Charles River: Why is destruction of a Highway Off Ramp relevant to heartless animal abuse and mass destruction of trees?

Charles River:   Why is destruction of a Highway Off Ramp relevant to heartless animal abuse and mass destruction of trees?


1. Introduction.
2. Fraud in Cambridge creates destruction on the Charles River.
3. The contrast between normal politics and fraud as usual in Cambridge is personified in the destruction of that off ramp.
4. Summary.
5. But there is hope.
(1) Toomey.
(2) Your Editor.
(3) YES.

1. Introduction.

On December 13, 2016, I just posted a report, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/further-attacks-on-north-side-of.html.

In the fine print, I tried to tie this report into the mass destruction which has been going on on the Charles River.  However, the connection really deserves more detail.

When I first started these reports, I hinted that the outrage on the Charles River is a spinoff of the sick political situation in Cambridge, MA, I did not go into detail.

Destruction of this ramp goes into that vile distinction.

Here is the key, and tiny detail on the destruction of that off ramp.

In the middle is the Charles River.  Cambridge is to the right.  Boston is to the left.

The dot with the connected line to the right center is where the ramp is proposed to be destroyed.

I emphasized what the Massachusetts Department of Transportation emphasized in my report:   The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation along with the usual robots controlled by the City of Cambridge supported the destruction.

The reality, however, is that the numbers of folks fighting for that destruction communicates the sickness in the City of Cambridge compared to a relatively normal situation in Boston.

In Boston, normal people defend Boston.

2. Fraud in Cambridge creates destruction on the Charles River.

In Cambridge, normal people ARE KEPT FROM DEFENDING CAMBRIDGE by a massive, fraudulent organization of “protective groups” which subtly but very really look to the Development Department of the City of Cambridge for orders.

And everything that the Development Department wants destroyed, or the friends of the Development Department want destroyed gets destroyed.

How?  There you are getting into the very real fraud which is so many of the supposed “protective groups” in the City of Cambridge.

The fraud goes back to 1974 when James Leo Sullivant was returned to the position of City Manager.  Sullivan was fired in the 60s.  My guess is that he was fired as the result of activities by truly independent organizations.

Sullivan proclaimed that he would create a system of “neighborhood associations” in the City of Cambridge, and the 42 years since his return has seen a massive system of interlocked “protective groups” which bear the very clear mark of Company Unions.

Key, nowadays, in the fight for destruction of the Charles River is a fake neighborhood association which, among other things, censors ALL COMMENTS NEGATIVE TO THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE and Cambridge’s friends on its Listserv.

This fake group fought for the destruction of those hundreds of trees in true Company Union fashion.  It lied that it loved the Charles River and told folks that it was anti Charles River to look at anything else but one historical building.  As the DCR was preparing for mass destruction, the fake group went public with its fight for destruction of those hundreds of trees.

A key action came in January 2013 to April 23, 2013.  In January 2013, the fake group put on a public meeting concerning its plans for destruction at Magazine Beach.  There was a very real probability that its destruction plans would be defeated by a fair vote.  So the people who pulled the strings conducted corrupt tactics.

The vote was postponed to the February 2013 meeting which was held on April 23, 2013.  They, by that time, had driven away the concerned folks who would have voted them down in January, but that was not enough.  They had a stacked house.  They deferred action to the last ten minutes, then they dropped a horribly complicated motion which they kept secret before then, and put it to a vote.

The monthly meetings suddenly became every other month, and discussion of the Charles River was postponed EVERY MEETING to the last ten minutes, combined with the predictable prohibition against meaningful discussion of the destruction the core group was fighting for, THOSE HUNDREDS OF TREES WHICH THEY DESTROYED IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY.

Standard company union fraud.

Now the core group has announced, and cosigned a destruction plan which would destroy 52, MOSTLY EXCELLENT, trees, never mentioned in the years before.

They spent three to six years fighting for the destruction that occurred in January - February yelling that people should look at that one building, and that it was anti Charles River to look at the hundreds of trees they were fighting to destroy.

Now the plans which WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFEATED IN 2013 except for corrupt tactics are clearer.  The core group is back to yelling, look at our historical building.  Do not look at what we are destroying.

But what they are destroying include 30 trees surrounding that historical building, and a total of 52 trees to be destroyed.

And once again, they are telling people not to look at what they are destroying.

3. The contrast between normal politics and fraud as usual in Cambridge is personified in the destruction of that off ramp.

A significant portion of the people yelling to “maximize open space” in Boston FOUGHT TO DESTROY THOSE HUNDRED OF TREES in Cambridge.

They were very visible in all the public sessions crying for the benefit they saw to themselves in destroying those trees.  They kept DEAFENINGLY silent about the fact that they lived in Boston.

Now, after achieving this outrage on the Cambridge side, they are seeking to line their pockets at the disadvantage to Cambridge interests.

These are people behaving in a normal manner.

BUT THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT in Cambridge fights to prevent defending the City of Cambridge against such attacks.

The Charles River got caught in the crossfire between normal, and irresponsible, behavior by Boston residents by the outrage of the fake group situation in Cambridge.

Cambridge could not defend the Cambridge side of the Charles River because the fake group system which dominates politics in Cambridge turns so many “protective” groups into FRAUDULENT grounds fighting against the causes for which they claim to stand.

4. Summary.

The off ramp being destroyed would normally be protected by concerned citizens in Cambridge, activism which apparently got James Leo Sullivan fired in the 60s.  But the fake group system which has evolved about Sullivan and his three successors prevents the sort of activism which got Sullivan fired.

And pretty much all of the visible people in Cambridge politics are tainted by this outrage.

Activists in Cambridge politics very quickly learn that they must accept the lie that fighting to destroy Cambridge is defending Cambridge, and it gets a lot worse.

5. But there is hope.

A. White Knight?

The hope visibly lies in one person, newly hired City Manager Louis A. DePasquale, although all the new City Manager needs to do is look at the vast majority of folks in the City of Cambridge, as opposed to the fraudulent entity which lies that it is the world in the City of Cambridge.

DePasquale, in contrast to his two preceding City Managers was not the number one assistant to his predecessor.  DePasquale is a lifetime Cambridge resident who has expressed interest in doing what “the people” want.  He has professed a goal to talk to the “the people” to set his priorities.

B. The Good Guys can Win.

(1) Toomey.

A recent victory organized by City Councilor and nearly former State Representative Toomey over the Development Department domination of Cambridge politics shows there is hope.

This was the City of Cambridge’s fight for passenger traffic on the Grand Junction, a fight which was defeated by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation in response to very real activism in Cambridge.

The Development Department related folks were trying to create a “protective organization” under the usual mantra, “You can’t win, you can’t win, but have we got a deal for you.”

Toomey ignored them.  He just won at the forefront of normal human beings outside the control of the fake group system.

(2) Your Editor.

Similarly, for environmental purposes, I have had a hand in writing  more of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge.

My victory pattern was very clear: keep the robots influenced by the Development Department as far away as possible.  The further away I kept the robots, the greater my successes.

And
(a) I have won more than I lost, plus
(b) my proposals do what I said they do.

Both are in sharp contrast to the zoning activities of the fake groups.

(3) YES.

It is possible for decency to win in Cambridge.  But it does take the nerve to stand up to the fraud influenced by a very rotten situation.

Further attacks on the north side of the Charles River.

Further attacks on the north side of the Charles River.

0. Severe Harm Proposed to River Street Bridge Access over the Charles River for Cambridge Residents.
1. Letter Introduction.
2. Key parts of the proposal.
A. Current Situation.
B. Overview of the proposal.
C. Off Ramp being Destroyed.
3. A reasonable alternative.
4. The Context.
5. Manager and City Council must evaluate their Development Department.


0. Severe Harm Proposed to River Street Bridge Access over the Charles River for Cambridge Residents.

The following is a letter hand carried to the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Council on December 12, 2016.

I would moderate it slightly by commenting that the real attackers of the City of Cambridge seem to be the Cambridge Development Department through its robotic appointees and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

MassDOT has been the adult in the room, defending the Charles River between these two destructive children.  It looks like MassDOT simply got overwhelmed by the kiddies on this one.

It should be noted that the Cambridge City Manager was just appointed and he, probably, was not aware of just how irresponsible his Development Department is.

I consider this attack just another step on the environmental destruction being fought for by the kiddies.  The difference is that the Cambridge Development Department, itself, is going along with its fellow in destruction at the expense of the City which it claims to be working for.

The letter to the Cambridge City Council and City Manager is modified to convert it to the more restrictive web format by addition of sectioning which did not appear in the original letter and by location of graphics (and references) to work better on line.

The area in question is the south side of the Charles River across from Magazine Beach which in turn is being subjected to outrageous attacks.

This area formerly held a railroad yard and is dominated by exits from I90 (Mass. Pike) to Cambridge, Brookline, and the Allston and Brighton Neighborhoods of Boston.

Harvard University now owns it, subject to transportation rights held by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Harvard is maneuvering to move its Medical School and other uses to the location.

The state is straightening out the highway in such a manner as to make the area more useful to Harvard and to abutting areas.

1. Letter Introduction.

[Addressed to Cambridge City Council and Cambridge City Manager]

The Department of Transportation, SUPPORTED BY CAMBRIDGE APPOINTEES, is proposing to severely harm Cambridge access to the River Street Bridge from the Boston side.

To my great shock, the plans of the Development Department for the Charles River got even worse in a bombshell dropped at last Thursday’s Public Meeting in Union Square, Allston by the Department of Transportation working group on the Massachusetts Turnpike.  When I objected, I was informed that all of the robots appointed by the Cambridge Development Department approved of this outrage, and, of course, rubber stamp “opinions” are to be expected from people appointed by the Cambridge Development Department.

Here is the plan announced last Thursday.  It is split in half because of limits on my scanner.

[Ed:  For a few days, I had the wrong version of the plans posted here.  The more detailed edits of the plans below were correct.  Sorry about that.]

2. Key parts of the proposal.

I have cropped out the relevant part of the new plan and the plan describing the existing conditions.  Here are the access to the River Street Bridge from Memorial Drive and the Mass. Pike (I90) before and after the change, from the MassDOT working group’s plans.

A. Current Situation.

The current situation has the Charles River at the top.

Here is the cropped out portion from the plan describing the existing conditions.  [The brown line is the area covered by the study.]

The current situation has local traffic on Soldiers Field Road westbound feeding directly to the River Street Bridge in a pattern which provides less than perfect access for Cambridge folks on Soldiers Field Road, but it works.  It is a lot better than crossing by the Harvard (Mass. Ave.) Bridge or the Anderson Bridge (to Harvard Square).

Much more massive Interstate traffic off the Mass. Pike constitutes a very massive influx from a ramp which connects into Cambridge Street, Allston and then to the River Street Bridge.  But the Interstate Mass. Pike traffic is separated from the local traffic on Soldiers Field Road westbound, to the great advantage of local traffic.

B. Overview of the proposal.

The proposed plan has the Charles River at the right.

The Mass Pike working group, apparently with UNANIMOUS support of the [Cambridge] Development Department’s robots, proposes to destroy the direct connection from Soldiers Field Road westbound and to merge that traffic into the very heavy traffic from the Mass. Pike.  That will have obvious severely harmful impact on the Cambridge commuters who rely on the River Street Bridge to get to Cambridge.

Here is the overview.

C. Off Ramp being Destroyed.

To show the proposal more closely, here is my crop out from the plan showing in detail the proposed new situation at Soldiers Field Road and the River Street Bridge.

The line and dot coming from the bottom right emphasizes that there will be NO OFF RAMP directly to the River Street Bridge.

D. How it works.

Working from the map in section B.

The proposed new traffic pattern is shown as follows.  Traffic from Soldiers Field Road westbound [on the right] would be forced to go through INTERSTATE traffic from the Mass. Pike to get to the River Street Bridge.  Everybody who tries to get off the Mass. Pike to get to Cambridge is well aware of the mess that is that off ramp, and the local traffic would be added to Interstate traffic.

The connection, in yellow, is toward the bottom right of the map.  It connects Cambridge local traffic to Interstate Mass. Pike exiting traffic.  The Interstate traffic from the Mass. Pike runs on a proposed road parallel to Soldiers Field Road.  The connection to the Mass. Pike can be seen in blue and orange below the proposed connecting road.  There is a separate road for traffic to the left to and from Brighton, Allston and Brookline.  Should you wish to review that road, it may be seen on the attachment.

3. A reasonable alternative.

Please note, however, that this connection would be a great improvement WITHOUT THE DELETION OF THE DIRECT RAMP FOR CAMBRIDGE LOCAL TRAFFIC TO THE RIVER STREET BRIDGE.

The westbound ramp to the River Street Bridge is currently overloaded by traffic turning left at the top of the ramp and going to Allston and to the Mass. Pike.  Closing the left turn at the top of the ramp [as a result of] moving that traffic by the proposed connection would greatly reduce traffic on the off ramp and make the left turn off the off ramp unnecessary, removing one cycle from the traffic lights leading to the River Street Bridge, and greatly improving access to Cambridge for Cambridge local traffic.

The proposal with destruction of the direct ramp to Cambridge is nuts, but the proposal exactly fits in with the long standing outrages from the Cambridge Development Department.

4. The Context.

I have submitted a number of communications to the City Council on the various outrages going on on the Charles River, and more recently, have included transmittal to City Manager DePasquale in my continuing series on the destruction proposed for Magazine Beach.

Now retired City Manager Richard Rossi bragged to a public meeting at the Main Branch of the Cambridge Public Library about all the “improvements” Cambridge was bringing to the Charles River.  In the tradition of Manager DePasquale’s three predecessors, the important, really bad stuff was always omitted in such presentations, lying through omission.

Hundreds of trees have been wantonly destroyed between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.  I have provided you individually and collectively with my video documenting this outrage, or you may view it on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

I am in the middle of my detailed analysis to you of the outrages proposed for Magazine Beach.

5. Manager and City Council must evaluate their Development Department.

Clearly these pending outrages must be stopped, but more importantly, the City Council and City Manager DePasquale must really evaluate the belligerent lack of responsibility of the Cambridge Development Department as demonstrated not just through these latest outrages, but also through the first phase at Magazine Beach in the 2000s, the recent destruction on the Cambridge Common, the destruction of 3.4 acres of irreplaceable woodlands at Alewife, the destruction of 50 street trees in Kendall Square, the destruction of those hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, and the pending destruction of 54 trees at Magazine Beach.  The latest outrage is made significantly worse by a very clear and falsification of the plans which I have mentioned in my letters to you.  The falsification is the DCR and fake neighborhood association submittal of a plans which lied that 10 trees being destroyed were in fact three trees being destroyed.  And this is just a partial list of outrages.

Another major problem is that, over a period of 42 years, Manager DePasquale’s three predecessors steadily learned who can be “trusted” and pretty much only people they trust have tended to be appointed to key positions.  The destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro as so roundly condemned by three levels of Court clearly communicated what could happen to appointees and other  people who deviate from the thoughts ordered by Mr. DePasquale’s predecessors.  Monteiro’s life, of course, was destroyed because she stood up for women’s rights.  Some key evaluations of Mr. Healy’s behavior toward Ms. Monteiro from Trial Judge and Appeals Court panel, respectively, include “reprehensible” and “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”  The jury spoke by awarding more than triple PENAL damages in addition to over a million dollars real damages.

The Development Department needs reorganization.  The nicest thing that can be said about this series of destructive outrages is that you clearly have too many “planners.”  It looks like your “planners” are making work for themselves to justify their existence and, in the process Making Work for the Contractors of the City of Cambridge.

On the broader problem, Manager DePasquale clearly wants to implement the wishes of the residents of the City of Cambridge.  He clearly seems like a normal human being who would be offended by the Totalitarian tactics of his predecessors.  Control of the voters through the massive organization created during the regimes of his three interlocked predecessors and control of appointees AND NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS through stunts / warnings such as the Monteiro outrage are things Manager DePasquale will hopefully dismantle.

You can save the City of Cambridge money and resources by ending the repeated outrages of the Development Department and friends and by reducing the size of the Development Department.  In the process, you can IMPROVE services to the City of Cambridge by reducing outrageous destruction.

You must protect Cambridge residents NOW by killing the MassDOT Mass. Pike working group  proposal to kill Cambridge’s use of the westbound Soldiers Field Road off ramp to the River Street Bridge.

Sincerely,


Robert J. La Trémouille
Enclosures:   As Stated.

Addendum:  Copies of the Court Opinions in Monteiro v Cambridge may be reviewed at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-latest-magazine-beach.html.

Charles River Walk by a friend: Historical Observations

Charles River Walk by a friend: Historical Observations

1. Historical Observations by a Friend.
2. Editor’s Comment.


1. Historical Observations by a Friend.

Phil Barber follows up on his report of a few days ago with the following:

* * * *

I also found little traces of history in the soil disturbed by the work along the river. It was my ambition many years ago to work in archaeology, which I studied at college way back when. So I am very much drawn to any and all freshly turned earth as well as the study of history. The workers struck a shell midden; there’s an area where many fragmented oyster shells are scattered on the surface. Oysters were an enormous popular food in colonial and 19th century times but because there are no worked artifacts among the shells I saw, their origin is almost certainly pre-European. The native people summered in this area, harvesting the abundant shellfish and waterfowl, retreating to the sheltered highlands further inland during the winter. It’s easy to forget they lived here in harmony with the ecosystem for upwards of eighty centuries. The river was immensely wider too, from (more or less) where Brookline Street is now, all the way to Washington Street in Boston’s South End. (I grew up not far from Dover Street there, which was the narrow neck of land by which the peninsula of Boston was attached to the mainland before all the landfills.)

I also found late nineteenth century landfill along the river. This is first spotted by the abundance of coal ash, and on closer inspection you'll see broken glassware and crockery and the odd bit of organic material if it is from below the water table. The original plan for the filled in area of our city was like Boston’s Back Bay, but the economic collapse of 1893 ended that project, just as the fall-off in trade in the War of 1812 sabotaged the original Cambridge port scheme.

I notice a lot of local street signs commemorating events of that war, which was very much like our more recent imperial wars, and one that most people don’t realize the U.S. lost. New southern and western Congressmen, called the "War Hawks," carried the midterm election of 1810 by campaigning for the use of federal military power to drive Indians off the land their constituents desired for expansion of their slave labor plantations. They also sought to conquer and annex British Canada, Spanish Florida, and Mexican Texas. The navy scored some unprecedented successes against the Royal navy but the ground war was a fiasco. The failure of American arms was reflected in the Treaty of Ghent that ended the war. It addressed none of the grievances that had allegedly caused America to declare war. Britain, weary of her two decade-long war with France, agreed only to restore the pre-war status quo, and promised to abandon her Indian allies in return for a U.S. agreement never to invade Canada again. The real losers were Native Americans, who lost their most powerful international ally and from 1815 onward would fight on alone in a doomed bid for survival on the land they had cared for so long.

Phil

2. Editor’s Comment.

On the Charles River, the best friend of the Charles River White Geese back in 1999 to 2000 when I started to get really involved was Native American, LittleBrook, who, for a number of years, had been providing them with nourishment supplemental to the environmentally responsible grass which was their primary food source.  The responsibly maintained grass had been there for the better part of a Century, until it was destroyed for poison drinking grasses by Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation in the 2000s.

LittleBrook treated the ills of the Charles River White Geese with Native American remedies.

LittleBrook was with the Charles River White Geese pretty much whenever I visited, until he got a bicycle to commute from his home in the Allston neighborhood of Boston.

Two days after LittleBrook got the bicycle, he was hit by a car.  Last I spoke with him, he had been out of formal hospital / nursing home care for years, but he was not strong enough to return to his beloved friends.

Here are photos from the last time I saw Little Brook at the Destroyed Nesting Area, with his beloved friends during a session in which I showed around representatives of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation:

I invited him, and he brought munchies.

Charles River: A Knowledgeable Visit.

Charles River: A Knowledgeable Visit.

1. Phil Barber sees and reports:
2. Analysis.
3. Documentation of Part of the Record.


1. Phil Barber sees and reports:

I took a walk along the river this afternoon where they’re “improved” things. Looking at the new trees I wondered if any would survive – and if they do, will there still be the likes of a dcr to try to cut them down when they reach maturity. Then it occurred to me that there may not be automobiles or Memorial Drive when those young oaks reach their peak; maybe the whole area will be a tidal marsh again.

There were unusual visitors today on the river, a pair of swans and their two young. I see swans often at Watertown and sometimes in Boston harbor but not so often down here. Here’s a pretty good photo of two of them

2. Analysis.

As usual, Phil is very astute.

Since the outrageous destruction, WITH MORE PLANNED, saplings have been planted.

Most of the saplings, in fact almost all of them, are in locations which should have been planted a decade ago.  To the extent some saplings have been planted in the areas of greatest outrage, the “replacement” is a horror show and nothing less.

I have not examined the plantings close enough to be certain exactly where they were planted.  What is clear is that the plantings are far inferior to what was destroyed.  If they were provided as "replacements," they only benefit the Contractors, Make Work for Contractors when destroyed.  Make Work for Contractors when replaced.

Phil’s comment about how long will the saplings last before THEY are destroyed is exactly on point.  The hypocrites from Cambridge and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation brag about numbers.  They neglect to mention that a very clear part of the plan is to yell “TOO THICK” a few years out.

So the Make Work for Contractors has built in Make Work for Contractors in the out years.

At the same time, his reference to Global Warming is exactly on point.  The outrage on the Charles River is just part of the interlocking destruction of our world by mankind.  The big difference is the level of hypocrisy which is practiced in the key community, Cambridge, with its fake protective groups piously and hypocritically praising their destructive bureaucratic friends.

Correction of the irresponsible behavior should be two fold.

Hopefully, the Cambridge City Council has taken the first step.  The Cambridge City Council has hired a new Cambridge City Manager who does not look like part of the 42 year long Cambridge City Manager Machine outrage.  The new City Manager looks like a normal human being, in sharp contrast to his three inbred predecessors.

Next, the DCR must go.  The legislature tried to protect the Charles River and other sensitive locations from the reprehensible Metropolitan District Commission.  The legislature did part of the job.  The bridges went to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  The trouble is that the shores went to the DCR.  The destructive “planners” from the MDC moved to the DCR with their irresponsible plans and even exempted their irresponsible plans from normal reviews through another underhanded maneuver.

Dumping the DCR in favor of MassDOT will be a team effort that includes the legislature and the governor.

MassDOT is not perfect, but the DCR and the Cambridge City Manager Machine have approached being perfect in the wrong direction.

In this part of the Charles River, MassDOT has looked like the adult in the room with the DCR and the Cambridge City Manager Machine on either side as destructive brats.

But, thank you Phil.  Hopefully, the next outrage can be prevented, and hopefully we will get rid of the other part of the destructive bureaucrats who do so much harm to the Charles River, and do so much harm as part of mankind’s destruction of our world.

3. Documentation of Part of the Record.

My video of the outrageous destruction this time, with only a hint of what is scheduled to come next, is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Charles River, Magazine Beach: SECRET Destruction Plan Discovered.

Charles River, Magazine Beach: SECRET Destruction Plan Discovered.

I was in the process of preparing a formal letter to the new Cambridge City Manager and the Cambridge City Council, describing that portion of the proposed outrage on Magazine Beach which surrounds the Magazine Beach Swimming Pool.

I have been working from the formal plans submitted to the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  I knew, however, from the walk through that the Department of Conservation and Recreation had increased, allowing for fraud, the planned destruction to 54 from the previously announced 42.

At the walk through which the DCR conducted of its project, the DCR announced new and fancier plans.  I asked for a copy.  They did not want to provide me the new plans in hard copy, but the CCC prevailed.

It turns out that, WITHOUT MEANINGFULLY COMMUNICATING IT, the new plans include destruction of trees OUTSIDE THE ANNOUNCED DESTRUCTION AREA.  I call that Lying Through Omission.  Lying Through Omission was a standard tactic of the three past Cambridge City Managers when keeping secret environmental destruction.  The DCR does not, in my experience, live up to the level of the Cambridge City Manager Machine.

The new destruction is of trees which do not even show on the original plans as in the destruction area.

Here is the relevant part of the ORIGINALLY announced plan of the Swimming Pool area destruction.

Here is the relevant part of the new destruction announcement.

The secret destruction is ACROSS MEMORIAL DRIVE from the Swimming Pool.  You will note that on the original plan, you see a large, almost rectangle in the middle of the slide.  That is the support building for the swimming pool.  Above it, you will see a broken line.  That line is defined at the bottom of the plan as “LIMIT OF WORK.”  The upper portion of the line is the southern boundary of Memorial Drive. .

Here is a closer view of that part of the new plan:

Across from the Magazine Beach Reservation at this point is a small shopping center which does have a good Memorial Drive frontage.  Part of the good frontage was a recent improvement by a new owner.  A very important important part of the frontage is the Memorial Drive Reservation, owned by the DCR.

The building next to the added destruction area houses a MicroCenter store.  In the new plans, the LIMIT OF WORK line continues to be the south side of Memorial Drive.  But the newer plan shows TWO of FIVE trees next to MicroCenter being destroyed.  They are shown in the upper right corner of this last map.

Destruction outside the LIMIT OF WORK area has been kept totally secret, but it was added in this fancy map very casually dropped at the Walk Around, and, of course, the expansion of the work zone was kept secret, unless you check out what amounts to fine print.  They most definitely did not divulge that the lovely new map included work outside the LIMIT OF WORK line.

Here is a photo showing the trees in front of MicroCenter.  It is a crop from a photo of the destruction not being kept secret.  I made the mistake of assuming a minimal level of honesty.  So, this is a crop of a side view of the Swimming Pool building.  I had the nerve to only do photographs of the area within the LIMIT OF WORK.

The red line around the doomed trees is yet another lie, this time a Lie of Fake Definition.

They use a very official sounding word which sounds so good, but which escapes me.  This lovely, official sounding word gives the DCR’s sales pitch the  LIE of apparent credibility.

As near as I understand the fancy word, according to the DCR, using this lovely official sounding word, the DCR has a right to destroy any tree which has passed its peak beauty, NO MATTER HOW EXCELLENT THE TREE IS..

For a tree that would live 100 years, that means that the DCR claims a right to destroy it if it has “ONLY” 50 years left to live.  NO MATTER HOW EXCELLENT THE TREE IS.

As a DCR example of this outrageous claim of right, the DCR shows trees which are clearly dead which were among the trees planted in the irresponsible work in the 2000s.  Trees possibly died because the DCR is so irresponsible, so the DCR brags that this gives the DCR the right to destroy trees which have “ONLY” fifty years left to live, no matter how magnificent.

Oh year, the name of the fake protective group appears on the amended plan.

The DCR should be replaced on the Charles River with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  MassDOT has been the adult in the room when faced with outrages on the Charles River from Cambridge and / or from the DCR.  Both MassDOT and the DCR were given their current responsibilities on the Charles River when the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission, in part because the MDC was so irresponsible.

The planners from the MDC went to the DCR with their plans and, so far have destroyed hundreds of trees east of the BU Bridge based on those irresponsible plans.  Now they and their friendswant to destroy 54 trees west of the BU Bridge.

The DCR’s most important friends, the contractors, want money.  The DCR is feeding them with Make Work for Contractors.

That is the name of the game, and that is what the legislature tried to kill when it killed the MDC.

As far as Cambridge goes, first of all, the Cambridge Development Department is fully consulted by the DCR. Secondly, a bit over a year ago the last City Manager of the City Manager Machine conducted a public meeting at which the last Machine City Manager bragged about the great things the CITY OF CAMBRIDGE is providing on the Charles River.  Not by coincidence, that City Manager managed the destruction which was inflicted on Magazine Beach in the 2000s.

Cambridge now has a City Manager who may be a new beginning after the three interrelated City Manager who were so outrageously destructive.  The Cambridge City Manager Machine thrived in the spirit of the destructive bureaucrats now with the DCR.

Hopefully, the new City Manager will have the spirit of a normal human being.  He seems impressive, and normal.

And, for the record, my video of the destruction already achieved is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Charles River: Contractors Make more Make Work Money Near Cambridge City Hall or new City Manager stepped in?

Charles River:  Contractors Make more Make Work Money Near Cambridge City Hall or new City Manager stepped in?

1. The Record.
2. The Update.
3. Explanation.
A. Bad.
B. Good.


1. The Record.

On September 15, 2016, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-cambridge-extends-tree.html, I reported the City of Cambridge extending the destruction of trees to within sight of Cambridge City Hall.

Here are a couple of the photos.  The second was taken next to the undestroyed tree after the row of destruction in the first photo.

I find this outrage just a further step of a very destructive mentality which, in much larger scale, destroyed hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive next to the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.  That situation was analyzed in my video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

2. The Update.

Now we have saplings where were destroyed trees which were planted about 20 years ago.

The first photo shows the only tree in the block not destroyed, with City Hall the white tower with the clock and the building to its right.  The building to the left is the Central Square Post Office.  This photo shows one of the new saplings.  The second photo pretty much corresponds to the wasteland in the photo above.

3. Explanation.

A. Bad.

There are two ready explanations, one typically bad, the other perhaps good.

The bad explanation comes from the fact that a copy of the condensed version of the report, with two photos, was sent to every City Councilor.

To the best of my knowledge, although all of the city councilors were given notice with photographs, no action was taken.  And that is for an entire row of trees which extends almost within vision of Cambridge City Hall.  The following photo shows only undestroyed tree in that block with City Hall rising behind it.  This photo was included in my blog report and was in the condensed report which was emailed to all eight of the current city councilors who were in office then.
They simply cannot claim lack of knowledge.

There are markings on the sidewalk which give the impression of planned work, or, more likely, of some sort of construction under the sidewalk between the trees and the edge of the Post Office property.

It looks like, given that reality, that we are seeing just another aspect of the outrage on the Charles River: Contractors are given Make Work destroying perfectly good trees, and contractors are being given Make Work planting “replacements” for trees which should not have been destroyed in the first place.

PLUS the City of Cambridge benefits from another lie that Cambridge is environmentally saintly.  The replacements are that many trees they can claim in a lie that Cambridge deserves to be called a Tree City because the criterion for Tree City USA only counts trees planted.  It does not count which should not have been destroyed in the first place.

In addition, I am aware of at least one incident in which an entire residential block of perfectly good trees was destroyed to “improve” the neighborhood with saplings, and I have the definite impression that this was not the only such outrage..

The sales pitch is perfectly predictable: “How dare you object to our destroying that block full of healthy trees.  We put in saplings.”

English translation:  To Hell with the environment.  We have pleased our happy contractors, and we have a very active machine in place lying to the voters.

The situation on Cambridge streets and the outrage achieved and coming on the Charles River fits, demonstrating a decidedly reprehensible record.

And, oh yeah, this block adjoins an area where major work has just been completed.  Need I say more?

B. Good.

The other possible explanation could be that Cambridge has a new City Manager, and that the new City Manager noticed the outrage across the street from City Hall and ordered responsible behavior, to the extent anything related to the situation could be considered responsible.  I.e., City Manager DePasquale could have ordered the destruction be repaired, fast.

If this is the case, City Manage DePasquale is to be complimented.

Now how about firing the people who should not have done the destruction in the first place?  Particularly considering the fact that this outrage is not isolated.

Charles River:  Contractors Make more Money Near Cambridge City Hall or new City Manager earned praise

1. The Record.
2. The Update.
3. Explanation.
A. Bad.
B. Good.


1. The Record.

On September 15, 2016, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-cambridge-extends-tree.html, I reported the City of Cambridge extending the destruction of trees to within sight of Cambridge City Hall.

Here are a couple of the photos.  The second was taken next to the undestroyed tree after the row of destruction in the first photo.

I find this outrage just a further step of a very destructive mentality which, in much larger scale, destroyed hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive next to the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.  That situation was analyzed in my video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

2. The Update.

Now we have saplings where were destroyed trees which were planted about 20 years ago.

The first photo shows the only tree in the block not destroyed, with City Hall the white tower with the clock and the building to its right.  The building to the left is the Central Square Post Office.  This photo shows one of the new saplings.  The second photo pretty much corresponds to the wasteland in the photo above.

3. Explanation.

A. Bad.

There are two ready explanations, one typically bad, the other perhaps good.

The bad explanation comes from the fact that a copy of the condensed version of the report, with two photos, was sent to every City Councilor.

To the best of my knowledge, although all of the city councilors were given notice with photographs, no action was taken.  And that is for an entire row of trees which extends almost within vision of Cambridge City Hall.  The following photo shows only undestroyed tree in that block with City Hall rising behind it.  This photo was included in my blog report and was in the condensed report which was emailed to all eight of the current city councilors who were in office then.
They simply cannot claim lack of knowledge.

There are markings on the sidewalk which give the impression of planned work, or, more likely, of some sort of construction under the sidewalk between the trees and the edge of the Post Office property.

It looks like, given that reality, that we are seeing just another aspect of the outrage on the Charles River: Contractors are given Make Work destroying perfectly good trees, and contractors are being given Make Work planting “replacements” for trees which should not have been destroyed in the first place.

PLUS the City of Cambridge benefits from another lie that Cambridge is environmentally saintly.  The replacements are that many trees they can claim in a lie that Cambridge deserves to be called a Tree City because the criterion for Tree City USA only counts trees planted.  It does not count which should not have been destroyed in the first place.

In addition, I am aware of at least one incident in which an entire residential block of perfectly good trees was destroyed to “improve” the neighborhood with saplings, and I have the definite impression that this was not the only such outrage..

The sales pitch is perfectly predictable: “How dare you object to our destroying that block full of healthy trees.  We put in saplings.”

English translation:  To Hell with the environment.  We have pleased our happy contractors, and we have a very active machine in place lying to the voters.

The situation on Cambridge streets and the outrage achieved and coming on the Charles River fits, demonstrating a decidedly reprehensible record.

And, oh yeah, this block adjoins an area where major work has just been completed.  Need I say more?

B. Good.

The other possible explanation could be that Cambridge has a new City Manager, and that the new City Manager noticed the outrage across the street from City Hall and ordered responsible behavior, to the extent anything related to the situation could be considered responsible.  I.e., City Manager DePasquale could have ordered the destruction be repaired, fast.

If this is the case, City Manage DePasquale is to be complimented.

Now how about firing the people who should not have done the destruction in the first place?  Particularly considering the fact that this outrage is not isolated.

Cambridge, MA, USA City Manager DePasquale to Take Office on November 14, 2016? Proposed Contract.

Cambridge, MA, USA City Manager DePasquale to Take Office on November 14, 2016? Proposed Contract.

The Agenda for the Cambridge City Council meeting on November 7, 2016, includes a proposed contract of employment for Louis A. DePasquale, following up on the selection by the Cambridge City Council several weeks ago.

Congratulations and thanks are due to the City Manager Designate.

I assume that the contract would not be being offered to the Cambridge City Council if there were doubt that the Cambridge City Council would accept it.

Termination date is January 8, 2021.  The City Council must give Mr. DePaquale notice by September 14, 2021 should it wish to extend the period of employment.

The proposed contract is copied below from the City of Cambridge on line record.  It is in jpeg format and is readily readable by double clicking on each page.

I have delivered three letters to the Cambridge City Council as part of a series on the existing and pending outrages on the Charles River, as reported on this blog at

1. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/charles-river-magazine-beach.html
2. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/to-cambridge-ma-usa-government.html
3. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/to-cambridge-ma-usa-do-not-destroy.html.

Report 1 includes a DVD of our video on the Destruction of the Charles River to each the City Council and City Manager.  Report 3 gives the City Council individual copies.

That video may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

More letters are anticipated.  The current proposed outrage is massive by any normal standard.  I wish to ensure that the Cambridge City Council is clearly on record as having been made aware of the real situation.

The situation is outrageously irresponsible, with plans to make things much worse.

I have been awaiting the entry into service as City Manager of Mr. DePasquale, corecipient of these letters, so that he may receive these comments on the situation on the Charles River, with hopes that he can straighten things out.

To Cambridge, MA, USA: Do not destroy Magazine Beach or its Hill

To Cambridge, MA, USA: Do not destroy Magazine Beach or its Hill.

I. Introduction:
II. Letter.
1. Introduction.
2. Photos of the part of the outrage on the Magazine Beach hill facing Memorial Drive and the residential neighborhood.
a. Photos.
b. Defective Destruction Plan.
c. More detailed analysis.
3. Phil Barber tells the truth, magnificent grove overhanging playing fields, destruction of Little Guys Parking lot.
4. Proposed Solution.
5. Transmittal of DVD documenting the destruction of hundreds of trees east of this site by Cambridge and the DCR.
6. Conclusion.


I. Introduction:

I. Introduction:

We are doing a series of letters to the key figures in the Cambridge government on the latest attempts to increase destruction on the Charles River.  Cambridge has had a destructive, misleading three person City Manager Machine for the last 42 years.  A new City Manager has been selected but has yet to take office.  To put it nicely, there has been a lot of lying through omission on environmentally destructive initiatives under the Cambridge City Manager machine.   Environmentally, the city government created by that City Manager Machine is standing on a House of Cards.  False claims of environmentalism faced with reality could topple the House of Cards.

We would much rather communicate and give the City Council a chance to resemble its non stop claims of environmental sainthood.  The issue is the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles River and elsewhere where this destructive city government has impact.  The pending, and surprisingly delayed, appointment  as City Manager of a person who not been in the middle of the outrage is a positive sign.

A major part reason for this series is to put on record that the Government of the City of Cambridge has been made aware of the next impending outrage on the Charles River.  It stems out of years of work with the City Manager Machine in the middle.  The 42 year record is one which an not be ignored.  It is a lot more difficult to lie about your record when your record is clearly documented, and hopefully, there will not be more things to lie about.

Our latest letter was hand delivered to the Cambridge City Clerk on November 1, 2016 so that it could be made part of the City Council Agenda on November 7, 2016.

This letter has been reformatted to fit this forum, and sectioning has been added to comport with the Internet norm.  There is limited wording change, but only, once again to comport with the change in forum.  One typo was corrected by hand in the submittal and corrected in this presentation electronically.

The DVD attachment to the letter is referenced in the original text by including the URL with identical content in the text.  That will ease the tasks of the readers of this blog, but also the task of the readers of the publicly available record of communications to the Cambridge City Council.  Delivering ten DVDs to the Cambridge City Clerk for the Cambridge City Council was probably a first, but the delivery, one for each member of the Cambridge City Council, one for public record, makes claims of lack of knowledge that much less credible.

II. Letter.

1. Introduction.

November 1, 2016

City Manager Louis A DePasquale
City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA   02139

City Council, City of Cambridge, c/o City Clerk
City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA   02139

RE: Charles River Destruction 3, the Magazine Beach hill, DVDs of destruction accomplished so far.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

On October 4, and 26, 2016, I hand delivered my previous letters on this topic to the Cambridge City Council, care of the City Clerk.  I hope that, by the time I deliver this follow up, City Manager DePasquale will be in office, so I can deliver the October 4 and 26, 2016 letters with this one. [ed: He apparently was not yet in office.]

2. Photos of the part of the outrage on the Magazine Beach hill facing Memorial Drive and the residential neighborhood.

a. Photos.

Here is another very major view proposed to for all practical purposes be destroyed on Memorial Drive, the view opposite Magazine Street.  Photos move from west to east.

b. Defective Destruction Plan.

Here is the relevant part of the destruction plans submitted by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.  I realize the plans are deficient in that they UNDERSTATE destruction, including clearly fraudulent understatements.  

c. More detailed analysis.

The magnificent tree in the first photo shows for destruction in this plan exerpt under the word “clearly” in the text.  The tree to its left in the photo, right in the plan is being destroyed in the plan.  EVERY TREE BUT THREE IS DESTROYED FROM THE STREET TREE TO THE BACK OF THE proposed to be destroyed LITTLE GUY’S PARKING LOT (the semi-circular road).  Note as well, on the right on this plan, two more trees south of the pedestrian over pass being destroyed, JUST IN THIS PARTIAL PLAN.  

Total tree destruction on the hill / bathhouse area is THIRTY, which has been admitted by the Cheerleaders.  This FRAUDULENT PLAN, as presented in my last letter, without the cropping, SAYS TWENTY-THREE.

A FAKE SHOW WAS PRESENTED IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX TOTALLY LYING THROUGH OMISSION ABOUT ALL THIS DESTRUCTION, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE LACK OF FITNESS OF THE 42 YEAR MANAGER MACHINE, which, hopefully is dead.  This presentation with its lies of omission was compatible with others in the 42 year period.

Those Machine presentations look so good as long as the presentations lie through omission about the terrible things being done and kept secret.

3. Phil Barber tells the truth, magnificent grove overhanging playing fields, destruction of Little Guys Parking lot.

By contrast, here is an email from the top expert on Magazine Beach that I am aware of.  Phil Barber.

* * * *

Hi Bob, thanks for the updates. I am horrified (though not surprised) that they propose to destroy that beautiful grove of cottonwoods. I've been observing and photographing them for decades. Magazine Beach's resident red tailed hawk calls those trees home. A few of them have died and could be taken down for safety but the rest are solid strong trees with many years of life left. There is another stand of cottonwoods in the old SImplex area, which follows the curve of the former railroad spur that ran behind Sidney and Albany Streets (near Emily), and they are much larger and older and are flourishing.

It also interests me that the small parking loop near the pool opposite the gas station is to be removed. In the summer I see mostly black families from Riverside enjoying the picnic tables there by this parking place and I wonder if, that in true "liberal" hypocrisy, restricting their access is also part of "improving" our park for the gentrifiers.

* * * *

Here again, is the photo from the my October 4 letter, and the clearly fraudulent part of the plan which says THREE rather than TEN trees are being destroyed.  

A major difference between HONEST, RESPONSIBLE people such as Phil and the irresponsible DCR / Cambridge City Manager machine is that Phil clearly states that some of the trees in the grove are dead.  THE RESPONSIBLE TREATMENT, as proposed by Phil, IS TO CHOP DOWN THE DEAD TREES.  THE DCR / CITY MANAGER TREATMENT IS TO DESTROY EVERYTHING, AND THEN DESTROY, DESTROY, DESTROY SOME MORE, AND LIE ABOUT THEIR OUTRAGE through that fake show in the Annex.

Direction of view is opposite between the plan and the photo.  In the plan, the playing fields are on the right.  In the photo, they are on the left.  The pathway shows on both.

Myself, I am not an expert.  I am simply trying to compare deliberate false statements with other documentation I can get.

An excellent example of Phil Barber’s more than thirty year experience is the photo essay he has posted about the Charles River White Geese dating back to the 1980s at http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.

4. Proposed Solution.

There are a few reasonable ways to end this outrage.  

One is through requests.  This makes sense, but has next to no value particularly since the Metropolitan District Commission graduates in the DCR can and have gone forward with almost no warning.  Plus they have played games with the legislature.  The legislature allowed them to destroy between the BU and Longfellow Bridge years after their approvals expired, almost certainly being lied to by omission about the true impact of what they were doing.  

Claims of “lack of jurisdiction” in Cambridge government are silly.  Very clearly, the DCR is closer than the many governments of the world the Cambridge City Council frequently addresses; the destruction is occurring in the City of Cambridge;  Cambridge has funded destruction on the Charles River; Cambridge’s Development Department is consulted AND HAS BEEN CONSULTED on these outrages, and Cambridge has Home Rule rights over actions within the community.  Any claim of lack of jurisdiction is nonsense.

The option of most meaningful value is to get rid of the DCR legislatively, initiating the legislative process at the same time as initiating discussions.

Implement the wishes of the legislature when it destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission.  The legislature tried to protect the Charles from the destructiveness of the MDC bureaucrats.  Obtain legislation to get rid of the DCR on the Charles River in Cambridge, transferring funds and jurisdiction to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.  MassDOT has been the adult in the room in Charles River matters in which the DCR and the Cambridge City Manager Machine have been very destructive children.  Home rule legislation is Cambridge’s right.

The smart legislative option would be initiate transfer action through vote of the Cambridge City Council and action of Cambridge’s legislative team with proper rearrangement of funding from the DCR to MassDOT.  FURTHER TRANSFER OF MANAGERS AND / OR PLANNERS, this time to MassDOT should be FORBIDDEN.  The existing outrages are by Metropolitan District Commission functionaries who took their outrages with them to the DCR when the legislature properly destroyed the MDC.  The MDC alumni, have since destroyed, destroyed, destroyed in the name of the DCR.

Unfortunately, the irresponsible MDC bureaucrats survived in the DCR and, with the support and approval of the Cambridge City Manager Machine, are aggressively destroying Cambridge’s part of the Charles River.  Legislative action takes time, and the DCR has demonstrated the ability to destroy rapidly and with vigor.

In the interim, Cambridge should exercise the right OF CONTROL OF MAGAZINE BEACH transferred to Cambridge in the agreement for destruction of the 2000s.  The Chief MDC / DCR destructive bureaucrat has publicly admitted the willingness of the DCR to respect the transfer agreement by which the MDC got money for the 2000s destruction.  That destruction was managed by Rossi as top assistant to then City Manager Healy.

With control, it is essential that the City of Cambridge, in addition to finally ending these outrageous plans, destroy the bizarre introduced wall of introduced vegetation walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles, and end the use of poisons on all parts of the Charles River.  

This starvation wall is targeted at the Charles River White Geese.  It was promised to be a “lawn to the river.”  

Poison use on the Charles River is a love of the DCR/MDC bureaucrats.  It is always kept secret in the “planning” process.  The annual algae infestation of the Charles dates back to the MDC dumping poisons on Ebersol Field next to the Massachusetts General Hospital marked “Do not use near water.”  Less destructive poisons were not working.  The next day, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge.  It comes back every year.

5. Transmittal of DVD documenting the destruction of hundreds of trees east of this site by Cambridge and the DCR.

With my October 4 letter I transmitted a copy to the City Manager and a copy to the City Council of my video on the destruction already accomplished on the Charles River by the City Manager Machine and by the DCR.

I should have provided the City Council with individual copies.  Ten copies are attached to the City Council copy of this communication, one for each City Councilor, one for file.  Should members of the Cambridge City Council prefer, the identical video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

6. Conclusion.

End this outrage.  End it now.  Thank you in advance for your responsible behavior.

Sincerely,

Robert J. La Trémouille, individually and as

Chair, Friends of the White Geese

Enclosures: As stated

The Biggest Expert on Magazine Beach speaks out on the Impending Outrage

The Biggest Expert on Magazine Beach speaks out on the Impending Outrage

1. Comment from Phil Barber
2. Phil Barber’s experience.
3. The Rest of Us.


1. Comment from Phil Barber

I have, on October 28, received the following from Phil Barber in response to the email version of my report on the Cambridge Conservation Commission tour of Magazine Beach at:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/charles-river-spot-report-tour-of.html.

Phil's Comments:

* * * * *

Hi Bob, thanks for the updates. I am horrified (though not surprised) that they propose to destroy that beautiful grove of cottonwoods. I've been observing and photographing them for decades. Magazine Beach's resident red tailed hawk calls those trees home. A few of them have died and could be taken down for safety but the rest are solid strong trees with many years of life left. There is another stand of cottonwoods in the old SImplex area, which follows the curve of the former railroad spur that ran behind Sidney and Albany Streets (near Emily), and they are much larger and older and are flourishing.

It also interests me that the small parking loop near the pool opposite the gas station is to be removed. In the summer I see mostly black families from Riverside enjoying the picnic tables there by this parking place and I wonder if, that in true "liberal" hypocrisy, restricting their access is also part of "improving" our park for the gentrifiers.

2. Phil Barber’s experience.

Phil’s knowledge and dedication is clearly the best.

Phil has been visiting and recording Magazine Beach since the 1980's.

Phil has recorded Magazine Beach and the Charles River White Geese at http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm, with photos dating back to the 1980's.  Please check them.  You will like them.

Here my favorite of his photos, from the late 2000s, the Charles River White Ducks.

He predates the rest of us by decades.

3. The Rest of Us.

I first learned of the plans to destroy Magazine Beach from the announcement of one of the fake groups that they were working to “improve,” i.e. destroy, Magazine Beach in 1996.

They presented destruction plans from the Cambridge City Manager in 1997.

These plans achieved some terrible things in the 2000s, and are being made worse by the matters I am currently reporting.

For years, all I could get from anybody was that “they would never stoop so low.”

In 1999, I obtained the then plans from the now legislature destroyed Metropolitan District Commission.

The MDC planning chief, on providing me the copy, pointed out the small areas where her plans deviated from those created by the Cambridge City Manager for the fake group.

Those plans ARE THE BASIS FOR THE CURRENT OUTRAGE.

The first destruction was done by Boston University in accordance with an illegal contract with the MDC by which Boston University attempted, unsuccessfully, to turn the Destroyed Nesting Area into part of the Boston University campus.

Starting in March 2000, when the Charles River White Geese returned to their nesting area, Friends of the White Geese publicly organized.

In those early days, we had a two person core group.  We created Friends of the White Geese and obtained Attorney General recognition.  We each met the people who were most involved.

Reen LittleBrook, a Native American was, at that time the best friend to the Charles River White Geese.  He provided them full friendship and assistance.  He treated their medical problems with traditional Native American remedies.

LittleBrook, a few years later, got a bicycle.  A few days after that he got into a traffic accident and wound up in the hospital and rehab for months.  He, to his regret, is no longer physically able to return to aiding the Charles River White Geese.

First my cocreator took over the feeding.  Then we and friends created The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative as a federally tax exempt organization to take over the duties LittleBrook did.  That entity is so far separate from the Friends of the White Geese that I really do not have a good contact for them except to look for them at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

While, clearly, LittleBrook and the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative have been the people closest to the Charles River White Geese since about 1996 or a bit earlier, and I and others have been doing the political activity since 1999, Phil Barber predates us by decades.