Hits on this blog, cyber security from the invader.

Hits on this blog.

During the 17 years I have run this blog, I have never commented on our audience.

Given the current international events, hits may be of interest.

I have regularly watched the international hits since 2011.  During that period, we have been viewed by about 120 countries.

There are occasional periodic spikes which stand out and stink of attacks.  By far the largest spikes over the years have been from Russia.  Those spikes really have been quiet for quite a while and are not currently showing.

Spikes, of course, could come from search type publicity.  The ones which look like attacks differ from such a situation because of their sudden massive hits. 

Currently, there have been a disproportionate number of hits from Japan.  It really is not so large as to look like an attack.  I welcome those folks with pleasure.  We had weekly hits of this scale in individual weeks during last December and November.  January saw a week with hits five times this size.

I apologize for the relative lack of activity.  The reality is that the Charles River is under constant attack from Cambridge and that irresponsible state agency, but nothing individually outstanding.  There is great fear for destruction which the Cambridge City Council really funded, but no apparent action visible.  I had a number of comments on the report of that bike outrage which I really should pass on.

The countries with apparent attacks are very few.  Russia has three times the number of total hits as the number two suspect and six time the number 3 suspect.

Japan, by contrast, is probably benign.  Local reasons of interest repeating apparently once a month, perhaps.  Total hits from Japan are one tenth that from Russia, but the reality is that Japan is much smaller a country.

SUPPLEMENT 1:

Cybersecurity against Russian Attacks:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/how-to-avoid-being-hacked-by-the-russians/ar-AAUidup?ocid=msedgntp

SUPPLEMENT 2:

On checking my records, I see only 5 out of 120 countries which have visited this site as possible security threats, with Russia by far the largest.

Teen Cyclist Mows Down Elderly Pedestrian in Crosswalk

 RE: Teen Cyclist Mows Down Elderly Pedestrian in Crosswalk

1. Introduction.

2. Ms. Whitlow’s letter.

3. Analysis.

1. Introduction.

This blog’s purpose is to present environmental analysis of matters impacting the Charles River, its animals, its vegetation and its waters.  The big problem is belligerently destructive governmental entities.

One of the most reprehensible “explanations” provided for environmental outrages by government is benefits to the belligerently irresponsible bicycle lobby.  This explanation can be taken with a grain of salt because the repeated mentality looks like it is to use whatever excuse the target will swallow.

The following letter has been sent to the Cambridge City Council by Cambridge resident Chemi Whitlow.  Chemi is a friend from the close knit Eastern Massachusetts world of movie actors.  It is copied from her Facebook post.

Here is Chemi’s photo of the location of the outrage.  It is taken from her earlier post on the matter.  The STOP sign Chemi mentions is to the left of the camera.  One way traffic legally flows from left to right.  Violation of mandatory direction is common by bicyclists.  Traffic flow on one way Pleasant Street (seen to the right) is legal from behind the camera and then straight ahead, also a requirement commonly violated by bicyclists.

2. Ms. Whitlow’s letter.

Dear Cambridge City Councillors,

I am a long time Cambridge Resident.  I'd like to express my concern over Bike Safety namely reckless cyclists.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022, just after 3:00PM, I was walking home from Central Square, down Pleasant Street between 7-11 and the Post Office.  I was approaching the Greene St.  Crosswalk when I saw an older lady walking towards me pushing her empty shopping cart crossing the street.  There is a Stop Sign before the crosswalk.  A guy on a bicycle going full speed ran over the older lady violently knocking her to the ground!  He did not slow down, he did not swerve, he did not stop for the Stop sign.  He just mowed her down!

I saw the bicycle hit the woman, I saw the impact, he struck her body.  She was violently thrown and hit the pavement.  He rolled over her as well and fell off his bike.  Several people called 911, including myself!  At first, she didn't move for over a minute, we thought she was dead, then she started moaning and groaning and asked what happened! The EMT's and police came quickly.  As I was yelling that the guy never slowed down or stopped for the stop sign, I was told by police to calm down, the guy is a "juvenile" only 14 years old. and "he didn't mean it".  The woman told EMT's she couldn't move and she was born in 1944.  She was in agony. She was eventually taken away in an ambulance with sirens wailing.

I spoke with Cambridge Police Public Relations, yesterday, Friday, February 11, 2022, and was told the woman has a "LIFE" injury.  She sustained injuries to her hip and leg and is in MGH.  Because he is a "juvenile" the police will be stressing "safety" with him.  I'm not sure what that means.  

Overall, this older woman was maimed by a reckless teen cyclist.  Before the accident she was independent. The lady was in the crosswalk where she should have been safe.  I've been chatting with people about this accident only to find, people are almost getting run over by speeding cyclists daily in the City of Cambridge.  

As the City is creating beautiful bike paths and spaces for cyclists.  What are Cyclists responsibilities?  Is Bike Safety taught in Cambridge Public Schools?  When I went to school in South Bend, Indiana in the early 1970's we had to attend Bike Safety training and got a certificate before we were allowed to ride a bike to school. I'm raising this because in the accident I saw the teen did not slow, did not stop for the stop sign he didn't even swerve, so why didn't he see the older woman he mowed down at full speed in a crosswalk?  Was he distracted?

It's my hope that the Cambridge City Council will stress Bike Safety not just for the safety of pedestrians but the riders themselves.  And as to the accident that I witnessed, had the teen not struck the woman, he would have sped through the intersection without stopping and possibly been hit by a car.

3. Analysis.

One of the most reprehensible outrages coming from the Cambridge City Council is its participation in the ongoing and increasing destruction on the Charles River, including but not limited to the destruction of as much animal habitat as is convenient, the poisoning of the banks of the river and poisoning of the Charles River.

My analysis of the biggest single outrage on the Charles River is in my video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  The video includes a segment in which I show the bike path creation “explanation” to be just another convenient lie.  As I commented above in section 1, they look like they provide whatever lie the target will swallow.

The comments concerning the City Manager were directed at the last of the three James Leo Sullivan clique of City Managers, and is not targeted at the current City Manager.

I am not going to, yet again, repeat the constant and accelerating outrages.  Here is my fact sheet on the most recent TYPICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE vote concerning Magazine Beach.  

The DCR has announced plans for “input” on destruction west of Harvard Square.  I anticipate unanimous SILENCE from the Cambridge City Council on that outrage as well.  Silence under circumstances which call for outrage is consent.  

The state legislature tried to clean up the situation on the Charles River by destroying the previous state entity charged with it, the Metropolitan District Commission, and replacing that entity with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (including the MDC’s “planners”) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

MassDOT is not perfect, but it has, on key issues, been clearly the adult in the room with two irresponsible children.  If Cambridge had a responsible City Council, it would be petitioning the state legislature to replace the DCR with MassDOT.

But, as demonstrated in Ms. Whitlow’s letter, the Cambridge City Council is not fit to manage the City of Cambridge, let alone behave responsibly on the Charles River.

Updates: Goose Visitor, Cambridge City Council Hypocrisy

1. Goose Visitor.

We have been in contact with the Animal Rescue League of Boston representative for this area.

A little explanation on organizational responsibilities.  When Friends of the White Geese became aggressively involved on the Charles River, Reen Littlebrook, a native American living in the nearby Allston Neighborhood of Boston was their best friend.  He functioned as that for about ten years.

He got a bicycle.  The second day he used the bicycle he wound up in the hospital, followed by a nursing home, followed by continuing recuperation at home.  FOWG took over his responsibilities for several months.  We then created a totally separate tax-exempt organization for that purpose, the Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.  They have done the feeding and care ever since.  It has been necessary because of the continuing and accelerating heartless animal abuse by the Cambridge City Council and the Department of Conservation and Recreation.  

CRUWI does an excellent job, but are at their maximum.  People interested in helping should visit the goose meadow, their Destroyed Nesting Area, and say hello to CRUWI members feeding the geese.  FEEDING BY HUMANS IS ESSENTIAL BECAUSE OF THE DELIBERATE STARVATION BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL AND DCR.  Offer to help in the necessary activities in response to the continuing and accelerating reprehensible government behavior.

Here is a photo of Littlebrook feeding the geese.  We arranged a meeting with MassDOT on their activities in the area.  We invited him.  He happily came and very happily visited with his friends.

The representative of ARL was formerly in the employ of the Tufts Veterinary School in a similar capacity.  When FOWG was directly managing the care of the CRWG, Tufts Vet School we looked around for care providers.  Tufts Vets were the ONLY vets we trusted for care.

ARL has been in the Back Bay Fens looking for the visiting white goose.  They have spotted her and will pick her up this week to provide care and RESPONSIBLE adoption management.

In the meantime, the visiting goose has an excellent goosedown jacket.  Her big problem is human and dog predators.  Hopefully she will keep in a safe location until ARL can pick her up.

2. Cambridge City Council nonsense.

I put my post in the form of a letter to the Cambridge City Council and delivered it to them Monday night along with comments pointing out the contents which were place on the record.  

An added horror was an initiative by the Cambridge City Council to research the use of the city’s golf course.  Given the reprehensible behavior of the Cambridge City Council on the Charles River and at Alewife and way too many other locations,, such an action is highly scary and I said so, going point by point to my post as example.

3, References.

A. Section 1, above.  “A Visiting White Goose,” posted at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2022/01/a-visiting-white-goose.html, this blog, January 17, 2022. 

B. Section 2, above. “More hypocrisy coming from the Cambridge City Council, ACCELERATING environmental outrages coming WHILE piously proclaiming sainthood,” https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2022/01/more-hypocrisy-coming-from-cambridge.html, this blog, January 23, 2022.

More hypocrisy coming from the Cambridge City Council, ACCELERATING environmental outrages coming WHILE piously proclaiming sainthood.

More hypocrisy coming from the Cambridge City Council, ACCELERATING environmental outrages coming WHILE piously proclaiming sainthood.

I am going to do this report in two parts.  First the basics.  Second, I will document in detail if I have time.  The reality is that a very major time crunch is applied to people who want to stand up to outrages in preparation for City Council meetings.  

I can and repeatedly do provide plenty of details, but not with this time limit.  Each such report takes WEEKS.  

URL to City Manager agenda is in section 1.C.

1. Pending outrages

A. Cambridge City Council is considering 

(1) NET-ZERO plans supposedly plans preventing destruction of the environment.  But the plans do NOT END OR EVEN MENTION destruction of the publicly owned parts of the environment,

City Manager Communications 1 and 4 on Monday, January 24 agenda; City Council order 5 on Monday January 24 agenda.

and

(2) they are yelling at the other guy about firs, WITHOUT ending their own heartless abuse of free beings.

City Council order 5.

B. Department of Conservation and Recreation concentrating on destruction west of Harvard Square THIS time.

Cambridge Day Report on the latest DCR / Cambridge outrage: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/01/17/state-brings-back-its-plans-for-memorial-drive-unannounced-and-changed-without-explanation/

I have repeatedly provided the Cambridge City Council with the official plans and relevant photos at Magazine Beach.

Here is my fact sheet on this latest outrage from the then NINE members of the Cambridge City Council.  It is not accomplished yet, but the City Council does not want to know about the City Council’s record, and the last thing the City Council will do is reverse yet another outrage of the Cambridge City Council.

C. City Council Agenda for January 24, 2022.

Full official details.

https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3568&Inline=True.

2. Appropriate Action for Cambridge City Council.

A. End all plans and funding to destroy yet more trees and animal habitat and river water on the Charles River, and stop PAYING the Charles River Poisoner to do “environmental” work.

Here is my video documenting the destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges in January 2016.  The city council’s “response” was to yell at circuses passing through the city on public roads about the circuses’ supposed abuse of animals, while totally ignoring the heartless abuse of animals by the DCR and Cambridge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

Just as in January 2016, the DCR is destroying Cherry Trees, as many as they can get away all the time.

Here is my letter of June 6, 2016 passing on the DCR’s official filing of destruction plans to the Cambridge Conservation Commission, along with relevant photos.  Repeatedly provided and repeatedly ignored by the Cambridge City Council while voting to make things worse, VOTES AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE, offset by nonstop nonsense yelling at other guys bragged about.

http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm.

B. Stop the lobbying of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to add to their rebuild of I90, the Massachusetts Turnpike, destructive projects which impact Cambridge.  Frequently repeating attempts which failed in Cambridge because of public opposition.

C. End the use of poisons on the banks of the Charles and in other animal habitat.

D. Stop starving / poisoning the free animals whether on land, in the water, or in the air, especially the Charles River White Geese.  Allow the Charles River White to return without constraints to UNPOISONED playing fields at Magzine Beach which have been their homes and food for most of the last 40 years.  Unpoisoned maintenance survived for the better part of a Century.  

Poison maintenance has failed but is being expanded.  In spite of the obviously failure including the poisoning of the Charles River, the DCR has refused to deny plans to use poisons on open space created as part of the I90 Rebuild project.

E. Reduce the other outrages of the past twenty years.

F. Petition the State Legislature to replace the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation on the Charles River with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

G. Stop yelling at the other guy to hide the extreme environmental irresponsibility of the City of Cambridge.

H. Stop HIRING AND PAYING the woman who poisoned the Charles River (using DCR and Trump moneys) to work on Charles River “environmental issues.”.

Here is a photo of the work she did rerouting the poisons dumped on the Magazine Beach playing fields into the Charles River.

Here is a composite photo of the sign the DCR has posted bragging that the poison drainage ditches protect the Charles from the POISONS BEING INTRODUCED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT BY DCR AND THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL, subordinate photos from Phil Barber, composite by me.

3. Speaking.

Taken from the city’s webpage.

Follow the link here:  https://www.cambridgema.gov/publiccomment to register to speak.

4. Details.

I can dream of having the time, YET AGAIN, to repeat the outrages from this reprehensible and hypocritical city council.  I suggest looking at the Charles River White Geese page on Facebook, or looking at The Charles River White Geese Blog at charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com in the meantime.  I spend weeks doing a modest write up of the accelerating outrages.

Follow either one back.  A whole bunch of information.

A Visiting White Goose

 A Visiting White Goose

1. Visiting Goose.

2. Analysis.

A. General.

B. The location.

C. The Visiting Goose.

D. Long term options.

3. The nature of these reports.

1. Visiting Goose.

Kristen Higgins, a few days ago, let us know about a visiting white goose in the Boston Open Space behind the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.  She has joined the Charles River White Geese Page on Face book and shared the visit.  Here is her report.

She tells me that she did not see the goose the next day.

2. Analysis.

A. General.

First of all, I strongly appreciate the report and appreciate any and all such input in our area.

I will summarize in the concluding section our organizational situation and ways to contact.

B. The location.

Here is a map of the area cropped from Google Maps.

The remnants of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese is in the upper left corner.  The BU Bridge is the first bridge on the Charles River to the right of the left corner.  The Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese is to the upper right of the BU Bridge.

Kristen saw the visitor “behind the Museum of Fine Arts.”  This is above and slightly to the right of the middle, bottom.

The location where she viewed the visiting goose is the Boston Fens, owned and managed RESPONSIBLY by the City of Boston.  The Fens is constructed around the Muddy River.  The Muddy river is the center of the Fens.  The Muddy River and related parkland starts at the left bottom of our map and runs vaguely diagonally up and to the right.  After that, the Muddy River has been buried and moves pretty much down and to the right from the top point to the portion of the Fens where Kristen’s goose was seen.  About two thirds of this area is above ground, the balance in pipes, 

Kristen saw the goose behind the MFA, as seen on the map.  

The Fens moves up and to the right to a point where the Muddy River goes through a series of pipes with ground level appearances, traveling under a major but local highway area to the Charles River.

The Muddy River flows into the Charles a little bit to the left of the bridge on the right, the Mass. Ave. (officially “Harvard” ) Bridge.

When the Charles River White Geese first came to the Charles River in 1981, their habitat went far beyond Magazine Beach at the upper left and extended most of the way on the Cambridge side toward the Mass. Ave. Bridge.  They traveled the Charles, going on land to feed.  Almost all of that habitat has been ruthlessly destroyed by the Mass. Dept. of Conservation and Recreation with major leadership and sharing work by the City of Cambridge.

Here is a larger blow up and cropping of the same Google Maps presentation, emphasizing the Charles River White Geese.

The big green area to the left is mostly Magazine Beach where the Charles River White Geese spent most of their lives living and feeding until Cambridge and the Cambridge City Council and the DCR started heartlessly starving them.  The Destroyed Nesting Area is recognized by Google Maps at the top of and to the right of the BU Bridge.  Below I will mention and provide a photo of the cove which is still warm in the worst of winter.  It is to the right of the now foodless Destroyed Nesting Area.  It is the portion of the river to the right of the DNA.  The outcropping to its right is a Boston University Boathouse.

If you closely examine these two maps, you will see a lot of areas I have reported on in these reports.  The purpose of this particular report is to report on the visiting goose.  I therefore will refrain from providing a tour.

C. The Visiting Goose.

As Kristen comments, she did not see the visiting goose on the next day.

The Fens is well furnished with vegetation of all sorts.  There are many places where a visiting goose could seek shelter, including but not limited to vegetation and bridges.

Here is a larger blow up and cropping of the same Google Maps presentation emphasizing the parkland around the Muddy River in this location.

The map shows the system of foot paths which include a lot of bridges and vegetation.

This type of white goose looks like the geese who are dominant among the Charles River White Geese.  But the Charles River White Geese have lived on the Charles for more than 40 years.  That translates into many generations.  Other breeds have been abandoned in the area and intermated, plus the White Geese themselves have birthed animals with vestigial markings who have gone to mate.  So while the gaggle still is predominately this variety, there is a great deal of variety.

There are bridges and there are pipes.  The Charles River White Geese are strong fliers, but they are practical.  Why waste a bunch of energy flying when they can walk there?

It is unlikely that the goose came from the portion of parkland to the left because of the piping between the two.  This blow up, however, does better show the very real area to the left of the MFA area which is at surface.  That area is reasonable for movement of the goose.  I similarly, I cropped to the parkland and the cropping at the top right is exactly at the limits of parkland.  As with the area to the left, they would have to fly to get up beyond that point.  They do not fly unless necessary.

One explanation for flight in either direction is the presence of and possible attack by predators, dogs or humans.  Possible.

The visitor could be a lost member of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese.  Possible, a long shot, but long shots happen.  As shown on the first map, the location is a good distance from the area where I would expect to see the gaggle.  Not impossible, and the not impossible can happen.  

It is also possible that the visitor came from the left.  The nearest extensive area in that direction is Jamaica Pond although there is a series of bridges which definitely could allow travel.  If any readers are aware of White Geese population in that area, I would be pleased to learn of it.  Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com.

The area within the curve of the Fens is historical apartment buildings at historical scale, not many particularly high, except recent construction on the two streets above the area in the curve are quite large buildings.  And there are many older buildings all around the area beyond these limits.

Additionally, there is a fair amount of street parking in the area between the Fens and neighboring streets.  Kristen could have been admiring the visitor while the owner of the visitor could have been admiring her.

This last possibility opens up the decidedly not unusual situation of abandonment.  As I said, the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese includes abandoned geese who were welcomed into the gaggle.

Ginger’s comment that he “seems lost” probably says this is the situation.

D. Long term options.

In sharp contrast to the situation on the Charles River, the Boston parklands include food, something which has been destroyed by Cambridge and the DCR WITH PLANS FOR FURTHER DESTRUCTION.

On the other hand, the Cambridge side of the Charles River is meaningfully separated from human residences.  HUMANS ARE DANGEROUS.

There certainly is the wild possibility that the visitor could fly to the Charles River and join the Charles River White Geese.  The very major benefit is that warm cove which probably is related to the presence of the Boston University Boat House.

Here is a photo of the Charles River White Geese in that cove during a recent bitterly cold winter.

This photo was taken from the Memorial Drive sidewalk above the Wild Area which is between the Charles River’s cove and Memorial Drive.

BUT the Cambridge and DCR bureaucrats have plans to destroy the Wild Area, plans that the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the third entity involved, have disrupted.  MassDOT looks like the adult in the room among the reprehensible Cambridge operatives and the DCR.

Then, there is that much greater proximity in the Fens to humans.  It adds the very great risk of human predators who could be dangerous.  The Fens is the most visible part of the area of the Muddy River between Jamaica Pond (if that is the Muddy) and the Charles River.

So the future, if any, of the visiting white goose is hard to say.  He / she could very easily still be in the area but showing great instinct for survival and keeping as far away from humans as possible.

Since he is friendly and probably abandoned, he would likely, by friend or foe, be amenable to being moved.  The DNA has organized feeders, a response to the heartless starvation being inflicted by Cambridge and the DCR.  Moving him there as fast as possible would be a good idea.

I understand the Animal Rescue League was called.  They would offer him for adoption.  I would prefer to get him to the DNA, but that choice would get him away from dog and human predators.

3. The nature of these reports.

These reports are a triad.

The blog reports are the core, the place where it is possible to analyze in detail.  But the blog reports are not convenient to make comments.

I do condensations of the blog reports on Facebook and in an email newsletter.  Nowadays, the two have the same content, with the very major exception that Face book can be amended should errors be seen or comments seem to be needed.  I usually leave the Face book condensations a few days to see if somebody yells, and then sent things out to the email list.

The Charles River White Geese page on Facebook (plus my own page) is where the condensations go and it is relatively simple for comments to be made.  This blog has been read by people in 120 countries, and the international reading is about 40% of the distribution.  The Face book page is open to people who want to friend it and I accept.  My accepting is of major importance because of past experiences with folks who want to do things different from the nature of the page.  I screen closely and reject heavily.

But, the Charles River White Geese page on Facebook has a meaningful international component.

Please feel free to offer to friend the Charles River White Geese, but be certain that your home page has content which shows an interest parallels our interests.  I look at the individual’s pages very carefully.  I do not want a nightmare.

And, frankly I like all kinds of animals and consider interest in dogs and cats parallel to interest in the Charles River White Geese.  Friends of the White Geese had a treasurer who was a great bird person.  She operated a shelter for small birds in her home.  It was lovely.  A lot of cages, but lovely.

Cambridge on “Tenant Protection,” Part V of an historical series.

Cambridge on “Tenant Protection,”   Part V of an historical series.

1. Introduction.

2. Very Early General History of Condo Conversion / Tenant Protections.

A. My record.

B. Cambridge moves away from the Radicals of the 60's.

3. Evolvement of Tenant Rights, the first Condo Conversion protections.

4. Zoning, tenant issues and reality in Cambridge.  .

5. The internal destruction of Rent Control.

6. The statewide vote.

7. Subsequent activities.

8. City Council UNPASSED Condo Conversion initiative.

9. Prior reports in this series.

1. Introduction.

The final regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council in 2021 had an action on Condo Conversion that I simply did not understand because I do not fully understand the finer aspects of their rules.  It gets worse because the proposal in question is so horribly complicated that I really do not have the time at this moment to analyze it.  Looking at the agenda for the first substantive meeting of the new City Council, it looks like the concept was simply killed with a complicated report put into the record.

It could be of value to go over past actions and to place the current situation in context.

Of major importance in trying to understand the Cambridge City Council, as repeatedly presented in these pages is the flat out fraud which is the reality behind the nonstop loud proclamations of environmental sainthood.

My factsheet on the City Council’s ongoing fight for massive destruction on the Charles River says all that really needs to be said on that ongoing lie:

2. Very Early General History of Condo Conversion / Tenant Protections.

A. My record.

In the 60's, the City of Cambridge enacted Rent Control.  Also during that decade, the City Council fired James Leo Sullivan as City Manager.  Related to that Robert Healy was removed as assistant city manager.  In retrospect, both actions would appear to have major connection to actions of “radicals” in the City of Cambridge.

As I have reported earlier, during the 60's I attended the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, graduating in 1968.  During the 1967 - 1968 school year, I was a member of the Student Senate working on rules changes.  

It would be reasonable to say I kept the campus from exploding during the first semester because I went around to dorm leaders highly unhappy with the Administration’s handling of rules changes cowritten by me.  I persuaded those leaders that I thought the administration was acting in good faith and proposed a technique by which we would could achieve activist goals without personal endangerment by anybody.

Between semesters, action was taken which demonstrated bad faith.  In the first spring semester meeting of the student senate a senator proposed a highly activist motion in response to the rather clear bad faith.  The proposal would have put the student senate in favor of the sort of action I had promised in the first semester.  I wound up the embodiment in the Student Senate of that proposal.  In contrast to what I had been working for in the first semester.  That made me the public embodiment of the issue and put me highly endangered, exactly the opposite of my goal of nobody endangered.  

“Radicals” tried to take over that issue.  They, in a matter of minutes went from fighting the Vietnam War to fighting for the rules changes we wanted.  The radicals obtained an extremely large open campus meeting with the Dean of Students fighting for our proposal.  In that meeting, they displayed extreme lack of knowledge of key matters on campus.  They were griping about things for which I had no doubt I and my fellow Student Senators could get people fired, and they were totally oblivious.  They were clearly incompetent.  We were embarrassed.

Nevertheless, the Student Senate President quietly negotiated with the Dead of Students with very active assistance of female senators who were newly strengthened by earlier changes in rules.  Those quiet negotiations achieved MORE from the Dean of Students than our proposal had asked for.

When I returned for Homecoming, in a coffee gathering, the Dean of Students was kind enough to call me “the most dangerous student on campus.”

B. Cambridge moves away from the Radicals of the 60's.

In 1974, the City Council rehired James Leo Sullivan.  James Leo Sullivan rather clearly was unhappy with his prior firing.  He proposed the creation of “Neighborhood Associations.”  A lot of the “Neighborhood Associations” he created had the stench of company unions, exactly the opposite of the radical related groups which apparently got him fired.

For the next more than 40 years, Cambridge was managed by James Leo Sullivan and hand picked successors, Healy and Rossi.  I have gone over outrages associated with the James Leo Sullivan dynasty against which I fought.  

There were clear successes by opponents of the Sullivan dynasty.  Many successes were based on non Cambridge governmental entities.  Matters solely within Cambridge saw “activists” who, on scratching the surface looked dominated by the Cambridge Development Department as agent for the James Leo Sullivan city manager machine.   Actions solely in Cambridge were frequently highly irresponsible.

Blatant lies on many development issues backfired because of sanity in the non Cambridge entities because they were responsible entities.  In Cambridge, I was an active but not personally visible opposition on solely internal development matters.  I assisted local groups which had responsible goals, with a majority of my activities successful.  

The friends of the City Manager were a tiny number but they were very loud.  They also were personally driven on development issues and very happy to spend their lives on them.  People who want responsible development are oriented on specific issues and the last thing they want is to spend their lives fighting against the City Manager’s clique.  I definitely agreed with the latter.  I just kept seeing yet another situation which bothered me.

There were two very real political parties in Cambridge.  The “liberals” were pro rent control and sounded great on the right kind of issues while being too environmentally destructive in reality.  The “conservatives” opposed rent control and were more flexible on development issues.  The “liberals” had the Cambridge Civic Association as their party.  The “conservatives” were not as organized in substance, but nevertheless agreed on a lot.  They, in contrast to the CCA, were called the “independents.”  

It was not particularly surprising to see that getting “independent” votes on development issues could be key.  “Independent” votes forced the CCA to behave as the liberals they claimed to be.

Please see my reports as stated in the final section for greater detail, with more coming.

3. Evolvement of Tenant Rights, the first Condo Conversion protections.

In the 70's, David Sullivan created an organization which called him the embodiment of tenant rights.  It is my understanding that he had no involvement in the creation of Rent Control in the 60's.  The Radicals who were in the middle of Rent Control’s creation had their own organizations, PLURAL.  

David Sullivan was elected to the City Council with plans to provide greater protection for tenants by closing the loophole of Condo Conversion which allowed tenant eviction by purchasers of Condominiums units which were created by condo conversion of rent controlled housing.  Individuals bought rent controlled housing to move into individual apartments as their residences by evicting the tenants.

In a subsequent election, William Walsh ran.  He was a lawyer who had been extremely active in condo conversions.  David Sullivan and Walsh had a public election related debate in which neither candidate “drew blood.”  I, as an audience member, was the only person in the room who “drew blood.”  

I raised a key question which neither of the candidates cared to discuss which “drew blood.”  This exchange put me in the cross-hairs of Walsh’s people, BUT Walsh, in spite of our differences on Rent Control, was a highly responsible person on other issues.

David Sullivan and his compatriots closed the condo conversion loophole.  I was one of the last victims of condo conversion of rent controlled housing.

4. Zoning, tenant issues and reality in Cambridge.  .

I, as an activist, remained involved in tenant issues, but there were a lot of folks involved in tenant issues.  I realized that there was next to nobody meaningfully working on environmentalism.  While continuing in tenant issues, I concentrated on using the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance as an environmental tool.  Zoning votes can BE FORCED on the City Council by filing properly written zoning petitions.  I worked with neighborhood groups as a corporate memory and as draftsman of many such successful petitions.

Cambridge was and continues to be (I guess) one of the most densely developed communities in the United States.  But the zoning laws emphasized jobs instead of balance.  There was no real concern for the fact that massive job generation WITHOUT CORRESPONDING HOUSING had the built in result of more and more cars on the streets with their exhaust.

My goals, and I have achieved a lot, were and continue to be housing and open space.  Housing close to jobs means less pollution because workers have a shorter distance to commute.

In the meantime, William Walsh was key in my most spectacular victory, the changing of zoning in the eastern part of Harvard Square so that the zoning recognized and respected the importance of the area to the adjacent neighborhoods while still allowing reasonably large construction.

This zoning was destroyed in early 2020 by the last Cambridge City Council as part of a massive upzoning of Harvard Square targeted at creating “politically correct” destruction of historical buildings, housing and open space.  This upzoning rewards Harvard University to move parts of its Harvard Square campus to a coming campus in the Allston neighborhood of Boston which now contains an I90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) exit / entrance to Cambridge, Brookline and two neighborhoods of Boston.  I have had major victories in that planning process.

5. The internal destruction of Rent Control.

The Radicals evolved while keeping the semblance of different groups.

A couple of radical groups joined into a larger group which paired with David Sullivan’s front organization as the two primary tenant groups.

Three men turned out to be key in the evolution of tenant activism.  I will call them Alpha, Beta, and Charley.  Alpha and Beta were dominant in the radicals tenant organization.  Charley was involved in the 60's creation and resumed activism during the landlords’ fight to kill Rent Control in the 90's.  I worked with Charley on a zoning change in the Riverside neighborhood which he led and kept from going anywhere using a unique skill of his.  He was brilliant at preventing action by talking and talking and talking.  I finally, with regret, withdrew from that well written initiative because, in my opinion, he had stalled the organization beyond the point where the City Council was likely to achieve their goals.

Another part of my activities was to assist the other major remnant of the 60's radicals.  They called themselves the Simplex Steering Committee.  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology turned a massive area between Central Square and the MIT campus into a many acre wasteland by purchasing properties and, as businesses departed for their own reasons, NOT REPLACING THE DEPARTING BUSINESSES.  MIT created a wasteland where there had been thriving industry.

I did the legal drafting for the Simplex Steering Committee in its first three attempts to get Cambridge zoning direction on the future of the Simplex wasteland created by MIT.

The James Leo Sullivan city manager machine created power by skillful appointments which both achieved valuable benefits to the city and which made the appointees indebted to the James Leo Sullivan city manager machine.  The city manager machine gave power to the Simplex Steering Committee by giving it the Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee.  By giving the Simplex people this goody, the city manager machine created a situation where it had the power to punish unacceptable behavior.  The City Manager machine opposed Rent Control.

The separate tenant organizing groups combined into one.  The remnants of the David Sullivan group accurately decided that Alpha and Beta were destructive to the tenant cause by destructive activities which kept the tenant movement from aggressive behavior to expand tenant protections.  In hindsight, I think Alpha and Beta were protecting the Simplex people’s golden egg, CEOC.

The David Sullivan group tried to expel Alpha and Beta from the tenant group.  The key vote saw a whole bunch of people brought in by the radicals.  They knew nothing except that Alpha and Beta were the “good guys.”  In the final vote, Alpha and Beta were not expelled, by one vote.  I stupidly thought I could work with them and voted against expulsion.

In 1983, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts voted in a statewide Condo Conversion statute which protected tenants from eviction for condo conversion.  The statute exempted Cambridge and Brookline from the statute to avoid the complexities of integrating the new statute into the existing Condo Conversion protections in those communities.

Rent control in Cambridge exempted new construction as of the effective date, approximately 1968.  The impact of exempting new construction from Cambridge rent control and condo protections made residents of housing built in 1968 to 1983 have the least condo eviction protections in Massachusetts.

I pushed in tenant circles to get city council candidates to support condo eviction protections for those tenants.  Alpha and Beta aggressively fought to prevent that expansion of protections.  In the second election in which I sought such commitments, I got a vote of the organization to get such a commitment from candidates.  Alpha and Beta simply ignored the vote they had lost.  They managed the election fight scaring tenant activists against and all increases in tenant protections.

Alpha and Beta turned the tenant movement into a Company Union against expansion of protections, and in the process protected the Simplex people’s CEOC bennies.

They made Cambridge tenant activists switch from the high minded activism of the 60's to look like a self-serving situation.  The stench assisted in the loss of a very close election.

6. The statewide vote.

Cambridge Landlords organized a statewide referendum to kill Rent Control.

There was a statewide pro Rent Control organization created representing people in various communities.  Alpha and Beta were members, as was Charley.

I, because of fear of the destructive record of Alpha and Beta, instead became a director of the Massachusetts Tenant Organization and worked for the cause from that perspective.

I tried to rid the pro Rent Control group of Alpha and Beta because of their destructive record and from a very great fear that, as part of that record, they would be harmful.

The report I got from a participant in the statewide Rent Control group was that the group had been kept from actions in its meeting by disputes among the Cambridge participants.  For years, I blamed Alpha and Beta.

Long after the fight, I put together a bunch of threads, ALONG WITH THE VERY CLEAR ADMISSION OF Charley, and decided that Charley very clearly prevented action of the statewide Rent Control organization exactly as he prevented that zoning petition from happening years earlier by talking and talking and talking.

One of the Company Union games played by the entities controlled by the Cambridge City Manager machine was to “keep people out of trouble” by chasing their tails on fights which could not achieve their purported objectives.

Charley fought for such a goal in the statewide Rent Control organization.  Alpha and Beta realized the danger of his demand and bitterly fought against the destruction of the cause.  Charley demanded that the organization fight for Rent Control AS A SUBSIDY FOR TENANTS AT THE EXPENSE OF LANDLORDS.

Alpha and Beta were well aware that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing Rent Control in 1976 explicitly legalized Rent Control as a consumer protection.  The decision clearly stated that THE MINUTE Rent Control became a tax on landlords, Rent Control was illegal as a taking of property.

Charley would not allow the statewide organization to meaningful work.  He used his highly skillful preventing of action by talking and talking and talking in attempt to force approval of his suicidal language.  Alpha and Beta knew what his demands would do and fought him.

My source was of the very strong opinion that, because of the vast amounts of time wasted by Charley, the statewide group was kept from meaningfully organizing and IT WAS A CLOSE VOTE.  Charley almost certainly destroyed rent control single-handedly.

I was one of the first tenants to lose my home.  I had lived there for 14 years.

7. Subsequent activities.

After the death of Rent Control, the radicals IMMEDIATELY noticed the 1968-83 tenants they had been fighting against, and fought for their protection.

There were two subsequent referenda in Cambridge on the reestablishment of Rent Control, both Radical proposals.

Charley demanded and achieved his language in both referenda, turning both referenda into Company Union initiatives.  Spend years achieving “rent control” which would be certain to be thrown out by the courts.

8. City Council UNPASSED Condo Conversion initiative.

As I said, I simply did not waste my time on the horribly complicated initiative which prominently did not pass in 2021.  It looks like it simply failed of achievement but was loudly broadcast in the last Cambridge City Council meeting of 2021.

My fear was Charley’s language or the equivalent.

There may be further action.  The unpassed proposal certainly is available to serve as a model.

Myself, I did not waste my time on it last year, and I will not worry about it until I have to.

9. Prior reports in this series.

A. Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   I.  A personal prequil, https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/, Blog, 5/31/21

B. Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   2.  Very early history. PARTIAL transportation analysis, https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/06/cambridge-city-council-considers.html, Blog, 6/6/21.

C. Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   III.  Major  transportation "planning" problems, https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/06/,  Blog, 6/16/21

D. Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   IV.  A nightmare begins, https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/08/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-considers.html, Blog, 8/21/21.

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council Yells at the Other Guy; SILENT on its own destructiveness.

 Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council Yells at the Other Guy; SILENT on its own destructiveness.

Yet another Cambridge City Council meeting.  Yet more lies of environmental sainthood.

The stench in the air is the Cambridge City Council repeating its outrage from January 2016.  For our video on that, please see:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.

150 excellent trees and animal habitat destroyed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation with assistance from the Cambridge bureaucracy and repeated emails OVER MONTHS IN ADVANCE to the Cambridge City Council with massive numbers of photos from

The City Council yelled at circuses travelling through Cambridge on the public roads and was deafeningly SILENT about their outrages on the Charles.

The guilt of these hypocrites is more directly blatant this time.

This time, they have added money for destruction to money for destruction to the usual loud lies of environmental sainthood.  The voters have fired the most guilty member.  The Cambridge City Council, once again,  has yelled at the other guys, YET AGAIN.  

Message to constituents is the same as ever: How dare you look at our record!!!  Look at us yelling at the other guys.

We will not go into more and more detail.  One fact sheet says too much.

Just look at our recent reports.

1. Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Funds Major Environmental Destruction at the Magazine Beach Recreation Area on the Charles River, https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-funds.html, blog, October 16, 2021.

2. Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Proud of Environmental Destruction?, https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-proud-of.html, Blog, October 21, 2021.

3. First Term Cambridge, MA, USA, City Councilor Fired by the Voters, https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/11/first-term-cambridge-ma-usa-city.html, blog, November 4, 2021.

The voters have sent a very clear message.

So the Cambridge City Council lies by yelling at the other guy.

AND is deadly silent about its own lack of fitness for office.

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council to devote special meeting to discussing the election.

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council to devote special meeting to discussing the election.

1. Statement of context.

2. Clearly biased analysis of election.

3. Will the Cambridge City Council act in a manner which resembles the City Council it claims to be?

4. Three relevant photos.

1. Statement of context.

The Cambridge City Council, on Monday, November 29, 2021, will devote an entire meeting to discussing the just completed election.  Such an action, to my recollection, is unprecedented.

Three recent blog posts are relevant.  All but the third were blog transmittals of formal letters to the Cambridge City Council.

A. “Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Funds Major Environmental Destruction at the Magazine Beach Recreation Area on the Charles River,” October 16, 2021, at: https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-funds.html.

B. “Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Proud of Environmental Destruction?,” October 21, 2021, at: https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-proud-of.html.

C. “First Term Cambridge, MA, USA, City Councilor Fired by the Voters,” November 4, 2021 at:  https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/11/first-term-cambridge-ma-usa-city.html.

The Cambridge City Council has a distressing record of unanimous very terrible votes associated with unanimous votes yelling at the other guy.  The latter unanimous votes are bragged about and tend to lie to the voters about records belied by the former unanimous votes which are kept as secret as possible.

2. Clearly biased analysis of election.

The Monday meeting is conducted under conditions that formal votes will not be taken and public comment will be prohibited.

The City Council had referenda passed greatly increasing its powers.  I hope that it will take appropriate actions to undo the most terrible “achievements” of the term coming to a close.

The voters have spoken in a manner which last occurred about a decade ago.

About a decade ago, the judicial system provided written actions with explanations that put the Cambridge City Council in a position to fire the then City Manager Robert Healy for malfeasance in office, WITHOUT FEAR OF RETALIATION IN COURT because the opinions gave them just cause.

Instead, Healy was allowed to finish his term in honor and the City Council named the Police Station after him.  The court action came in response to Healy taking action against the Administrator who headed the Cambridge equivalent of a police review board.  The trial court decisions and memorandum called the actions “reprehensible.”  The appeals court panel responded to Cambridge’s appeal with an opinion which the panel explicitly refused to call an opinion because, AS IT STATED, it did not want to dignify the appeal by calling its opinion an opinion.

The formal name of the court case is Monteiro v. Cambridge.  The respective court decisions may be read at:

A. Trial Court opinion:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

B. Appeals Court Panel non opinion opinion:  http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

Then, as now, I roundly condemned the City Council outrages.  Then, as of now, they ignored my condemnation, but as stated in item 2.B. this time publicly communicated their “lack” of action.

After the Monteiro outrage, as in this election, the electorate fired one member of the city council who most embodied the outrage.  That time, in the second following election, another city councilor was fired in an action which may or may not have followed on the initial firing.

Under the distinctive at large system of voting in Cambridge, the actions taken by the voters then and now are about as extreme as would be considered possible.

My first communication, 1.A. above, ADDRESSED IN THE HARD COPY MILIEU to the Cambridge City Council, concluded by calling for the voters to stack their ballots in this year’s election in a manner which would result in what just happened.

3. Will the Cambridge City Council act in a manner which resembles the City Council it claims to be?

4. Three relevant photos.

First Term Cambridge, MA, USA, City Councilor Fired by the Voters

 First Term Cambridge, MA, USA, City Councilor Fired by the Voters

Tuesday, November 2, 2021, the voters of Cambridge, MA, USA, selected the City Council which will take office in January.

A first term Cambridge City Councilor was removed by the voters.  The voters could hardly have selected a more appropriate City Councilor to remove.

One of his first actions as City Councilor was to vote for a massive and highly irresponsible upzoning of Harvard Square which rewards destruction of valuable historical buildings which are still located less than ten buildings from his then residence.

One of the supposed “benefits” of the vote was a 200 page document which is separately being created which tells developers the politically correct way to destroy historical buildings in Harvard Square.  

The soon to depart city councilor moved to Cambridgeport.  Cambridgeport is the residential neighborhood closest to the outrages supported by nine Cambridge City Councilor on the Charles River.

One of voted out city councilor’s most recent actions was to vote to fund the destruction of the excellent Micro Center Grove.

The voters selected an excellent incumbent to vote out.

Of major importance is that NEITHER OUTRAGE HAS YET COME TO FRUITION.

Will the Cambridge City Council change to a City Council which reflects the wishes of its electorate?

Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Proud of Environmental Destruction?

 I. General.

In our last report on this blog, at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-funds.html, we presented a truly damning response to a vote by the Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council to pay for the destruction of the excellent MicroCenter grove in the Magazine Beach recreation area on the Charles River.

That analysis was received by the Cambridge City Council at its meeting this past Monday, October 18, 2021.  I watched the entire meeting, and was struck by the, to put it nicely, strikingly unusual handling of that letter at the meeting.

I have responded to this latest outrage with the following letter.  To be accurate, I am including a correction in the letter to which was made in our blog posting.  I realize this is duplicative, but I am trying to be honest in my communication.  There is a fancy word that would be used by the bad guys for this type of action, but I would not dignify their nonsense by using it.

Obvious typos corrected, plus I am adding one explanatory photo.

II. Communication.

Gentlemen / Ladies:

RE: Massive Environmental Destruction by Cambridge City Council at Magazine Beach:   Correction with Acknowledgment of Understanding of City Council Position.

1. Introduction.

2. Correction.

3. Receipt of City Council Communication.

4. The outrage in which NINE members of the Cambridge City Council have pride while keeping it as secret as possible.

5. Other possible “explanations.”

A. MIT’s private off ramp from I90 / Mass. Pike.

B. The destructiveness from which the legislature tried to protect the Charles River should be ended.

1. Introduction.

This follows up on my letter which was published as communication 11 in the City Council meeting of October 18, 2021.

It was published I the City Records at https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3527&Inline=True, pages 154 to 172.

It was published on the Charles River White Geese Blog at https://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2021/10/cambridge-ma-usa-city-council-funds.html, with the correction stated in section 2.

2. Correction.

At least three times we cited our communication signed on June 6, 2017 and published in the records of the Cambridge City Council.  The Cambridge City Council has rather consistently not wanted to know the contents of this communication.  The contents provided in detail the plans of the Department of Conservation and Recreation for destruction at Magazine Beach and presented to the Cambridge Conservation Commission, along with our photos of the outrage, an outrage which has repeatedly been praised by the Cambridge City Council, with funding including really destructive parts AS SECRETLY AS POSSIBLE.

We provided an incorrect URL for Friends of the White Geese’ communication as published by the City Clerk. 

The correct URL for Friends of the White Geese’ publication of this crucial document which the Cambridge City Council has spent four years not wanting to know about is at http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm, item 4.

3. Receipt of City Council Communication.

I watched the October 18, 2021 meeting in totality.

The handling of our communication was striking.

First of all, communications are pretty much never discussed.  At this meeting, at least 3 communications were discussed, at least one with the City Manager.

Our communication 11 was damning, a strikingly clear in communication of the environmental destructiveness of the Cambridge City Council and of the SECRECY involved in its ongoing efforts at destruction on Magazine Beach.

The nice way to describe the activities by the Cambridge City Council is “Silence under circumstances which call for outrage is consent.”

But, more importantly, my interpretation is clear:

THIS WAS A STATEMENT OF PRIDE, 

• PRIDE in environmental destructiveness;

• PRIDE in the ongoing FRAUDULENT claims of Environmental Sainthood it being the combination of destruction as SECRET as possible with lying by YELLING at the other guy and thus falsely claiming the side your are on;

• PRIDE in the outrageous procedure used on at Magazine Beach on the Charles River by which massive environmental destruction is kept as SECRET as possible, and buried in massive and IRRELEVANT fine print while fraudulently claiming some sort of proper procedure; and  

• PRIDE in deceiving your constituents.

The SECRET presentation by itself could possibly have been claimed to be something missed, a reality which is nonsense and contrary to the duties of each member of the City Council in voting for this; however, the handling of the communications says everything which needs to be said.

4. The outrage in which NINE members of the Cambridge City Council have pride while keeping it as secret as possible.

Here are two photos of the environmental outrage supported by NINE MEMBERS, plus the only known publication of the purpose of the outrage by the Charles River Poisoner, the woman getting paid for her part in these terrible things, and repeatedly PRAISED by the Cambridge City Council.

Two photos of the excellent grove which NINE MEMBERS of the Cambridge City Council want destroyed.

Our photo dating back to 2016, repeatedly presented to the Cambridge City Council.

Still from “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw, minute 2.33, showing the outrage from above.

Here is the only known publication of WHAT NINE CITY COUNCILORS are destroying this excellent grove for, WITH MAXIMUM SECRECY.  The parking lot under the number “3" is what NINE CITY COUNCILORS WOULD LOVE TO REPLACE THESE EXCELLENT TREES.

This is a crop of PREVIOUSLY SECRET PLANS SUBMITTED BY the woman getting paid for her part in these outrages, the Charles River Poisoner. 

The Charles River Poisoner submitted these plans in the February 25, 2019 Cambridge City Council meeting.  

These plans are even more SECRET than items in the rest of the repeatedly SECRET votes by the Cambridge City Council concerning Magazine Beach.

We, of course, can guarantee nothing in this plan.  All we have is a brief opening in the NON STOP SECRECY.

Plus the statements of the DCR in the show and tell to the Cambridge Conservation Commission that they were destroying THIS ADMITTED EXCELLENCE to move the parking lot on top of it.

And the two fit very clearly.

5. Other possible “explanations.”

A. MIT’s private off ramp from I90 / Mass. Pike.

Reality probably is that this is part of reducing curb cuts to speed up Memorial Drive to handle traffic from MIT’s desired private off ramp from I90 / the Mass. Pike, first floated in 2003 by an MBTA study.  The plans coordinate with the connector built behind the former Ford Plant, now owned by Harvard.  Oh yeah, the vegetation plans for the connector had omissions exactly where the highway would connect to the connector.

That fits the nonstop AND CONSTANTLY SECRET fight to destroy the Wild Area, the excellent woods east of the BU Bridge for.  Those 2003 MBTA plans put another off ramp through it.  Key in standing up to this destruction is the agency which a responsible city government would have replace the DCR by vote of the legislature, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

[Ed.  The following photo was not included in the letter, but the Cambridge City Council, supposedly, knows what it is doing.

]

B. The destructiveness from which the legislature tried to protect the Charles River should be ended.

About a decade ago, the legislature destroyed the Metropolitan District Commission and, on the Charles River, substituted the Department of Conservation and Recreation and, on the bridges, and substituted the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

One very visible explanation for the destruction of the MDC was the destructiveness of the MDC.

So, naturally, “planners” and “managers” of the MDC moved to the DCR.  

The “planners” brought their destructive plans and the destruction on the Charles with active support or silence from the Cambridge City Council.  The outrages supported by the Cambridge City Council give the impression that they are items supported by the DCR and the Charles River Poisoner AND NOBODY ELSE.  The SECRECY constantly involved in the funding and praise from the Cambridge City Council comes from those SECRET and destructive agreements.

By contrast, MassDOT has been notable for standing up to SECRET deals being pushed by controlled activist.  MassDOT has been the Adult in the Room concerning these multiple destructive initiatives.  MassDOT has fit the wishes of the legislature in its destruction of the MDC.  The DCR has been the antithesis of what was desired by the legislature.

Action by a City Council which constantly proclaims its environmental sainthood would be to work to finally implement the goals of the legislature when they destroyed the MDC.

If Cambridge had a responsible City Council, the City Council would be going to the legislature and asking the legislature to finish the job it attempted when it destroyed the MDC.

The Cambridge City Council should be asking the legislature to finish the MDC work by transferring the DCR’s responsibilities on the Charles River to MassDOT.  MassDOT is not perfect, but the DCR approaches being perfrect from the opposite direction.

SECRECY and destruction should end.  We need a City Council which stands for Environmental Saintliness which it constantly claims to stand for, not for the destructiveness and SECRECY of the MDC which the legislature was trying to protect us from.   

Transfer by the legislature of the DCR duties to MassDOT would achieve the goals of the legislature in destroying the MDC and would be responsible behavior consistent with the non stop claims of Environmental Saintliness from the Cambridge City Council.  The City Council should change its positions to be consistent with its claims of environmental saintliness.  It should request the legislature to transfer the DCR responsibilities on the Charles River to MassDOT.

Sincerely, 

Robert J. La Trémouille, Chair

Friends of the White Geese

Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Funds Major Environmental Destruction at the Magazine Beach Recreation Area on the Charles River

Cambridge, MA, USA City Council Funds Major Environmental Destruction at the Magazine Beach Recreation Area on the Charles River

The Cambridge City Council has dropped “the other shoe.”  They have voted to destroy the excellent MicroCenter grove at Magazine Beach across from the MicroCenter store and next to the MDC Swimming Pool.  The following is our letter of response scheduled to be delivered to the Cambridge City Council on Monday, October 18, 2012.  As is the custom of the Cambridge City Council in votes concerning Magazine Beach, this action was taken as secretly as possible WITH NO MEANINGFUL PUBLIC NOTICE OR HEARING.

The hard copy of the letter has been posted by the City Clerk in Council records at https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3527&Inline=True, pages 154 to 172.

This is the first page of our file copy of the letter.  Page 2 and the balance of the letter follow.

1. Destroy and Destroy and Destroy.

A. Latest SECRET Action on Magazine Beach.  

B. Selected items kept SECRET.

(1) January 2016 outrage.

(2) General Magazine Beach Plans filed in Cambridge by the DCR and blessed and repeatedly denied by the Cambridge City Council.

(3) Drone Photos.

(A) The current outrage.

(B) PART OF THE DESTRUCTION ON THE CHARLES BY THE CHARLES RIVER POISONER.

(4) Provided by the Charles River Poisoner.  PLANS AFTER DESTRUCTION OF MICROCENTER GROVE SHOWING COMING PARKING LOT BEING  FUNDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REPLACE THE MICROCENTER GROVE.

(5) More general documentation.

(A) The City Council condemned Excellent Grove.

1 From us.

A Page 45 from my letter listed above that the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about.  Show the excellent MicroCenter grove being destroyed by this vote.

B Our photo of CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO DESTROY GROVE VIEWED FROM MICROCENTER SIDE.

2 The DCR destruction plans the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about, BUT REPEATEDLY VOTES TO PRAISE / IMPLEMENT.

2. Part of the always SECRET Record of the Cambridge City Council and of the PAID Proponent, the Charles River Poisoner.

A. The DCR admits guilt.

B, Poisoning of the Charles River.

C. Results of this attack.

(1) Poisoning on the Ground.

(2) Poisoning of the Charles River.

D. City Council Rewards the Charles River Poisoner.

E. The City Council targeted MicroCenter Grove.

(1) Drone Photo.

(2) View from MicroCenter side.

(3) Cropped destruction plans in DCR plan submitted to Cambridge Conservation Commission, passed on to Cambridge City Council and ignored.

(4) Formerly SECRET after plans provided to Cambridge City Council by Charles River Poisoner, cropped accordingly.

3. Reality of ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION  REWARDED BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL.

4. Proper Voter response.

A. Referendum.

B. City Council Reelection goals.

1. Destroy and Destroy and Destroy.

A. Latest SECRET Action on Magazine Beach.  

We note with distress but no real surprise the latest SECRET vote on Magazine Beach.

This is part of a continuing pattern of City Council votes on the Charles River in such a manner as to keep them as secret as possible.

On September 20, 2021, this was voted in in City Manager Agenda 1, vote 2C by the usual unanimous vote buried in a very large document.  There were exactly no communications from the public on the topic, showing exactly how secret the matter is kept.

The grand total of the information provided FOR THE PUBLIC was:

THIS SAYS THE MONEY INCLUDES THE “Phase II-2 PARKING LOT.”  SO THE CITY COUNCIL IS PAYING TO DESTROY THE MICROCENTER GROVE which is BEING REPLACED BY the moved parking lot on which the Charles River Poisoner has already been paid to do work preparatory to the destruction of this excellent grove.  

Note that that EXCELLENT grove to be destroyed and the RELOCATION OF THE parking lot are not shown.

OUTRAGEOUS.

B. Selected items kept SECRET.

(1) January 2016 outrage.

The nominal actor here is yet another front name by the Charles River Poisoner, a person very highly favored by the Cambridge City Council.  She, under various front names, has been involved in a whole bunch of outrages.

Using blatant Company Union prevention of action tactics, she and her friends were key in the destruction of hundreds of trees between the BU and Longfellow Bridges in January 2016.  Our video on that outrage is posted at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.  The City Manager mentioned in this video is Richard Rossi.  The video includes destruction at the Wild Area which has been recently blessed as well, with deniability, by the Cambridge City Council.  It also includes the ongoing outrages at Magazine Beach of which the current action is part.

(2) General Magazine Beach Plans filed in Cambridge by the DCR and blessed and repeatedly denied by the Cambridge City Council.

These are posted at http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm, Item 4 [ed.  This is a correction of the letter filed which included an outdated reference.  That will be corrected by a follow on letter.  IT GETS VERY ODD.  Very clearly, software robots delete the “1", the number 1.]  This includes the plans filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation along with our photos of targeted excellence.  

This document has been filed more than once and repeatedly referred to.  Initial filing was in response to a Mayday celebration on the City Hall steps by City Councilors bragging about their environmental sainthood, followed by sitting down in Council and voting in support of the outrage.   Destruction plans at Magazine Beach SUPPORTED BY THAT VOTE included 54 mostly excellent trees then.  With SECRET destruction not disclosed in those plans, destruction now exceeds 60 mostly excellent trees.

The X’s indicate destruction of the excellent MicroCenter Grove next to the DCR’s Magazine Beach Swimming Pool (below the line markings at the bottom right).

(3) Drone Photos.

These are taken from “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw.

The following stills are identified by minute in the video with regard to the latest outrage:

(A) The current outrage.

Minute 2.33.  The white rectangle is the DCR Swimming Pool.  The area BRAGGED ABOUT is to the upper left of the swimming pool.  The IMPORTANT STUFF, ALWAYS KEPT SECRET is the grove of trees to the upper right.  

The Cambridge City Council was already paying the Charles River Poisoner for advance work on destroying this excellent grove.  This latest secret vote INCLUDES FUNDING OF THE MOVING OF THE PARKING LOT BEING MOVED ON TOP OF THESE EXCELLENT TREES, and thus of destruction of those trees.

The Cambridge City Council LIES to its constituents by keeping this and other items of supported destruction as secret as possible and YELLING AT THE OTHER GUY on matters which are a pittance of the destruction being paid for / publicly supported by the Cambridge City Council.

The ONLY INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY PLACED ON RECORD BY THE CITY COUNCIL, OF COURSE, ONLY MENTIONS THE PARKING LOT TO THE UPPER LEFT OF THE SWIMMING POOL This language reference the COMING PARKING LOT AND THUS THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS EXCELLENT GROVE.

At the DCR’s show and tell to the Cambridge Conservation Commission, the DCR bragged that it is destroying this excellent grove to replace the parking being destroyed by the Cambridge City Council in this outrage.

THE LATEST VOTE ADMITS THAT THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL IS PAYING TO DESTROY THIS EXCELLENT GROVE TO “MOVE” THE PARKING LOT.  The euphemism is to describe the outrage by the technical phase number,

Here is a blow up, from the above crop, of the excellent grove whose destruction the Cambridge City Council is supporting by this latest SECRET vote.

Here is a close up of the AREA to be destroyed under the Cambridge City Council’s USUAL UNANIMOUS VOTE.

(B) PART OF THE DESTRUCTION ON THE CHARLES BY THE CHARLES RIVER POISONER.

The City Council, through Richard Rossi’s actions in the 2000's introduced the use of poisons into the environment at the Magazine Beach Playing fields.  The City Council created this poison drainage area through Mr. Rossi to drain off poisons which should not be used next to the Charles River.  Minute 10.26.  Dead bees have been seen

Dead bees have been seen in the area of poisoning BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL.  Other free animals, MOST VISIBLY THE TOURIST LOVED 40 YEAR RESIDENT CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE, are attacked by this outrage.

The Charles River Poisoner, with multiple objections to the Cambridge City Council by the undersigned blocked this poison drainage area using DCR / Trump moneys and DCR provided “volunteers.”  No other “volunteers” were used.  SECRECY in Cambridge, of course.  SECRECY, SECRECY.

As with the current vote, the last thing the Cambridge City Council wants the general public to know is its real record.  Naturally, the City Council is consistently SECRET about its constant destruction.

More photos of this and related outrages are provided below at the beginning of Section 2.

(4) Provided by the Charles River Poisoner.  PLANS AFTER DESTRUCTION OF MICROCENTER GROVE SHOWING COMING PARKING LOT BEING FUNDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REPLACE THE MICROCENTER GROVE.

The following FORMERLY SECRET PLAN was submitted to the Cambridge City Council AFTER part of SO MUCH SECRET destruction was voted.  The Charles River Poisoner provided these plans to the Cambridge City Council on February 24, 2019.

There is nothing secret going on here, except when City Councilors or their stand-ins are talking. 

The AFTER STATUS of the excellent trees which the Cambridge City Council paid the Charles River Poisoner to do the ground work for destruction are designated by the number 3 on the left.  Destruction moneys HAVE NOW BEEN PUBLICLY PROVIDED, ALBEIT AS SECRETLY AS POSSIBLE.  Note the UNDESTROYED trees around the GREY area which designates the future  parking NINE City Councilors are NOW paying to move on top of these excellent trees AS PART OF THE LATEST SECRET VOTE.

This is our crop of the plan submitted to the Cambridge City Council on February 24, 2019.  This is what the usual UNANIMOUS City Council voted for.

In the NON SECRET part of the plan, the area which was being “improved” so that these excellent trees can be destroyed is below the DCR Swimming Pool (the white area at the bottom of this crop).  We provided the NON SECRET part of the plan at the top of this letter.  It is the “public” part of this SECRET vote.

Of course, this nasty stuff, the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about.

Across from THE TO BE DESTROYED EXCELLENCE is the parking lot of MicroCenter.  The plans are before destruction which has be praised and funded now for years by the Cambridge City Council.  

The DCR has since destroyed the left two of the four trees abutting that parking lot, part of the SECRET destruction SUPPLEMENTING the DCR’s destruction plans submitted to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which we passed on to the City Council with photos by us in my letter http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm, Item 4 [ed.  This is a correction of the letter filed which included an outdated reference.  That will be corrected by a follow on letter.  IT GETS VERY ODD.  Very clearly, software robots delete the “1", the number 1.].  

In the plans submitted by the Charles River Poisoner, above, the MicroCenter building is the large structure in the upper middle.  Trees destroyed on the Memorial Drive side of the building were included in the original 54 tree destruction plans submitted to the Cambridge Conservation and which we passed on to Cambridge City Council.  The Cambridge City Council, of course, has ignored all communications.

We had hoped that this wanton destruction would eventually be corrected, but this previously  SECRET plan delineates areas of work by the Red Lines.  The destruction which the City Council supports on the MicroCenter side has no markings.  THUS THIS WANTON DESTRUCTION WILL NOT BE “IMPROVED.”  And the Cambridge City Council’s vote copied in Section 1.A skillfully commits them to fund the destruction of this excellent grove WHILE YELLING AT CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS WHO ARE FAR LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE.

(5) More general documentation.

(A) The City Council condemned Excellent Grove.

1 From us.

A Here is page 45 from my letter listed above that the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about.  It shows the excellent MicroCenter grove being destroyed by this vote.

B. Our photo of CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO DESTROY GROVE VIEWED FROM MICROCENTER SIDE.

Here is a photo of ours from the MicroCenter side.  These trees block each other, so, from the ground, it is very difficult to really repeat the drone shot.

The parking lot being moved on top of this excellence is visible beyond the doomed grove.  The which has been subsidized to be done by the Charles River Poisoner BY A UNANIMOUS (AS USUAL) CITY COUNCIL is to the left of the main parking lot.

What little is said in the description of the vote is that CITY COUNCIL MONEYS ARE BEING USED FOR THE PARKING LOT TO GO INTO THIS LOCATION.  Obviously that includes destroying these excellent trees.

2. The DCR destruction plans the Cambridge City Council does not want to know about, BUT REPEATEDLY VOTES TO  PRAISE / IMPLEMENT.

Taken from the official filing, appropriately cropped.  As mentioned, the filing the City Council does not want to know about has repeatedly provided.  It is at:  http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org/ar1.htm, Item 4 [ed.  This is a correction of the letter filed which included an outdated reference.  That will be corrected by a follow on letter.  IT GETS VERY ODD.  Very clearly, software robots delete the “1", the number 1.].  At least one more tree has been added to the destruction plans.

“X” means tree to be destroyed as stated in the plans filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission.  This latest SECRET City Council vote brings destruction that much closer.  SECRECY of planning, of course, is so massive that we cannot guarantee what is currently planned, and the Cambridge City Council has just voted for destruction funding without wanting to know what it is destroying.  But they loudly yell at the other guy.

2. PART OF the always SECRET record of the Cambridge City Council and the  PAID  proponent, the Charles River Poisoner.

A. The DCR admits guilt.

The Cambridge City Council has expressed concern about the poisoning of the Charles River and has subsidized the DCR’s boondoggle to “clean up” the mess.

Nothing is said or done about cleaning up the problem, the Department of Conservation and Recreation,  the Cambridge Development Department, and the Cambridge City Council, who are doing the poisoning of the banks of the Charles River, poisoning which has been rerouted into the Charles River by the Charles River Poisoner, who keeps getting funding from the supposedly environmentally concerned Cambridge City Council.

Magazine Beach was pristine until the outrages started from the Cambridge City Council and the Department of Conservation and Recreation [footnote 1] 1 started destruction in the 2000's.

[footnote 1:  About ten years ago, the state legislature tried to clean up the outrages on the Charles River by destroying the then “Metropolitan District Commission” and replacing it, on the Charles, with the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Department of Transportation.  Regrettably, the “planners” of the MDC went to the DCR with their destructive plans AND THEIR FRIENDS IN CAMBRIDGE GOVERNMENT.  These destructive people have continued without a blink.  We do not HONOR the change be recognizing differences between the MDC and the DCR, just calling it always the DCR.

[Interestingly, until, then Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy presented the DCR with “lovely” plans, the DCR bragged about the beautiful Charles River White Geese in signs along Memorial Drive.  

[Three levels of Court tried to persuade the Cambridge City Council to get responsible government in place of Healy in the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html,  The Appellate Court panel had such great disgust for the situation, it refused to call its opinion an opinion, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.  The actual issue was women’s rights (she had had the nerve to want equal pay for equal work), but Cambridge women’s groups showed the uselessness of the most visible Cambridge organizations by word of mouth smearing of the victim BECAUSE THE COURT ORDERED SUCH MAJOR DAMAGES TO HER.

The voters clearly fired one guilty councilor in the next election and probably fired a second in the following election at least in part because of this outrage.]

THE POSSIBILITY OF ENDING THE DUMPING OF POISONS ON THE BANKS OF THE CHARLES RIVER IS KEPT AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE.

But the Cambridge City Council is very happy to PAY the Charles River Poisoner to do further “environmental work” such as the current outrage.

We have shown you above the drone photos of the EXPENSIVE DRAINAGE facility to keep poisons out of the Charles WHILE POISONING RESIDENT ANIMALS.

Following is a sign posted by the DCR next to the EXPENSIVE DRAINAGE facility.  It brags that the drainage is keeping poisons out of the Charles River, WITHOUT MENTIONING, AS USUAL, the guilt of the DCR and the Cambridge City Council.  This is our collection of relevant parts of three photos from Phil Barber.

As we have stated, the destruction was accomplished with DCR money including Trump money, and DCR volunteers provided rather clearly to minimize the knowledge and experience of Cambridge residents.

B, Poisoning of the Charles River.

Poison use on the banks of the Charles River dates back to management of the Magazine Beach playing fields by (subsequent City Manager) Richard Rossi representing the City of Cambridge.  For more than a Century before then Magazine Beach was pristine.  

Dead bees, supposedly subject to the concern of the Cambridge City Council have been seen in the playing fields.

Part of the Cambridge / DCR response is stated in a sign posted by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation near the most blatant environmental attack of recent years.  (Phil Barber photos, collated)

The DCR is bragging that POISONS BEING DUMPED ON THE MAGAZINE BEACH PLAYING FIELDS which originated in Cambridge management is being neutralized by expensive drainage systems installed by Cambridge and the DCR.

Here is a cropped still from “From Cambridge to Boston with the DJ Inspire 1 Drone footage,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-OmMzvHhw, minute 10.26, showing the part of the drainage which has since been attacked by the Charles River Poisoner with DCR / Trump funds and DCR “volunteers.”

Here is a photo of the drainage after being blocked by the Cambridge City Council’s friend, the Charles River Poisoner.  We have repeatedly objected to the Cambridge City Council.  We have consistently been ignored.

B. Results of this attack.

Here are Phil Barber’s photos of algae creation next to the blockage and in the Charles River next to Magazine Beach:

(1) Poisoning on the Ground.

(2) Poisoning in the Charles River.

The City Council has since assisted in a DCR boondoggle to respond to the much larger and clearly related subsequent poisoning downriver from the Mass. Ave. Bridge.

There has been exactly ZERO discussion of getting a responsible entity to manage the Charles River by order of the legislature.  The Massachusetts Department of Transportation shares responsibility for the Charles River.  It has not been perfect but it has had significant instances of disagreements with Cambridge and the DCR in which MassDOT has looked like the Adult in the room.

I have observed DCR representatives refuse to deny intent to introduce poisons into the Boston side of the Charles River into open spaces being created in the I90 Rebuild Project IN SPITE OF THE OUTRAGES THAT THE DCR HAS CREATED WITH THESE POISONS WHICH IT / Trump funded, with poisons which would not even be on the banks of the Charles River if it were not for the INCREDIBLE IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE DCR AND CAMBRIDGE.

C. City Council Rewards the Charles River Poisoner.

A very visible Cambridge City Council’s response to the actual poisoning has been to PAY the CHARLES RIVER POISONER to assist in plans to destroy the excellent MicroCenter grove next to the DCR Swimming Pool.

The DCR in its show and tell to the Cambridge Conservation Commission said that it intended to destroy the MicroCenter grove to move a parking lot on top of the grove.

Here is a drone photo crop, minute 2.33, of the part of the parking lot assigned to the Charles River Poisoner.

She was assigned to beautify the portion of the TO BE MOVED PARKING lot which is the grey area to the upper left of the white swimming pool.   Beautifying the parking lot creates the DCR and CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL's "needed" move on top of the MicroCenter Grove.

This latest outrage by the Cambridge City Council is EXTREMELY VAGUE BUT RATHER CLEARLY INCLUDES DESTRUCTION OF THE EXCELLENT MICROCENTER GROVE.

E. The City Council targeted MicroCenter Grove.

(1) Drone Photo.

Minute 2.33

This is a further cropping of the above still.

(2) View from MicroCenter side.

(3) Cropped destruction plans in DCR plan submitted to Cambridge Conservation Commission, passed on to Cambridge City Council and ignored.

(4) Formerly SECRET after plans provided to Cambridge City Council by Charles River Poisoner, cropped accordingly.

The grey area is the tree destruction to be at least partly paid for by the Cambridge City Council.  

The pool, as usual, is the white area. 

3. Reality of ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION  REWARDED BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL.

Rather obvious.  But they love to yell at the other guy.  It gives the voter a fraudulent impression.

4. Proper Voter response.

The bad stuff is always unanimous and kept as secret as possible while yelling at the other guy.

A. Referendum.

The grossly irresponsible Cambridge City Council wants its power increased by a referendum.

Nonsense.  The voters should vote against it.  They are clearly unfit to manage their current very important duties.

[Caption:

[The 40 year resident Charles River White Geese, beloved by tourists for generations.  They are under attack by the Cambridge City Council along with less visible wildlife.

[The Cambridge City Council recently yelled about “rodents” arriving unwanted in Cambridge residential neighborhoods.  With all the HABITAT destruction by the Cambridge City Council, the City Councilors cannot be so stupid as to claim surprise at animals whose habitats has been destroyed moving elsewhere.  

[The Charles River White Geese’ habitat has been vastly destroyed from its mile length in the past.  They cannot move.]

B. City Council Reelection goals.

This is just a tiny part of the reality that is the Cambridge City Council.  

Just to name one other outrage from this City Council.  It also voted UNANIMOUSLY for a massively irresponsible upzoning and related destruction for Harvard Square.  

The zoning pays Harvard to move dorms from Harvard Square to Harvard’s coming I90 / Mass. Pike campus.  It is in planning in relation to the I90 rebuild project on the Boston side of the Charles River.  This new Harvard campus is coming in Boston’s Allston neighborhood between the Charles River and Allston Village.  Allston Village would benefit from tourists following relocated Harvard students to the already student popular Allston Village.  A large number of historical buildings will be destroyed in Harvard Square with related harm to the value of Harvard Square.  Destruction encouraged includes historical housing.

[Caption:  Some of the Harvard Square Historical Buildings Under Attack by all nine  members of the current Cambridge City Council.]

Apparently there is a city created 200 page or so document dictating the politically correct way to destroy historical buildings.

The voter should vote for every candidate on the City Council proportional representation ballot, putting ALL incumbents at the end.

The way proportional representation works, no city council incumbents would get “transfers” until after ALL NON INCUMBENTS NO LONGER HAVE USE FOR THE TRANSFERS, very clearly a NO vote against the unanimously destructive Cambridge City Council nine.

Sincerely, 

Robert J. La Trémouille, Chair

Friends of the White Geese