Algae bloom reported in Charles River.

This is in the upper Charles. There is a recurring problem in the Charles River Basin which comes from the dumping of Tartan on Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Their favorite poisons were not working and they were not at all concerned about the warnings against use near water.

Has the Department of Conservation and Recreation been as irresponsible in the upper Charles as on the Charles River Basin?

They are all the same organization.

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/boston/12008230218660/algae-bloom-found-in-charles-river/

Cambridge’s Reaction to Monteiro: Wrong Civic Unity Committee?

1. Summary.
2. Wrong “Civic Unity Committee.”


1. Summary.

On July 21, 2012, I posted a report entitled “Cambridge (MA) City Council plays games on Monteiro?” at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/cambridge-ma-city-council-plays-games.html.

Monteiro v. Cambridge is an excellent example of the corrupt situation in Cambridge, MA.

Penn State gets court decisions demonstrating outrageous sexual abuses by a key person which have been hidden by higher key people and heads role plus a whole bunch of football victories are vacated.

Cambridge got very major court decisions which object to the Cambridge City Manager’s destruction of the life of a female department head because she filed a women’s rights / civil rights complaint. The trial judge called the behavior “reprehensible”. The jury awarded penal damages possibly greater than allowed by law to show its disgust. The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion, perhaps to allow the massive penal damages award without making those massive damages formal precedent. The Appeals Court referred to “ample evidence [of] outrageous behavior.”

This combination of judicial actions put the Cambridge City Council in position that it is able fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.

What is the Cambridge City Council’s reaction?

Exactly zero members of the Cambridge City Council support firing the Cambridge City Manager.

A motion to express displeasure at the situation was submitted by four of the nine members. Five of the nine members (including two sponsors) voted to refer the motion to the Civic Unity Committee.

2. Wrong “Civic Unity Committee.”

I did not want to dignify the referral any more than I could help, so I provided a generic type of description of the committee without stating its name.

The City of Cambridge has had a Civic Unity Committee in existence since the 80's appointed by the Cambridge City Manager. This committee is devoted to civil rights issues.

Very late in the Monteiro process, two FORMER members of Cambridge’s Civic Unity Committee published a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle stating that the committee had tried to get information on the case and was chastised for their initiative by the Cambridge City Solicitor.

It would appear that the Cambridge City Council at some time in recent years has created its own Civic Unity Committee, and that that was the committee to which this totally inadequate motion was referred, not the well established committee appointed by the City Manager.

My thanks to the submitter of this information.

It would thus appear that the action of the Cambridge City Council could possibly be considered even more useless than I realized.

Clarification / Correction: Alewife Brook Area Zoning

A few days ago, I quoted Councilor Cheung’s comments with regard to a zoning change impacting North Cambridge, that portion of the City ending at Alewife Brook. Alewife Brook, at this point, is the border between Cambridge and Arlington. These comments were posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/con-games-and-reality-attack-on-alewife.html.

I am highly concerned about the future of the environmentally sensitive zoning on Massachusetts Avenue approaching Alewife Brook. It has a lot of small scale (for Cambridge) housing limits. As a result, while things are not perfect, the zoning is sensitive to the beauty of the Alewife Brook Reservation.

I made a serious mistake which was the basis for my comments.

That serious mistake was in listening to the Cambridge Development Department or other people opposed to responsible zoning describing the change. The descriptions I saw gave me the understanding that zoning protections were being destroyed right up to the Alewife Brook Reservation, all zoning on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge right to the Arlington line.

My problem is demonstrated in the Cambridge Chronicle article on the zoning change which is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1602168042/Rezoning-in-north-Cambridge-seeks-to-preserve-retail-residential-mix-along-Mass-Ave#axzz22rvk3yNS.

Basically, all reports on this change have referred to “improvements” to the zoning of Massachusetts Avenue in North Cambridge, period. The difficulty lies in people who do not fully understand the zoning situation making general comments which should not be made in a general manner.

I responded to Cheung’s comments because the comments exactly fit the nonsense which keeps on getting spouted by The Machine: retail, retail, retail, as much retail as they can get and destroy, destroy, destroy first floor open space and first floor housing. The Cheung comments fit the excessively general pattern as well. He made no distinction between areas of Massachusetts Avenue in North Cambridge whose zoning protections have already been destroyed and those areas of Massachusetts Avenue in North Cambridge which have not been subjected to these bizarre attacks on zoning protections. The area near Alewife Brook Parkway falls into the latter category.

I dug out the zoning change on line and reviewed it in detail. What I was able to find affects only the irresponsible zoning imposed already on Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge on Mass. Ave. The Machine is making irresponsible zoning more irresponsible because developers are looking at the area and are being more responsible than The Machine. Developers are looking at a residential neighborhood and putting in a residential neighborhood in a larger scale. The Machine is horrified that its goal of wall to wall retail no matter how dumb is not being implemented. So they passed the change that Cheung was bragging about to make bad zoning worse.

As far as changes to the responsible zoning near the Alewife Brook Reservation goes, the language I saw on review only impacts areas whose zoning was previously irresponsible. The language I saw does not impact the “small” residential zoning next to the Alewife Brook Reservation.

So, with this very major caveat, I express my regrets to Councilor Cheung.

But, on the other hand, if it turns out the folks saying zoning is being changed to the Arlington line were correct, please let me know. Thank you.

Urban Ring Rail Maps, two options, Boston and Cambridge, MA

1. Introduction.

Yesterday, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/cambridge-city-council-committee-defers.html, I reported on a city council meeting concerning a small vehicle highway on the Grand Junction railroad tracks. These tracks run through the core habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

I spent considerable time commenting on the Cambridge Administration’s constant denial of reality with regard to the Urban Ring heavy rail transportation options. The Cambridge Administration has very much non stop put out the falsehood that there is only one option under consideration, the option they prefer.

2. Maps.

Here are five maps produced by the MBTA concerning the options on both sides of the Charles River.

A. MBTA Urban Ring BU Bridge Crossing (Cambridge Side).

This is the alternative which the Cambridge Administration put out a very much non stop lie that it is the only alternative under consideration.

The long hashed line parallel to and crossing the Charles River and having two dots on it is the proposed streetcar / light rail line.

The dot in the very middle of the picture is an station at Massachusetts Avenue in the middle of the MIT campus. The dot to the very left is a station at Putnam Avenue in Cambridge. The crossing would be to the immediate east of the Grand Junction line, apparently breaking off to go underground after going under Memorial Drive, thus directly impacting and harming the wildlife habitat south of Memorial Drive including the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

B. MBTA Urban Ring, Kenmore Crossing (Cambridge Side).

In this alternative, the Mass. Ave. Station continues to exist but quickly after going under Mass. Ave., the Heavy Rail / Orange Line alternative swings south and goes under the Charles River, a much less environmentally destructive option.

C. MBTA Urban Ring Boston Side.

The following two maps appear to be blow ups of the separate options as shown on this map.

This map is a good way to compare the relative locations of the two options and to see almost all the shared part.

The shared part is in the lower extreme of the map. The alternate lines are shown by moderately heavy broken lines.

The BU Bridge Crossing curves down from the left and meets the Kenmore Crossing which is a straight line top to bottom. The two lines meet under Brookline Avenue just before Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and curve in deep bore construction under BIDMC.

The wider black rectangle just after the curve ends is the proposed Longwood Medical Area Station under Longwood Avenue at Louis Pasteur Boulevard.

The line curves just before Huntington Avenue under the Massachusetts College of Art. It then curves again at Ruggles Street under undeveloped property of the Wentworth Institute of Technology. It ends at Ruggles Station on the Orange Line which is just off the map.

D. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side - BU Bridge.

The BU Bridge crossing would be constructed under University Road, which works as an on and off ramp for east bound traffic on Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive.

The path is hard to make out. Blowing up the photo is extremely valuable. The path is just to the left of “BU” on the map just south of the Charles River. It turns and comes to a black rectangle indicating the combined Urban Ring station at St. Mary’s and the relocated Yawkey Station. Connection to the Green Line Commonwealth Avenue branch is by tunnel under St. Mary’s dropping people on the south sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue.

The route then turns at Park Drive and comes to another underground station between Beacon Street (Green Line, Cleveland Circle branch) and the Riverside Station (Riverside Branch of the Green Line).

These two stations attempt to duplicate the function of the Urban Ring station in the Kenmore Crossing located between Yawkey and Kenmore Stations and creating one big megastation.


E. MBTA Urban Ring, Boston Side - Kenmore Crossing.

The tunnel runs under Raleigh Street in eastern Kenmore Square.

It would have a new station under Brookline Avenue with direct connections to Yawkey Station, Kenmore Station and Fenway Park, creating covered connections among Commuter Rail, Urban Ring and the three Green Line Branches. This is the black rectangle directly below "Kenmore."

Yawkey Station shows on the map as the less large black rectangle above and to the left of the proposed Urban Ring station. It is helpful to blow up the photo to see it.

The legislature is spending millions upgrading Yawkey Station. Yawkey Station is not going anywhere, contrary to the needs of the BU Bridge Crossing. Thus the legislature has spent millions subsidizing the Kenmore Crossing.

The line proceeds under Brookline Avenue to the point where it goes under BIDMC.

3. Reality and the City of Cambridge.

The Cambridge Administration and its activists and influenced organizations has spent years denying the existence of the Kenmore Crossing.

They have no meaningful argument. The Kenmore Crossing is far superior both from an environmental and a transportation point of view. It has now received millions of dollars in subsidies in the legislature's funds for the upgrading of Yawkey Station in place.

It is hard to escape the obvious strategy of the Cambridge Administration.

When you cannot possibly win on the merits, lie.

So they simply and repeatedly for very many years have denied that the Kenmore Crossing exists.

Cambridge City Council Committee defers action on Grand Junction Highway Proposal very destructive to Charles River White Geese

1. Summary.
2. My Comments.
A. Introductory.
B. Environmental Impact.
C. Urban Ring.


1. Summary.

Yesterday afternoon, Monday, August 6, 2012, the Cambridge City Council’s Economic Development, Training and Employment Committee chaired by Councilor / Representative Toomey deferred action for a month on its discussion of a small vehicle highway proposal on the Grand Junction Railroad line which would be highly destructive to the Charles River White Geese.

While a wide variety of councillors attended the meeting at one point or other, Councilor / Representative Toomey was the one member whom I recall being present throughout. I could have missed other extended participation.

Deferral of action pretty much seemed to be taken unilaterally by Toomey. Toomey was the only member of the Cambridge City Council who aggressively opposed from the beginning passenger use on the Grand Junction. Passenger use was ultimately tabled by the Department of Transportation after active manipulations by the Cambridge Machine which seemed to be trying to maneuver the public into acceptance of passenger service.

I will be providing a link to this report to the Cambridge City Council, so, while the report will hit the points I made, they will be slightly fleshed out. The detailed written comments I promised will be much more intense on the environmental and animal abuse harm of the proposal to the Charles River White Geese and the Charles River. My follow up will be copied to the state’s Departments of Transportation and of Conservation and Recreation.

The detailed follow up will include an appendix on the outrage at Alewife by the City Administration with city council funding. Alewife also included key omissions to the City Council. Alewife involves ongoing manipulations by “activists” with City Administration connections. My time factor for my follow on comments is quite short because the Cambridge Machine “activists” are manipulating the situation such that Cambridge could have no alternative to further massive destruction and to more large scale animal killings at Alewife.

My comments to the Cambridge City Council Committee, with fleshing out, were as follows.

2. My Comments.

A. Introductory.

My comments will be followed up by a much more detailed written analysis. It would be impossible at this time to go into the detail appropriate on this matter to this committee.

The proposed small vehicle highway, for environmental, animal abuse, and cost reasons, should not go south of Memorial Drive. It should turn east just prior to the buildings on Memorial Drive on either side of the Grand Junction. It should be built between the building on the corner of Memorial Drive and Vassar Street and the building behind it on Vassar Street. There is an ample undeveloped area there to get the route to Vassar Street where it could connect to Memorial Drive.

This route would remove major harm to the environment and to the Charles River White Geese. It would give bicyclists much more direct access to Memorial Drive and would significantly reduce costs.

B. Environmental Impact.

This small vehicle highway would have major, destructive impact on the Charles River both on the Cambridge side and on the Boston side.

Impact of environmental destruction of this nature has already been condemned by a joint report of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The report concerned the corresponding proposal for a small vehicle highway on in the Cambridge side of the Charles River. This package was sold as “underpasses.”

The joint committee condemned this proposal in its report on Charles River Connectivity issues which was issued last fall.

C. Urban Ring.

[ed. I went to the meeting with no intention to speak. The comments on the Urban Ring by City Administration representatives gave me the incentive to speak.]

The City Administration once again gave the impression that the Grand Junction corridor is the only alternative under consideration for the Urban Ring rail transportation concept. This is not only false, but is directly contradicted by funding provided by the State Legislature.

To express the situation in the nicest possible light, the City Administration’s position is that the only route being considered for the Urban Ring is that route now called the BU Bridge crossing. At absolute minimum, this position is 20 years behind the times.

Also under consideration is the Kenmore Crossing, an alternative I first proposed in a public meeting in 1986 concerning the Urban Ring because of the environmental and Cambridge destructiveness of the BU Bridge Crossing. The Kenmore Crossing was independently picked up by the state in 1991 and has, ever since, been considered, along with the BU Bridge Crossing, as one of two alternative Charles River crossings for the Urban Ring rail proposals.

The BU Bridge Crossing pushed by the Cambridge Administration would be Green Line / streetcar technology. It would cross the Charles River east of the BU Bridge and east of the Grand Junction railroad bridge with major environmental harm and harm to resident animals.

The Kenmore Crossing would use Heavy Rail / Orange Line technology. It would travel a considerable distance in the Grand Junction right of way, constructed underground. It would turn off the Grand Junction and travel under the MIT playing fields and then under the Charles River to a station between and connected to Kenmore Station and Yawkey Station. It would be constructed under the Brookline Avenue bridge over I90, the Massachusetts Turnpike.

This station combination would create one megastation which would provide excellent connections to Fenway Park, to the three Green Line branches to Brookline, and to the Framingham / Worcester Commuter Rail, all with covered walkways.

By contrast, the BU Bridge Crossing alternative would require moving Yawkey station and the Commuter Rail stop to Mountfort Street and St. Mary’s Street a half a mile to a mile west of Fenway Park. Commuter Rail passengers would be connected to the Green Line / Boston College line ONLY rather than to all three branches.

Connection to the Green Line would be made by a tunnel under St. Mary’s Street ending at the south sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue across from Boston University’s Marsh Chapel. Commuter rail passengers would walk across traffic in all kinds of weather to the already overloaded Boston College line in the median of Commonwealth Avenue.

The legislature has subsidized the reconstruction of Yawkey Station in place to the tune of millions of dollars. This subsidy also constitutes a subsidy for the far superior Kenmore Crossing of the Urban Ring with its excellent Kenmore - Urban Ring - Yawkey megastation.

The Yawkey / Urban Ring / Kenmore megastation would be an ideal terminus for First Stage construction on the Urban Ring as an Orange Line spur. This First Stage would function as a spur coming out of Ruggles Station on the Orange Line with an intermediate Harvard Medical Area stop at Longwood Avenue and Louis Pasteur. Such a First Stage route would provide the Harvard Medical Area and Fenway Park with direct excellent connection to Boston’s downtown over the Orange Line. This connection would function in the same manner as the Quincy / Braintree branch provides Quincy and Braintree with downtown connection on what was a Dorchester - Cambridge Red Line heavy rail subway.

And, as I said, the legislature has subsidized the Kenmore Crossing with the millions of dollars it is spending upgrading Yawkey.

With that money put into upgrading Yawkey Station, Yawkey Station WILL NOT BE MOVED, and the Kenmore Crossing would appear to have a very major leg up on the Cambridge Administration’s favored BU Bridge Crossing.

And, somehow, the City Administration still communicated in that meeting the very clear message that the Kenmore Crossing alternative does not exist.

Cambridge (MA) Signs: Heartless Animal Abusers yes; Animal Lovers no

The Cambridge (MA) Chronicle reported in its most recent issue on the Cambridge Department of Public Works keeping a woman from posting signs on lampposts in a hunt for her lost dog. The report is posted on line at : http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/features/x1814085971/Cambridge-DPW-won-t-let-dog-owner-post-signs-for-missing-pooch#axzz22fNlZgYm.

Strange, the fake “neighborhood association” in Cambridgeport posts signs on lampposts all the time without problem.

Perhaps the activities of the fake “neighborhood association” on Saturday were an excellent example. They conducted a celebration on Magazine Beach bragging about how enlightened the City and the State Bureaucracy is on environmental issues.

They just do not want to know about the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese or about the belligerent environmental destruction or about the mass animal kill at Alewife.

They get horribly confused when discussing reality, including the most recent turn of the screws.

Cambridge, MA has no shame.

ADDENDUM:

They did say why they support destruction of the parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street.

They do not have the money yet and thus the project is fully beatable. They oppose discussing their coming destruction of the parking lot until they have the money and, thus cannot be beat.

But aside from this supremely cynical position, they do not say why they want to destroy it.

But, as usual, they sound so good.

Con Games and Reality. Attack on the Alewife Brook Reservation self-praised by attacker

The powers that be in Cambridge do a lot of lying by omission.

Councilor Leland Cheung’s email report this morning bragged as follows:

*******

I hope this update finds you enjoying the summer months! The City Council met Monday night for a summer session to discuss a number of important items, including three big zoning petitions. One to protect retail along North Mass Ave, . . .

*******

I have not read the proposal. I do not have to read the proposal.

The Cambridge Machine is offended by housing and open space on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, anywhere on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge.

The Alewife reservation which Councilor Cheung and his friends are destroying is part of an ecosystem which includes the Alewife Brook which, in turn, parallels Alewife Brook Parkway, the borderline between Cambridge and Arlington, MA.

The machine is offended that the last few blocks of Massachusetts Avenue before the Alewife Brook are zoned with sensitivity to this environment. It includes a lot of housing and a lot of housing zoning.

Existing retail is protected because it is preexisting nonconforming. As preexisting nonconforming, it is too valuable to destroy.

The con game Cheung is spouting is that they are “protecting” existing retail by encouraging its destruction, so that neighborhood retail is replaced by high end stuff, yards are destroyed for massive buildings and first floor, neighborhood, housing is destroyed for the same massive buildings.

And, of course, the Alewife Brook is destroyed by the impact. But then Cheung and his friends have destroyed acres of the core Alewife reservation and appear poised to destroy much if not all of the rest of it, for flood protection that should be provided under a massive parking lot across Cambridge ParkDrive. The Cambridge Machine, as usual, cannot see reality. They are stalling until it is built on and these hypocrites have “no choice” but to multiply their destruction to provide the flood protection they lie that the current project provides.

Examples of responsible zoning which I have created which MEANINGFULLY provides protections for retail and existing buildings, by vote of responsible city councils are:

1. Massachusetts Avenue east just north of Harvard Law School: small retail block protected by rezoning residential.

2. East Harvard Square, historical structures on river side between Bow Street and Arrow Street. Many historically small shops protected. Guffey Park at the eastern end of this block was destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager a week or so after HE LOST THIS ZONING VOTE. He did the destruction to allow expansion of a retail establishment which could no longer legally expand. I publicized his outrage. The Cambridge City Manager apologized to the City Council by replacing the destruction with the gold plated little gem which now fronts on the Oberon.

3. Massachusetts Avenue, from Dana Street to Inman Street on the North and Bay Square (not included) to Sellers Street on the south. Neighborhood stores saved from destruction because they are more valuable than the condos which would replace them. This vote in particular saved the courtyard building on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue in the 860's with its neighborhood stores. The developer backed off the massive building and sold it for condos.

Councilor Cheung also claims to be in favor of Women’s Rights.

He has shown where the reality lies with his reaction to the Court Orders in Monteiro v. Cambridge, when Superior Court judge and jury were affirmed by the Appeals Court in their communication of disgust at the Cambridge City Manager destroying a department head’s life because she filed a Women’s Rights complaint. “Reprehensible” said the trial judge of the behavior. “Ample evidence [of] outrageous behavior” said the Appeals Court.

Cheung has shown where he stands with exactly ZERO attempts to fire the Cambridge City Manager. He voted to table to a city manager appointed committee a motion which condemned the behavior and apologized for it. Nothing more than that.

By contrast, when Penn State lost in Court over Paterno hiding outrages (not committing any, just hiding them), the NCAA stripped Paterno of all his football victories after he should have taken action.

But this is the City of Cambridge. The Cambridge Pols praise themselves non stop for their enlightenment. And they lie, pretty close to non stop.

The Charles River, Boston / Cambridge, MA, USA: Lies, Secret Definitions, and Photos of Reality

1. Introduction.
2. Photos.
A. 08 18 07-22 Mag Bch, Destroyed Boat Dock, Charles, Boston Side.
B. 09 17 07-22 Mag Bch, Ramp, Charles, Boston.
C. 10 16 07-22 Mag Bch Pool, Native, Charles, Boston.
D. 06 20 07-22 DNA E end of N intro, Mem, Ford Plant.
E. 11 15 07-22 Beacon Yards, Locomotive, Work Bldg
F. 12 14 07-22 Beacon Yards.
G. Satellite Photo, 2006.
3. Conclusion.


1. Introduction.

I first learned of the plans of the Cambridge City Manager for destruction in the BU Bridge area of the Charles River in 1996.

They were presented by the predecessor to the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy”. I was immediately struck by the harm these plans would do to the well established, beautiful and very popular gaggle of Charles River White Geese whose core habitat would be severely damaged.

The general reaction was “They would never stoop so low.”

When the first attacks came, with the destruction illegally done in the Nesting Area by Boston University for the state bureaucrats in October 1999, the bureaucrats (predecessor to the Department of Conservation and Recreation) immediately responded with the flat out lie: “We have no intentions to harm the white geese.”

The key bureaucrat repeated this flat out lie when they started starving the Charles River White Geese in 2004 by blocking access to their feeding grounds since 1981 at Magazine Beach from the Charles River.

The Boston Globe published a photo of the earth movers with a tiny White Goose overwhelmed by it. The key bureaucrat was quoted in a lie right next to the photo. “We have no intention to harm the White Geese.”

He has publicly stated that he was using a undisclosed definition (translation: FLAT OUT LIE) of “harm.” Starving them in his sick world is not harming them.

The lying plans for the feeding grounds of the Charles River White Geese at Magazine Beach were announced to be a lawn to the sea. This was the Magazine Beach playing fields.

The CRC celebrated the destruction with a media event, a swim in. They said the destruction would assist swimming. Typical lie. A solid wall blocking access assists swimming.

So the lawn to the sea became a wall of impenetrable introduced bushes.

The bureaucrats frequently repeated that they had a goal of nothing but water related uses for the Charles River. This flat out lie was exacerbated because this wall of impenetrable bushes was broken only by a vestigial boat dock. The boat dock was rendered useless by blocking the access to and from the boat dock from land.

The Cambridge machine / fake neighborhood association’s explanation for the destruction is that they do not recognize the existence of the last 13 years on the Charles River.

Very telling, I recently saw an Internet posting from a woman key in the fake neighborhood association.

She was denigrating the Charles River White Geese. She previously posted on the Internet a comment that she knew all about the plans for Alewife and that there would not be massive destruction.

That was at the point where her lies helped in the destruction of many acres of valuable woodlands and the killing of untold numbers of free animals by talking people out of taking protective action.

This is the sort of person the Cambridge Machine calls an “environmentalist.” Flat out lies on key issues are common. Paterno was a good guy in comparison to these people.

This report will show you the outrage from the Boston side.

These photos were taken on July 12, 2012, in the same photo session as the photos I presented in the last report.

2. Photos.

A. 08 18 07-22 Mag Bch, Destroyed Boat Dock, Charles, Boston Side.

This photo and the following were taken from the Boston side of the Charles River. To be exact, they were taken from the far side of the road on the Boston side, Soldiers Field Road. They are taken with a modest telephoto lense.

Commonly, the photos are looking over native vegetation. A good perspective of the situation is that the vegetation on the Cambridge side at Magazine Beach is far taller than the average human being. You do not shoot photos over it.

Almost all vegetation on the Charles River Basin is destroyed twice a year by the CRC for the bureaucrats. The vegetation walling off Magazine Beach’s playing fields has not been cut since it was planted and the bureaucrats started using it as a starvation tactic.

This photo shows at the bottom, vegetation on the Boston side with an overlook.

Above this vegetation is the Charles River. Some water birds can be seen in the photo. They may be Charles River White Geese. The Destroyed Nesting Area which has been turned into their ghetto is not very far to the right of the area show in the photo.

The brown spot which is the only break in the bizarre wall of introduced bushes used to be a boat dock. People would drive up into the parking lot which is north of the boat dock and put their boats in the water. The greenery beyond the brown spot was introduced as part of phase 2 of the outrages.

The boat dock was not destroyed itself. It was just rendered useless by the creation of a number of barriers on the Cambridge side. The greenery above the brown space is part of barriers for the Charles River White Geese created as part of phase 2.

I have a lot of photos on this particular outrage. Going into further detail at this point would overwhelm this report.

B. 09 17 07-22 Mag Bch, Ramp, Charles, Boston.

Same photo as the previous taken slightly to the left.

Straight ahead can be viewed the screen from the softball field at Magazine Beach. Before the continuing outrages, there were two softball fields. The story was that the softball fields were being reduced in size for soccer.

The lies of omission hid the fact that total playing fields were being reduced in size. As part of phase two, approximately seven acres of healthy grass which had survived for the better part of a century were destroyed. In place of the healthy grass were introduced sickly stuff which cannot survive without poisons. So a massive poison drainage system replaced the playing fields to drain off poisons which are only “necessary” to keep alive sickly grasses which should not have been introduced in the first place.

The model for this outrage is Ebersol Fields on the Boston side of the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. A few years ago, the poisons were not working well enough, so the bureaucrats dumped poisons there marked with prohibition against use near water. The next day, the Charles River was dead with algae grown from the Mass. Ave. Bridge to the harbor. This infestation repeats every year. It started early this year.

C. 10 16 07-22 Mag Bch Pool, Native, Charles, Boston.

At the bottom can be seen the top of a low fence lining the walkway / small vehicle highway on the river side of Soldiers Field Road. The fact that the vegetation on the Boston side just barely peers over the low fence shows the height of the vegetation.

On the Cambridge side I think the structure visible is the state's swimming pool built when the Charles River became too polluted to swim in. It is to the west of the hill area which is to the west of the playing fields. The parking lot the Cambridge Machine is fighting to destroy is just to the east of the pool.

Important, however, is the bordering vegetation lining the Charles on the Cambridge side. This is native and is needed by migrating water fowl. Like almost all other bordering vegetation on the Charles River Basin, it is destroyed twice a year by the CRC acting for the DCR.

By contrast the introduced stuff has never been cut. The bizarre wall of introduced stuff has value. It starves the beautiful Charles River White Geese.

When the introduced wall of vegetation was first put in, in phase 1, the Charles River White Geese tried to use this grass to replace their decades long food at Magazine Beach, but the hillside was too steep for them.

D. 06 20 07-22 DNA E end of N intro, Mem, Ford Plant.

This is the introduced bushes in the Northern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area, same day.

This is the precursor of the massive wall of introduced vegetation which is very clearly intended to copy the outrage at Magazine Beach. They leave this stuff alone and you get the stuff on the Charles.

E. 11 15 07-22 Beacon Yards, Locomotive, Work Bldg

This rail yard is almost opposite the area where the CRC is fighting for new environmental destruction, particularly near the structure over the highway. This photo and the next were taken between the photos of the Cambridge side and the photos putting the lie to the CRC’s false photo / whatever of their project.

This is the future home of Harvard Medical School.

Harvard’s empire building is a major part of the reason for environmental destruction on the Charles River.

F. 12 14 07-22 Beacon Yards.

Another view.

G. Satellite Photo, 2006.

To put things in perspective, the area on the left marked Cambridge Allston tolls includes the rail yard show in the last two photos just above the interchange.

This still, for the time being, is a large rail yard. It just so happens that it has the toll road exit in the middle of it.

At the middle lower of the photo is the BU Bridge with the rail bridge under it. Between the two is shown and marked as I90, the Mass. Pike. Harvard’s purchases started almost immediately after a state report saying that it is physically possible to create a ramp from the Mass. Pike to the Rail Bridge.

The massive wall of introduced vegetation was relatively tiny then, if these particular bushes existed at all, and is not visible from the satellite. Additionally the season was winter or very early spring and greenery is hard to see.

Nevertheless, the destroyed boat dock is probably just below the B in “Magazine Beach.” I am guessing that the structure to the right of “Cambridge-Allston” and above Mag in “Magazine Beach” is the swimming pool.

The Nesting Area which is now the Charles River White Geese’s ghetto is to the right of the BU Bridge and above the rail bridge.

When the bureaucrats started starving the Charles River White Geese in phase 1, Cambridge did a “sewer project” in the extended area east of the Destroyed Nesting Area and east of the white spot which is the BU Boat House.

Cambridge left a wall of plastic keeping pretty much all of that food from them as well.

So the combined projects took their main food and their principal alternate food from them.

3. Conclusion.

Nothing is done by the DCR without direct support of Cambridge. Frequently Cambridge’s money funds part or all of the destruction.

Paterno did very terrible things because he did not crack down on a child abuser in his midst. There is no allegation that he physically directly helped the child abuser other than by keeping the outrage secret.

The Cambridge Machine is very active on all sides of environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse and animal killing: in hiding the outrages after the fact, assisting the outrages before the fact, and in providing a lot of money.

This behavior is not just that of condoning or hiding destruction. It is that of an active participant in destruction.

The Cambridge Machine is directly comparable to Paterno when it comes to the Cambridge City Manager’s destroying a woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil / women’s rights complaint. The pols are just keeping this outrage as secret as possible although they have recently gone through the “Oh golly I tried” phase which is normal when they get caught, and also meaningless except to help reelection.

Paterno was a piker in comparison to the Cambridge Machine.

Techniques in Lying: Charles River Conservancy, River Street Bridge, lie and reality

1. Latest con from the Environmental Destroyers.
2. Their fake photo / rendition.
3. Reality.
A. 15 11 07-22 River St Br Appr w br
B. 16 10 07-22 Riv St Br Appr.
C. 17 09 River St Br Appr.
D. 18 08 07-22 Riv St Br Appr, S Side Ramp
E. 19 07 07-22 Riv St. Br Appr, S Side
F. 20 06 07-22 Riv St. Br Appr, Current small veh
G. 21 05 07-22 Riv St. Br from Walk.
H. 22 04 07-22 Riv. St. Br Approach.
I. 23 03 07-22 Riv. St. Br, Bot of Appr
J. 24 02 07-22 Riv. St. Br, Bottom of Ramp.
K. 01 07-22 Riv. St. Br, a little below.
L. Areal Shot 2006, Cambridgeport.
4. Analysis.


1. Latest con from the Environmental Destroyers.

The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” reports in its latest newsletter:

“We are happy to report that the Barr Foundation has matched the $25,000 we raised for our underpass advocacy work. If you want to lend your support (financial or otherwise) to add underpasses on the Boston side of the Anderson Memorial, Western Av, and river Street bridge reconstruction.”

Falsely named because this entity, one of the most active environmental destroyers on the Charles River, is flat out lying when it claims to be a “conservancy.”

2. Their fake photo / rendition.

We posted this rendition recently concerning the lie from the Charles River Conservancy about what they propose to do on the Boston side of the River Street Bridge. The River Street Bridge is the next bridge across the Charles west of the BU Bridge. Responsible have condemned these people’s comparable outrages on the Cambridge side. So they switched to the Boston side because the bureaucrats did not realize they could be so irresponsible as to simply switch sides of the river. When dealing with the Cambridge pols and their friends, it is always a serious error to assume “They would never stoop so low.”

Here is the Charles River “Conservancy”’s fake photo / rendition again.

07-19-12 CRC Sketch

3. Reality.

The poor dears from the Cambridge Machine and their friends have such a major problem with reality.

On July 22, I took photos of the area shown in their rendition which certainly looks like a photo, which I have copied again, above.

A. 15 11 07-22 River St Br Appr w br

The tall buildings in the middle are on the north, Cambridge side. They extend to the east from the northeast intersection of Memorial Drive and the River Street.

The highway is Soldiers Field Road. This is the same highway as Storrow Drive. The change in names is part of a long tradition of incompetence on the part of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Careful inspection at the far left of the picture will show above the guard rail the River Street Bridge. Above that you will see yellow and black signs warning of height limits. Above the yellow and black signs is another structure straddling the highway on which can, with great care, be seen a green and white destination sign.

The right hand support of the last structure is at the beginning of the area shown in the CRC’s fake photo.

B. 16 10 07-22 Riv St Br Appr.

This is a closer view of the previous photo, taken at an angle from which you can no longer see the River Street Bridge. The two structures across the highway are still visible.

C. 17 09 River St Br Appr.

Shot taken from even further west on the south side of Soldiers Field Road.

A significant portion, if not all of the trees you are looking at would be destroyed.

I do not have the plans and the plans are always kept as secret as possible.

Once again, note the structure crossing the highway which is, at its right, at about the point of the CRC photo. At this angle, the Cambridge buildings are almost directly north. The distance to the River Street Bridge is that great.

D. 18 08 07-22 Riv St Br Appr, S Side Ramp

The previous photos were taken with a close up lense. This is more of a normal view, taken from the on ramp to Soldiers Field Road on the south side.

Note the sudden disappearance of trees on the river side. And note also that, from this view almost directly to the south, you still cannot see the River Street Bridge.

E. 19 07 07-22 Riv St. Br Appr, S Side

This is the first photo looking in an easterly direction. It is taken from the south side on ramp.

Notice that structure straddling the highway again. Notice the trees between it and the river. Would all these trees be destroyed? Very likely.

Notice also the very long emptiness abutting the river. This is part of the distance of the existing and the proposed ramp. The CRC “photo” shows this as a very tiny area.

F. 20 06 07-22 Riv St. Br Appr, Current small veh

This is the area which shows as the open area in the prior photo. EVERYWHERE to the left would be the proposed small vehicle highway BUILT IN THE CHARLES RIVER.

Very careful view of this photo (unless it is my imagination) shows that structure straddling the highway which is at the bottom of the proposed new small vehicle highway.

Note that the structure of the River Street / Western Avenue Bridge area is such that this construction in the river would have to extend the full length of the distance between the River St. and the Western Avenue Bridge, a distance much longer than this ramp, also not mentioned by the CRC’s puff piece.

On the left, the white building is a boat house on the Cambridge side which is built on the western end of Magazine Beach. The point sticking out into the Charles River is probably just to the west of the Magazine Beach playing fields to which such great destruction has been inflicted with major heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese.

G. 21 05 07-22 Riv St. Br from Walk.

This is the historical River Street Bridge taken from the small vehicle highway where the above photo was taken. The CRC’s highway proposal would chop into this historical treasure. And be built in the Charles River, below.


H. 22 04 07-22 Riv. St. Br Approach.

To the left is the existing small vehicle highway.

In the massive expanse of water would go the new highway.

Straight ahead, of course, is the River Street Bridge.

I. 23 03 07-22 Riv. St. Br, Bot of Appr

The curve in the highway to the right appears to be the bottom of the CRC photo. Note that the photo shows a change in grade at that point. There is no further change in grade going up the existing ramp.

The trees at the left would clearly be destroyed.

J. 24 02 07-22 Riv. St. Br, Bottom of Ramp.

The green post is the base of the structure straddling the highway I have been pointing out.

The River Street Bridge is visible straight ahead. Filled land ends to the right of the pedestrian fence / barrier.

This view is the most honest real life equivalent of the CRC fake photo.

Look at the distance. Looks at the excellent trees to be destroyed.

K. 25 01 07-22 Riv. St. Br, a little below.

Photo of the previous area from a little to the East.

You can see the green fence and its ending if you look very closly.

This is not that great a distance. Clearly the new highway photo shows no trees. There is a curve approaching the split. How much further to the right would be approach be built?

When I first followed up on my report on this outrage and the usual lies, I said that the threatened trees looked to me to be a foot apart from the car. This is the area I was talking about.

L. Areal Shot 2006, Cambridgeport.

This is taken from an environmental analysis. It is probably a satellite view.

The River Street and Western Avenue Bridges are on the left.

Notice the distance between the River Street and Western Avenue bridges.

The CRC’s environmental outrage is infeasible unless their highway is built in the river at river level between the River Street Bridge and the Western Avenue Bridges, then through the Western Avenue Bridge, then with further destruction west / north of the Western Avenue Bridge.

4. Analysis.

To put it mildly the CRC’s sketch is yet another lie. The bad guys can only win through lying.

And they lie, and they lie, and they lie.

Paterno has been punished. How much longer will the outrages associated with the Cambridge Machine continue?

Paterno and the Cambridge Pols, An Exchange

1. Original Posting, follow up.
2. Friend, July 24, 2012.
3. Your editor, July 24, 2012.
4. Friend, July 24, 2012
5. Your editor, July 25, 2012.
6. Friend, July 25, 2012.
7. Your editor, July 25, 2012.
8. Your editor, July 25, 2012.
9. Editor Summation.


1. Original Posting, follow up.

I have posted a letter to the editor of the Cambridge (MA) Chronicle comparing the Paterno / Penn State situation to the outrageous situation in Cambridge, MA. My analysis concerned government environmental destruction, government heartless animal abuse and killings, and government attacks on women’s rights.

The original letter was posted on July 23, 2012 at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/paterno-and-cambridge-machine.html.

It was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle on July 27, 2012.

I had an exchange with a friend in Cambridge on the matter which is of interest.

I will not repeat yet again the letter. It is at the link, but the comments followed my notice of the letter on facebook, and really are read best by reading the letter first.


2. Friend, July 24, 2012.

and no Aurora...

3. Your editor, July 24, 2012.

Aurora exists but has been methodically suppressed by a ruthless organization.

4. Friend, July 24, 2012

we would all like a greener cambridge,

but

I would hope you might take a more persuasive approach...

4. Your editor, July 24, 2012.

[addressing the friend],

Your concern is strongly appreciated.

The trouble with the Cambridge Machine and those controlled by it is the total lack of connection with reality. And the very belligerent antagonism toward reality.

People are subjected to the equivalent of brainwashing. And it is a matter of denial to discuss reality with them.

What kind of discussion would you imagine you could have with a Penn State fan a few years back if you told them that Paterno was protecting and hiding a child abuser?

How would somebody be persuasive in such a discussion?

You cannot be. Cambridge’s destructiveness concerning the environment, their own heartless animal abuse, their massive animal killing, and their destructiveness toward women’s rights (Monteiro) are matters which are dictated to the victims on a theological basis. Talking reality with too many of these people is challenging their religion.

5. Your editor, July 25, 2012.

So all there really is available is to talk reality. You look for a weakness and you prod. Monteiro is a very major weakness. With a system imposed as this system is, the hope is to find that crack. Those judicial decisions are very hard, even with this totalitarian system, to ignore.

I had a situation with the fake neighborhood group where they were putting out lies about the impact of a referendum vote taken a few years ago. After a few non controlled people accurately tore the machine position apart, I went to the election committee records on line, and posted the record of the vote, strikingly different from the lie the machine was putting out. I suggested that it would be nice if the listserve stuck to reality.

I was pulled off the listserve, too strong, too accurate. I forwarded my communication to a friend who thinks independently whom the leader of the fake group is trying to con, with an explanation that I had seen nothing from the listserve in days. Very quickly I wound up back on the listserve.

There are weaknesses. The lies are so massive that they become unavoidable. It is a matter of keeping on and constantly standing up to the very constant pattern of fake realities which are indistinguishable from flat out lies.

6. Friend, July 25, 2012.

the key is harvard...

know the folks:

Drew Gilpin Faust et al...

best,

7. Your editor, July 25, 2012.

Thanks.

That route is very clear. The Machine is very happy to let people declare victory, just as long as reality is the other way around. This is a major factor in the dirty tricks which are so normal with them.

As part of my environmental activities, I have changed more zoning than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge and, in contrast to the City of Cambridge, my changes do what I say they do.

Almost all my victories have been at the expense of the Machine. I have led or been involved in at least four significant victories over Harvard.

The most visible was the vote that forced Harvard to build the Inn at Harvard as it is instead of 42% larger, and out to the lot line, no grass. The Inn at Harvard is one of the few new buildings in Harvard Square that normal people consider nice. 7 favorable votes, 1 in the hospital, 1 opposed.

I was working the polls for the Election Commission at the time, second in charge of the precinct where the president of Harvard voted. He did not seem at all pleased with me when he came in to vote.

PS: Thank you for your excellent comments. I think it is ok to pass on this exchange to the blog?

[ed: Two of the four victories over Harvard were zoning victories, two otherwise.

[A fifth victory was borderline. I saved Guffey Park across from the Inn at Harvard through publicity. The City Manager unilaterally destroyed the park in that location after he lost the Inn at Harvard zoning vote to me and to 7 or 8 members of the Cambridge City Council.

[The City Manager did the destruction to allow the expansion of a business which could no longer expand because of the change in zoning. The change in zoning had passed the City Council about a week before the destruction. The displeasure he created resulted in him rebuilding the park in a much nicer configuration.]

8. Your editor, July 25, 2012.

Correction. Harvard wanted the Inn at Harvard 72% larger.

9. Editor Summation.

The weakness of the Cambridge Machine is the non stop lies.

The Cambridge Machine can be beaten and I have repeatedly beaten them by publicly standing up for what they claim to stand for.

The decent people far outnumber the rotten ones who control the Machine and the well intentioned people who are manipulated by the Machine.

Printed: Paterno punished strongly, Cambridge Pols continue their outrages.

I recently posted my letter to the Cambridge Chornicle comparing the situation at Penn State which is being cleaned up with major punishments to the ongoing outrages from the Cambridge pols.

My letter was published in today’s Cambridge Chronicle, lead letter in the center of the editorial page, July 26, 2012 edition, page 10.

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/paterno-and-cambridge-machine.html

Paterno and the Cambridge Machine

The following has been submitted to the Cambridge (MA) Chronicle.

**********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

There are striking similarities between the Paterno scandal and business as usual with the Cambridge Pols.

The NCAA has struck all of Paterno’s victories dating back to when he should have taken action. The massive fine is probably related.

Paterno lived in a world of his own making. He had a lot to be proud of, but, rather than do the right thing, he just pretended he was holier than thou. The NCAA treated this with the appropriate disgust.

The Cambridge Pols nonstop tell us they are holier than thou.

They claim to be defending Alewife. They have destroyed many acres of irreplaceable forest and killed hundreds of animals for “flood protection” their project cannot provide but which can be provided across the street. Now they are yelling at the property owner across the street just as they yelled at another private property owner in doing the original destruction. Anything but yell at their friends who are prepared to keep on destroying and killing animals.

They claim to be defending the Charles River. In their world the last 13 years with its environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse do not exist. Now they are fighting to multiply the animal abuse and to destroy the parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street. They have no explanation. Just listen to the lovely project they yell about. Do anything but work to undo their pending and existing environmental destruction and animal abuse.

They claim to be pro Women’s Rights. But they have not wanted to know the real decision in Monteiro v. Cambridge, that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro because she filed a women’s rights complaint. The judge, jury and appeals court have given the city grounds to fire the city manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.

So we see a motion about apologies and chastisement. Two of the four sponsors were among the five members who voted to put the motion in committee. Of the four members objecting to putting it in committee, two quite possibly just wanted to kill the initiative. No councilor says to fire the City Manager.

Paterno and the Penn State leaders hid the vileness of his program until they could no longer hide in the shadows.

How much longer will the Cambridge Machine stay in the shadows while proclaiming a world of nonsense which is so different from reality?

Cambridge (MA) City Council plays games on Monteiro?

1. Introduction.
2. Analysis of City Council Action.
3. City Council motion.
4. Follow up to prior report.


1. Introduction.

We have followed the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge for quite awhile.

This is the case in which a Superior Court Judge and Jury and an Appeals Court panel found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of department head Malvina Monteiro because she filed a civil rights complaint alleging that she was discriminated against by the City of Cambridge because she is a woman.

The disgust of the Courts for the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager was extreme.

The jury awarded $1.1 million in real damages and $3.5 million in penal damages. The penal damage award was more three times the real damages award. This penal damages award was a multiple of the real damages award so extreme that it could possibly be illegal.

The trial judge wrote an excellent opinion which can be summarized in one of her words: “reprehensible.”

She very effectively demonstrated the Cambridge City Manager’s behavior to be “reprehensible.”

The Appeals Court panel expressed its disgust at the City of Cambridge’s behavior by refusing to issue a formal opinion although their refusal to issue a formal opinion was pretty extensive in itself. They cited “ample evidence [of] outrageous behavior”.

In addition to the general nonsense of the appeal, it is possible that the multiple of damages was a reason for not issuing a formal opinion. Clearly the panel saw the Cambridge City Manager’s behavior adequately “reprehensible” to justify such an unusual multiple of penal damages.

The trouble is that of setting precedent.

Hard cases make bad law. The “outrageous behavior” clearly justified the extreme award. It is possible that the court did not want the case to make precedent to support such an extreme award.

Succinctly, this combination of awards and findings places the Cambridge City Council in solid position to fire the Cambridge City Manager without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.

2. Analysis of City Council Action.

In section 3, below, I have copied from the official record the vote of the Cambridge City Council on June 18, including the role call vote.

The motion would place the City Council on record apologizing for the City Manager’s actions and communicating its disapproval to the Cambridge City Manager.

This motion is considerably more kind to the Cambridge City Manager that are the formal judicial rulings.

This motion does not support the immediate implementation of the judicial actions, but the language is so strong that it could be preliminary to taking action to fire him.

The very major trouble with such preliminary actions is that they are silly. They have final judicial determination of malfeasance in office. Malfeasance in office is grounds for firing.

The motion was apparently killed by referring it to a committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager which has little power. Appointees of the Cambridge City Manager, in addition, have to be fully aware of the possible impact on them of the Cambridge City Manager’s treatment of Malvina Monteiro and of the City Manager and City Council’s fighting the Monteiro matter way beyond the limits of reason.

I would appreciate input from folks who remember past action by this committee. I vaguely recall somebody, through this committee or, perhaps, a comparable committee trying to get information on the case and being stepped on by the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Particularly interesting on this vote is the vote itself.

The motion to refer the proposal was made by one of its sponsors, Councillor Reeves. It was supported by a second sponsor, Councillor Decker.

Voting against referral were the other two sponsors plus Councillors Maher and Toomey.

My reaction has been and continues to be extreme skepticism.

The Machine and the Cambridge City Council routinely play con games.

I continue to see exactly zero Cambridge City Councilors supporting and trying to implement the court decisions. I see exactly zero City Councilors supporting firing the Cambridge City Manager because of Monteiro.

I do see a motion of apology and disapproval submitted by four members of the nine member city council which was apparently killed with two authors supporting the killing.

I am constantly hoping for miracles when dealing with the City of Cambridge. I am constantly disappointed.

I would hope that a miracle would occur and that the referral to this committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager would turn out to be part of a miracle.

The normal con is to sound great and do nothing. This as it stands is sounding great and doing nothing.

I will not hold my breath waiting for something meaningful to happen.

3. City Council motion.

I apologize for the format. This is an electronic copy of the public record and this is what I wound up with. I am leaving it untouched simply to communicate the public record. Order number 1, June 18, 2012.

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

COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR DECKER
COUNCILLOR REEVES
VICE MAYOR SIMMONS

WHEREAS:A combination of discrimination and wrongful
termination complaints have resulted in many millions of
dollars of costs and damages for the City of Cambridge;
and

WHEREAS:The actions that led to these complaints, plus
the filing of the complaints and subsequent law suits,
caused much anguish for the city employees involved; and

WHEREAS:It is not clear that the City Manager has ever
apologized to the City of Cambridge or anyone else
involved for any role he may have played in creating
this situation; and

WHEREAS:It is not clear what practices and policies the
City has instituted to help ensure that similar
situations do not arise in the future; now therefore be
it

ORDERED:That the City Council extend its apologies to
both the City employees who filed the complaints and to
the taxpayers and residents of the City of Cambridge for
both the angst created by its employee, the City
Manager, and the cost to the City as a result of these
cases; and be it further

ORDERED:That the City Council hereby lets the City
Manager know of its disapproval of his judgment and
actions regarding this situation; and be it further

ORDERED:That the City Manager be and hereby is requested
to report back to the City Council with an explanation
of what processes and procedures have been instituted to
help ensure that such a situation does not arise in the
future.





REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE FOR CIVIC UNITY View Roll Call
Votes from June 18, 2012

REFERRED TO THE CIVIC UNITY COMMITTEE ON ROLL CALL VOTE 5-4-0

***********

The Official Role Call Record of the Vote is as follows. I tried to upload the PDF without success. The following is the vote with my added words of explanation of the meaning of the vote.

The vote was:

Cheung:
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Decker: Cosponsor of motion.
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Kelley: Cosponsor of motion.
Do not refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Maher:
Do not refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Reeves: Cosponsor of motion. Maker of motion to refer,
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Simmons: Cosponsor of motion.
Do not refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Toomey:
Do not refer to City Manager appointed committee.

VanBeuzekom:
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

Davis:
Refer to City Manager appointed committee.

5 in favor of referring to City Manager appointed committee.
4 opposed to referring to City Manager appointed committee.

4. Follow up to prior report.

Please note that I previously commented on this decision by the Cambridge City Council. My analysis was based on the report in Cambridge Day.

This analysis is based on my actual review of the papers which constitute the actions. This analysis, of course, supercedes my prior evaluation.

CRC Keeping Additional Major Destruction of Trees Secret

I recently reported on the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” proposal for environmental, animal habitat and, possibly, historical destruction on the Boston end of the River Street Bridge as part of a highway proposal by them which, of course, does not mention the destruction.

The River Street Bridge is the next bridge across the Charles River west of the BU Bridge.

The report, with the CRC’s photo, is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/techniques-in-lying-underpasses-on.html.

I went by the target location a few hours ago.

I understated their destructiveness.

Their lovely photo shows a new two land (back and forth) small vehicle highway being built in the Charles River north of the existing off ramp / side walk / small vehicle highway from Soldiers Field Road west bound to the River Street Bridge.

I knew the embankment is very steep supporting the existing highway structure. I did not realize how enthusiastically nature has healed the harm of man in this location. Apparently coming up to the point where the CRC’s highway in the Charles would split off from the existing highway structure is a very solid line of trees.

The view of the Charles River from Soldiers Field Road approaching the off ramp facility goes from a solid wall of trees to wide open next to the ramp. The embankment with this excellent collection of trees would be wiped out by the CRC’s latest outrage.

The trees could very easily be as little as one foot apart. People frequently plant trees close to each other to create a situation in which a bunch of separate trees grow together into one very big tree. The situation on Soldiers Field road which would be destroyed by this outrage looks like it could wind up as many feet of joined trees. The trees are that close and are that plentiful.

The Charles River Conservancy, as is common with the various Charles River destroyers, lies by omission.

No mention whatsoever of this additional environmental outrage.

Techniques in Lying: “Underpasses” on the Charles River revisited

1. CRC’s record, abridged.
2. Latest attack.
3. Analysis.
A. Initial questions.
B. Prior examples of destruction on this side.
C. Summary.


1. CRC’s record, abridged.

Possibly the most destructive entity on the Charles River is a group which goes by the false name of Charles River “Conservancy”.

The CRC may be more destructive than the Department of Conservation and Recreation because I have seen the DCR join in a condemnation of at least one of the CRC projects as environmentally destructive.

One of the many environmental outrages supported by this group is environmental and habitat destruction on and in the Charles River.

They have been fighting for a new highway on the Cambridge side of the Charles River including destruction of hundreds of trees.

Like so many of their fellow groups, they lie through omission. They have posted admiring photos of the magnificent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split which they are fighting to decimate. They have posted admiring photos of the environmentally sound area at Magazine Beach across from Magazine Street whose parking area they are fighting to destroy. I could keep going.

Responsible bureaucrats have condemned their highway on the Cambridge side of the Charles River as environmentally destructive. So they put a sob letter in the Cambridge Chronicle saying how they were being abused and that they would convert their emphasis to the Boston side.

2. Latest attack.

This photo is from this group’s latest newsletter. It shows the CRC’s change of emphasis to the Boston / southern side of the Charles River. As usual, they call this proposal an underpass.

[2012 photos]

The relatively small ramp on the left is the existing bikeway / sidewalk. The larger highway / ramp to the right is the proposed construction.

The existing facility was clearly constructed so as to provide as much service as they could while minimizing environmental harm as much as possible. The bad guys do not bother themselves with such considerations.

But the bad guys do, falsely, call themselves environmental saints.

The thoughts that comes to my mind on looking at this proposal are environmental and historical.

This is the Boston end of the River Street Bridge, the next bridge to the west of the BU Bridge.

The shore area is already extremely crowded with highway development.

Not mentioned in the lovely description of this lovely project, as usual, is the harm the project will do. Lying by omission.

The only meaningful benefit out of it this project is that bicyclists do not have to share the obligations of cars. They can go through this area without stopping for a light. The poor dears.

The bureaucrats have condemned the CRC’s corresponding proposal in Cambridge. When the bureaucrats did that study, the bad guys were only attacking the Cambridge side, not the Boston side. Destruction for highway construction on the Boston side was not, as I recall, condemned in that study. It was not on the table.

3. Analysis.

A. Initial questions.

What harm is done by further destruction of the Charles River for this project?

What harm is done to the historical integrity of the historically protected River Street Bridge by this project?

What harm is done to animal habitat by this project?

Expanding existing construction into the Charles River would very much certainly cause further habitat destruction.

B. Prior examples of destruction on this side.

The Charles River Conservancy is not unknown to the Boston Conservation Commission in this area. I have seen a very distressed number of members of members expressing great concern about CRC destruction of native vegetation needed for migratory waterfowl.

I have previously shown you photos of the Charles River White Ducks, Andrake and Daffney.

The area between here and the BU Bridge contained their home the first year they lived on the Charles River. Their home was directly across from Magazine Beach’s boat launch area destroyed in phase 1 of that destruction.

Folks from the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative went out of their way to cross the Charles to make certain the Charles River White Ducks were comfortable while they lived there.

The home of the Charles River White Ducks was too far to the east to be affected by this project. In any case, their habitat and home was casually destroyed with destruction of native vegetation throughout this area abutting the Charles River between the BU Bridge and the River Street Bridge.

C. Summary.

In any case, no mention, no concern. By lying in their name, these people claim to be environmental saints.

So they do the usual lying by omission from these fake groups.

They claim to be environmental saints, surely they are telling us about any environmental harm?

Business as usual for fake environmentalists.

Geese on the hillside, Massive thicket growth in two months.

1. Introduction.
2. Photos.
A. 05 06-14-12 DNA E hill, Intro, Geese, fence, sidewalk
B. 6 06-14 DNA, E Intro, Geese
C. 8 06-14 DNA ramp fence, Geese, E intro on hill
D. 17 06-24 DNA E intro, E hwy
E. 18 06-24-12 DNA E end of E intro, E hwy, Mem Dr
F. 26 06-27 dirt, geese, natives, @ intro, terrace, W hwy and pkg lot
G. 02 04-14-12 Potted thicket E hillside.
H. 14 04-22-12 Thicket, new highway, eastern leg.
I. Goose Meadow, Areal Shots, 2006, winter shot
3. Summary and Digression.


1. Introduction.

The rottenness of the cons of the fake groups fighting for yet more heartless animal abuse can be seen in photos from late June compared to the same area perhaps six weeks earlier.

We have had reports of the Charles River White Geese crossing the on ramp to Memorial Drive to get food in response to their regained access to the ramp.

2. Photos.

Here is are three photos of the step before the geese crossed the ramp. I have shown their foray into the middle part of the introduced soon to be impenetrable thicket. These are my first photos of them exploring the new outrage in the northern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area. They are from June 14, 2012.

A. 05 06-14-12 DNA E hill, Intro, Geese, fence, sidewalk

Here are the lead geese exploring that hill, the soon to be impenetrable thicket.

The metal rods hold up a new woven fence separating the Memorial Drive on ramp’s sidewalk from the soon to come thicket.

B. 6 06-14 DNA, E Intro, Geese

Here are a group of the geese at the foot of the hill.

C. 8 06-14 DNA ramp fence, Geese, E intro on hill

Here is a view of the geese from the sidewalk. The thicker fence is the historical fence which was illegally opened in two places by Boston University in the initial attacks on the Charles River White Geese.

The woven fence is the addition with the BU Bridge repairs.

One adult goose is close standing erect. The two smaller geese on his far side could be two of the adolescents I showed in my prior report.

D. 17 06-24 DNA E intro, E hwy

This photo is the first from June 24. It is taken from the Western end of the area just shown. The grey is the new highway.

E. 18 06-24-12 DNA E end of E intro, E hwy, Mem Dr

This photo, same day, is from the eastern end. This lower area is where so many geese were just photographed. The top of the hill between the two trees is where the smaller number of geese were photographed.

F. 26 06-27 dirt, geese, natives, @ intro, terrace, W hwy and pkg lot

This photo, from June 27, is of the reality heartlessly forced on them. The remnants native bushes which occupied the entire area and which have been destroyed except for here are right and left.

The gray material is the east highway and a new parking lot. Once again, this new highway is part of the highway on the banks of the Charles which has been condemned by responsible bureaucrats.

The parking lot is totally without prior review as is the massive impenetrable thicket which is coming.

G. 02 04-14-12 Potted thicket E hillside.

These are the pots dropped in place, before planting.

H. 14 04-22-12 Thicket, new highway, eastern leg.

This is the outrage when planted. Notice the tree from the above photos. The brick at the top is Memorial Drive on its overpass.

Compare to photos D and E above and to the preceding shots with the geese.

I. Goose Meadow, Areal Shots, 2006, winter shot

Remember, this is a winter shot. Look at all the vegetation and compare it to the geese’ current misery, above. That vegetation in season is what was there before. What you see above is all they have not destroyed.

The organized openings are the remnants of the ash walks which were part of the illegal Boston University work. There was another walk in the middle of the native vegetation. It became very much overgrown.

3. Summary and Digression.

While on a shoot for the new Sandra Bullock flick on Friday, I spoke with a woman who gushed very ludly the nonsense coming out of the corrupt Cambridge Machine: The Cambridge Machine yells that they are protecting roof top gardens.

The woman gushed about the beauty of rooftop gardens. I think she supports them when necessary, i.e. you can’t get real open space.

The con coming from the rotters in the Cambridge Machine is such that they never mention the fact that their destruction on the Charles River and at Alewife is most definitely not necessary.

That is why their fake groups talk about everything else except for the destruction they are fighting for.

That is why their fake group fighting in support of environmental destruction on the Charles River gives a history of the Charles River area which does not include the last 13 years. These are the ones fighting for this outrage at the Destroyed Nesting and fighting for the destruction of the environmentally commendable parking lot at the foot of Magazine Street.

They have no justification for their destructive initiatives. So they lie through omission. And they lie by praising each other.

They just have con games, and the flat out lies that they are environmentalists.

Interestingly and tellingly, the folks yelling the loudest about roof gardens fought against a meaningful park being created in place of Lechmere Station. They wanted a ten story building, a four story building and a plaza. The corruption in Cambridge “environmentalism” being what it is, they only mentioned the plaza, very loudly and very repeatedly, and did not mention, if they could help it, the real park they opposed and the two buildings on either side of the plaza they kept bragging about.