic in the BU Bridge area, I provided a map showing the interrelationship of Harvard’s expansion with the problem of the Charles River White Geese and other resident animals. See http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/traffic-impact-of-bu-bridge-project.html.

Harvard University plans to move the Harvard Medical School to the current location of the Cambridge / Allston exit from I90, the Massachusetts Turnpike and to the adjacent rail yards, Beacon Yard.

Key to their move is moving the I90 exit to the Grand Junction rail bridge under the BU Bridge.

A whole bunch of bizarre and commonly destructive activities are planned or have been done which can very readily be explained as rearranging the north side of the Charles River to receive the relocated exit. The explanations commonly provided are downright bizarre and Harvard always moves secretly.

2. Harvard empire building - Allston.

Just as the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge is associated with other really rotten behavior, as found in legally binding decisions in Monteiro v. Cambridge, Harvard’s behavior has a very real dark side.

So, naturally, Harvard puts out things praising itself.

The relocated Harvard Medical School appears to be very much a long range plan spinning off Harvard’s creation of a new Harvard campus in Allston, which includes the Med School.

Harvard has long owned and occupied the Harvard Business School and Harvard Stadium. These are located between Western Avenue and the Charles River across the Charles River from the Harvard Houses, Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School, and Harvard Square, Cambridge. The Western Avenue Bridge across the Charles River is the second bridge west of the BU Bridge.

Harvard secretly bought a very significant part of Western Avenue in Allston, which is the extension of Western Avenue in Cambridge. Harvard also secretly bought a very significant part of Watertown on the extension of Western Avenue over the Charles River to the west, in Watertown.

Harvard’s plans include a significant hub at the intersection of Western Avenue and North Harvard Street in Allston. North Harvard Street by another name is one of the streets which come together in Harvard Square, Cambridge. On the Allston side of the Charles River, North Harvard Street adjoins Harvard Stadium (on the west) and Harvard Business School (on the east). On the Cambridge side, by a different name, it adjoins Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School (on the west) and the Harvard Houses (on the east).

The studios of WGBH TV, a hub of educational television for perhaps 50 years, were located on the river side of Western Avenue next to Harvard Business School and in a connected building on the south side of Western Avenue. Harvard now owns both buildings. The building on the south side is in the middle of a massive Harvard construction zone. The future Harvard Medical School will be a bit south / east of this construction.

The main WGBH building is separated by one building from a sprawling affordable housing complex built in the 70's. This complex, the Charlesview affordable housing complex, occupies almost all of the area near Harvard’s planned hub at North Harvard and Western.

Harvard has long owned the property on the northwest corner.

3. Harvard empire building - attack on the needy.

There was a very major problem from Harvard’s point of view in the Charlesview housing.

Rumors were that the owner did not want to sell.

One of Harvard’s secret purchases included the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center, a few blocks west of the key Western Avenue / North Harvard Street intersection on the south side of Western Avenue.

Harvard did not rent out stores in the main part of the shopping center as the tenants moved out. Harvard turned the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center into a ghost town by failing to replace departed tenants. Harvard created a situation where the main part of the shopping center, a block long strip shopping area building, was decrepit.

All Harvard did not destroy in the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center through its landbanking were (1) a free standing McDonald’s building facing on Western Avenue, (2) a large super market, Shaw’s / Star Market, set way back from Western Avenue at the far end of but not connected to the destroyed shopping building, and (3) a free standing building at Western Avenue and Everett Street containing a pet store.

This was the shopping center for the needs of the needy folk living in Charlesview. The only other shopping center within walking distance is Harvard Square. Harvard Square has, for many years, not been a viable place for general daily living needs, especially as far as people living in Charlesview would be looking for.

Golly gee.

The owner of Charlesview agreed to move to the Shopping Center.

4. Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center today.

Construction zone. The area which used to hold all those emptied stores has been cleared preparatory for construction.

The McDonald’s is gone. The McDonald’s was a traditional facility, normal size and alignment.

There seems to be a replacement building going up, apparently a much larger McDonald’s. It looks like it will have its back to the moved Charlesview complex.

The super market (and I would invite correction) seems to have changed its name twice.

It was a Star Market. Star Markets were bought by Shaw’s. Shaw's has changed most of the Star Market stores to the Shaw’s name and greatly expanded their size. I am quite certain that this Star Market was expanded and I think its name was changed to Shaw’s. The “Star Market” name has continued on smaller stores in the Cambridge area and perhaps further.

Right now the name Star Market name is back. Could Harvard have forced a decrease in the size of the store to fit its plans?

Quoting from Harvard’s website:

************

The new Charlesview will be constructed on nearly 9 acres of Harvard-owned land in the Brighton Mills Shopping Center, just a few blocks up Western Avenue from the current Charlesview, which the University made available in a mutually beneficial land exchange for the current 4.5-acre site. It will be built in two phases. Phase 1 includes 260 units of affordable housing and home-ownership opportunities, as well as a half-acre park, 14,000 square feet of retail, and a community center. Phase 2 will include 80 home-ownership units.

************

The full Harvard article may be read at http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/05/working-toward-a-new-charlesview/.

It is not at all surprising that the report omits a lot.

Cambridge Chronicle: Praise for Al Vellucci, scorn for the Cambridge, MA Political Machine

I have printed the same proposed letter to the editor twice in this blog.

It was published yesterday, January 5, 2012, by the Cambridge Chronicle, on the editorial page, page 8 in a middle spot with a significant editorial improvement.

The major problem with my letter was the fact that I did not communicate the reason I was motivated to write it.

Two weeks ago, the Chronicle printed a op ed concerning Harvard Yard. It concluded with: “Where are George Orwell and Al Vellucci when you need them?”

I was so pleased with the op ed and its conclusion that I wrote a letter spinning off from the conclusion. I started the letter with my quote of the conclusion. I just neglected to explain where the statement came from.

In my two publications here, I carefully explained where it came from. The Chronicle had no such option. The editor very nicely resolved the problem by omitting the reason why I wrote the letter and titling the letter “Reprehensible.”

I frequently need a good editor. I had one here. I appreciate the improvement and I thank him both for the improvement and for the printing.

It has not been published on line yet. It if is, I will modify this blog accordingly.

The first of my publications of the unedited letter on this blog with a much longer explanation may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/praise-for-al-vellucci-otherwise-for.html. The actual letter was published in section 2 with a lot of explation.

The publication was without the first sentence, and with the title “Reprehensible.”

BU Bridge Work - Archie responds to Globe Editorial

1. Archie Mazmanian’s response.
2. Prior postings.
A. MassDOT, 12/28/11.
B. Your editor, 12/28/11.
C. Archie, 12/29/11.
D. Archie, your editor and a hopefully helpful map, 12/30/11.
E. Globe Editorial, 1/4/12.


1. Archie Mazmanian’s response.

The Boston Globe editorial on the BU Bridge "Lots of pain, small gain" is sort of a day late and a dollar short, suggesting that the Globe has not been following the CRWG Blog. Consider this paragraph:

"Part of the particular frustration with the BU Bridge project is that it is no wider now than before construction. Five-foot wide bike lanes have been added on both sides of the bridge's deck, to the delight of cyclists. But instead of two traffic lanes in each direction, the new configuration reduced the number of traffic lanes from four to three."

Thus, the capacity for motor vehicles over the bridge is reduced by at least 25%, probably more because of the lane changes at various points along the bridge.

The Globe may not be aware of the need to redo the deck over the MA Turnpike Extension on Commonwealth Avenue at the southerly side of the bridge that will impact the Boston side as well as the Cambridge side of the bridge noted in my earlier comment. Will it be feasible to do this in phases to keep traffic flowing over the bridge and on Commonwealth Avenue as well as on the Turnpike Extension below? DOT should hold public meetings to address this, keeping in mind that in my earlier comment Boston University has indicated the deck work would take two construction seasons to complete, to reduce further pain. Time may heal wounds but in the meantime there is pain and other costs to bear.

2. Prior postings.

A. MassDOT, 12/28/11.

We reported MassDOT’s announcement of the project being “substantially complete” at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/massdot-bu-bridge-project-substantially.html.

B. Your editor, 12/28/11.

I reported my observations on the ground at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/bu-bridge-repairs-charles-river-white.html.

C. Archie, 12/29/11.

Archie presented a textual analysis of the impact on the ground at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/bu-bridge-traffic-pattern-in-context.html.

D. Archie, your editor and a hopefully helpful map, 12/30/11.

Archie elaborated on his position, and I presented a map with analysis at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/traffic-impact-of-bu-bridge-project.html.

E. Globe Editorial, 1/4/12.

The Boston Globe’s on line version of their editorial is presented by us at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/boston-globe-on-bu-bridge-work.html.

Boston Globe on BU Bridge work

The Boston Globe has editorialized “lots of pain, small gain” on the nearly completed BU Bridge project. It cited kudos from developer type groups.

Their digest of the editorial may be read at: http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2012/01/04/lots_of_pain_small_gain/.

The full editorial is in the hard copy / on line purchase edition.

The BU Bridge project included significant inexcusable animal abuse targeted at the Charles River White Geese and leaves a big mess of destroyed environment.

Swan deaths reported on WBZ TV, Channel 4 in Boston.

Ellen Schloss reports:

This was also on the 5pm news last night on channel 4.


Ed: For prior posts, please see:

Dead Swans related to DCR / Cambridge Destructiveness?
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/dead-swans-related-to-dcr-cambridge.html.

Swan poisonings, Cambridge / DCR possible connection. Comment from friend.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/swan-poisonings-cambridge-dcr-possible.html.

Friends of the White Geese now PayPal verified.

We have for quite awhile now posted the PayPal “donate” button on the Charles River White Geese Blog.

Contributions are made through the PayPal account and bank account of Friends of the White Geese, a non-profit recognized and registered with the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We will soon complete our eleventh year of registration.

We are now proud to display the “PayPal Verified” seal on the Charles River White Geese Blog.

The biggest environmental problem in the Charles River and other areas around Cambridge, MA, is the nonstop lying of the Cambridge machine that Cambridge pols are a bunch of environmental saints. And the same lying applies to the City of Cambridge and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation.

There are bright spots.

The DCR tried to get Obama moneys to destroy hundreds of healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. They lied that all the targeted trees were diseased. Proof of the lie, the very filings of the DCR with the Cambridge Conservation Commission, were provided to the Governor. They have not YET gotten the money.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) has been highly responsible. Attempts to put passenger service on the Grand Junction railroad which runs through the destroyed nesting area have been tabled. A plan for a highway in the Charles River and on the banks of the Charles River has been killed for now as the environment nightmare it is. The DCR joined in the last decision.

We are getting good publicity.

But the outrages are accumulating.

We, nevertheless, like the so many victims, are the little guy.

The little guy needs money. Meaningful publicity takes lot of money.

Thanks for whatever you can do.

Cambridge, MA announces environmental destruction at Alewife. Neglects to mention it is avoidable and is useless for its stated purpose

The City of Cambridge, MA, has posted on its website acknowledgment of its irresponsible destruction of the core of the Alewife reservation, located just west of the metropolitan Boston subway system’s Alewife station. The reservation abuts the eastern end of the northern of the pair of Massachusetts’ east-west superhighways and directly impacts Belmont and Arlington, each of which own parts of the reservation.

The posting is at http://www.cambridgema.gov/citynewsandpublications/news/2011/12/majorprogressinalewifereservationstormwaterwetlandconstruction.aspx.

Destruction consists of a key 3.4 acres.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention that the Alewife area has seen two fifty year storms in the last twenty years.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention that the project will protect against two year storms.

English translation: a fifty year storm is the worst storm expected in a fifty year period. A two year storm, the worst in a two year period. A very major difference.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention of the massive parking lot directly across the street which could readily be used for the needed purposes.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention that the owner of the key part of the parking lot wants to build, that the buildings could go on air rights above the storage, or that, if he builds first, the only option for meaningful protection against flooding is more environmental destruction.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention of the excellence and irreplaceable nature of the virgin forest so wantonly destroyed.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention of the hundreds of animals needlessly killed for this bizarre project, on top of the bizarre destructive project at nearby Fresh Pond on top of the multiple bizarre, destructive projects on the Charles River.

Boston.com does regularly show the results of the Fresh Pond destruction: wild birds nesting on a nearby office building.

Cambridge, MA, lovely lies of sainthood.

Swan poisonings, Cambridge / DCR possible connection. Comment from friend

Yesterday we passed on facebook exchanges on the finding of more than a dozen dead swans in Westboro, MA, about 30 miles from where Cambridge / DCR are dumping poisons in migratory waterfowl habitat. The posting was at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/dead-swans-related-to-dcr-cambridge.html.

This use of poisons is part of the continuing massive environmental destructiveness, heartless animal abuse and bizarre large scale animal killings by these two.

Anjell has commented:

Outh! Sounds suspicious, need 2 keep on top of investigation! Poor babies! Plz keep informing us about the progress, as well as where 2 go to know more on it-- thank u so much 4 posting. (My heart broke into 2.).

Dead swans related to DCR / Cambridge destructiveness?

1. Introduction.

Ellen Schloss posted a report on her Beaks and Noses facebook page which started from a posting on the CBS Boston (WBZ) page.

It is a reminder that the extreme irresponsibility of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the Charles River and at Alewife is not limited to those areas.

Westboro, MA is about 30 miles west of Cambridge, MA.

2. Ellen Schloss.

More Than A Dozen Swans Found Dead In Westboro Pond.

3. My Comment.

Very much horrible.

Can you provide more details or a link?

4. Ellen.

Sorry this is the correct link
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/12/31/more-than-a-dozen-swans-found-dead-in-westboro-pond/

5. Editor.

Shared with my list.

Thank you Ellen for posting this.

State fisheries are investigating these unexplained deaths.

The report says that there normally are not so many swans in that location. Perhaps it is a migration with problems initiated elsewhere.

The deaths, in themselves, are horrible.

In Cambridge, we get inured to heartless animal abuse. We should not, but our government is very, very destructive and does a lot of lying.

Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation has killed perhaps thousands of animals in their bizarre destruction of the Alewife reservation.

Heartless animal abuse by the two is routine on the Charles River. Their stand ins even brag out the heartlessness on the Charles.

6. Dale.

This year we've also seen untimely deaths of seals, et cetera. I suspect that environmental polution is taking its toll on many species of life.

7. Ellen Schloss.

I wonder if any of these swans came from Cambridge?

8. Your Editor.

Responding to Dale, in Cambridge, they have been killed by massive earth destroying machines as part of a project which clearly cannot achieve its stated purposes of flood protection, flood protection which could be provided by putting it under the parking lot across the street.

Ellen's question has value, at minimum, for two reasons.

A. The DCR through its agent the so called Charles River Conservancy has destroyed pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. It is not coming back, so it has to be poisoned.

B. The DCR and Cambridge have been using poisons on the banks of the Charles River. Poisons dumped near Mass. General have created an annual algae infestation. The two destroyed seven acres of healthy grass at Magazine Beach and replaced it with sickly stuff that will not survive without poisons which they are applying.

The wanton use of poisons on the Charles could very easily poison migratory waterfowl. Additionally, however, these are only uses that I am aware of. It is highly unlikely that their only poison use is in the locations I am aware of.

9. Ellen Schloss.

So unbelievably sad what the authorities are doing to our wild life.

Cambridge councilor to “reflect on” city’s destructiveness

1. Cambridge Councilor Leland Cheung to “reflect on” city’s destructiveness.
2. Translation by your editor.
3. Councilor’s Words.


1. Cambridge Councilor Leland Cheung to “reflect on” city’s destructiveness.

Cambridge City Councilor sent out an broad distribution email.

He encouraged the readers to come to the city council inauguration on January 2, 2012. “I hope to share this special day with you and reflect on what we have accomplished this past term.”

2. Translation by your editor.

I think the best response I can give to this is to quote again the letter I recently submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle. I was very pleased with an op ed which concluded with words very favorable to the late Alfred Vellucci who was a member of the Cambridge City Council and served as the city’s mayor.

Al Vellucci was a quirky long term Cambridge City Councilor who stood up to a lot of behavior of Harvard’s, but, more importantly, stood up to some pretty silly thinking by many people in Cambridge who consider themselves intelligent. He had a term for such people. I forget exactly what it was, but the key thing about Al was common sense. While the people he belittled frequently had trouble recognizing what was occurring to their faces, Al never had problems recognizing the reality about him. The basic mentality was that too many people in Cambridge are too intelligent to recognize reality, finding all sorts of complicated situations when all that was necessary was to look around you and observe.

My proposed letter to the editor read:

******************

Where are George Orwell and Al Vellucci when you need them?

One of the most astute comments in Cambridge in many years.

Al would not explain it this way, but Al was not smart enough to convince himself that the obvious was not true.

A superior court judge responded with “reprehensible” to the Cambridge City Manager destroying a female department head’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The appeals court treated Cambridge’s appeal with disgust by refusing to grant a formal opinion. “Ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.” The jury tacks on $3.5 million PENAL damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages.

The Cambridge Pols cannot believe what is in front of their own eyes. They cannot understand that Healy should be fired for Monteiro.

The Cambridge Pols spent 15 years “defending” Alewife by telling people concerned about Alewife not to look at the totally unnecessary and down right bizarre destruction being planned by Cambridge and its friends. They just cannot understand that protecting North Cambridge against massive flooding from 50 year storms cannot be done with environmental destruction that protects against 2 year storms. They just cannot understand that there is a massive parking lot directly across the street from their new strip mine / former irreplaceable forest. They cannot understand that that massive parking lot can do the flood protection job that their destruction of this irreplaceable treasure cannot do.

The Cambridge Pols cannot see why there is a problem with destroying healthy grass at Magazine Beach which survived most of a century and replacing it with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive. They cannot understand why there is a problem with dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles to keep alive vegetation which should not be there.

They praise swimming in the Charles and cannot understand why there is a problem with walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles with a bizarre wall of introduced bushes.

They condemn Michael Vick and cannot understand why heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese as part of so many bizarre projects is wrong.

They condemn Michael Vick and cannot understand why mass killings of thousands of animals at Alewife is wrong.

Al Vellucci was not smart enough to fool himself as efficiently as the Cambridge Pols insist they are fooled.

Al Vellucci was not smart enough to even consider such nonsense.

**********

Councilor Cheung encouraged the readers to come to the city council inauguration on January 2, 2012. “I hope to share this special day with you and reflect on what we have accomplished this past term.”

3. Councilor’s Words.

I hope you are enjoying the holiday season with family and friends and wish you all the best in the upcoming year. I want to remind you that the City Council Inaugural Meeting on Monday, January 2 at City Hall is free and open to the public. I hope to share this special day with you and reflect on what we have accomplished this past term. Everything leading up to this moment was because of your loyal support and dedication and I won't forget all you have done as I enter in to my second term. Thank you for standing with me and I look forward to working with you next year!

Cambridge Machine tries to recreate history on their destruction of Alewife

One of the Cambridge Machine’s fake environmental groups is giving a platform to the woman most responsible for the wasteful, totally irresponsible destruction of the Alewife reservation.

The Machine helped her destroy it by supporting her lie that she was defending Alewife and all the time telling people to look at everything except for her friends' plans for the totally wasteful destruction.

The simpering, as usual, fails to answer three key questions, as published for the second time on November 18, 2011 in the Cambridge Chronicle at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x745433170/Letter-Explanation-needed-on-Alewife#axzz1hxhzwLOq. Both times were also printed in hard copy.

********

I want to thank Ellen Mass for responding to that part of my letter in the Nov. 3 Cambridge Chronicle that was directed straight at her. The trouble with her very long response is that nowhere in the response do I see any meaningful response to the issues I raised.

I was addressing the mentality shown in the Cambridge city solicitor as quoted by former members of the Human Rights Commission. The points directly aimed at Ms. Mass read as follows.

• This mentality shows how a group supposedly defending Alewife spent 15 years maneuvering people away from the totally avoidable public destruction of the animals and trees in the irreplaceable core Alewife reservation.

• This mentality shows how the Alewife “protectors” “cannot understand” that the destruction of the core reservation cannot possibly protect North Cambridge from flooding. They are protecting against the worst possible rainstorm in any two-year period. They need protection against the two 50-year floods that have hit the area in the last 20 years. There is a big difference.

• This mentality shows how the Alewife “defenders” cannot look at the other side of Cambridge Park Drive from the Alewife reservation. It shows why they cannot see that massive parking lot which could protect against 50-year floods if it were used instead of the core Alewife reservation.

My explanation read, “This mentality shows that all that really counts to the Cambridge Machine is being part of Team Healy.”

Could Ms. Mass, with her 15 years of supposed defense of Alewife, please explain these blind spots?

*******

The machine proceeds with the usual total lack of interest in reality.

The scary thing is that the lies work.

A unanimously bad Cambridge City Council is an excellent example that massive lies by an unthinking and well organized machine keeps people in office whose real record is strikingly opposite to their lovely claims.

Traffic impact of BU Bridge project, other interrelationships

1. Archie Mazmanian.
2. Your editor - Map of area.
A. General.
B. Harvard’s Maneuvers.
C. Archie’s Analysis.
D. Editor’s conclusion.

1. Archie Mazmanian.

Archie follows up his posting of yesterday, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/bu-bridge-traffic-pattern-in-context.html, as follows:

Bob,

I don't know if Google maps will help but visitors to this Blog who use the BU Bridge when entering or exiting on the Boston side pass over the Commonwealth Avenue Deck over the MA Turnpike Extension. The Deck has a sizable foot(air)print from westerly of the bridge to easterly including the Carlton Street Bridge to where it joins Commonwealth Avenue (easterly of the BU Bridge). A visit on foot provides better views of the Deck, including its extensive foot(air)print. Work on rehabbing the Deck will impact not only motorists and bikers on the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue but also the MBTA Green Line's B trolleys; in addition, such work will impact the extensive high speed vehicular traffic on the MA Turnpike Extension below. So I have some doubts on the work being completed in two constructions seasons as suggest ed by BU. The phasing of the work will be critical. And as noted in my earlier submission, what happens on the Boston side of the BU Bridge impacts the Cambridge side.

Perhaps you and others from the Cambridge side can provide commentary on the Cambridge rotary issues that I referenced. The rehabbed BU Bridge is not a bridge to nowhere but its use may be limited by situations on the Boston and Cambridge sides. Perhaps MassDOT should hold some public meetings to address these situations.

Archie Mazmanian

2. Your editor - Map of area.

A. General.

I have hunted through my files for a map that could communicate Archie’s issues.

This is the best I have, and actually, it shows a lot of the relationships which might escape.

This is taken from a map prepared by the MBTA showing the BU Bridge / streetcar alternative for the Urban Ring subway project.


The dark area running from top to bottom is the Charles River.

At the bottom, the vertical (north / south) line crossing the Charles is the BU Bridge.

The circle at the top (Cambridge) end of the BU Bridge is the rotary under Memorial Drive.

To the lower right of the rotary, barely visible, is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

The massive cross hatched line coming from the right, almost touching the BU Bridge and then going right again is the proposed route of the BU Bridge crossing.

Interstate 90 is marked on the left lower side. This is the Massachusetts Turnpike.

B. Harvard’s Maneuvers.

On the left middle, I 90 can be seen becoming a bunch of spaghetti and connecting to the next bridge to the west by Cambridge Street. This is the River Street Bridge.

Not really visible on this map is the Grand Junction Railroad. It is under the massive crosshatched line which is the BU Bridge crossing of the Urban Ring. Where the BU Bridge crossing turns, the Grand Junction Bridge continues straight. It goes over I90 and follows I90 to its left (west) into the empty area next to the I 90 ramp spaghetti.

In 2003 / 2004, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) demonstrated that a connecting ramp could be made from I90 to Cambridge over the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

Several months after this report, Harvard University bought the spaghetti which is the exit ramp from I 90 to the River Street Bridge, etc. and bought the railroad yard next to it, to which the Grand Junction goes.

That area is now owned by Harvard University and appears to be the planned future location of Harvard Medical School.

C. Archie’s Analysis.

Toward the bottom of the map, there is a roadway with “57" (bus line) on it and a bunch of T’s (street car, Green Line B stops). This is Commonwealth Avenue.

I 90 crosses under Commonwealth Avenue which is completely built on air rights over I 90 in this area. The extension of the BU Bridge south is also on air rights. Archie lives about two blocks south of I90 very near the extension of the BU Bridge.

Also present but almost not visible is the Boston side correlative to Memorial Drive, Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road (Boston area roads go by multiple names. This assists in confusing visitors.) This is the essentially unmarked area between I90 and the Charles River west of the BU Bridge. It continues barely visible east of the BU Bridge under which it passes. Before coming to the BU Bridge, it also passes under the Grand Junction Railroad.

The traffic pattern for traffic heading south from the BU Bridge currently consists of rotary which is partially obscured by the proposed street car / Urban Ring alternative.

The solid line marked “47" is a bus route which follows that southern pattern. It crosses I90, then turns east on Mountfort Street and then turns south again on Park Drive.

Traffic in the opposite, northerly direction, comes from Park Drive to Mountfort Street and turns north on the Carlton Street bridge over I90. This bridge is obscured by the proposed street car line, but it can be seen approaching from the south as the next street east of the extension of the BU Bridge.

Carlton Street, with a name change, continues straight north past Commonwealth Avenue to Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road, connecting to it and receiving traffic from its eastbound direction.

The northerly traffic turns at Commonwealth Avenue and goes over the BU Bridge.

D. Editor’s conclusion.

I hope this is helpful.

BU Bridge Traffic Pattern in Context

1. Archie Mazmanian, 11/17/11.
2. Archie, update, 12/29/11

Archie Mazmanian has provided two astute analyses of the BU Bridge traffic pattern in context with neighboring roads. Regrettably, I seem to have either not gotten or misplaced the first until he sent it along on December 28.

Google Maps would likely be helpful to understand the analysis.

1. Archie Mazmanian, 11/17/11.

At a recent meeting on the Boston side of the Charles River, I learned that the work on the BU Bridge may be completed in December; that the traffic configuration may be tested in three different ways to determine which may work best. The roadbed on the bridge is 40' wide. There are to be two five foot bike lanes on each side (not on the sidewalks), leaving 30' for motor vehicles. This could provide three lanes for motor vehicles, each 10' wide (which may be narrow, especia lly for buses). The experiments may involve variations on travel directions depending upon traffic conditions during various commuting times. At each end of the bridge extra lanes may be available for entering/exiting the bridge. It sounds very complicated, especially for the winter months. I don't know if the MA Dept. of Transportation has spelled out the different configurations. But it would seem wise for a disclosure of DOT's plans in order to prepare motorists/bicyclists.

Archie Mazmanian

[Note: This information was provided at a meeting last night of the BU Community Task Force on which I serve as a member representing the Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association in Brookline. There were discussions at the meeting concerning proposed infrastructure changes involvi ng replacement of the deck of Commonwealth Avenue over the MA Turnpike Extension, repairs to the Carlton Street bridge (Brookline) and "improvements" of the Mountfort/St. Mary's Streets area (also in Brookline), all of which will result in major traffic/transportation issues for the BU Bridge, impacting both Boston/Brookline and Cambridge.]

2. Archie, update, 12/29/11

My observations on this subject are based not only on my on the ground observations but also a briefing provided at a Boston University Neighborhood Task Force meeting in November by BU's transportation consultant for its Charles River Campus. Even before the bridge project, when there were four (4) motor vehicle travel lanes, I had observed MBTA regular buses taking up an entire lane. Now with the modified three (3) lanes, and the visible stripings of lanes and their changes, with experience motorists can figure it out. Will it work well with the three (3) lanes? Only time will tell. But imagine erosion or snow/ice making the stripings less visible. At least pre-bridge project, motorists could readily understand the concept of two (2) lanes in each direction. Thus, my point that shifting lanes may b e problems. And the bike lanes may add to the problems, especially if bike riders fail to observe the rules.

BU's Dec. 21, 2011 "Institutional Master Plan Notification Form" submitted to the Boston Redevelopment Authority includes an extensive section on Transportation and Parking regarding BU's Campus. Of particular interest is Section 7.4 "Expected Changes to the Transportation Network (2012-2020)" several of which will impact the Boston side of the BU Bridge:

1. Commonwealth Avenue Turnpike Bridge Deck Replacement Project. This Deck is over the MA Turnpike Extension and is integral with vehicles entering/exiting the BU Bridge on the Boston side. According to the BU submission: "MassDOT is responsible for the design, which they expect to complete by the fall of 2012. Construction would begin in 2013 and last for two construction seasons through 2014."

2. St. Mary's Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project. This is also integral to the BU Bridge in exiting/entering on the Boston side. According to BU: "This project will repair the bridge deck, sidewalks, and railings on this critical thoroughfare. MassDOT is overseeing the project and anticipates redesign to be complete in late 2011. Construction will begin in 2012 and conclude within one season."

3. Commonwealth Avenue Reconstruction Project - Phases 2A and 2B. This relates primarily to Comm. Ave. west of the BU Bridge on the Boston side. These are in the design stage and BU offers no dates for conclusion of the project. MassDOT will be involved with design review.

What happens on the Boston side of the BU Bridge impacts the Cambridge side and vice versa. The rotary on the Cambridge side is not addressed in BU's submission but questions have been raised about the efficacy of rotaries in general and this one in particular. So there are known unknowns to be dealt with for at least several constructions seasons following the BU Bridge Project Completion. And then there's also the anticipated rising like the Phoenix from the ashes of the Phase 2 Urban Ring Project that may be on hold until 2020. If only foresight were 20-20.

BU Bridge repairs, the Charles River White Geese, work still remaining

During the day on December 28, I observed the situation fairly closely.

I was shocked to see the Charles River White geese huddled in the northern part of the destroyed nesting area next to the wasteful staging extension of the destruction. Normally, when they are grouped, they huddle under the trees abutting the Grand Junction, especially the large tree toward the southern end. A few White Geese were in the Charles.

The only explanation I could see was a loud machine on the western sidewalk of the BU Bridge, closing that sidewalk for work apparently under the main surface. The key vehicle was a machine that looked like a cement mixer with corresponding tubes sticking through the bridge surface.

When I returned about an hour later, the work on the western side of the bridge had stopped and its noise had stopped. The gaggle was trooping in a line back toward their favorite tree.

On the edge of the roadway next to the Destroyed Nesting Area are a variety of temporary fences starting at a location that could be the beginning of the bridge being raised above the ground. They continue to the beginning of the on ramp north of the Destroyed Nesting Area with a construction gate in the middle. The construction gate enters into the ramp illegally installed by Boston University in 1999. The situation on the western side of the intersection is comparable but much smaller.

Each of these areas, on either side of the temporary fences, have more permanent structures.

There were a number of items in the destroyed part of the Destroyed Nesting Area. A lot of them look like staging. Others were similar. There were a number of dumpsters. There was a lot of empty space in the destroyed area.

Extending out from the BU Bridge above the water in both directions are extended sheets that could be intended to protect the river from items falling out of the bridge or to protect workers under them. Observing these structures from further away, they do look like work areas.

The road way layout has sidewalks on both sides of the bridge with a bike lane running the full length of the western side. On the eastern side, the bike lane starts from the south (Boston) and ends at about the middle with markings in the northern right edge indicating bikes can use the full lane.

There are three travel lanes for vehicles along the length of the BU Bridge. Vehicles entering the bridge from either direction enter into one lane and exit by two lanes at the other end.

Staging areas under Memorial Drive have a temporary construction building and some vehicles.

The work being done on the western side included three vehicles before and after the work, two construction vehicles and a marked state police vehicls.

Clearly the work is not fully completed.

Archie tells me the lane widths are ten feet which are not wide enough for fancy buses anticipated in the silly plans for buses in “phase 2" of the Urban Ring package.

The urban ring package is a subway proposal that has been under discussion since the 80's which the bureaucrats are insistent on turning into fancy buses. The fancy buses are destructive. One of the two subway alternatives is destructive. It, of course, is being pushed by Cambridge and its buddies. There is a responsible subway alternative that has seen subsidy by the legislature in the Fenway Park - Kenmore area.

MassDOT - BU Bridge Project “substantially” complete

1. MassDot.
2. Context.
3. Coming.


1. MassDot.

On December 27, 2011, I received the following email from MassDOT:

************

Dear Robert:

Thank you for contacting the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) regarding the Boston University Bridge Rehabilitation Project.

This project is substantially complete. Additional punch list item work is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2011 and tree plantings will be completed in the spring of 2012. For additional information on the project, please visit the project website at www.mass.gov/massdot/charlesriverbirdges .

Once again, thank you for your email. Please contact MassDOT if you have additional questions, comments or if we can be of further assistance.

-Stephanie

Stephanie Boundy
Public Outreach Coordinator
Massachusetts Department of Transportation

2. Context.

This is very major as far as the Charles River White Geese are concerned.

This project, like so many involving Cambridge and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation was needlessly destructive to the environment and to the animals living in the environment.

They have declared they do not want animals living on the Charles River Basin. Their euphemism is “parkland” with no animals as part of the definition. Over the past decade plus, they have taken major steps to kill off or drive away resident animals.

The mass killing of animals at Alewife as part of that bizarre project is by no means an isolated incident. That is the mentality of the DCR and Cambridge.

MassDOT took over the BU Bridge project by legislative edict as the legislature has been reducing the areas subjected to the DCR.

MassDOT would appear to have been crucial in killing / tabling a Cambridge proposal for a new highway in and abutting the Charles because of its environmental destructiveness.

The mess that has been needlessly created as part of needless destruction of the BU Bridge was something MassDOT inherited by order of the legislature.

Significant parts of the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese have been destroyed. This area is the only significant part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese which has not been destroyed by Cambridge and the DCR during the past decade and the DCR has made the project as destructive as could be imagined.

DCR agents, starting in 2003 destroyed almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east, the area where the Charles River White Geese have been confined.

The ground vegetation not destroyed was exactly where the DCR intended to destroy as part of the BU Bridge project.

I have previously posted photos of the mess at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/photo-record-september-2011-destruction.html. The very limited areas not destroyed can better be explained as a result of inability to exactly predict what would be destroyed by the BU Bridge project.

As shown in the photos, the extension destroying almost all of the northern part of the nesting area is just another example of heartless animal abuse by the DCR.

The portion by the BU Bridge was pretty much necessary.

3. Coming.

Now the state needs to undo its destruction.

The DCR’s description of its plans for the area are strikingly similar to their plans in 1999 when, as the DCR’s agent, Boston University first destroyed the area. They started the work before a public hearing by the Cambridge Conservation Commission on the matter. They finished the work before they could legally start it. Boston University lied for six months that they did the work until the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it.

Then, the DCR through BU destroyed a balance, viable ecosystem, a refuge of nature in the middle of the city.

The DCR put in silly grass and “native” Dutch flowers, plus a pathway of ashes. The stuff proceeded to wash into the Charles. Their “park” went nearly unused as a park but it was heavily used by the animals who had not been driven away.

Roy Bercaw went to the goose meadow in April 2000. He recorded what he saw. It is posted at http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html. [Note: His posting of the video was in 2007. Roy, apparently, did not look at his content well enough in his description. April 2000 is stated in the video.]

What has been done this time is a lot worse than in 1999. Close look at Roy’s video will show a lot of ground vegetation which has been destroyed that was not destroyed in 1999, and it has not regrown, indicating poisoning.

The vibrancy of the small areas not destroyed this time show exactly how excellent this area is when not attacked by unfit state / city employees and their agents.

The reality is, as can be seen in the repeated environmental destruction on the Charles River related to bizarre projects and to bizarre additions to responsible projects, the DCR not fit for its responsibilities. DCR and Cambridge in their animal and tree pogrom at Alewife as part of that bizarre project have further demonstrated their lack of fitness to manage the environment.

More to come.