Charles River / Cambridge:  Vellucci Park Protectors report controlled “Activists”.


1. Introduction.
2. Letter to Cambridge City Council and City Manager.
3. Conclusion.


1. Introduction.

In these reports, I have avoided getting into internal politics in the City of Cambridge.

Unfortunately, sickness of the internal political situation drives the situation on the Charles River.

It was thus a pleasure last Monday, June 4, to see a very impressive turnout at the Cambridge City Council concerning plans to destroy yet more parkland.

It gets even better because I lived in the neighborhood for seven years and wrote / provided technical assistance to two zoning changes in the area.

The public is given a limited amount of time, three minutes per person to comment on matters before the City Council.  Public comment ran more than two hours.

The usual characters were there and, rather incredibly, one member of the City Council commented that certain of the usual characters said something new.  The usual characters run around fighting for destruction.  What is new is what they are destroying this time.

What was extremely nice to me was hearing opponents of the destruction commenting that there were folks on the destruction side who looked like their strings were being pulled.

I followed up with a letter to the City Council that placed those comments in context with the performance of one of the self proclaimed City Council “environmentalists” at a meeting of the fake group which is fighting for destruction of the Charles River.

My victories in the area are part of the city zoning map.

Here is the relevant part of the zoning map.

Vellucci Park is in Inman Square, Cambridge.  The square proper is the elongated X at the upper right of the map.  The area marked OS between the two streets which are the left part of the X is Vellucci Park.

The C-2 area to the left of the X is Cambridge Hospital.  The next C-2 after Cambridge Hospital is Youville Hospital, now part of one of Boston’s hospital conglomerates.

The upside down L around Youville is the C-2B area which  my Leonard Avenue downzoning created to protect the neighbors.  Both hospitals are on Cambridge Street.  The area on the upper side of Cambridge Street between the hospitals was changed from the hospitals’ C-2 zoning to C-1, the neighborhood zoning.

Slightly to the right and across the street from this C-1 area is Highland Avenue.  I lived on the left slightly below the cross street.

The BIG area marked B is the next residential zoning district below Residence C-1.  It was created as a result of the Maple Avenue / Fayette Street zoning petition which I wrote and advised.  Above the B area is another OS area, Marie Avenue Park.

Marie Avenue Park was the first neighborhood area zoned for Open Space in Cambridge.  My idea.

The grey area at the top of the map is Somerville, MA.  Several Somerville residents testified last Monday.

For two and a half years, I commuted by bicycle from here to Boston University Law in all kinds of weather.  It was over a mile.  I commuted over the BU Bridge to BU Law before the beginning of the residence of the Charles River White Geese there.  BU Law is visible across the Charles River in a lot of photos of the goose habitat.

In the letter, I mention Sarah Mae Berman, a former School Committee member who supported the Maple Avenue downzoning.  She owns property in the B area.  I know which property it is, but this blog is read in more than 100 countries.  Identifying her exact residence to such a potentially wide audience would do nothing to further the value of this report, and would be indiscrete.

My letter to the Cambridge City Council:

2. Letter to Cambridge City Council and City Manager.

This letter was mailed on June 6.  Thus it will likely be received by the City Manager either on June 7 or on this coming Monday.  It will be formerly received by the Cambridge City Council the following Monday because they are conducting a special meeting this coming Monday which does not include any ordinary business.

* * * *

Gentlemen / Ladies:

The tentative vote to destroy Vellucci Park taken on June 4, strikes very close to home.

I lived at 67 Highland Avenue, within view of Cambridge Hospital, for seven years. .

I wrote / provided major technical assistance to the Maple Avenue / Fayette Street downzoning which created the Residence B district in that area.  That zoning change made the Marie Avenue Park have the first neighborhood level open space zoning, and included the home of at least one of the speakers Monday night, Sarah Mae Berman.  Sarah Mae consented to that change without being an activist in the creation of the change.

Although I am not aware of anybody present Monday night who was on my side with regard to that area, I also wrote / provided major technical assistance to the downzoning of the Leonard Avenue area.  This change converted to Residence C-1 a C-2 strip which formerly connected Cambridge Hospital and Youville Hospital on the north side of Cambridge Street.  Our downzoning also created a C-2B buffer in the Youville Hospital property to protect its neighbors.

I was extremely pleased at the astute comments on June 4 of a number of the neighbors who rather clearly recognized that  “protectors” active in the effort should, in reality, be considered controlled by the Cambridge Development Department.

People who work to protect Cambridge are commonly descended upon by supposed ”protectors” who are impossible to distinguish from robots of the Cambridge Development Department.

I recall a City Councilor who recently spoke to a fake protective group fighting for destruction on the Charles River.  She commented in praise of her idea of “process.”  She refused to discuss the 56 mostly excellent trees she voted to destroy at Magazine Beach, but she happily talked of “process.”  Her idea of “process” was very clearly one of going to the Cambridge Development Department and asking them whom to talk to.

The CDD commonly refers people to, it is very clear, folks who parrot the CDD, folks who work to  achieve very terrible goals of the CDD.

English translation, this councilor considers going to the destructive CDD to find out whom to listen to as correct “process” in evaluating CDD outrages.  Could be lack of understanding of reality.  Could be deliberate.  If deliberate, the use of “process” with regard to such behavior strikes me as fraud on the voter.

Well intentioned folks are besieged by individuals, commonly with bad records, who tell responsible citizens either to rely on fake protective groups or to directly rely on the very destructive CDD.

A still partial but more detailed communication of my record to the City Council is posted by the City Clerk at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1928&Inline=True, pages 99 to 103.  This partial listing of my record includes very destructive activities of such fake protectors.  Such entities have, commonly, been the biggest problem in my many responsible activities defending the City of Cambridge.

Once again, there were a lot of good, very astute people speaking in defense of Vellucci Park.  They must take care, and I think they will, to avoid being infiltrated by and destroyed by this tiny, very destructive, and well organized bunch of people.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille

PS: I did a commentary / interview show on The Cambridge Environment on CCTV [ed: Cambridge Community Television, Cambridge’s public access broadcaster] for 22 years.  The end of that effort has allowed me the very great amount of time needed to more directly communicate with the Cambridge City Council.

During my 22 years on CCTV, there was only one time I had as my guest on my show a then sitting member of the Cambridge City Council.  That person was Al Vellucci. [ed: the namesake of the tentatively doomed park]

Atch: Zoning map of mentioned areas [ed. above in this publication.]

3. Conclusion.

I think I have photos of pretty much all of these areas.

This blog is about the Charles River, its animals, its trees, its water, and its vegetation.  The relevant part of this hearing is the recognition by protectors that “activists” opposing them include folks who are being told what they believe.  Another part of the same filth which along the Charles River is fighting for, AND HAS ACHIEVED, major destruction on and into the Charles River.

I think the map makes my point adequately.

Charles River:   The Reality of a Bad Vote.

I. Editor’s Introduction.
II. Letter to Cambridge City Council / City Manager.
III. Additional Links.


I. Editor’s Introduction.

On May 21, 2018, the Cambridge City Council took a destructive vote whose reality was and continues to be supposedly secret from them and definitely secret from their voters.

The situation in the City of Cambridge is that when actions are kept secret there is PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS a good reason.  If the reason is publicly stated, it is a responsible reason, or it is an irresponsible reason FOR WHICH A GOOD SOUNDING LIE HAS BEEN CONCOCTED.  If the reason is kept secret, don’t be so stupid as to think it is a responsible action.

Additionally, in this situation, six of the nine City Councilors support destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and other outrages in the Magazine Beach recreation area.  There is a tradition with regard to such SHARED outrages with the vile Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.  The tradition is that funds get allocated to comport with the lies the City Councilors are putting out that members of the City Council are politically correct (possible caveat on three new members).  Nominally responsible expenses on shared projects get allocated to the Cambridge City Council.  The dirty stuff goes to the DCR.  It is all one project and thus REALLY one fund, but Cambridge voters demand that the members of their City Council be politically correct in their behavior.  So it really is all one package, but it gets constructed to allow the City Council to lie about themselves.

This is the basis for the vote of May 21, 2018.  Politically correct supposedly, but with no meaningful details, and it allows exactly the same amount of money to be allocated by the DCR for tree destruction and other obvious outrages.

Almost certainly the money for the “dock” work is for heartless animal abuse.  WHY ELSE WOULD IT BE SECRET?  Especially since the vote is based SOLELY on a “dock” plan which most definitely does not look like a dock, but which looks like just another starvation barrier to continue starving the Charles River White Geese.

THE SUPPOSED DOCK IS IN THE ONLY OPEN PART OF THE STARVATION WALL which, in turn, is admitted by the DCR to be hated by the public.  But it has value.  It blocks off Magazine Beach from their food for most of the last 37 years on the Charles River.  The Starvation Wall has been in place since the last outrages at Magazine Beach during the 2000's.

THIS TINY OPEN PART, THEORETICALLY, ALLOWS THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE THROUGH TO GET THEIR FOOD OF MOST OF THE LAST 36 YEARS.  In reality, there is yet another wall inside the opening to ensure their starvation.

THE NATURE OF WORK ON THE CHARLES RIVER IS ROUTINELY KEPT SECRET.   HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE IS ROUTINELY STUCK INTO EVEN APPARENTLY RESPONSIBLE PROJECTS.   IT IS QUITE STUPID TO THINK A SECRET PROJECT AT THIS LOCATION HAS ANY SEMBLANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY.

Besides, at best, it is just another juggling of money to lie that the Cambridge City Council has nothing to do with the massive destruction at Magazine Beach PUBLICLY supported by at least six members. That vote came almost immediately after city councilors led a rally declaring the environmental sainthood of the Cambridge City Councilors who voted for that particular outrage..

The following is my response letter to this vote.  The letter will be received by the Cambridge City Council on June 4.  It was received by the Cambridge City Manager on May 31.

The letter was finished with very little time for detailed editing while making the deadline to get it to the City Council on Monday, June 4.  As a result, there were a number of obvious typos.  As many of the typos as I could catch are corrected in this publication.



II. Letter to Cambridge City Council / City Manager.

RE: Charles River:   Reality of the vote on City Manager Agenda Item 2, May 21, 2018.

1. Analysis
2. Photos.
a. The CDD and fake protectors bragging of heartless animal abuse.
b. The most visible victims in their foodless, government destroyed, ghetto.
c. The official photograph / plan of whatever the City Council voted for.
d. Some of my photographs of May 31, 2018, of the rear of the recently renovated 80 year unused building, striking similar to the fake dock plans..
e. The Starvation Wall, sold under the lie “lawn to the river.”
f. Blocking of the poison drainage system by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors.”
g. Algae accumulation created by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors” blocking the poison drainage system.
h. Two street trees lovingly nursed by the MicroCenter’s owners ‒ after destruction by the DCR and by six incumbent Cambridge City Councilors.
i. Magnificent Grove overhanging the Magazine Beach Playing Fields ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
j. Magnificent Willow ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.  Western end of the public’s hated Starvation Wall also shows.
k. Excellent park at the top of the Magazine Beach hill, across from Magazine Street ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
l. Seven ADMITTEDLY excellent trees across from the MicroCenter parking lot ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.
m. Our Mark up of DCR Destruction Plans to show rearrangement of driveways (and tree destruction) to speed up traffic coming from MIT’s private exit for I90 (Mass. Pike).
n. Temporary chopping of Starvation Wall around the 20th Century boat dock which was made useless in the 2000's outrages.
3. A partial record of my experience.

1. Analysis

There is a pattern in the behavior of Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and fake and very destructive “protectors” they designate as a claim to “process.”

I get the impression that one or more members of the Cambridge City Council are not interested in whether or not they are environmentally responsible.  They just want to blame it on process.  The reality is that one woman with a terrible environmental record is running around lying about what she is doing and keeping her terrible actions as secret as she can.  She has a strong record of major destruction, and is implementing that record.  That is irrelevant to the City Council.

What is relevant is that she is rubber stamping a Cambridge Development Department with a terrible record, and she has a record of a rubber stamp.  WHILE KEEPING THE VERY TERRIBLE THINGS SHE HAS DONE AND IS FIGHTING FOR AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE.

To NO SURPRISE WHATSOEVER, THE CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT is very fond of and recommends this woman rubber stamping the Cambridge Development Department.

That is “process”.

The reality of whatever has been voted in in City Manager’s Agenda Item Number 2 of May 21, 2018 is that, in the location where the SECRET work is being performed, Cambridge, the Cambridge Development Department and the Department of Conservation and Recreation, have a well established record of heartless animal abuse.

The outrages at Magazine Beach rather clearly prevent access by the Charles River White Geese to their home and food at Magazine Beach of most of the period since 1981.  That starvation wall was implement in direct violation of public promises of a “lawn to the river” and is public hated, according to admissions of the DCR.

The apparent location of the “boat dock” almost certainly is an exacerbation of the starvation campaign.  A photo of the beloved (by the bureaucrats) and hated (by the public, according to the clear admissions of the reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation) starvation wall is attached.

I, as I constantly do, am trying  to communicate to the Cambridge City Council what the Cambridge City Council is doing.  I call the Cambridge City Council’s  kind of “process” exactly the opposite of environmentalism.  I consider it fraud on the voters.

Below is the complete photo which is the only substantive explanation for City Manager Agenda Item 2, May , 21, 2018, except for it being constatnly called a ‘NEW’ or a renovated Boat Dock, a claim which the City Manager has corrected by calling it a renovation.  Use of renovation (or whatever) / NEW varies.   A renovation would be to the boat dock rendered useless as part of the 2000's outrage which installed the hated Starvation Wall based on outright lies.  A NEW boat dock as promised could be anywhere.

This project MAY BE in the only opening in the Starvation Wall.

This bizarre plan was apparently the TOTAL SUPPORT for $25,000 allotted by a bunch of people who did not have the slightest idea what they were doing, but it sounded nice.  And the “process” buried the possible destructiveness of the proposal from being visible TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  The amount of other items concerned lovely “process” which, as usual, buried the important, potentially destructive stuff.

The City Manager has stated the supposed boat dock as being in the eastern part of the Magazine Beach playing fields, although the plan which is the TOTAL SUPPORT for the $25,000 certainly looks similar to construction behind the recently renovated building which has not been used for 80 years.  Photos from May 30 attached.

This latest vote, on May 21, was an added $44,000 with, again, no meaningful public process, except that it was added for discussion the day the budget was voted on FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR with NO REAL PROCESS, and no real communication to anybody, it would appear, of what is happening.

I recall a City Councilor claiming to be pro environment who would not discuss the mostly excellent 56 trees plus at Magazine Beach which six members, including her, of the Cambridge City Council voted to destroy.

The vote she was keeping secret in that meeting came as Order 1 following a rally on City Hall front steps on April 24, 2017 in which councilors loudly called themselves environmental saints.  But while she would not discuss the destruction, she then spent a lot of time bragging about process.  I have repeatedly provided the City Council with multiple communications debunking the flat out lie of April 24, 2017, “dead or dying” describing the mostly excellent trees and other excellence those six city councilors voted to destroy.  Order 1, NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PROCESS.

Debunking of this nonsense is on the public record at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, page 198 to 249.  There have been multiple follow ups.

Recently, a bunch of well intended folks followed directions of fake protectors and TEMPORARILY chopped down part of the publicly hated starvation wall which makes the Magazine Beach playing fields, for all practical purposes, ten miles from the Charles River.  The TEMPORARILY chopped down this part of the PUBLIC HATED starvation wall is located around the location of the boat dock of the 20th Century which was made useless by the outrages of the 2000's paid in part by the Cambridge City Council.  The Starvation Wall was installed in direct violation of the very formal lie which promised a “lawn to the river.”  Photo below.

As near as I can gather from surmise and public statements, this part of the Magazine Beach destruction project is slated to occur in the eastern part of the Magazine Beach playing fields.  This project is of value to the Cambridge City Council because it follows on the environmentally destructive vote of the Cambridge City Council on April 24, 2017.  That vote rapidly followed the self deification of many councilors on City Hall steps as environmental saints.

The April 24, 2017 vote was for major destruction at Magazine Beach based on the flat out lie, “dead or dying.”  I proved that flat out lie a flat out lie in great detail in my 51 page letter which I wrote on June 6, 2017 which was delivered to City Council and City Manager, City URL above.

Part of the outrage voted on April 24, 2017, has already occurred, and it is consistent with the very terrible record of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and of the Cambridge Development Department.

Two street trees have already been destroyed which were lovingly cared for by the shopping center owner at MicroCenter.  The loving care handed to those excellent, DESTROYED, trees is another party debunking the “dead or dying” lie in order 1 of April 24, 2016.  Photo below.  NOTE THE MULCH AROUND THE STUBS of the destroyed, lovingly care for, trees.

The only meaningful description of the dock project that I am aware of is one plan which does not look like a dock.  I posted that key photo, the City Council’s TOTAL FORMAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOAT DOCK PROJECT, among other places, on the Facebook page for the Charles River White Geese.

George E. Despotes responded on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page.  He made a very intelligent question.  He asked what this photo was all about.  My response did not make it into the record, but I have recently returned to the Facebook page, and double clicked the photo to get a better view.

The photo which has been presented as what the City Council is now paying $69,000 for, WITH NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PROCESS, is strikingly different from a boat dock.  This photo is strikingly similar to the wall behind the recently renovated building which has not been used for 80 years.

This recently renovated 80 year unused building is the item which fake protectors for years told people was the only thing they should look at on the Charles River.  This pitch was major in the fake protector’ fight for and victory in the destruction of hundreds of mostly excellent trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

Part of the fake protectors’ fight for destruction featured the fake protectors lying that they were meaningfully defending the Charles River.  The technical term is “Company Union.”

This recently renovated 80 year unused building is southwest of the magnificent grove which overhangs the Playing fields from the Magazine Beach hill, that six or more City Councilors want to destroy.

There are ten trees in this doomed grove of which less than a third cannot be saved.  The DCR plays a lot of word games.  Their word games were converted into “dead or dying.”  The word games in this case state that the DCR and SIX OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL are “only” destroying three trees, not the ten which normal humans would count.

This recently renovated 80 year unused building is directly west of the magnificent willow which six city councilors voted to destroy on April 24, 2017, photo attached.

This recently renovated 80 year unused  building is at the southern end of the magnificent park in the middle of the Magazine Beach recreation area which six or more City Councilors want to destroy.  Attached is a photo of this excellent and doomed park from the Memorial Drive side.  Much more detail is provided in my June 6, 2018 letter which shows AND EVALUATES every tree in the Magazine Beach recreation area.  The URL for this analysis is provided above.  Greater detail is provided in follow ups.

The photo which is the total basis for the $69,000 now voted by the Cambridge City Council is strikingly similar to the rear of this recently renovated location with its 80 year unused building, a location which is west of the western end of the playing fields and which most definitely is not a boat dock.

Attached are my photos of the same NON BOAT DOCK area.

The City Council has $69,000 on a pig in a poke.

No meaningful description of the project has ever been provided.  The DCR and Cambridge do have a history of HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE on the Charles River, and pretty much every recent project on the Cambridge side of the Charles has included HEARTLESS ANIMAL ABUSE.

The City Council has based this money on a photo which does not even portray the supposed boat dock.  But Cambridge and its fake protectors commonly brag about that which the voters would love, and keep as secret as possible that which would earn the Cambridge City Council derision by the voters.

This pattern of outrage is highly consistent with one of the reasons why the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission, routine irresponsible destruction of public property.  The irresponsible planners, with their plans, went to the DCR, and, with Cambridge’s irresponsible Development Department and the CDD’s rubber stamps are implemented these terrible plans.

2. Photographs.

a. The CDD and fake protectors bragging of heartless animal abuse.

b. The most visible victims in their foodless, government destroyed, ghetto.

c. The official photograph / plan of whatever the City Council voted for.

d. Some of my photographs of May 31, 2018, of the rear of the recently renovated 80 year unused building, strikingly similar to the fake dock plans..

e. The Starvation Wall, sold under the lie “lawn to the river.”

f. Blocking of the poison drainage system by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors.”

g. Algae accumulation created by the CDD’s designated Charles River “protectors” blocking the poison drainage system.

                                Photo:  Phil Barber

h. Two street trees lovingly nursed by the MicroCenter’s owners ‒ after destruction by the DCR and by six incumbent Cambridge City Councilors.

i. Magnificent Grove overhanging the Magazine Beach Playing Fields ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.

j.Magnificent Willow ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.  Western end of the public’s hated Starvation Wall also shows.

k. Excellent park at the top of the Magazine Beach hill, across from Magazine Street ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.

Exact analysis in our June 6, 2017 letter, URL above.

l. Seven ADMITTEDLY excellent trees across from the MicroCenter parking lot ‒ destruction supported by six incumbent city councilors.

m. Our Mark up of DCR Destruction Plans to show rearrangement of driveways (and tree destruction) to speed up traffic coming from MIT’s private exit for I90 (Mass. Pike).

n. Temporary chopping of Starvation Wall around the 20th Century boat dock which was made useless in the 2000's outrages.

3. A partial record of my experience.

IN SHARP CONTRAST TO THE CDD’Ss proclamation of rubber stamps to be inserted as “process” which is anything but, a PARTIAL record of my experience, with map may be found in the City Clerk’s records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1928&Inline=True, pages 99 to 103.

IN SHARP CONTRAST to the rubber stamps proclaimed as defenders, ALL my record is on the side I claim to be on.

III. Additional Links.

a, Official City of Cambridge of this communication as submitted to the City Council:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1933&Inline=True, Pages 103 to 114.

b. The newly upgraded website of Friends of the White Geese.

http://focrwg.com.

Charles River: “Process” = Fraud?

Charles River:   “Process” = Fraud?

1. Magazine Beach. ‒ Phil Reports
a. Website reborn.
b. Interesting article on invasives:
c. On the fake “protectors” who are destroying at Magazine Beach and being told they are saints.
d. Dock Project.
2. “Process” or fraud?
a. “Environmental” City Councilor brags.
b. Cambridge Common destruction.
c. Alewife Destruction.
d. Architect wants moneys for RECOGNIZED neighborhood associations.
e. Destructive Passenger Train Service.
f. Reduction of car access to Cambridge by the I90 rebuild.
g. How many years of fighting for destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River while lying about “neutrality.”

1. Magazine Beach ‒ Phil Reports

a. Website reborn.

Phil has been doing a heck of a job cleaning up the Charles River White Geese website.

He reports that the fruits of his labor so far may be seen at:  http://focrwg.com

b. Interesting article on invasives:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/25/happy-talk-about-weeds/

c. On the fake “protectors” who are destroying at Magazine Beach and being told they are saints.

The "gardens" they planted aren't faring well. About half the plants seem to be surviving.

The Phrags are pushing up under the tarps that were just laid down, some actually ripping through. makes me think of weeds you see germinating through asphalt. Determined!

As anticipated much uprooting (including wildflowers, not just in the reed area) and new tarps.

The rabbits have found the newly planted flowers, about half are still left uneaten.

Yesterday [ed: several days ago now] at Magazine Beach, I saw they've put in grass seed where the little wading pool was and in several nearby small areas that were damaged by the recent construction vehicle passage. The old Magazine is lit up on the outside at night now, more work of some sort being done inside. I guess they're keeping the small parking area, with the new handicap access curb cut - an SUV was parked blocking it when i was there, no pained markings yet.

d. Dock Project.

That is really outrageous kicking in all that city money for the dock project.

2. “Process” or fraud?

a. “Environmental” City Councilor brags.

At the last gathering of the fake neighborhood association, they had a city councilor speaking who claims to be an environmentalist.

She loudly brags about process.

She refuses to discuss the 56 excellent trees whose destruction she supports on Magazine Beach, or the total lack of process involved in that city council vote.

There were a bunch of City Councilor leading a rally on the Cambridge City Hall steps before the meeting.

They bragged of their environmental sainthood.  Then they went inside and voted for the destruction at Magazine Beach.

b. Cambridge Common destruction.

The Cambridge Development Department and self proclaimed environmentalists destroyed the excellent grove at the Harvard Square entrance to the Cambridge Common.

The CDD objected to the excellent grove blocking the view of a monument.

Now I see saplings planted.

My guess is that responsible people were highly offended by the destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council.

c. Alewife Destruction.

Last I heard, city councilors were still talking about the sanctity of the Silver Maple Forest at Alewife, the western end of Cambridge, and keeping as secret as possible (subject to nonsensical bragging) their destruction of 3.4 acres of it.

d. Architect wants moneys for RECOGNIZED neighborhood associations.

The architect who is an elected member of the Cambridge City Council put in a pitch during the budget process for funds for the RECOGNIZED “neighborhood associations.”

I have been close to a number of these fake protective groups.

One allegedly represents the “neighborhood” nearest Alewife.

Most recently, it has been very active at telling people to yell at developers obeying City Council created zoning at Alewife, but IN NO CASE, yell at the City Council responsible for the zoning, and most definitely not to look at Cambridge and the DCR’s destruction of 3.4 acres at Alewife.

I recall ten years of so again, how the same people who complaining that their funding was having problems, and them guessing that the Development Department was unhappy at some of their stands.

Last I heard, I was unable to tell the difference between the two.

They do have a “zoning expert” who brags that his “expertise” is based on going to the Development Department to find out what he thinks.

e. Destructive Passenger Train Service.

Passenger service on the Grand Junction railroad which runs through the last remaining habitat of free animals on this portion of the Charles River was killed a few years ago when people who would be impacted by the blocking of public streets by Commuter Rail in Cambridge.

MassDOT found that Commuter Rail would be of no value to anybody except for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology dominated Kendall Square in Cambridge.

The euphemism for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction this time is “West Station” as part of the rebuild of I90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) on the Boston side across from Magazine Beach.  West Station would be a key part of Commuter Rail if passed.

MassDOT asked the Cambridge Development Department who to contact.

The CDD has been fighting for Commuter Rail on the Grand Junction for years.  TO NO SURPRISE, the CDD told MassDOT not to talk to the people who beat the project, and instead to contact the fake neighborhood association which rammed through destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges (MIT supported, reinforces that part of Memorial Drive as, for all practical purposes, their personal feifdom.)

The “neighborhood” the fake neighborhood association clams to present has no real impact related to the Commuter Rail, except for the majority (but driven away from the group) who are shocked by the environmental destruction.

f. Reduction of car access to Cambridge by the I90 rebuild.

Same thing.  The “neighborhood” the fake neighborhood association claims to represent has minimal use of the route being destroying in the project because the route GOES AROUND most of the neighborhood and is on little value to the supposed people represented.

So, naturally, after the CDD representatives on the “advisory” committee supported the destruction, the CDD, also told MassDOT to talk to these controlled folks who do not even meaningfully claim to represent impacted people.

g. How many years of fighting for destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River while lying about “neutrality.”

Now the game is to fight for destruction and to lie by bragging about the little stuff and even lying about their destructive fight, but TOTALLY censoring reality.  The local fake protective group put on this supposed City Council environmental to brag about “process.”

As near as I can gather, her idea of process is to listen to people controlled by the CDD, She would not respond when asked about the 56 excellent trees and related excellence which the City Councilor supports destroying.

Website Reestablished

Website Reestablished.

Our website has been FAR less than ideal for quite awhile.

Phil Barber has been kind enough to clean up the situation and to reestablish the website.

He has done an extremely good job.

It may be found at http://focrwg.com.

His skill and efforts are strongly appreciated.

Any and all comments and suggestions would be appreciated from you.

Please direct comments to me at boblat@yahoo.com.

Thank you.

Charles River: More funds for destruction at Magazine Beach.

RE:    Charles River:  More funds for destruction at Magazine Beach.

* * * * *

Six members of the current nine member Cambridge City Council voted to destroy this excellent grove overhanging the Magazine Beach Playing Fields with exactly the opposite of public process.

* * * * *

1. Introduction.
2. Truly vile vote by six of the nine current city council members.
3. Game is a shell game with money.
4. Even the supposed target has been obtained by fraud.
5. The project is so irresponsible that the leader of the fight for destruction keeps the destruction secret from her own fake neighborhood association.
6. The reality obscured by non stop smoke screens.
A. First of all the Starvation Wall, photos above.
B. Secondly, the poisons first introduced in the 2000's outrage.
C. Introduction of Invasives.
D. The Destruction of 3.4 acres of the Alewife Reservation / Silver Maple Forest.
E. The destruction of the magnificent grove at the Harvard Square end of the Cambridge Common.
F. The destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.
7. The Cambridge City Council should give us honesty in government.

* * * * *

Six members of the current nine member Cambridge City Council voted to destroy this magnificent willow overhanging the Magazine Beach Playing Fields with exactly the opposite of public process.

* * * * *

1. Introduction.

Another shoe has dropped.

The Cambridge City Manager is being a loyal servant of a destructive city council which constantly lies about environmental sainthood..

Monday night, the budget for Cambridge’s next fiscal year is being voted on.  After an extended review of a lot of money which did not include destruction funds, the City Manager is adding destruction money at the latest possible minute.

* * * * *

Six members of the current nine member Cambridge City Council voted to destroy this magnificent park with exactly the opposite of public process.

* * * * *

The City Manager, in an action not announced during the budget project, is asking the Cambridge City Council for an additional $44,000 as part of the outrage ongoing at Magazine Beach.

This $44,000 was not included in the extended budget presentation which the city council has undergone.

It is in addition to $25,000 sneaked into the budget for the current fiscal year under false colors.

This request is bad on, at many counts.

2. Truly vile vote by six of the nine current city council members.

On April 24, 2017, a bunch of city councilors declared themselves environmental saints on the stairs of Cambridge City Hall.  Then they stepped inside and as their first order of business went on record supporting destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees in the Magazine Beach Recreation Area and related destruction.  The City Council used the flat out lie “dead or dying” with regard to those trees.

* * * * *

Seven magnificent trees, all admitted excellent in the skilled fraud of "tree evaluation" by the DCR, across from the MicroCenter parking lot.  Voted to be destroyed by six members of the current nine member city council with exactly the opposite of public process.

* * * * *

Commonly major actions are publicly debated in Cambridge.  UNLESS THEY ARE DIRTY ACTIONS.  Dirty actions are done as secretly as possible, with smoke and mirrors to lie about which side the City Council is on.  And one of the “environmentalist” city councilors voting for this destruction with EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF PUBLIC PROCESS, is now running around bragging about the PUBLIC PROCESS SHE WILL CREATE WHICH DOES NOT PREVENT THIS SORT OF OUTRAGE AGAIN.

“Dead or dying” used in that motion was a totally unjustified expansion on skillful fraud by the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the DCR’s wish to destroy all these excellent trees.

I have debunked this flat out lie by multiple, detailed responses.  The biggest and the most basic was our letter of June 6, 2017 which analyzed every tree in the Magazine Beach Recreation Area.

That letter is posted in city records at http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1815&Inline=True, pages 198 to 249.

3. Game is a shell game with money.

The funding of the fake “NEW” boat dock is the same stunt the DCR and the Cambridge City Council accomplished during the outrages of the 2000's.

One pot of money.  The Cambridge City Council pays for the “clean” work.  The DCR pays for the dirty work.

But it is all one pot of money.  Without the “clean” part being paid by the Cambridge City Council, there is that much less to destroy trees with.

And the city council is being asked to add $44,000 to the destruction fund on Monday night.

4. Even the supposed target has been obtained by fraud.

Throughout the “planning process,” the money has supposedly been for a “new dock”.  The City Manager has admitted that it is not a new dock.  It is a matter of undoing the obstacles installed to prevent use of the dock of the 20th Century.  At the same time, it appears that it could be adding more obstacles to use.

Here is the apparently fraudulent plan on which the dock proposal was based.  It is admitted to be a renovation, not the falsely advertised “new dock”.

There is no way this is a dock on a grassy knoll unless the DCR removes stubs created by fake environmental protectors by lowering part of the Starvation Wall which hides the Charles River from the playing fields.

If the DCR removes the stubs, the DCR will prove as lies its claims that it cannot clean up the ADMITTEDLY HATED Starvation Wall.  The DCR has claimed it cannot undo the outrageous Starvation Wall created by it and the Cambridge City Council.  The Starvation Wall has no meaningful use except the deliberate starvation of the 37 year resident Charles River White Geese.

* * * * *

Lied as new.  In reality a possible further blocking of the Charles River White Geese while closing obstacles created.  

Actions taken so far indicate that the Starvation Wall in this area has been temporarily reduced to stubs which are still adequate to prevent feeding by the Charles River White Geese at their home of most of the last 37 years.

The destroyed boat dock is the brown area.  PART of the STARVATION WALL on both sides has been reduced to stubs which continue the deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese.  The blocking of view of the Charles River through this TINY PORTION will regrow in the 6 years which it took this outrage to grow.

* * * * *

That bizarre wall “serves a purpose.”  It starves the Charles River White Geese as part of the DCR and City of Cambridge’s fight to kill or drive off all resident animals on the Charles River.

5. The project is so irresponsible that the leader of the fight for destruction keeps the destruction secret from her own fake neighborhood association.

Last Thursday night, the woman who personally embodies this fight for massive destruction on Magazine Beach put on yet another lying presentation of “protecting trees.”  This was a city councilor bragging about yet more process.  The city council has been bragging about process non stop during the outrages accomplished by the City Council this millenium, and telling people not to look at the terrible things they are doing.

* * * * *

Cambridge City Hall annex during propaganda show led by the same destructive person, and bragging of environmental destruction on the Charles.  This brags of heartless animal abuse.

* * * * *

THIS DESTRUCTION LEADER IS RIGHTFULLY SCARED OF COMMUNICATING WHAT SHE IS DOING TO THE MEMBERS OF HER FAKE GROUP.

SHE KNOWS THAT DECENT HUMAN BEINGS WILL NOT KNOWINGLY SUPPORT THIS OUTRAGE.

So she put on a City Councilor who voted for destruction to present a pitch about “concern” by bragging about process, YET AGAIN.  When questioned about the April 24, 2017 vote, the City Councilor would not answer, and went back to the smoke screen.  PROCESS, PROCESS, PROCESS.  HOW DARE YOU LOOK AT REALITY!

The lead destroyer told me to look at publicly available records to determine what that says about the destruction she is fighting for.

She very clearly reaffirmed her intent to keep her planned outrages and the City Council’s as much out of the voters eye, and out of the eye of her fake “protective group” as she and the City Council can do while lying about supposedly responsible behavior.

6. The reality obscured by non stop smoke screens.

A. First of all the Starvation Wall, photos above.

The DCR admits the 16 foot high starvation wall of introduced vegetation is hated by the public because it turns a playing field on the Charles River into a situation which might as well be ten miles from the Charles.  The starvation wall has no value except as heartless animal abuse.

The Starvation Wall is being partially, and very partially, undone by the $69,000 being expended on a fake new boat dock which turns out to be a reversal of the part of the outrages in the 2000's which made the existing dock useless.  PLUS apparently a new obstacle working toward the goal of starving the Charles River White Geese.

B. Secondly, the poisons first introduced in the 2000's outrage.

* * * * *

Blockage Created December 2017 by the same fake protectors.  Improved May 2018 by a related group.

* * * * *

 Poisons added to the environment in the 2000's were to be drained away from the Charles by
expensive drainage ditches. Half of the ditch drainage is now being rerouted to the Charles by
blocking the drainage ditches.
We previously complained to the Cambridge City Council. Here is initial algae accumulation created by this destruction.

* * * * *

Phil Barber

* * * * *

C. Introduction of Invasives.

Demonstrating how much of a flat out lie “standing up to invasives” is, here is mint planted by a related allegedly protective group in May 2018.

Photo courtesy of Phil Barber, with blow up by me.

* * * * *

Mint plants are as invasive and destructive as can be.

* * * * *

D. The destruction of 3.4 acres of the Alewife reservation / Silver Maple forest.

The City Council non stop lied about “concern” for the Silver Maple forest by yelling at developers obeying zoning which is the City Council’s responsibility.

* * * * *

Photo from City of Cambridge puff piece published on Robert Winters webpage.

* * * * *

One of the fake groups which apparently fought for this outrage was present at the Thursday meeting.
The representative called his supposed protection group “Green Cambridge.” He bragged about his
work at Alewife. He neglected to mention the 3.4 acres destroyed by the Cambridge City Council.
Destruction was helped, once again, by Company Unions lying about protecting and telling responsible
people that their supposed protection groups were protecting and telling their victims not to look at what
the Cambridge City Council was directly destroying.
When I asked this alleged protector about the destruction by the Cambridge City Council, his silence
was as ominous as the silence of the City Councilor when, in the middle of her process smoke screen
pitch, I asked her about the April 24, 2017 Order 1 vote for destruction.

E. The destruction of the magnificent grove at the Harvard Square edge of the Cambridge Common.

The development department bragged that the destruction would open up the view of a monument.

Since then more money has been spent to supposedly undo what should never have been done in the first place.

Is the winner the environment to replace magnificent trees with saplings?  Of course not.

The only winners are contractors paid to destroy and paid to replace, plus city councilors who can run around lying about their great saplings.  Plus, of course, city councilors bragging to constituents about saplings and NOT MENTIONING THE OUTRAGEOUS DESTRUCTION.

F. The destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

Our video may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  The City Manager damned in this video is Rossi, who publicly bragged about the “improvements” coming on the Charles River.

City Councilors were informed, with photos, for months before the destruction, many times per week during the destruction.

The City Council, during the destruction yelled at circuses passing through Cambridge on the public roads for animal abuse.  The City Council was deathly silent about the heartless animal abuse being achieved by Cambridge and the DCR on the Charles River.

Yet another skillful lie was involved in this outrage.

DCR / Cambridge turned a lot of the Charles River into a barren desert by failing to plant trees which should have been planted 10 years earlier.  So in addition to replacing excellent trees which should not have been destroyed, trees were planted which should have been planted ten years earlier.

The “replacements” for the outrages were, of course far inferior to the excellent trees destroyed, and, in fact were far overwhelmed in quantity by the trees which should have been planted 10 years earlier.

So a false impression of responsible government was created by this lie.

An analysis of part of the “improvements” was made by an international expert at https://youtu.be/dWyCdcWMuAA.

The reality is that the predecessor to the DCR was destroyed by the legislature in part to protect public property from its “planners.”  So these irresponsible “planners” went to the DCR and, along with irresponsible Cambridge “planners” have inflicted a lot of wasteful destruction.

7. The Cambridge City Council should give us honesty in government.

Stop lying that the City Council is pro environment, or change sides to the side it claims to be on.

To be specific, we request that, consistent with repeated expression of environmental concerns by THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL, the following actions be taken:

A Retract and rescind the City Council’s action on April 24, 2017, in order 1, supporting the destruction of 56 mostly excellent trees and related outrages in the Magazine Beach recreation area.

B. Trash the Department of Conservation and Recreation as manager of all properties under its jurisdiction in Cambridge in favor of replacement by the Department of Transportation.

C. End the environmental outrages planned by the DCR and Cambridge and reverse, insofar as feasible, the many outrages accomplished by the DCR, Cambridge and related entities from November 1, 1999, to the current date.

Charles River: More fake protectors destroy at Magazine Beach

Charles River: More fake protectors destroy at Magazine Beach

1. Reports
2. Record of the Charles River “Conservancy.”


1. Reports

Phil reports on May 10:

* * * *

There's a small army of volunteers tearing out the Phragmites and doing other general clean-up type work today.

* * * *

I think the number was about 15.

Phil reports on May 13:

* * * * *

As anticipated much uprooting (including wildflowers, not just in the reed area) and new tarps.

The rabbits have found the newly planted flowers, about half are still left uneaten.

* * * * *

Ed: Now they will want to deliberately kill rabbits.

2. Record of the Charles River “Conservancy.”

One of the happiest moments I have had was listening to the Boston Conservation Commission blast the Charles River “Conservancy” for their destruction of environment on the Boston side.  The area in which they destroyed, about half a mile in length, recently was supported by the fake neighborhood association for total destruction, by having highway related construction on platforms built on the river banks and cantilevered over the Charles River.  Fortunately, the target in the demands, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation is the adult in the room in comparison to the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Cambridge Development Department, and their friends.

This destructive fake protective group has been in existence under this name since the Fall of 2000.

Their predecessor fake protective group was the entity which announced the Cambridge City Manager’s plans for destruction in 1997.

In June 1999, the lead “Planner” of the predecessor of the Department of Conservation and Recreation gave me the DCR’s plans for Magazine Beach.  She showed me the small differences between City Manager Healy’s plan and the DCR’s.

That fake group did two things.  The other was an annual clean up of Magazine Beach for Boston University to hold part of its commencement activities there.  They suckered people into that in the name of Earth Day.  One of the first activities of Friends of the White Geese was to picket one of the clean ups.  That fall, the CRC announced its existence with overlapping directorate.

The CRC fought for the Starvation Wall which keeps the Charles River White Geese from their food of most of their 37 year residence, at the Magazine Beach Playing fields.

They did a “swim in” bragging about how the DCR was improving swimming.  Never explained how walling off Magazine Beach improves swimming.

The CRC fought for the destruction of those hundreds of mostly excellent trees that were destroyed in January 2016.

Our video reporting the destruction is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

The CRC has destroyed vast amounts of ground vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese and all of the ground vegetation in the Wild Area on the opposite side of the Grand Junction.

To the right of the V shaped tree is a mother goose trying to nest.

This hill under the Grand Junction leading to the bay was lush with ground vegetation.

Formerly lush river bank.

Highly invasive mint planted and watered by CRC this year near the covered poison drainage area.  Phil Barber photo with blowup.

The eastern poison drainage area after denuding of free vegetation by the fake neighborhood association.  Phil’s reference to new tarps, I assume refers to this area.

And here is some of the DCR’s beloved algae, in a formerly clean area of water east of the covered poison drainage area.  Phil Barber photo.

The Charles River has an annual blight of algae.  It dates back to the first annual Charles River Swim.  The DCR decided that its beloved poisons were not as effective as the DCR would like at Ebersol Fields on the Charles River in Boston near the Massachusetts General Hospital.

So the DCR dumped poisons marked “Do not use near water.”

The next day, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge, the next bridge downriver from the BU Bridge which abuts the Destroyed Nesting Area to which the Charles River White Geese are confined without food.

At Alewife, Somerville proudly displays free vegetation which the fake protective groups destroy.  Normal human beings are constructive, not destructive.

Life on the Charles River

Life on the Charles River

Phil Barber has provided the following photos from Magazine Beach on May 10.