CHARLES RIVER CROSSING – ROAD TRIP!

Archie Mazmanian reporting, Bob Editing.

1. Archie.
2. Bob response. Nice work Archie.

1. Archie.

In the movie “Animal House” with trouble brewing for the members of the Dartmouth-like fraternity, the call was put out for “Road Trip.” Perhaps there should be a call for a Road Trip to examine the Charles River crossing contemplated for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring as set forth in the Executive Office of Transportation’s (EOT) Notice of Project Change (NPC). Of course, this Road Trip would be on foot.

A good starting point for this Road Trip might be the Cambridge side to (1) traverse Magazine Beach, (2) examine the rotary under the Memorial Drive overpass with its many ways running to and from it, (3) the nesting grounds of the White Geese between the easterly side of the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, (4) the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) under the BU Bridge, (5) the River shore easterly to the Hyatt Hotel, and, if time permits, (6) locating the continuation of the GJRL north of Memorial Drive.

With this portion of the Road Trip, consider the changes that might be required to the rotary and its ways to accommodate Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses for access to and from the BU Bridge if that turns out to be Phase 2’s Charles River crossing, considering also how the GJRL easement area in Cambridge might be utilized with the addition of two (2) lanes for these 60-foot articulated buses. Also consider that if the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge were to serve as Phase 2’s Charles River crossing, how two (2) lanes for these 60-foot articulated BRT buses would be added to the trestle and their impact on the Charles River.

Then cross the BU Bridge, taking care to observe from both sides – but for safety reasons one side at a time – the Charles River. In particular, on the westerly side of the BU Bridge, note with care the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge as it crosses Storrow Drive in Boston and then turns westerly. If the GJRL trestle is to serve as the Charles River crossing, the added two (2) lanes for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated buses would extend southerly over Storrow Drive and then easterly via a tunnel under the BU Bridge on the Boston side to the easterly side, surfacing in the area of the BU Academy that would be demolished; in addition, these two (2) bus lanes may have to be expanded westerly towards the rail yards to accommodate Harvard’s proposed Allston campus. Also, while on the BU Bridge, note the traffic and in particular 40-foot buses in traffic and imagine they were Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses if the Phase 2 Charles River crossing is to be by means of the BU Bridge.

On the Boston side, take Commonwealth Avenue east, use the pedestrian bridge over Storrow Drive (in back of BU’s Marsh Chapel) to access the walkway on the southern shore of the Charles River to observe the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge from both sides of the BU Bridge. In particular, from the westerly side of the BU Bridge, consider the addition of the two (2) bus lanes and their route under the BU Bridge via a tunnel, surfacing on the site of the BU Academy as noted above, if the Charles River crossing for Phase 2 is to utilize the GJRL trestle.

Then return to Commonwealth Avenue and head towards the BU Bridge. At University Road, consider traffic issues its closing might entail regarding access to and from Storrow Drive east; BU has proposed such a closing for its plans for the BU Academy site down to the Charles River. Take a close look at the BU Academy site, where a Phase 2 tunnel would surface to accommodate the Charles River crossing via the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge. Also, take a good look at the southerly side of Commonwealth Avenue which from its sidewalk southerly is in the Town of Brookline, and in particular the Carlton Street bridge over the MA Turnpike Extension. BU has its eyes, long range, on the development of air rights parcels over the Extension from Essex Street (the extension of the BU Bridge to its south) to St. Mary’s Street, bounded on the southerly side by Mountfort Street. (Mountfort Street would serve as a portion of the Phase 2 route between the Charles River crossing and the Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area.)

The next step of this Road Trip would be to observe the westerly side of the BU Bridge at Commonwealth Avenue. That’s where the MA Turnpike Extension from the west dips sharply under Commonwealth Avenue to the Extension’s trench easterly of Essex Street. A significant portion of Commonwealth Avenue is itself a bridge at the BU Bridge, the extent of which can be identified by metal expansion joints in the roadway. This bridge is in need of significant infrastructure replacement, a major undertaking. The B Branch of the Green Line on Commonwealth Avenue crosses this bridge, with trolleys required to reduce speed to a crawl because of this bridge’s condition.

Looking northerly from Commonwealth Avenue over the MA Turnpike Extension where it dips, the GJRL over Storrow Drive can be observed. Consider the addition of two (2) bus lanes at this point to the GJRL to accommodate Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses that would swing easterly under the BU Bridge by means of a tunnel surfacing on the easterly side in the area of the BU Academy if the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge serves as Phase 2’s Charles River crossing; in addition, consider two (2) lanes extending westerly in the area of the rail lines to service Harvard’s proposed Allston campus – and how such may tie-into the two (2) lanes in the tunnel under the BU Bridge to the BU Academy area.

But if Phase 2’s Charles River crossing is by means of the BU Bridge (and not the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge), then Phase 2’s service of Harvard’s proposed Allston campus may require the use of Commonwealth Avenue westerly of the BU Bridge.

While at Commonwealth Avenue, observe traffic patterns in the area to get some idea of traffic issues if the Charles River crossing for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses were to be over the BU Bridge, keeping in mind the recent reduction of the BU Bridge from four (4) to three (3) lanes, as well as the use of Commonwealth Avenue westerly of the BU Bridge to service Harvard’s proposed Allston campus.

While on this Road Trip, keep in mind that a major goal of Phase 2 would be 7-minute trip frequencies to encourage riders to take these 60-foot articulated BRT buses for cross-town transit trips rather than taking a radial line into the hub in downtown Boston and then out to a destination on another radial line. And consider the engineering feats that would have to be addressed if the Charles River crossing is by means of the GJRL trestle under the BU Bridge.

Hopefully this Road Trip might disclose some good ideas or recommendations, addressing issues with the Charles River crossing and encourage a “tripper” to review EOT’s NPC and respond to it with public comments. [Reminder: public comments are due by August 7, 2009.]

By the way, in the course of this Road Trip, don’t forget the plight of the White Geese on the Cambridge side of the Charles River that will only worsen with Phase 2’s Charles River crossing. They deserve better, having provided for many decades joy to children and other nature lovers. Their little bit of space cannot be permitted to be destroyed.

2. Bob response. Nice work Archie.

The proposal for change talks about a lot of difficulties in the "Southern Tier" proposal including problems with the Grand Junction.

Archie's excellent analysis flags at least one very major possible defect for which I thank him. To the extent more sinks in, I will try to further study.

The one that stands out reenforces a point which he has been making to me for some time with my not fully gronking him.

Archie has repeatedly commented on the difficulties associated with widening the Grand Junction Bridge as is proposed by the state. He has driven that point home very effectively above.

In particular, he reminds me on the MBTA analysis which first demonstrated the engineering feasibility of an off ramp from the Mass. Pike to Cambridge to and from the west only.

The limitations of the approach were underscored by the fact that, all of a sudden a moribund concept to create a Mass. Pike U turn at the Allston Exit became not only active but also implemented. Supposedly, this U turn allows traffic from Back Bay to go to the airport by way of Allston. I understand it is essentially unused for this purpose.

However, that U turn makes the exit to Cambridge by way of the Grand Junction bridge an exit for traffic coming on the Mass. Pike both to and from the west and to and from the east.

The important point, however, is that the bus proposal on the Grand Junction going to University Road and then to Yawkey has to do EXACTLY what the T said could not be done in that location and more so.

The T said it was not feasible to connect the Mass. Pike to and from the east and the Grand Junction bridge. The busway proposal would require ramps even mnore convoluted than that.

Nice work, Archie.

Urban Ring since 2002

Bob La Trémouille edits:

1. Introduction.
2. Archie.
3. Marilyn.
4. Editor.

1. Introduction.

Archie Mazmanian passes on the following with a link to a 2002 Arco Forum presentation on the phase 2 Urban Ring. The Arco Forum is located in an atrium at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government on JFK Street between Harvard Square and the Charles River.

2. Archie.

Perhaps visitors to your Blog might be interested in the Harvard Gazette issue of July 18, 2002 article titled "Ring around the city: Rappaport Institute explores Urban Ring," by Beth Potier, available at:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/07.18/01-urbanring.html

A lot has happened - or not happened - with respect to Phase 2 of the Urban Ring in the seven (7) years since this exploration. I am not aware that the Harvard Gazette has since reported on the Urban Ring or whether the Rappaport Institute has engaged in further explorations. Of course, this article appeared several years before Harvard revealed its secret real estate purchases of approximately 250 acres in Allston for expansion of its campus and its subsequent desire to connect this with Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. This article was also published long before Harvard acquired the lands underlying the Beacon Yards rail system.

Financial issues were a concern back in 2002. Since then the financial plight of MA and the rest of the nation has added to this concern. And Harvard's endowment decrease resulting from recent national and worldwide financial woes has put the brakes on Harvard's development of its Allston campus. As a result, the major portion of Phase 2 now called the Southern Tier is recognized by the Executive Office of Transportation as up in the air because of major impediments in addition to financing. As noted in an earlier post, these major impediments relate to the Charles River crossing at the area of the BU Bridge and surface routes in lieu of a tunnel in the busy Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area, through which Phase 2's 60-foot articulated BRT buses would have to maneuver, largely in mixed traffic.

With respect to the Charles River crossing, auto commuters face great frustrations in their daily commutes in the area of Commonwealth Avenue/BU Bridge/University Road/Carlton Street bridge on both sides of the Charles River. Recently they have been honking with these traffic conditions. Perhaps these auto commuters should be heard from (other than by honking) as stakeholders at public meetings on Phase 2 and with public comments on the EOT's Notice of Project Change. (Reminder: such public comments are due by August 7, 2009.) It seems as if the Commonwealth, Boston, Brookline and Cambridge are not coordinating efforts to minimize the impacts of work on the BU Bridge, especially the major infrastructure project that will commence later this year and probably last well over a year until completion. And even after such completion, the auto lanes on the BU Bridge will remain at three (3), recently reduced from four (4) lanes. Honking is not an effective means of getting a message across to the authorities. These auto commuters should unite and make their voices heard.

3. Marilyn.

Harvard announced its secret purchases in Allston in 1997, as I remember. There were additional purchases after that, and Mass Pike's sale of the Beacon Yards in 2000? The point is the Rappaport report was written when the Allston stuff was semi-public and well underway.

There was a chronology online at www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349511 that omits Harvard's initial announcement of its secret purchases. The chronology dates those from an initial purchase of 52 acres from 1987-1993.

4. Editor.

The T did nonsense about an express bus route from Newton to Cambridgeport using the Grand Junction bridge. That proved the bridge capable of handling a Mass. Pike off ramp to and from the west.

Then Harvard Purchased the Beacon Yards.

Then the U turn was built at the Allston Tolls, supposed to allow Back Bay traffic to go west and then to the airport, in reality to turn the Grand Junction Mass. Pike exit into a access for both directions of traffic. This made the Beacon Yards available for Harvard to build on.

2003?

BUS RAPID TRANSIT versus LIGHT/HEAVY RAIL

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Archie’s analysis.
3. Response.
a. History of the Urban Ring dates to the 80’s.
b. Northern v. Southern Tier.
c. Light v. Heavy Rail.

1. Introduction.

Archie Mazmanian has presented a well thought out paper on Bus Rapid Transit versus Light / Heavy Rail.

The analysis is copied in part 2. Because he has done such a good job, I feel like giving my two bits worth following Archie.

My response will be technical. Archie has done such a good job, I think it would be inappropriate to do back and forth’s giving my perception of history and trying to come to agreement. He wrote a good analysis. I will give it its proper respect. I will just respond.

2. Archie’s analysis.

When the Urban Ring was spawned by the MBTA some 14 years r so ago, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), a system of 60-foot articulated buses, was its standard for Phase 2. There had been no debate about this standard nor had the concept of BRT been the brainchild from the ground up of public transit riders. Rather, this was the decision of MBTA. After 14 years, it is time to have such a debate. Phase 3 of the Urban Ring calls for light/heavy rail. The failure to implement Phase 2 over such a long period of time might suggest the BRT approach has failed.

Growing up in Roxbury in the ‘40s and ‘50s, and beyond in Jamaica Plan through the ‘60s into the early ‘70s, I was a frequent rider on the elevated Orange Line on my trips to and from downtown Boston while in college, law school and then in my law practice. Shifting the Orange Line route and tearing down the elevated structure was a good thing for residents along Washington Street from Forest Hills to downtown Boston. But these residents did need good, reliable public transit. They were promised light rail on Washington Street with dedicated rights of way.

Eventually, after too many years, the MBTA did come up with public transit (the Silver Line) on Washington Street, but not in the form of light rail with dedicated rights of way. Rather, the MBTA shifted to a BRT system. However, instead of providing truly dedicated rights of way for this BRT system, the MBTA provided buslanes along some portions of Washington Street. The problem with buslanes is that they can and do accommodate mixed traffic in the absence of strict law enforcement. The result for the Silver Line was slow and unreliable public transit. Residents had been deceived: They were promised light rail with dedicated rights of way but instead got the BRT system on this surface route of Washington Street.

The Silver Line along Washington Street has been a failure. A second phase of the Silver Line’s tunnel to the airport area has been a success but only because of its dedicated and exclusive right of way in this tunnel. But the connection between these phases, Phase 3, has bogged down because of disputes of neighborhoods affected and the expense of another tunnel. The surface routes between Phase 1 and Phase 2’s tunnel cannot provide appropriate dedicated rights of way.

EOT has taken over from the MBTA and continues with the push for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring with a BRT system. While a BRT system might work in certain communities with broad boulevards, the Phase 2 routes do not provide such broad boulevards. So EOT has to resort to the gimmick of buslanes in an effort to satisfy the Federal Transit Agency’s funding requirement of a minimum of 50% of dedicated rights of way. As noted above, without strict law enforcement, buslanes end up with mixed traffic, eliminating Rapid from BRT.

The current Southern Tier proposal in EOT’s Notice of Project Change would involve greater ridership than the Northern Tier. EOT has been unable as yet to settle upon proposed surface routes in the Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area. EOT has to overcome the major impediment presented with the Charles River crossing that requires accommodations with CSX regarding the Grand Junction Rail Line, including the trestle bridge under the BU Bridge. This major impediment also affects the Allston connection that would service Harvard’s proposed Allston campus as well as Harvard’s potential development of the Beacon Yards. If such an accommodation cannot be made, then the BU Bridge would serve as Phase 2’s Charles River crossing and the Allston connection would be via Commonwealth Avenue westerly of the BU Bridge. Frankly, the BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue area has too many traffic and transportation problems currently and the addition of Phase 2’s surface routes would only make them worse. This would affect both sides of the Charles River.

So perhaps it is time to start a serious debate on Bus Rapid Transit versus Light/Heavy Rail. While a BRT system may work in Bogata, Colombia, with its wide boulevards, it will not work along the Southern Tier with its narrow, curved and heavily traveled streets. In other parts of the US, the utilization of the BRT system is being questioned, including in a Washington Post editorial, Sunday, July 12, 2009, involving Maryland’s “purple line” that would connect with the District of Columbia’s Metro system. After some 14 years, it is finally time for a real debate on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring and to consider going directly to Phase 3 with light/heavy rail. If a BRT system on the Urban Ring cannot provide timely trips, its passengers will revert to light/heavy radial lines into the hub in downtown Boston and then out on another radial line to destinations. If Phase 2 were to be approved as currently proposed, we might be stuck with it and never get to Phase 3. Now is the time to speak up and demand a debate.

3. Response.

a. History of the Urban Ring dates to the 80’s.

Archie comments about the spawning of the Urban Ring 14 years ago, as a bus phase 2, real rapid transit phase 3.

I have been working on the Urban Ring since 1985. It was a rapid transit proposal then. Only later did it get watered down to buses. In the middle, the state adopted my alternate Kenmore Crossing as a second possibility for crossing the Charles River, compared to the original thoughts of crossing next to the BU Bridge.

b. Northern v. Southern Tier.

Archie talks of Southern Tier and Northern Tier in this week’s proposal. There are a lot of lovely maps at www.theurbanring.com, but, basically, the Northern Tier is a bunch of busways mostly north of Cambridge and north of Boston Harbor. The Southern Tier is the rest of the “phase 2” bus package.

The Northern Tier is separated out, in my opinion, because it makes sense for buses. The Southern Tier is so much nonsense.

c. Light v. Heavy Rail.

Light rail is street cars. Heavy Rail is the Red Line and the other big guys.

There are people running around trying to confuse the two, and they are indulging in quite irresponsible behavior trying to confuse the two.

The reason they are trying to confuse the two is that they are also fighting for the BU Bridge Crossing in the Rapid Transit phase 3.

The dirty tricks come from the fact that the Phase 3 BU Bridge crossing is light rail and the Phase 3 Kenmore Crossing is heavy rail.

The purpose of the Urban Ring is to provide a viable crosstown alternative to going downtown in the Subway system. Light rail cannot provide the speed needed to get people off the downtown subways. So the people fighting, for other reasons, for the BU Bridge crossing, use any and all techniques to fool people into an inferior alternative.

One of the key techniques is to give the impression that there is meaningful competition between the two alternatives. I have elsewhere in this Blog gone into very detailed analysis between the two.

My analysis is confirmed by the nonstop dirty tricks.

Just one example of too many:

There is a “transportation” group in the Boston area whose board has been fooled into supporting the BU Bridge without ever being told that they are supporting the BU Bridge Crossing and without ever being allowed to discuss the comparative merits.

There seem to be two willful activists involved and a much larger number of victims. The two activists clearly have no concern with fair play.

Any attempt to question this silly position has been replied to with cyberabuse by one of the two.

The other of the two is the head of the organization. He supports cyberabuse “on the grounds of free speech.” When the victim publicly objected to receiving off line abusive emails, the victim was permanently thrown off the listserve by the “leader.” Cyberabuse is protected by free speech. The victim objecting to cyberabuse gets the cyber death sentence.

That says a lot as to the level of discourse. And the real purpose is to protect the BU Bridge light rail Phase 3 crossing from meaningful discussion once the two have fooled the board into supporting it without telling them that they are supporting it.

I do not think Light and Heavy Rail should be confused. The bad guys have good reason for confusion. They have no merit to their position.

Monteiro case, Hearing Scheduled, Odd Clerk’s Notice

Bob reports:

The plaintiff’s motion to correct the judgment has, apparently, been scheduled for hearing on August 26.

There have been oddities in the record concerning filing(s) by Cambridge on July 3.

This first appeared as a notice of the filing of a letter from Cambridge apparently pointing out to the judge (I can only see description, not content) that the plaintiff’s motion was improper as filed after the filing of Cambridge’s notice of appeal. Cambridge reaffirmed its notice of appeal.

On checking this morning, this entry, which I very clearly saw a few days ago, has been replaced with a notice of filing of transcripts by Cambridge on July 3.

Fancy Bus Lanes in Context

Archie provides the following with regard to the “rapid transit” buses proposed as part of the Urban Ring:

BREAKING NEWS! BRTs in Bogata, Colombia!
July 11, 2009 – New York Times – Page 1
Found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/americas/10degrees.html?hpw

This front page article by Elisabeth Rosenthal is quite long but worthwhile reading. It tells the reader quite a bit abut BRTs and their use in foreign countries and in the U.S. Phase 2 of the Urban Ring would utilize 60-foot articulated BRT buses. Consider EOT’s Locally Preferred Alternatives for Phase 2 and issues involving dedicated routes. Take a careful look at the NYT front page photo showing BRTs and passengers in Bogata. Then check out this in the inside page:

“But with [Bogata’s] wide streets, dense population and a tradition of bus travel, Bogata had the ingredients for success. To create Trans-Milenio [Bogata’s BRT system], the city commandeered two to four traffic lanes in the middle of major boulevards, isolating them with low walls to create the system’s so-called tracks. On the center islands that divide many of Bogata’s two-way streets, the city built dozens of distinctive metal-and-glass stations. Just as in a subway, the multiple doors on the buses slide open level with the platform, providing easy access for strollers and older riders. Hundreds of passengers can wait on the platforms, avoiding the delays that occur when passengers each pay as they board.”

Since EOT is now planning for surface routes through the dense Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area, how might EOT replicate Bogata’s success on that areas streets?

In fact, a major problem with EOT’s Locally Preferred Alternatives routes is the failure to provide truly dedicated BRT busways in critical areas. Rather, EOT gets to the minimum Federal Transit Agency requirement of 50% dedication by including buslanes that can also accommodate mixed vehicular traffic in the absence of strict (and expensive) enforcement, as demonstrated on the MBTA’s Silver Line on Washington Street in Roxbury, South End and downtown Boston.

And consider the BU Bridge reduced from four to three lanes: what if any dedication can be provided for these BRT buses and also accommodate auto commuters?

This BREAKING NEWS! should be reflected in public comments (due by August 7th) on EOT’s NPC.

Publication Update

Bob reports:

The Cambridge Chronicle published my analysis of the DCR meeting as a highly featured op ed in their July 9, 2009 edition, top of the column, all six columns, opposite to the editorial page. The version published was my edit down to 800 words, essentially what I passed on to you a week ago.

The Chronicle underscored its good performance with the first letter printed below my oped. This was a letter from Jane Rich objecting to the use of poisons to fertilize a park in the central city and to fertilize Magazine Beach.

Jane calls the use of poisons in violation of a very clear Cambridge ordinance.

Reality is that the hypocrites in Cambridge do a lot of lying. Lovely ordinances which they violate at will are a very key part of their lying.

Reality is the Charles River. Reality is poisons, heartless animal abuse, and aggressive environmental destruction from hypocrites who claim to be Green and who claim to be decent human beings.

Urban Ring Notice of Project Change: Charles River

Bob editing, Archie Mazmanian principal author.

1. Introduction.
2. Archie’s Analysis.
a. CSX.
b. BU.
c. Harvard.
d. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!
3. Archie Follow Up.


1. Introduction.

Archie provides a thoughtful analysis of the Urban Ring proposals in light of the current proposal to emphasize a northern tier (north of Cambridge, with connection to Cambridge) and to provide different emphasis to an oddly handled southern tier which includes most of the Cambridge portion, plus the Charles River and everything south of the Charles River.

Archie lives two blocks directly south of the BU Bridge in Brookline, just off Essex Street which is the extension of the BU Bridge. Archie has been very busy in area planning and transportation planning.

My only edit is to add outline formatting to his already bulleted analysis.

The document is available at www.theurbanring.com, with comments due August 7.

2. Archie’s Analysis.

The two (2) major impediments to what is now called the Southern Tier of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring are: (1) the Charles River crossing and (2) Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area. For the latter, EOT is now proposing surface routes instead of a tunnel; stakeholders in that area can be expected to respond sharply to this Plan B “No Tunnel” route(s) through this congested area. Unlike Las Vegas, what happens in that area is not confined thereto.

So let’s focus on the Charles River crossing that impacts communities on both sides of the River in Boston, Brookline and Cambridge, where EOT’s principal obstacles are: (a) CSX, (b) Boston University and (c) Harvard, perhaps in various combinations.

a. CSX.

The utilization of the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) for Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses is required not only to avoid using the BU Bridge by means of the GJRL under the BU Bridge but to provide access for the Allston connection for Harvard’s proposed Allston campus (250 acres) PLUS the potential development of Beacon Yards (600 acres). While Harvard has humongous real estate development potentials for Allston, CSX has to be assured of maintenance of certain of its rail lines, including under the BU Bridge and relocation of certain of its operations in Beacon Yards.

b. BU.

Utilization of the GJRL under the BU Bridge requires an arrangement with BU regarding a connection by means of a tunnel under the Boston side of the BU Bridge to the easterly side in the area of BU’s Academy. What might BU require in exchange? For one, BU will have to relocate its Academy, where, BU has yet to disclose. Also, BU wants to develop air rights over the MA Turnpike Expansion along the southerly side of Commonwealth Avenue in Brookline between Essex and Carlton Street bridge and between the latter and St. Mary’s Street, bounded on the southerly side by Brookline’s Mountfort Street. In addition, BU has been floating the idea of a BU “beach” on the northerly side of Commonwealth Avenue (Boston) presumably covering over a portion of Storrow Drive down to the Charles River. BU’s “beach” proposal seems to include the closure of the short University Road that provides convenient commuter access to and from Storrow Drive East. This is all long range on the part of BU due to its lack of funds.

c. Harvard.

Harvard owns the land underlying Beacon Yards (600 acres) in Allston. If Harvard, CSX and the Commonwealth can work out a deal to relocate CSX operations in Beacon Yards, a humongous tract could then be available for development by Harvard that could rival the Prudential Center and South Boston’s Seaport District, convenient to the Charles River and Harvard’s Cambridge campus. Rumor has it that Harvard would like to see a relocation of the MA Turnpike Extension’s Allston exit/entrance that might permit for a spur to utilize portions of the GJRL for a connection – including under the BU Bridge? – to Cambridge for motorists (as well as for Phase 2’s BRT buses). But Harvard isn’t quite ready to develop even its Allston campus because of financial concerns.

d. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!

That’s what drives real estate development. CSX, BU and Harvard are connected at their hips in development in the area associated with the Charles River crossing that would surely impact already serious traffic and transportation issues in the area of the BU Bridge faced by residential communities on both sides of the Charles as well as commuters through the area. Recall the voice in the movie “Field of Dreams” – “If you build it, they will come” – but who will pay for the required infrastructure for this development that Phase 2 would service? Will BU and Harvard pony-up or will taxpayers bear the freight for the benefit of these tax-exempt nonprofits? By the way, what would be the impact of such development on the residential communities in the area? And will commuter traffic worsen?

More commentary is to come on the Charles River crossing for Phase 2.

3. Archie Follow Up.

I like your edit.

My hope is that residents of Allston will awaken to realize how they may be impacted by Phase 2 in conjunction with Harvard. Based upon my attendance at most CAC [ed: federally ordered, I think, Urban Ring Citizen’s Advisory Committee] and other public meetings on the Urban Ring, Allston-Brighton folks are seldom in attendance because of the many battles they have with Harvard, BU and BC. Allston-Brighton is an orphan area of Boston and poorly treated.

Also, my hope is that residents of all adjoining neighborhoods will understand the roles of the institutions with Phase 2 of the Urban Ring and realize that what's good for these institutions is not necessarily good for their residential communities.

Remember, there was very little involvement of residential neighborhoods impacted by the Big DIG as it was being planned, so their inputs were not availed of. Troops on the ground must get involved with Phase 2 of the Urban Ring and register their concerns.

Urban Ring Notice of Project Change

[Ed (Bob La Trémouille): DOT gives the impression that they are, for now, backing off all but the "northern tier" parts of the Urban Ring, mostly north of Cambridge. The fine print seems to attempt to keep parts of the "southern tier" alive through odd maneuvers. Nothing should be taken for granted.]

Archie Mazmanian reports:

The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) has posted at its website – www.theurbanring.com - its Notice of Project Change (NPC) filing of June 30, 2009. (To access the NPC, go to this website, click on Reference Materials, then click on Current Materials and under the heading Notice of Project Change – June 30, 2009 (2), download 07-Jul-2009 Notice of Project Change.)

A note of caution: The NPC is 526 pages long. But this should not discourage visitors to your Blog who are not on a payroll of a municipality or institutional stakeholder from reviewing the NPC. The guts of the NPC are set forth in “Attachment 6: Project Change Description – Supporting Details.” At a minimum, read Pages 19 through 34 of Attachment 6; but be aware that the pagination on the NPC download is different, so that Sheets/pages 35 through 50 should be accessed AND PRINTED OUT.

Section “6.4 Response to Comments on RDEIR” begins at Sheet/page 52, continuing at great length (paginated 1 through 232). Unfortunately, the download Sheets/pages differ, making it difficult maneuvering to selected responses. Sheets/pages 52 through 54 set forth various Categories of Comment Letters that EOT’s responses relate to, listing names in such Categories. Because of time limitations, I would suggest that visitors to your Blog might focus on EOT’s responses to “Individual Comments” and selected “Community Advocacy and Organization Comments” and selected “Institution Comments.”

Beginning AFTER Section 6.4, there appear the actual Comment Letters annotated and separated into the various Categories described in Section 6.4. Maneuvering through the Comment Letters can be very time consuming as well as difficult because of different paginations as noted above.

Hopefully, the above will serve as a guide to visitors to your Blog in reviewing the NPC. The public comment period is scheduled to begin July 7th and close August 7, 2009. Beginning in the next day or so, I plan to provide commentary on the NPC, in particular as it impacts the BU Bridge area that has long had serious traffic and transportation issues for commuters and adjoining neighborhoods. EOT is suggesting with the NPC a half a loaf approach for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring with a Northern Tier that is relatively inexpensive and set to go without too many obstacles (impediments), whereas much more time is needed for the Southern Tier that includes the Charles River crossing, the Longwood Medical/Fenway/Academies area as well as the Allston connection (read Harvard) because of many overwhelming obstacles (impediments), financial and otherwise.

Visitors to your Blog residing in communities in Cambridge, Boston (Allston and the Fenway in particular) and Brookline must pay close attention to the NPC’s impacts on their communities in the Southern Tier to make sure that existing traffic and transportation problems are not exacerbated. They must take the time to submit their comments on the NPC.

EOT is keeping its “hat in the ring,” i.e., the Urban Ring, even though difficulties – some insurmountable – with the Southern Tier may bring tears to the eyes of residents in these communities that would not be tears of joy.

You may post this on your Blog if you wish.

DCR "Public Hearing" Nonsense, A Responsible Proposal for the Charles River

Last Tuesday, June 30, the Department of Conservation and Recreation held a “public hearing” on the Boston University campus concerning the BU Bridge Repair project.

The “public hearing” was an excellent example of bad faith as the DCR papered over continuing, needless environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

This is part of a series of strikingly irresponsible projects being progressed in spite of lack of merit. The protagonists routinely use whatever technique is available to further unworthy ends.

Key in the BU Bridge Repair project is not the needed repairs, but the totally unnecessary destruction included in it. It is no wonder that none of the three “public hearings” on this destruction have been conducted in Cambridge near the destruction in spite of very clear promises to do so. A related, non-destructive project has had a public hearing in the Morse School.

The BU Bridge Repair project furthers destruction of habitat aimed at the very popular and valuable Charles River White Geese. It destroys all the undestroyed vegetation in their nesting area just east of the BU Bridge. Half of the destruction is for staging that should be placed under Memorial Drive where staging was placed for the BU Bridge sidewalk project.

The project completes the destruction of all ground vegetation located between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. The rest of the ground vegetation has been destroyed in stages since the DCR and Cambridge confined the Charles River White Geese to this tiny portion of their mile long habitat in September 2004. It would turn three quarters of the nesting area into a construction zone, leaving the geese with one quarter of the nesting area, all of which has been denuded of ground vegetation by the DCR. Even the tiny amount of grass under Memorial Drive across the on ramp would be taken from them.

In September 2004, the DCR and Cambridge started starving them. It was a two pronged attack. Half their food was taken from them by the City with a plastic starvation wall at the edge of the Charles River across from the Hyatt. Their food at Magazine Beach was blocked first with excavation, and then with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which has no business on the Charles River.

The DCR has repeatedly promised “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese, starting with their attack on the Nesting Area in fall 1999. The DCR explains that, in their world, starving the Charles River White Geese is not harming them.

Currently also pending is the replacement of Green playing fields at Magazine Beach with SMALLER poison maintained playing fields. The decrease in size is “needed” to put in an expensive drainage system to carry away poisons which have no business being dumped on the banks of the Charles River.

In addition to starving local animals, the Cambridge City Council is also taking Magazine Beach away from the general public. Magazine Beach, which has been used for pick up sports activities for the better part of a Century, will be prohibited for use without specific advance permission. This is an extension of the police enforced prohibition of neighborhood pick up games at Russell Field.

The Boston Conservation Commission, when faced with a similar situation at Ebersol Field near Mass. General Hospital, ordered signs posted allowing public use when not scheduled through central scheduling. The Boston Conservation Commission disagrees with the Cambridge City Council’s intents at Magazine Beach.

The DCR has informed the Cambridge Conservation Commission of its intent to destroy hundreds of healthy trees, including every cherry tree, between the BU and Longfellow Bridges. The DCR, working closely with Cambridge, is offended that Memorial Drive has hundreds of mature, healthy trees which did not appear on 19th Century plans for what was then a treeless tidal wetlands. Obama stimulus moneys will be used with Governor Patrick’s blessing.

Part of the tree destruction project will include reinstatement of the plastic starvation wall across from the Hyatt.

Maximum secrecy can be expected. If people know what is going on, they might object, and that would involve people knowing just how bad the Cambridge City Council and Governor Patrick are when it comes to environmental destruction, heartless animal abuse, and denying public services to the public.

Responsible behavior would defer the BU Bridge Repair project until Magazine Beach is livable for the Charles River White Geese. Key in the livability would be destruction of the bizarre starvation wall, return to Green Maintenance and killing of the silly, expensive drainage system which is not needed for green maintenance. The nesting area, as well, should be allowed to the Charles River White Geese for uses as they deem fit, including the nesting uses which they have done there for 28 years. Destruction should be limited to needed destruction, not the outrageous staging use which belongs under Memorial Drive.

It would also be minimal for the Cambridge City Council to behave as responsibly as the Boston Conservation Commission and return Magazine Beach to use by the public when it is not otherwise scheduled.

Plus, it would be nice to refrain from destroying hundreds of healthy, mature trees because they do not appear on a 19th Century plan for what was then a treeless tidal wetlands, and do not do that part of the starvation attacks.

Monteiro Case: Plaintiff wants decision changed; Cambridge works on appeal package

1. Plaintiff files to change Judgment.
2. Cambridge still working on appeal package.
3. Analysis.


Bob Reports.

1. Plaintiff files to change Judgment.

The plaintiff filed the following on June 26:

1 Plaintiff Monteiro's Motion To Clarify, Alter And Amend The Court's
2 Judgment On Jury Verdicts Dated June 2, 2009 And Request For Hearing;
3 Defendnat's opposition to Plaintiff Monteiro's Motion To Clarify,
4 Alter And Amend The Court's Judgment On Jury Verdicts Dated June 2,
5 2009

2. Cambridge still working on appeal package.

The Court filed the following on June 24:

1 Court received Letter from Joan A. Lukey: In response to your letter
2 dated June 19, 2009 and pursuant to Mass R. App. P. 8(b)(1) and
3 9c(2), I hereby certify that: 1. All transcripts have previously been
4 ordered. 2. The following transcripts have been completed and are on
5 file with the Court: May, 5, 2008; May 6, 2008; May 9, 2008; May 12,
6 2008; May 13, 2008; May 15, 2008; May 16, 2008; May 19, 2008; May 20,
7 2008; May 21, 2008; May 22, 2008; May 23, 2008. 3. We have previously
8 requested the transcripts for May 7, 2008 and May 8, 2008. I am also
9 formally re-requesting these two transcripts by separate
10 correspondence to Court Reporters Kristin Simonini and Melissa
11 Spirito, respectively. The Transcripts for the above mentioned dated
12 comprise the entire transcript.

3. Analysis.

I do not have any of the papers. These reports are based on the on line court docket. Most such items are just the title of documents. The line numbers showing on the left margin are direct copies of the docket.

There rather clearly is something in the Court’s judgment which the Plaintiff is unhappy with. Cambridge would have been aware of this motion before Cambridge filed notice of appeal since the motion is served on the other party and the responding party has an opportunity to serve a response.

As far as the appeal letter goes, Cambridge filed notice of appeal. Then Cambridge has a duty to ensure the court’s records are adequate for review by the appellate court before the records are forwarded to the appellate court. Cambridge is saying by this letter that it still needs at least to add two days of trial transcripts before the file is ready for appeal.

Cambridge’s Notice of Appeal in Monteiro case.

Bob Reports:

For your information, the following is copied from docket on 6/19/09, edited into outline format:

It was filed on 6/17/09, notice sent to all counsel of record 6/19/09:

***********

Defendant City of Cambridge's notice of appeal:

From

(1) Judgment on Jury Verdicts entered on June 2, 2009;

(2) Order entered on May 8, 2009 denying the defendant's post-trial motions including without limitation:

a) Defendant's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict; and
b) Defendant's Motion for a New Trial, or, in the Alternative, for a Remittitur, and
c) Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal.

(4) [Ed: no (3) on the docket] Order from the Bench at the Charge Conference in May, 8 2008, rejecting Defendant's proposed retaliation charge under McCormack v. Boston Edison, and other objections as preserved.

(5) Order denying Defendant City of Cambridge's Motion for reconsideration of Decision and Order on Post-Trial Motions.

(6) Order from the bench Denying Defendant City of Cambridge's Motion for Directed Verdict dated May 20, 2008.

(7) Order from the Bench of May 13, 2008 denying Defendant's Motion for Mistrial in connection with the admission of so-called "comparator" evidence;

(8) Order denying Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict dated February 22, 2005;

(9) Order denying Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict dated June 2, 2005;

(10) Order Denying Motion of Defendant City of Cambridge for Entry of Partial Judgment dated August 4, 2005; and

(11) January 2005 Order from the Bench allowing plaintiff Monteiro's Motion to Amend Complaint filed on December 14, 2004.

Allston Planning in Context.

Archie Mazmanian reports (with technical edits, Bob, ed.):

The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) has posted at its Urban Ring website on 17-Jun-2009 its presentation "Allston Multimodal Station Study" at a June 15, 2009 Allston-Brighton Community Meeting.

I did not attend this meeting nor have I fully studied the presentation. But I direct you and visitors to your Blog to Slide 33 "Coordination with Other Projects" to add to my earlier post under the heading "Long Term Planning Issues: BU Bridge ..." on June 17th. WOW!

And what can we expect on the Cambridge side of the Charles River?

On an earlier occasion I made reference to the rail yards in Allston as a potential Prudential Center-type complex (coincidentally also involving rail yards). Imagine the impact on traffic and transportation issues on both sides of the River.

EOT's website is at: http://www.theurbanring.com.

Click (left margin) on "Reference Materials" and then "Current Materials" for CAC # 25 June 10, 2009

EOT report on Urban Ring

Archie Mazmanian reports as follows (acronyms spelled out, Bob, Ed.). His report on this meeting is in a report below:

The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) posted at its Urban Ring website yesterday (June 16, 2009) its Presentation at the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) 6/10/09 Meeting. While the entire Presentation is quite interesting, residents on both sides of the BU Bridge, including Allston, should check slides 15 through 19 at a minimum since they address Segment B that would be the busiest segment of the Urban Ring.

EOT's website is at: http://www.theurbanring.com.

Long Term Planning Issues: BU Bridge / Urban Ring / Institutions, and the Impact on Residents

Archie Mazmanian reports (I have spelled out one acronym and added one clarification, Bob, ed.):

As I eagerly await the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT)’s Notice of Project Change on Phase 2 of the Urban Ring, I think of the Inner Belt of yesteryear that would have devastated the Cottage Farm neighborhood in Brookline (where I now reside), perhaps “double-decked” the BU Bridge and then devastated neighborhoods on the Cambridge side but for residents in the more affluent section of Jamaica Plain, Brookline and Cambridge active opposition that proved successful. Prior thereto, portions of lower economic neighborhoods in Jamaica Plain, Roxbury and the South End on the southerly portion of the proposed Inner Belt route and in Somerville on the northerly portion had been demolished, devastated, in the days when there was no concept of economic justice in evaluating projects such as the Inner Belt. Many residents currently residing in Boston, Brookline and Cambridge may not know much of the Inner Belt. Its history available at:

http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/inner-belt/

is relevant to Phase 2 of the Urban Ring’s proposal for the Charles River crossing.

For several months the BU Bridge has been undergoing long neglected repairs, causing serious traffic and transportation problems on both sides of the Charles River, exacerbating long existing traffic and transportation problems. Later this year, it is anticipated that a significant project will be undertaken to address serious structural problems with the BU Bridge that may take well over a year. But there are many other infrastructure issues and future projects in addition to Phase 2 in the area of the BU Bridge that need to be addressed in assessing Phase 2’s Charles River crossing.

1. A large portion of Commonwealth Avenue at the BU Bridge serves as a bridge over the MA Turnpike Extension that has serious structural problems. The B Commonwealth Green Line Branch trolleys are required to slow down to a crawl in passing over this bridge. This would be a major project. Consider the steps required to be taken to minimize traffic flow problems on the Extension and how this would be handled above at the Commonwealth Avenue and BU Bridge area.

2. Boston University’s (BU) Charles River campus has ambitious plans, including creating a “beach” from the northerly side of Commonwealth Avenue (just easterly of the BU Bridge) down to the Charles River (presumably crossing over Storrow Drive) that would eliminate University Road’s currently easy access to and from Storrow Drive East. In addition, BU has its eyes on developing air rights over the Extension, a small segment in Boston just to the west of the BU Bridge, and two huge footprint segments in Brookline south of Commonwealth Avenue between Essex and St. Mary’s Streets, that would introduce complex traffic and transportation issues directly for Boston and Brookline as well as users of the BU Bridge from points north and south. I have suggested elsewhere that perhaps BU had lobbied the Legislature earlier this year for a $4.1 million budget item for a transportation study of this area that might impact its plans.

3. The rotary on the Cambridge side of the BU Bridge is quite complex. EOT has long recognized significant changes would be required to this rotary to accommodate Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated BRT buses in order to be able to utilize the BU Bridge for Phase 2. How might such changes impact Cambridgeport neighborhoods (even assuming that EOT is able to utilize the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) in Cambridge)? Traffic between the rotary and Central Square through narrow streets with parking and various one-way patterns is currently difficult enough.

4. And then there’s Harvard, the institutional elephant in the room with its proposed humongous Allston campus that wants-in to connect to Phase 2 somewhere in the area of the Boston side of the BU Bridge to provide access to Harvard’s burgeoning Longwood Medical Area. While current economic problems have slowed down Harvard’s Allston activities, it would be a long range project in any event, creating significant traffic and transportation issues not only in Allston but at the BU Bridge and thus Brookline and Cambridge for many years.

We all know how long it took to complete the Big Dig and how much it cost. We know that the Big Dig’s Charles River crossing was both difficult and expensive, finally accomplished with a humongous bridge that some, many, consider attractive. Phase 2 of the Urban Ring also has a major Charles River crossing problem. Funding apparently is not available to accomplish using the GJRL bridge under the BU Bridge. In addition, there are significant environmental issues to be addressed in expanding the former as well as legal issues with CSX for its continued freight rail use of the bridge together with continued rail access on the Boston side connecting to Beacon Yards. [ed: The railroad yards which are on the north side of Soldier’s Field Road, extending from Cambridge Street almost to the BU Bridge.]

Perhaps it is time for residents of Brookline, Boston and Cambridge to take a lesson from the days of the threats of the Inner Belt to their communities and demand a halt to EOT’s Phase 2 proposed Charles River crossing. EOT has yet to undertake serious engineering studies/designs for the Charles River crossing. While engineers can do just about anything, the results might not be successful. EOT should be required – and promptly – to come up with such studies/designs to test whether its proposed Charles River crossing will work. While the GJRL bridge under the BU Bridge is “cockamamie,” utilizing the BU Bridge (which may be reduced from 4 lanes to 3 lanes) is “cockamanier;” in fact, it’s NUTS!

Urban Ring CAC, 6/10/09

Archie Mazmanian provides the following report on the Urban Ring Citizen’s Advisory Committee Meeting of June 10, 2009:

The CAC meeting of June 10, 2009, addressing EOT’s Notice of Project Change (NPC) required to be filed by June 30, 2009, was quite depressing. Prior to EOT’s Powerpoint slide show presentation, the CAC Chair Nally and Co-Chair Garver summarized a recent CAC Alternatives Subcommittee meeting that considered ABC proposals regarding the NPC. Co-Chair Garver presented what might have been a “majority” Subcommittee report followed by a CAC member from Somerville with what might have been a “minority” Subcommittee report. (I am not aware that this Subcommittee meeting was a public meeting. There was no indication of such on EOT’s Urban Ring website.)

EOT’s Ned Codd presented a dismal picture based upon realities of financial limitations. In effect he came up with what I have referred to on earlier occasions as EOT’s Plan B:

1. Use of the BU Bridge for Phase 2’s Charles River crossing; and
2. Surface routes – NO TUNNEL! – through the LMA/Fenway.

In addition, EOT’s slide show provided illustrations of Phase 2 segmented. Rather than attempt to describe them, those interested should periodically check EOT’s Urban Ring website for its anticipated posting of its presentation. [Note: Co-Chair Garver mentioned that EOT’s consultants contract expired at 2:30 PM on June 10th, which may impact activities on EOT’s website.]

Those who reviewed EOT’s RDEIR/DEIS are aware of “major impediments” described therein for various portions of Phase 2. In effect, these “major impediments” were repeated at this CAC meeting with subtle suggestions that not only have they not been resolved but perhaps may become more difficult to resolve, especially involving CSX easements critical to the Charles River crossing and accommodating Harvard’s Allston campus. I sense anxieties similar to the current situation nationally with General Motors and Chrysler that seems to get worse with time. The “Ring” may be breaking apart.

EOT’s required NPC will include responses to written comments from the public. These comments can be viewed at EOT’s website. For residents of Cambridge, Boston (especially Allston and Brighton) and Brookline who visit your Blog, I suggest a look at my comment letters at page 40 (27 pages) and at page 67 (2 pages), where I focus primarily on the Charles River crossing for Phase 2. While lengthy, my comments written in narrative form may be both informative and entertaining. The serious traffic and transportation issues involved with the BU Bridge on both sides of the Charles River impact these communities negatively as demonstrated on a daily basis. Just imagine the addition of the 60-foot articulated BRT buses to the current traffic.

There will be a public comment period, perhaps beginning July 8th, on EOT’s NPC that is to be filed by June 30th. Those interested should keep an eye on EOT’s website for postings. I had in an earlier letter described the requirement for the NPC as in effect a “do-over” of EOT’s RDEIR/DEIS. I can hardly wait.

During the public comment period for this meeting that ran quite late, Fred Salvucci provided some wise observations that may not be heeded. I also made some comments. In advance of this meeting based upon media reports on MA’s growing financial and ethical problems as well as on transportation issues, I came up with what might be considered a “sound bite” for the media if the media covered the Urban Ring and these CAC meeting, such coverage being non-existent. Accordingly my public comments included in substance:

“There is not enough POLITICAL VIAGRA in MA that would be required to straighten out the 60-foot articulated BRT buses of Phase 2.”

Times are tough financially – and politically – here in MA. But matters will only get worse if public transit and other transportation issues are not properly addressed and resolved. People have to be able to get to their jobs and back home.

By the way, Barry Steinberg has published “An Unofficial Condensation of Public Comments Prepared for the Association for Public Transportation, Inc.” providing an alphabetical listing of those who submitted public comments, their sequence on EOT’s CD-ROM, and a digest of portions that includes the CD-ROM page where a comment letter is located (as well as its length in pages), which provides convenience to those interested in reading some of the comment letters. Barry’s work runs some 21 pages. It is possible it may have been posted on the Internet. I’ll check with Barry and provide a link, if it has been posted.

President Obama and Governor Patrick to Needlessly Destroy Hundreds of Healthy Trees on the Cambridge Side of the Charles River in Massachusetts.

Bob Reports:

I lost part of the title. The full title is: President Obama and Governor Patrick to Needlessly Destroy Hundreds of Healthy Trees on the Cambridge Side of the Charles River in Massachusetts. Needless and silly environmental destruction part of the “economic stimulus.”

The following has been posted to Governor Patrick at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us. President Obama places a character limit, so I will post a link to this blog posting with the index and whatever else I can get in that will fit the character limit. The president's URL is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

1. DCR Announces Obama moneys for environmental destruction.
2. The Details of the Project.
3. The DCR Record on the Charles River.
4. Supposed benefits from the Environmental Destruction.
5. Longtime supporter bemoans destruction of EVERY cherry tree.
6. Magazine Beach in context.
7. Ongoing poisoning of the Charles River.
8. Yet more lies: “Saving” Trees by Destroying them Next Week.
9. BU Bridge to be transferred to Massachusetts Highways. Mass Highways vetoes or delays some environmental destruction.
10. Destructive Plans proceed.
11. Accomplice, Cambridge City Manager, may be fired for Civil Rights behavior called “reprehensible” by judge and jury.
12. Summary.


1. DCR Announces Obama moneys for environmental destruction.

Environmentally destructive state bureaucrats from Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation bragged to the Cambridge (MA) Conservation Commission Monday, June 8. They stated that they were securing funds for their long moribund so-called “Historical Parkways” project. This project is a major part of plans to destroy more than 449 to 660 healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge on the Cambridge side of the Charles River.

2. The Details of the Project.

The bureaucrats claim they are implementing nineteenth century plans for the riverbanks. They neglect to mention that, in the nineteenth century the area was a tidal marsh. When the “Memorial Drive Esplanade” was built it generally was thought to be a major improvement over the wetlands destroyed. Today construction of the “Esplanade” would be an environmental crime, contrary to the Wetlands Protection Act.

The DCR's current “restoration” returns to destroying the environment. Hundreds of healthy trees not in the original plans, including all cherry trees, are to be destroyed.

Literally digging holes in the median of this section of Memorial Drive and filling them would be a better use of federal stimulus money. Instead the DCR is using our tax dollars to destroy beautiful, healthy trees that give pleasure to us all--for a stale and sterile “restoration.”

3. The DCR Record on the Charles River.

The bureaucrats, twice a year, destroy all protective vegetation on the Charles River below the Watertown Dam thus driving away migratory birds. The only exception is a bizarre wall of bushes blocking access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. This blockage was bragged about as assisting swimming. The “native” vegetation introduced by the bureaucrats proceeded to repeatedly die because it was unfit for the environment.

Their representative brags that this wall starves local resident waterfowl. The wall of bushes was introduced in 2004 with the explanation that it would assist swimming on the Charles. The bureaucrats have bragged since 2000 that they have no intention to harm the local animal residents, the Charles River White Geese. They explain that starving them is not harming them.

The Charles River White Geese are a very popular tourist attraction. They have resided on the Cambridge side of the Charles River since 1981. They are in the way of the plans of the DCR for the Charles River. The DCR is aggressively destroying all living beings below the Watertown dam.

4. Supposed benefits from the Environmental Destruction.

The principal achievement of the “Historical Parkways” project will be to straighten out Memorial Drive between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.

Supporters of the DCR brag about how great Memorial Drive will look in 40 years. Even the supporters, however, blanche at the outrageous destruction.

5. Longtime supporter bemoans destruction of EVERY cherry tree.

One longtime supporter of the project, at the Monday meeting, commented on the DCR’s plans to destroy every Cherry Tree between Magazine Beach (just west of the BU Bridge) and the Longfellow Bridge. It seems that, when the planners were making plans for this wasteland a century and a half ago, they did not think of putting in Cherry Trees. So all those healthy Cherry Trees will not be allowed to live out their lives and will be destroyed because they were not included in these century and a half old plans to improve a wasteland which has not existed for a century.

6. Magazine Beach in context.

Presently ongoing is a project to “improve” Magazine Beach playing fields located just west of the BU Bridge. The playing fields are being “improved” by REDUCING the acreage of the playing fields, by replacing green maintenance with poison maintenance, by barring the public from its traditional ready access prohibiting use without prior approval and by making the grass poisonous to feeding waterfowl.

Average humans have never seen any need to “improve” these sixty or so year old playing fields.

7. Ongoing poisoning of the Charles River.

The precursor to the Magazine Beach “improvements” were the “improvements” to Ebersol Fields on the Boston side of the Charles, just east of the Longfellow Bridge, near Massachusetts General Hospital. The DCR’s beloved poisons did not work as well as green maintenance. So the DCR tossed on Tartan, labeled against use near water. The next day, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge from algae infestation. That algae infestation now returns annually.

8. Yet more lies: “Saving” Trees by Destroying them Next Week.

In the tenor of the bureaucrats’ attacks on the Charles River White Geese while bragging no intent to harm, the bureaucrats brag that they are “saving” perhaps hundreds of trees in the “Historical Parkways” project by “phasing” their destruction. Translation of “phasing”: the “saved” trees will be destroyed outside the time period they brag about.

“Saving” trees by “phasing” falls into the same category as not “harming” by starving, just another of the very varied techniques of the bureaucrats to lie about their very bad projects.

9. BU Bridge to be transferred to Massachusetts Highways. Mass Highways vetoes or delays some environmental destruction.

Previously, the DCR had accelerated repairs on the BU Bridge claiming that needless environmental destruction in that project should be ignored as well.

A recent Boston Globe report indicates that Massachusetts Highways has vetoed the accelerated work on the BU Bridge.

Since the starvation commenced at Magazine Beach, the DCR consigned the Charles River White Geese to an area immediately east of the BU Bridge, extending to the BU Boathouse. The DCR has since then destroyed all ground vegetation in the area except for vegetation they intended to destroyed as part of the BU Bridge project. Half of that vegetation destruction is for staging that should be put under a nearby Memorial Drive overpass.

It seems certain that the state legislature will reassign to Mass. Highways ownership of the bridges currently owned by the DCR and may be reassigned boulevards as well.

10. Destructive Plans proceed.

It is uncertain if the hundreds of trees slated for needless destruction will be able to wait for transfer of Memorial Drive to a responsible bureaucracy. Earlier complaints to Governor Patrick about multiple instances of outrageous environmental destruction by the DCR have been ignored or passed to the DCR for comment.

Monday night, the DCR disclosed that their plans would include a starvation wall at the Charles River just east of the BU Boathouse. This would block access to that grass for feeding by the Charles River White Geese. The 2004 starvation attack included a similar starvation wall erected by the City of Cambridge in this location.

11. Accomplice, Cambridge City Manager, may be fired for Civil Rights behavior called “reprehensible” by judge and jury.

Also associated with the environmental destruction on the Charles River is the Cambridge City Manager. He has a lot of other environmental destruction on his record.

The Cambridge City Council is currently considering the civil rights case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, on which judgment was issued June 4, 2009. Judge and jury awarded the plaintiff $5 million including $3.5 million penal damages. According to judge and jury, the Cambridge City Manager retaliated against a black woman Cape Verdean department head. She had the “effrontery” to file a civil rights complaint. So she was retaliated against and fired. The judge’s one word description was “reprehensible.”

The judge’s opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. The final judgment may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/judgment-entered-in-monteiro-case-12.html.

The Cambridge City Council is currently considering whether to fund an appeal. The City Council claims to have a strong record on civil rights, but they also claim a strong record on environmentalism. Their records belies their claims on environmentalism. The city council is funding the outrage at Magazine Beach.

A reasonable response by an entity with the civil rights verbiage issued by the Cambridge City Council would be to fire the Cambridge City Manager. That would, in turn, greatly reduce the destructive pressure on the Charles River. There seems to be a consensus that the Cambridge City Council does not have the integrity to do so.

12. Summary.

So the world is faced with a rogue bureaucracy, charged with protecting the environment and aggressively destroying it.

In the background are a governor and a president who may or may not be concerned about the environment, and a city council with a bad environmental record which may possibly fire one of the key actors, their city manager.

Boston Conservation Commission defends public from DCR, striking difference from Cambridge.

1. Commendable Action on Ebersol Field.
2. Cambridge does not want to know it.

Bob reports:

1. Commendable Action on Ebersol Field.

Wednesday evening, June 10, I attended the Boston Conservation Commission hearing on fencing proposed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation for Ebersol Fields on the Charles River across from Massachusetts General Hospital. This facility is the model upon which Magazine Beach is based and is of great concern to us.

The member from the Back Bay dwelt in detail on access for the public to the premises.

Access, for animals and humans, is one of the many shocking aspects to the ongoing outrage at Magazine Beach. The terms of the contract call for Cambridge to regulate access.

Cambridge has shown at Russell Field in North Cambridge how they regulate access. The Police have thrown kids off at least one field for playing there without an advance reservation.

I had to cross examine the DCR representative quite intensely.

The Back Bay rep got the hint and squarely asked about public use of fields which have not been reserved without getting separate and advance permission. He got the DCR to agree to such use.

Signage at Ebersol Fields will expressly allow the public to use unused fields.

2. Cambridge does not want to know it.

I had first learned of this problem from a meeting of the North Cambridge neighborhood entity. It has clear connections to the Cambridge City Manager.

The group met after the Boston Conservation Commission meeting.

I went there and asked to make a brief announcement at the end of the meeting.

I was denied permission to announce the victory. I was told to come to the next meeting, strictly on Russell Field.

This group has a significant visibility in the group “defending” Alewife by opposing private destruction of an ancillary area and supporting public destruction of the reservation itself.

Key members of the group have been very visible in the more than 10 years of downzonings written by the Cambridge City Manager. Too many of these petitions accomplish exactly the opposite of their claimed results through undisclosed fine print. One of the group’s first activities was to push through a City Manager zoning proposal which wiped out residential districts on north Massachusetts Avenue, districts which would require open space at the sidewalk. The upzoning drastically increased development allowed on those lots, on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue going west from Rindge Avenue.

The chair had a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle today defending the Cambridge City Manager. He says the lawyers made Healy due it. I have filed a response. They may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x986603944/Letter-City-should-get-another-lawyer.

"That’s the way things are done in Cambridge."

Bob Reports:

The following letter was printed on line on June 6, 2009 by the Cambridge Chronicle:

Reading the city solicitor’s very strong op ed to the Chronicle on Monteiro versus Cambridge reminds me of an incident which personally concerned me several years ago.

An employee of the Election Department trashed 51 out of 100 signatures on my election papers, trashing the papers. He objected to my turning in original signatures on forms that were photocopies of his forms. He did so in clear and direct violation of a Supreme Judicial Court case concerning Jack E. Robinson, a Republican candidate for governor. I informed him of the case. He informed me that the way he did things was the “way things are done in Cambridge.”

A lawyer with the state election people told a friend of mine that it was inconceivable that any city solicitor would support the Election Department’s action. The city solicitor’s office supported the action. A bunch of city appointed lawyer members on the election commission also supported the action of the employee in spite of the very clear wording of the Jack E. Robinson case.

Grievances against a list of departments damned by the guest editorial that followed the editor’s editorial sounded like old home week.

Judgment entered in Monteiro case, 1/2 Million added in interest

Bob Reports:

The following judgment was entered in the Monteiro case, today, June 2, 2009. This is taken from the Court Docket which loses all paragraphing. I have inserted my interpretation of paragraphing.


JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICTS: It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:


With regard to the first trial of this case in 2005,

that judgment enter for the defendant City of Cambridge with respect to plaintiff Malvina Monteriro's underlying claims for discrimination in accordance with the Special Verdicts returned by the jury on February 24, 2005,

that the plaintiff take nothing on such claims, and that the defendant City of Cambridge recover its costs of that action.


With regard to the second trial of this action in 2008,

that the plaintiff Malvina Monteiro take:

(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment simple interest at he rate of 12% per annum from January 18, 2005 to June 2, 2009 in the amount of $557,459.26;

(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with interest from April 24, 2009, the date of this Court's ruling on the defendant's post-trial motions to June 2, 2009 in the amount of $44,877.11;

(c) reasonable attorneys's fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the Court hereafter.

Dated: June 2, 2009

(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice). Copies mailed 6/2/2009

BU Bridge: Mass Highways stands up to DCR

Bob reports:

I have filed the following with the Governor of Massachusetts at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us:


The filing is quite self-explanatory. One brief comment. The Cambridge City Manager’s people have for many years vilified Mass Highways and glorified the Department of Conservation and Recreation when Mass Highways is proposed to take over responsibilities of DCR.

Mass. Highways is apparently slated to take over the BU Bridge.

Mass Highways’ first action reaffirms the long record of the Cambridge City Manager’s organization: listen to what they say and believe the opposite.

Mass Highways is moving in the right direction against a reprehensible foe, and few governments other than that of the City of Cambridge can brag of a decision of judge and jury that its government is reprehensible. The decision is against the City of Cambridge, but it is silly to think of any meaningful difference between Cambridge and the DCR.


Governor
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

RE: BU Bridge: Mass Highways stands up to DCR

On May 30, 2009, the Boston Globe printed an article on the BU Bridge with its proposed “repairs.”

The Department of Conservation and Recreation wants to go forward with the BU Bridge repairs project immediately with its unnecessary environmental destruction. Mass Highways which is taking over the bridge from the DCR sees no need for immediate work.

The Cambridge City Manager’s people in Cambridgeport passed on the link for the report. It is: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/30/efforts_to_renovate_bu_bridge_stall_between_state_agencies/.

People who read like the Cambridge City Manager’s people (including one who definitely is) passed comments on the matter to the Globe site. I posted a comment as well.

It is possible that the difference is a matter of opinion. Cambridge’s pols commonly see things exactly the opposite of people in the real world, and Cambridge’s pols are commonly wrong when they do that. The City Manager types’ party line on the DCR is that the DCR is bordering on sainthood. Reality is that the DCR is strikingly close to the Cambridge City Manager. But then the Cambridge Pols have problems, in reality, saying negative things about the Cambridge City Manager.

A few thoughts, expanding on my Globe comments:


I think that, to evaluate the opinions of the DCR, you just have to look at the words and the actions of the DCR in the recent past on matters supposedly within their own expertise.

The DCR is responsible for the environment. The DCR twice yearly destroys all protective vegetation on the Charles River needed by migrating birds.

The DCR is responsible for the environment. The DCR poisoned the Charles River by dumping Tartan on Ebersol Fields a few years back. The next day, annually recurring algae poisoned the Charles River.

The DCR is responsible for the environment. The DCR has been destroying ground vegetation from the BU Bridge to the BU Boathouse since 2004. The only vegetation not destroyed to date would be the vegetation destroyed by this project. A significant part of the project's destroyed vegetation would be for staging that should be put under Memorial Drive.

The DCR claims to want swimming in the Charles River. The poisoning at Ebersol Fields does not seem compatible with swimming.

The DCR has installed a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation at Magazine Beach preventing access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach. This bizarre wall is the only vegetation bordering the Charles River which the DCR does not destroy twice a year.

The key bureaucrat brags that the bizarre wall starves the local resident Charles River White Geese.

The big victim of the BU Bridge project is the Charles River White Geese.

The accumulation of projects by the DCR rather clearly shows an ongoing destruction of all living creatures on the Charles River. The BU Bridge project as implemented by the DCR continues that destruction.

The nearby Magazine Beach project is a waste of taxpayer money. It replaces perfectly good playing fields with a SMALLER footage of playing fields that need to be maintained with fertilizers rather than the prior green maintenance.

Very clearly, the BU Bridge project's most important achievement is the environmental destruction for which the DCR is so aggressively working.

One very major advantage to a delay from a wildlife point of view would be to time harm to the environment so as to minimize harm. This, however, would call for an abrupt shift at Magazine Beach.

There is no excuse whatsoever for the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which blocks access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach. This is the only vegetation bordering the Charles River which the DCR does NOT destroy TWICE yearly. The key bureaucrat brags that it starves the Charles River White Geese.

This bizarre wall should be destroyed as much as is possible without harm to the land.

The destruction of the Green Maintenance at Magazine Beach should be reversed.

A massive drainage system is being installed to drain the DCR’s beloved poisons away from the Charles. That Drainage System is drastically reducing the athletic playing fields at Magazine Beach. You do away with the poisons, you do away with the need to drain, you do away with the REDUCTION in playing fields.

Similarly, you do away with the poisons and the bizarre wall, and the Charles River White Geese can return to their habitat since 1981, Magazine Beach, and the needed food there.

But time is necessary to neutralize the totally unneeded mudpit which has been created.

The Mass Highways delay could provide that time, but responsible behavior is needed as well at Magazine Beach.

Would it be possible for Mass Highways to completely take over the DCR?

It sounds like we finally have a responsible agency on the Charles.

The proper action for the Cambridge City Council in Monteiro v. Cambridge

Bob reports:

The judge in Monteiro v City of Cambridge, on or about June 2, will take action that commences the appeals period in this case. The Cambridge City Council has started to position itself to evaluate whether the City Council will fund an appeal.

I have been told that the Cambridge City Council is not capable of doing what should be done on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This opinion is based on the individual limitations of the members of the Cambridge City Council.

I personally think that people who so clearly and publicly claim to stand for civil rights might actually stand for civil rights. And the Monteiro case involves the deliberate destruction of the life of a black woman, Cape Verdean, department head in response to her filing a civil rights complaint.

The Chronicle editor has done an excellent job evaluating this case as a personal matter of the City Manager.

This evaluation should feature in the decision of the Cambridge City Council on whether or not to fund an appeal.

If the Cambridge City Council does fund an appeal, the fact that this case is a personal matter with regard to the Cambridge City Manager should feature in the voters’ evaluation of the qualifications of the members of the City Council to hold office.

The very strong opinion of judge and jury is that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in clear and knowing violation of civil rights laws protecting Ms. Monteiro’s right to file a civil rights complaint. His action has been determined illegal and “reprehensible.”

The judge’s decision tears apart each and every argument of the Cambridge City Manager in court. That decision may be read on the Internet at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. That decision includes a shocking evaluation of the testimony of the Cambridge City Manager.

If the Monteiro decision is not appealed, the City Manager’s treatment of Malvina Monteiro is a matter which has been litigated.

The City Manager has rather strong clauses in his contract paying him a large golden parachute should he be fired. It is not unthinkable for such clauses to be found void as against public policy in the face of such a court decision.

I see nothing complicated about it.

We have nine city councilors who claim to be pro-civil rights.

We have nine city councilors who should be accepting the decision of judge and jury and voting to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

Change in start of BU Bridge repairs

1. Introductory.
2. Press Release from DCR.
3. Afterthought.

Bob reports:

1. Introductory.

The following Press Release was issued by the DCR on May 15, 2009, and forwarded by the Cambridge City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association on their listserve on May 18.

The key part of this is the comment on the BU Bridge repair project and its needless destructiveness to the environment. This is a change from the announcement I passed on from a planning group meeting last week.

The anticipated bid date is repeated as early June.

Commencement of work is now scheduled for fall.

This change in commencement of work is very clearly to fit it with Cambridge practices.

The hypocrites lie about themselves during election campaigns, and they do the really rotten stuff the week after the election.

I am rotating between eight plus bad guys and 7½ plus bad guys. My increasing evaluation is to look at Councilor Kelley’s conversion to a statement of support for the Green at Magazine Beach in light of his apparent destructiveness of the Green everywhere else that I know of.

Eight plus bad guys.

2. Press Release from DCR.

For immediate release Contact: Wendy Fox
May 15, 2009 617-626-1453

DCR BEGINS REPAIRS ON BU BRIDGE
One Boston-to-Cambridge lane will be closed to vehicles

The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is set to begin repairs on the BU Bridge that will require one Cambridge-bound lane to be closed to vehicles.

Effective this evening, the downstream sidewalk (on the side with Boston-to-Cambridge vehicular traffic) will close. The adjoining Boston-to-Cambridge traffic lane also will close to vehicular traffic, but will be open for pedestrians and cyclists.

“We know these lane and sidewalk closings will be inconvenient, but in the interest of public safety, these repairs have to be made,” said DCR Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. “We appreciate the public’s patience as this work moves forward.”

A recent inspection by TranSystems identified two structural elements under the roadway and sidewalk that need to be repaired. DCR’s design contractor, STV Inc. of Boston, will design the repairs, and Unified Contractor Inc. of Melrose will start the work as early as next week.

In the meantime, and during the work, the downstream sidewalk will be closed to all pedestrians, and the right-hand Boston-to-Cambridge lane will be closed to vehicles and reserved for pedestrians.

As part of Governor Patrick’s $3 billion Accelerated Bridge Program, aimed at quickly repairing the Commonwealth’s most neglected bridges, DCR is currently soliciting bids for a full rehabilitation of the BU Bridge. A contract for that work, estimated to cost about $20 million, is expected to be awarded in June, and work would begin in fall 2009.

The current repairs, expected to cost about $100,000 and be completed three weeks, also will be funded through the Accelerated Bridge Program. The downstream sidewalk is expected to remain closed during the full bridge rehabilitation. The upstream sidewalk, which has been undergoing repairs, is expected to reopen later this month.

To learn more about the Accelerated Bridge Program, visit www.mass.gov/ acceleratedbridg es.

To learn more about DCR projects, visit www.mass.gov/ dcr/projects.

3. Afterthought.

Public comment about the preceding project, the BU Bridge Sidewalk project is now being described as “BU Bridge Repairs.”

Yet more dirty tricks.

The game with the bad guys has always been to lie through word games and secret definitions, or, for that matter, whatever dirty trick works.

Now they are deliberately confusing the two projects, one of which is responsible, the other of which is business as usual.

Another factor to consider is the long record of bad faith. A delay which can be reversed at will can just be a tactic to catch responsible people off guard.

The Monteiro judge is right.

“Reprehensible” is a very appropriate word.

Monteiro: Reconsideration rejected, Details on Motions, City Council consideration.

Bob reports:

1. Motion for Reconsideration rejected.
2. Details at Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Cambridge City Council getting in to the act.


1. Motion for Reconsideration rejected.

Cambridge filed is motion for reconsideration on May 19. The Court filed its response yesterday:

*****

Motion (P#121) Upon review of all submissions and relevant case law,
the within mtoion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Bonnie H. MacLeod,
Justice). Notices mailed 5/21/2009

*****

2. Details at Cambridge Chronicle.

The Cambridge Chronicle apparently has received a copy of some of the papers on which my knowledge is limited to paper titles. Its report may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x542611448/Judge-rules-against-city-Attempt-to-appeal-discrimination-case-moot

Take care, however. The report is simplified for public consumption and, as a result, lacks legal perfection. Additionally, there are legal points which the Chronicle does not seem to understand. To the extent anything in the report conflicts with my reports, my reports should prevail.

3. Cambridge City Council getting in to the act.

The Chronicle report included city council discussion of the matter.

That came from a city council order signed by five members (a voting majority) which is published at http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=25451. This order directly addresses the Monteiro case. It was tabled and would not normally be brought up until a week from Monday.

The initial order called for money to hire special council to evaluate the situation and for closed door discussion WITHOUT THE CITY MANAGER.

A modification order from Toomey reports that the city council has already met with special council.

Separate Final Judgment in Monteiro to issue about June 2?

Bob reports:

1. Papers filed.
2. Analysis.
3. Summary.

It looks like there will probably be a final judgment issued by the judge for Malvina Monteiro on or about June 2.

1. Papers filed.

The judge issued the following order on Monday, May 18:

******

Motion (P#107) In light of this Court's decision on the defendant's
post-trial motions, the within motion is ALLOWED. Counsel are to
provide a proposed form of judgment for the Court within 7 days.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice). Notices mailed 5/18/2009

******

Paper 107 was filed by the Plaintiff at about the same time as the defendant's post trial motions.

It read:

Paper 107:

******

MOTION Of Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro Pursuant To Rule 54(b) For Entry
Of Final Judgment Against Defendant City Of Cambridge; and
Defendant's Opposition.

******

This action was taken in spite of the city (defendant) filing a notice of intent to seek reconsideration of the post trial motion order.

On May 19, 2009, the Defendant filed the following:

******

Defendant City of Cambridge's MOTION for Reconsideration of Decision
and Order on Post Trial Motions; Plaintiff, Monteiro's opposition to
deft's motion.

******

2. Analysis.

The reality is as follows:

There are three plaintiffs outstanding, Monteiro and two who have not had a trial yet.

Under the rules, UNLESS the judge orders otherwise, all action on a case officially is not done UNTIL all plaintiffs' complaints are resolved. The Monteiro complaint was the first to be heard. Thus, everything would normally be on hold until the other two plaintiffs complaints are tried.

The motion the judge just granted allows final judgment to Ms. Monteiro without waiting for the other two plaintiffs.

Thus, after the drafting exercise the judge calls for in her order, Ms. Monteiro will have a judgment in hand allowing her to COLLECT her judgment from the City of Cambridge (i.e., sell a couple of buildings if the city does not pay). That judgment will also allow the city to appeal the decision.

Rules are such that the plaintiff cannot get the appropriate paper to commence the collection process on the judgment until after the appeals period expires. Thus an appeal prevents collection on the judgment until the appeal is completed.

Prior to the Judge’s order, Cambridge posted notice that Cambridge will seek reconsideration of the ruling and order rejecting the city’s post-trial motions. The timing of the judge’s request for language allowed Cambridge to file its reconsideration motion with any plaintiff response attached to it before the judge is scheduled to issue her official separate Judgment.

Cambridge proceeded with filing the motion for reconsideration.

Since the actual separate judgment will not be issued until after receipt of the Cambridge reconsideration request, the judge has left herself room to change her mind in light of VERY persuasive language by Cambridge, while the judge is simultaneously moving forward the final judgment with relative speed.

3. Summary.

That motion for reconsideration had better be very persuasive if the city expects to prevail.

It would appear highly unlikely that the motion for reconsideration will be that persuasive.

June 2, give or take a few days, I anticipate final and separate judgment. That judgment will be followed by time for appeal. If Cambridge does not appeal, Cambridge had better pay or see some of its property sold at auction.

Analysis of Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting April 14, 2009; announcement of CAC meeting June 10, 2009

Archie Mazmanian’s analysis of the April 14, 2009 Urban Ring Phase 2 Citizens Advisory Committee meeting:

The CAC meeting April 14 included a presentation by A Better City (ABC) Planning Director and CAC Co-Chair Tom Nally.

The presentation provided several slides, with suggestions for taking several limited steps. EOT’s Ned Cod did not seem too impressed with this but perhaps bit his tongue to “comply” with the March 6, 2009 DEIR Certificate issued by Ian A. Bowles, Secretary, Executive 0ffice of Energy and Environmental Affairs. No handouts were made available to members of the public in attendance; we could only look at the slides and listen to Nally’s general narrative.

This demonstrates the “power” of ABC and its development-membership that I referred to in an earlier letter posted on the Chalres River White Geese blog March 17, 2009. After the close of the meeting, I asked Ned Codd if the ABC slides would be posted on the Urban Ring website together with EOT’s presentation. He said he thought so, subject to ABC’s permission. I suggested that these became public records and should be included. In fact, ABC’s proposal in its entirety should be disclosed to the public under the circumstances so the public can be in a position to comment on them at a later date.

There were no positive messages presented at this meeting, especially in light of recent transportation events and MA budget cutting. In fact there seemed to be a suggestion from Ned Codd that the LMA tunnel might not be affordable under FTA requirements for New Starts federal funding, as MA has to be able to demonstrate availability of project funding beyond what FTA may provide; and it was not clear that MA could do this.

In the public comment period, I “tiraded” that I was hearing at this meeting the voice of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the 2003 Iraq conflict about “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns" that also seem to plague Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. Public transit has major problems now, and they are getting worse. I further “tiraded” that assuming Phase 2 passes muster and is completed, say, by 2020, public transit problems surely would have further worsened in the interim, such that Phase 2 would only serve as a “band-aid” when surgery is required, in the form of Phase 3 with its light/heavy dedicated rail. As to no LMA tunnel, I further “tiraded” that the traffic mess in the LMA currently is measurable and superimposing Phase 2 surface routes through LMA should reveal the absurdity, the futility of “no tunnel” since what happens in the LMA, unlike Vegas, does not stay in the LMA and causes traffic problems in surrounding neighborhoods.

What’s sad is that the Legislature is not seriously addressing transportation issues. At some point public transit users will become vociferous, especially with the economy far from recovery, as it may become more difficult commuting to their jobs. The Greater Boston area relies upon public transit. The Greater Boston area provides much of MA’s economic activity. Solving these problems will be expensive since the problems have long been neglected and ignored. MA cannot rely upon federal funding to address these problems. The Legislature has to come up with a way to find the money—and fast! Band-aids won’t stop the bleeding.

You may post this letter on your Blog, if you wish.

Archie Mazmanian
Brookline, MA 02446

Archie now notes that on April 22, 2009, EOT posted on its website its presentation including the ABC slides: www.theurbanring.com/currentmaterials.

Also, there will be an Urban Ring Phase 2 CAC meeting on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, from 4-6 PM at 10 Park Plaza, Conference Room 2-3. The meeting will discuss the “pending Notice of Project Change and review the proposed implementation strategy for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project.” Contact at EOT is Scott Hamwey, telephone 617-973-7210.

Marilyn Wellons

Further Thoughts on Chronicle Letter - Monteiro

Bob reports:

On looking at the letter as edited in Thursday's Chronicle, the editing significantly improved the letter.

As edited, it concentrated solely on the important issue, the Monteiro case and Cambridge's extremely bad political establishment.

The big problem is a very bad political establishment in the City of Cambridge.

A Clarification on Councilor Kelly.

Bob reports:

The Cambridge Chronicle has been doing very well by me, very well. It hurts to have to do a perhaps picky correction, but I do try to be accurate. So I feel compelled to make a correction, at least in this forum, on the version of my letter of praise for the Cambridge Chronicle printed in today’s (5/14/09) paper.

The letter as written is reproduced below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/praise-for-cambridge-chronicle-monteiro.html. The letter was accurately copied by the Chronicle on line.

The hard copy edition omitted the fifth through seventh paragraphs. This was rather clearly an edit to fit the letter into available space. The edit, however, kept the content solely on the Monteiro case and omitted my listing of a bunch of other problems.

My summary paragraph blasts eight plus city councilors. The text as published only really supports blasting seven. Eight deserve to be blasted as stated in those three paragraphs. I doubt very seriously that Councillor Kelley, who is the eighth councilor in this regard, would be interested in a follow up explicitly blasting him on the other civil rights issue, on environmental and animal abuse issues, and on zoning abuses while pointing out that he did not vote to rehire the City Manager. That vote makes the letter as published technically only relevant to seven councilors.

In this regard, however, I note that Councillor Kelley Monday publicly, and belatedly, objected to the ongoing destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach. Kelley did not object to the outrageous introduced starvation wall. Kelley did not object to the heartless starvation of the Charles River White Geese. Kelley did not object to the outrages associated with the BU Bridge repairs. Kelley did not object to the destruction of all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. Kelley did not object to the twice yearly destruction of all protective vegetation lining the Charles River except for the bizarre introduced wall at Magazine Beach. Kelley did not object to the annual poisoning of the eggs of water fowl. Kelley did not object to the continuing and unnecessary destruction of healthy trees on a large scale by the City of Cambridge. Councilor Kelley did object to the destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach.

I will continue my highly distressed observations.

DCR Presentation; BU Bridge “Repairs”, Bridges to be Removed from them?

Bob reports.

On Wednesday afternoon, May 13, I attended a meeting of the “Regional Transportation Advisory Council” at the Transportation Building in Park Square, Boston.

Representatives of the Department of Conservation and Recreation made a presentation on their Parkway and Bridge Program.

They stated that the BU Bridge repair contract is anticipated to be awarded by June 3 for work starting July 4.

They showed a map of the project which included the irresponsibly located staging as previously reported. The most important part of the map from an environmental perspective was that the portion of the goose meadow which they did not intend to further destroy this time is marked something like “Geese Protection Area.”

This is the department which goes out of its way to destroy as much wildlife as it can get away with on the Charles River between the Harbor and the Watertown Dam.

This is the department which has spent nearly ten years promising no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese and then explaining that starving them is not harming them, followed by bragging about starving them.

This is the department which has timed the work around the BU Bridge to maximize harm to the Charles River White Geese.

This is the department which has, starting in 2004, destroyed all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation which they propose to destroy as part of this project.

The “Geese Protection Area” is a DCR created mudpit, with all previously undestroyed ground vegetation destroyed as part of this project, half of the destruction for staging which is unnecessary in that location and highly appropriate for under the nearby Memorial Drive overpass.

Featured very prominently in their presentation was a photo of the EMPTY but very beautiful Ebersol Fields near Massachusetts General Hospital. Ebersol Fields is the prototype of the outrage going on on Magazine Beach. Ebersol Fields, as a byproduct, has created poisoning of the Charles River with annually recurrent algae infestation. The DCR tossed on Tartan when their beloved poisons were not sufficiently destructive to pests at Ebersol Field. The DCR, like the City of Cambridge, is offended by GREEN maintenance which has existed on the Charles River for the better part of the last century.

The DCR also commented on pending legislation to destroy responsibilities of the DCR.

Based on their presentation, it would appear that all of the actors in the State House support taking away bridge responsibilities from the DCR. The DCR hopes that they will be allowed to finish the Bridge Repair projects.

Based on their presentation, there appears to be a difference of opinion as to whether parkways should be taken away from the DCR. One of the projects the DCR continued to push in their presentation would needlessly destroy hundreds of healthy trees between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach.

The DCR’s sycophants brag that Memorial Drive will look terrific in 40 years.

This entity fits very well with the City of Cambridge.

Reprehensible is an excellent word.

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

The above report has been posted for the governor.

Praise for Cambridge Chronicle - Monteiro Case

1. Chronicle Reports.
2. Letter of Praise.

Bob Reports:

1. Chronicle Reports.

In the April 30, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, the Chronicle had the Monteiro case as its lead headline.

The Chronicle wrote a very specific and quite good editorial on the matter.

The Chronicle editorial may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x303487854/Editorial-Gambling-with-our-money.

It leads with:

“Gambling with taxpayer money. That’s essentially what Cambridge City Manager Bob Healy has done in a case that has lasted 11 years, embarrassed City Hall and cost taxpayers a whopping $6 million, if you include the more than $1 million in legal fees.”

Another juicy comment:

“The image of an unelected public official proposing fee hikes while pursuing his own expensive personal legal battle that so far seems unconquerable doesn’t sit well with us.”

The latest, May 7, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, featured a guest editorial by an East Cambridge activist. It went into specific examples of outrageous behavior by the city.

This letter, by Mark Jaiquith, may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x342382829/Guest-commentary-The-Bob-Healy-conundrum.

It leads with: “Has Cambridge had enough of Bob Healy?”

And comments later:

“It would be easier to deal with good old-fashioned graft, but we have something else, in my judgment no less corrupt. It’s a culture within government that what matters is the city’s bond rating, doing what He wants.”

2. Letter of Praise.

I sent the following letter on May 7, after reviewing the paper:

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

You are to be commended for your editorial and for the guest editorial on the Monteiro case.

I particularly appreciated the examples given in the guest editorial.

Cambridge has a dishonest government. Cambridge keeps the voters in control through intermediaries who do not identify themselves as intermediaries and who commonly use secret definitions and who use other improper techniques.

A government which does what was done to Ms. Monteiro is not "pro-civil rights." Seven continuing city councilors rehired the City Manager.

A government which tries to keep a handicapped elder from using her guide dog is not "pro-civil rights." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.

A city government which routinely and needlessly destroys many healthy trees, but which runs around calling itself "pro-environment" is not "pro-environment." A city government which destroys green maintenance at Magazine Beach and walls off Magazine Beach from the Charles River is not "pro-environment." A city government which heartlessly abuses beautiful valuable animals is not "pro-environment." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.

A city government which destroys zoning protections while claiming to be doing the opposite is not honest. All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.

I can see unidentified representatives running around calling it "politically correct" to defend reprehensible government behavior.

I can see unidentified representatives running around repeating Cambridge’s civil rights nonsense, the civil rights nonsense which was discredited by the well thought out opinion of the Monteiro judge.

I can see unidentified representatives calling it AGAINST "political correctness" TO BE IN SUPPORT of the civil rights of this BLACK WOMAN.

"Political correctness" is other than what somebody’s handler calls "politically correct" this week, especially when the record in reality is so bad and so contrary to "political correctness."

Too many voters of Cambridge have too long been kept away from the reality that we have at least eight really bad city councilors who are responsible for the current really bad city government.

I can see too many voters being told by unidentified representatives that Cambridge has a decent government. I can see too many unidentified representatives running around who do not want to know that Cambridge’s government has been found reprehensible by verdict of judge and jury.

Your editorials are an excellent first step toward responsibility in Cambridge government.

We need to go beyond the first step. Cambridge needs a government which is not reprehensible.

Cambridge Pols to Council: Save the world. Indifferent to city destruction of city.

Bob Reports:

1. Introductory.
2. Response sent to City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve.
3. Call to action?


1. Introductory.

Below are an email announcing a city council vote sent over the City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve and my response. My response has not yet been sent out.

Of interest is the naming of yet another “green” organization which somehow just does not want to know about ongoing environmental destruction by the City of Cambridge.

The “environmental” group sounds a lot like eight plus “environmental” city councilors and the Cambridge city manager.

Their definition of “environmental” is dramatically demonstrated by the ongoing destruction. You may also read the definition of “environmental” by the Cambridge Pols organization at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

The opinion of judge and jury on the Cambridge City Government, “reprehensible,” may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

2. Response sent to City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve.

Sent Saturday, 5/9/09

If the councilors were serious about the world's climate and its environment, they have no further to go than their own behavior on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond, at Alewife and in the needless destruction of so many healthy mature trees in their various projects.

3. Call to action?

--- On Fri, 5/8/09, ___________ wrote:

Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 8:51 PM

There is a policy order on the Cambridge City Council agenda this Monday evening (May 11) recognizing that there is a climate emergency and requesting the City Manager "to direct the appropriate city departments to increase the City's responses to a scale proportionate to the emergency and consistent with the city's own Climate Protection goals for 2010 and beyond." The full text is at http://www.cambridg ema.gov/cityCler k/PolicyOrder. cfm?item_ id=25054 Three Councillors have signed on - Marjorie Decker, Timm Toomey, and Henrietta Davis.

This comes out of a Green Decade/Cambridge initiative to ask the Council to recognize the climate emergency and mobilize the city to take appropriate action. It could be a huge opportunity - not only for a new level of action in Cambridge, but to have a much broader impact. We need to get the word out everywhere - to the public and to policy makers - that the climate crisis is now a global emergency and that we have a rapidly narrowing window in which to act if we are to have any chance of averting a runaway catastrophe.

We need as many people as possible to come to the Council meeting Monday evening to show that there is popular support for this resolution. Also, we want to get the Council to call a citywide hearing and not just pass this without meaningful follow-up. Please come if you can! Public comment starts a little after 5:30. If you want to get on the list to speak, you can call the City Council office Monday between 10 and 3 at 617-349-4280. Or you can sign up to speak when you get there. Or you can just come and not speak but show support by being there and by applauding the people who do speak.

Or if you can't come, you can email the entire Council on any item by using Council@Cambridgema .gov and the City Manager at healy@Cambridgema. gov.

Response to "Environmental" Praise for Representative Alice Wolf

Bob Reports:

Still catching up.

The following was printed in the April 23, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle.

The document from a Cambridge City Councilor to which the letter refers was written by Samuel Seidel. It is published on this blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.

**********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I, with regret, have become quite skeptical of organizations and pols which call themselves “environmental” in Cambridge .

I know that I have been publicly mocked by one key Cambridge pol because I have the temerity to believe in the world’s definition of “environmentalism”. Cambridge pols, he said, have a better definition.

A letter in this week's Chronicle praises Representative Wolf on "environmental" grounds, including praise for protecting our scenic parkways and bridges.

I do not consider destruction of the Green maintenance at Magazine Beach for replacement with maintenance with herbicides to be something worthy of environmental commendation. These poisons are destructive to water fowl and not helpful to humans.

I do not consider the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation blocking access between Magazine Beach and the river to be anything other than what the key DCR bureaucrat has bragged of: a tool to starve the local waterfowl.

I see code words for protecting the environmentally reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation which, along with Cambridge and its pols, is destroying all animals living on or visiting the Charles River between the Watertown Dam and the harbor.

The DCR annually poisons as much waterfowl eggs as it can get away with. Twice a year, the DCR destroys all protective vegetation for migrating birds, except for the bizarre starvation wall at Magazine Beach .

The DCR seems to toss in as much animal harm as it can get away with in its projects. The BU Bridge repairs destroy key ground vegetation for staging that should go under Memorial Drive . The project completes total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse which has been done in stages starting in 2004.

The “protection of bridges” has included addition of light pollution on three Charles River bridges.

The DCR, Cambridge, and Cambridge pols are involved in heartless animal abuse directed at the Charles River White Geese.

Sounds to me like the definition of environmentalism being used is the 19th Century of environmentalism: destroy, destroy, destroy, and make it look good.

You add to that the apparent plans to remove the playing fields at Magazine Beach from general public use. Neighborhood kids trying to use at least one Russell Field playing field have been chased off by the police for not getting prior city permission. This same “improvement” is scheduled to be implemented at Magazine Beach .

I am not happy.

Destroy Alewife and Save Silver Maple? Bad idea.

Bob reports:

I have been remiss in reporting published letters.

The following letter was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle on April 9, 2009. I had previously commented in these pages that I thought the Chronicle had decided not to print the letter to which I was responding.

They printed. I responded. The Chronicle published.

***********

Well meaning folks wrote a letter opposing destruction of the PRIVATELY OWNED Silver Maple Forest but supporting destruction of the PUBLICLY OWNED Alewife Reservation a hundred feet or so from Silver Maple.

A cynical reader could react that the writers’ support of environmental destruction a few feet from Silver Maple which they want protected proves the writers to be opponents of affordable housing.

Such a reaction does not reflect the singular treatment good people are subjected to when they try to protect the environment in or near the City of Cambridge.

You see, Cambridge’s extremely destructive City Manager has a massive organization which descends on good people who try to protect the environment. Techniques frequently include deceptive statements, lies, misstatements, and key omissions.

It is quite certain that the operatives did not tell these decent people a number of things.

First, there is a very reasonable alternative to destruction of the Alewife reservation. Destruction of the Alewife Reservation is for flood storage. The reasonable place for the flood storage is under the large parking lot about 500 feet south of Alewife, just north of the railroad tracks. That owner is considering developing.

Secondly, the proposed destruction comes from a government which is flat out reprehensible on environmental issues.

The support of destruction of the Alewife Reservation by these good people has a qualifier based on a third common game. The operatives commonly talk about due process and lovely reviews. They do not tell who the “reviewers” are.

The letter mentions some sort of committee. The good people who wrote the letter would never be told that the committee is appointed by the key destroyer, and they would not be told the dangers to people appointed by the Cambridge City Manager who stand up to the Cambridge City Manager.

A jury recently considered the treatment by the Cambridge City Manager of a black woman department head who had the nerve to file a civil rights action. Malvina Monteiro, according to the jury, had her life destroyed in retaliation. The jury awarded $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages. The judge is considering the verdict and hopefully will change it to firing the city manager without pension.

But we have decent people fooled into an irresponsible statement.

I have sympathy for those good people and for saving the environment which is our mutual concern. I have great lack of respect for the bad people who fooled these good people into a silly, destructive statement.

News Reports: Court calls Healy “Reprehensible"

Bob reports:

1. Boston Herald / AP.
2. Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Boston Globe.
4. My report.

1. Boston Herald / AP.

The following is from Roy Bercaw, April 28, 2009:

Boston Herald reports AP story saying Court says Cambridge City
Manager "reprehensible."

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_04_28_Judge_upholds__4_5_verdict_against_Cambridge/srvc=home&position=recent

2. Cambridge Chronicle.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 @ 05:18 PM, Last update Apr 28, 2009 @ 11:30 AM, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x718272795/Judge-Cambridge-must-pay-city-worker-wronged-in-discrimination-case.

I presume this report will be printed on Thursday.

The Chronicle has an excellent quote from the judge, and reports that the city paid $1.6 million in legal bills through July 10, 2008.

3. Boston Globe.

A friend told me about the Globe report as I was relaxing in an Au Bon Pain near Harvard Square. It was printed on pages B1 and B15 of today’s, April 28, 2009, edition. The on line report is at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/04/28/cambridge_assessed_45m_in_bias_suit/.

The Globe quoted several statements of the judge. It felt like I was reading my materials.

They quoted the city’s attorney describing the judge’s description of Healy as “inappropriate” and “unfortunate.”

4. My report.

I passed on the word to a number of sources over the past several days.

For the record (so that the Globe does not consider me plagiarizing them, at minimum), I distributed the following collection of quotes from the judge’s opinion to perhaps a hundred Cambridge residents on April 17, 2009:

a. Not only are municipalities subject to punitive damages in the same regard as other defendants, but deliberate violations of G. L. c. 151B, by those charged with the public duty to enforce the law equally, present a heightened degree of reprehensibility. [citations omitted]. Healy, and the City of Cambridge, are subject to increased scrutiny for their retaliatory actions, particularly where Healy took this action in capacity as a high-ranking public official. [citation omitted]. The city of Cambridge does not get a free pass to unlawfully retaliate against its employees and avoid the imposition of punitive damages simply by virtue of its status as a taxpayer funded municipality; to the contrary, the city is held to a higher standard of reprehensibility.

b. First, the jury had adequate evidence before it to find Healy s conduct reprehensible. Healy indicated, in his testimony, that he was aware of the legal implications of retaliation, and that the plaintiff s discrimination claim was constantly on his mind. Such conscious disregard for the law of retaliation would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendant s disrespect for the law.

c. . . . Healy, as city manager, is charged with the public duty to enforce the law equally, and as a result, his conduct is subject to a heightened degree of reprehensibility.

d. Healy simply was not credible, and the jury was entitled to form this opinion based on his demeanor on the stand and his inconsistent and incoherent testimony.

Judge issues decision denying Cambridge's Post Trial Motions in Monteiro v. City of Cambridge

Bob reports:

(I) EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION
(II) COURT DECISION AND ORDER
Introduction
I. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
A. Standard of Review
B. Evidence of Retaliation
1. Comparative Evidence
2. Temporal Proximity
3. Other Circumstantial Evidence
C. Award of Punitive Damages
II. Defendant s Motion for a New Trial, or, in the Alternative, For Remittitur
A. Standard of Review
B. Excessive Damages
1. Compensatory Damages
2. Emotional Distress Damages
3. Punitive Damages
C. Juror Conduct
D. References to Race
E. Plaintiff s Counsel s Closing Arguments
F. Circumstantial Evidence That Flex-Time Memo Was Fabricated
G. References to Plaintiff s Background and Life Experience
H. Cross-Examination of Healy
I. Unusual Level of Jocularity and Humor in Courtroom
J. Court Bias
K. Verdict Against the Weight of Evidence
III. DEFENDANT S OTHER MOTIONS
ORDER

(I) EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

Friday, April 24, 2009, Judge Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso filed her decision in the post trial motions with regard to Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court Docket MICV2001-02737.

The jury’s verdict was that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of the plaintiff in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The jury awarded $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.

While the judge was considering the post trial motions, the Cambridge City Council rehired the city manager for an additional three years.

Basic summary is that the Cambridge city government has been told that it is reprehensible and that decent human beings have a right to so indicate with powerful actions.

I initially filed this report on this blog the day after the decision came down. My filing was based on a direct copy of the judge’s decision on the court docket. Two days later, I amended my blog filing. The court’s docket is not programmed compatible with normal writing. The court’s docket deletes all paragraph marks. I inserted my interpretation of paragraphing to make this report readable.

I repeat: ALL PARAGRAPHING HAS BEEN INSERTED BY ME.

On reviewing the decision, it is clear that a number of other oddities exist as a result of the programming of the court docket. Correcting these other oddities, however, would involve actual changes to the text. This would go beyond what I consider proper editing.

I have amended this report on May 11, 2009 to add an outline for the benefit of the reader. The opinion has an introduction which is not specifically identified and which lacks numbering. The introduction quotes special questions answered by the jury. The decision then follows with the above quoted outline structure. It concludes with the order of the court.

After I published this paragraphed version of the opinion, the Cambridge Chronicle added a faxed copy of the actual decision to its on line version of its April 30, 2009 report. I have not since been able to find either on the website. In any case, I have stated that the paragraphing is solely my work. I am happy with the paragraphing as it is. My paragraphing makes the opinion readable and probably makes the opinion more readable than is the actual opinion.

I would suggest the reader use a FIND capability to go to a desired portion of the decision.

The decision’s structure is based on the motions of the city, all of which motions are denied by the judge.

(II) COURT DECISION AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON THE DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT; MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REMITTITUR; MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT S POST-TRIAL SUBMISSION; AND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL:

The defendant City of Cambridge (the city ) moves for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or in the alternative, moves for a New Trial or a Remittitur, of the jury verdict and any judgment entered in accord with the jury verdict returned on May 23, 2008 in favor the plaintiff, Malvina Monteiro (the plaintiff ). The city also moves to strike plaintiff s memorandum in response to defendant s post-trial submission, and to supplement the record on appeal.

The case was tried before the undersigned, sitting with a jury, from May 6, 2008 through May 21, 2008.

The jury began deliberating on May 21, and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on May 23.

The jury answered Special Verdict Questions, finding that:

1) the plaintiff proved that the City of Cambridge retaliated against her by terminating her employment as Executive Secretary of the Police Review and Advisory Board ( PRAB );

2) proved that she suffered retaliation, that is, materially adverse employment action(s) other than termination of employment because she pursued her legal rights in a discrimination claim against the city; and

3) proved that the conduct of the city was so extreme in nature as to warrant punitive damages. The jury awarded $962,400 in front pay, back pay, and consequential damages; $100,000 in emotional distress damages, and $3,500,000 in punitive damages.

For the following reasons, the city s motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict; New Trial, or in the alternative, Remittitur; To Strike Plaintiff s Memorandum in Response to Defendant s Supplemental Post-Trial Submission; and To Supplement the Record on Appeal, are DENIED.

I. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

A. Standard of Review

Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 50(b) provides that a party who previously moved for a directed verdict may move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict within ten days of judgment. Mass. R. Civ. P. 50(b).

When acting on a defendant s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the judge s task, taking into account all the evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff, to determine whether, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise considering the weight of the evidence, the jury reasonably could return a verdict for the plaintiff. Tosti v. Ayik, 394 Mass. 482, 494 (1985), quoting Rubel v. Hayden, Harding & Buchanan, Inc., 15 Mass. App. Ct. 252, 254 (1983). The court will consider whether anywhere in the evidence from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Cambridgeport Sav. Bank v. Boersner, 413 Mass. 432, 438 (1992) (internal citations omitted). The inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be based on probabilities rather than possibilities and cannot be the result of mere speculation and conjecture. Id., quoting McEvoy Travel Bureau, Inc. v. Norton Co., 408 Mass. 704, 706-707 n.3 (1990). It is unavailing for a defendant to argue that there was evidence warranting a contrary finding by the jury. Tosti, 394 Mass. at 494, quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Edel-Brown Tool & Die Co., 381 Mass. 1, 4 (1980).

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Id.

If a jury could reasonably have arrived at their verdict from any of the evidence that the plaintiff presented, the verdict will be sustained. Dartt v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 497 Mass. 1, 16 (1998), quoting Labonte v. Hutchins & Wheeler, 424 Mass. 813, 821 (1997).

B. Evidence of Retaliation

The city moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, contending that the plaintiff failed to prove that her employment would not have been terminated but for her prosecution of the discrimination lawsuit.

1. Comparative Evidence

The city specifically maintains that the plaintiff s comparative evidence was improperly admitted by this court, was unduly prejudicial, and represented the only evidence from which the jury could infer retaliatory animus.

Retaliation may be proved with comparative evidence of similarly situated employees. Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, 426 Mass. 122, 129 (1997). The city maintains that the comparative evidence offered by the plaintiff was improperly admitted at trial and because it was the sole evidence from which the jury could infer retaliatory animus, the jury s verdict must be aside. This court disagrees that it improperly admitted evidence of comparators, as it was relevant to show the City Manager, Healy s ( Healy ), state of mind and his overall treatment of the plaintiff as compared to other employees, about whom he received similar complaints concerning work performance and attendance. It is well settled that elevant evidence is admissible unless unduly prejudicial, and, n weighing the probative value of evidence against any prejudicial effect it might have on a jury . . . trial judges great latitude and discretion . . .. Bank v. Thermo Elemental, 451 Mass. 638, 670 (2008), quoting Commonwealth v. Arroyo, 442 Mass. 135, 144 (2004).

The plaintiff offered evidence of five employees who were reported to Healy for violations of workplace misconduct and/or attendance.

Three comparators, Ms. Hebert, Mr. Tran, and Ms. Neighbor, were Executive Directors of the city s commissions or boards like the plaintiff. Their respective commissions complained to Mr. Healy about their attendance and other performance issues, and although Healy disciplined the employees, none were terminated for the particular misconduct.

The two other comparators, Mr. Bernais and Mr. White, were employees of the City Print Shop and City Department of Public Works, respectively. The plaintiff admitted evidence to demonstrate Healy s measured and fair approach to discipline when confronted with serious employee misconduct, which in their cases, consisted of incidents of tasteless racial actions and/or jokes on the part of these two employees.

To ensure that the jury properly considered the evidence in accordance with the law, this court gave specific instructions that they could consider the comparative evidence of employees similarly situated only if they determined that the employees were similar to the plaintiff in all relative respects.

Consistent with the law as articulated in Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, the instruction stated:

A comparison may be made between Ms. Monteiro and other employees. You may consider whether there is evidence that others similarly situated in all relevant respects but who had not complained about discrimination, have been treated differently. There is no specific test for you to use in determining whether employees are similarly situated except that a comparison may be made only where employees are similar in all relevant respects. The comparison need not be identical, but should be similar, and it is up to you to decide whether the facts warrant the comparison and what weight to give it . . .

The court presumes that the jury follows all instructions presented. Gath v. M/A-Com., Inc. 440 Mass. 482, 493 (2003), quoting Luz v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 348 Mass. 198, 207-208 (1964). This instruction ensured that the jury would appropriately weigh the evidence, considering it only if they determined that the comparators were similarly situated to the plaintiff in all relevant aspects.

Furthermore, the court in Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries cautioned against the very contention that the city advances; specifically, that the misconduct at issue must be identical to qualify as sufficient comparative evidence. The offenses of two employees need not be identical, so long as they are of comparable seriousness. Matthews, 426 Mass. at 129-130. The plaintiff did not need to offer evidence of identical misconduct, which in this case would be evidence of employees who attended school during city work hours, misrepresented such attendance, or claimed to have sent a memorandum, so long as the employee misconduct was of sufficient seriousness.

A jury could infer, based on the evidence presented, that the employees were similar to the plaintiff in all relevant aspects, especially with regard to the seriousness of each employee s misconduct and Healy s approach to disciplining each employee s misconduct. This is particularly true with regard to the three comparators who held similar positions to the plaintiff as executive directors of city commissions and boards.

That Healy disciplined these five employees differently than the plaintiff could be inferred from evidence that he addressed misconduct and attendance problems of all five comparators personally, gave the employees an opportunity to respond and remedy the problems, took into account the dynamics of the employees commissions and boards, and exhibited a sympathetic and forgiving approach to their misconduct and/or attendance issues. From this evidence, a jury could find the comparators were similarly situated to the plaintiff in all relevant aspects.

The city next contends that the potential prejudice from the evidence, particularly evidence of racially charged incidents committed by Mr. White and Mr. Bernais, substantially outweighed any probative value of the evidence.

The comparative evidence of Mr. White and Mr. Bernais s incidents was probative of Healy s state of mind, particularly his even-handed approach to disciplining other employees. The plaintiff never suggested that this evidence was relevant to or was to be considered for any other purpose. Further, this court instructed the jury to consider the evidence only if the employees were similarly situated in all aspects, and certainly did not suggest to the jury that the evidence was probative of any racial animus harbored by Healy.

2. Temporal Proximity

The city next contends that without the comparative evidence, the jury had no basis to infer retaliatory animus. They claim that because five years separate the filing of the MCAD complaint and the plaintiff s termination, the lapse of time far exceeds the temporal proximity necessary for finding retaliation based solely on a time-related inference.

The plaintiff contends that the jury properly inferred temporal proximity between the protected activity and the plaintiff s termination from a series of retaliatory measures over the five year period between the plaintiff s filing of her discrimination claim and her termination.

Where temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action is very close, retaliation may be inferred from that temporal proximity alone. Mole v. University of Massachusetts, 442 Mass. 582, 585 (2004). The greater the time between termination and the adverse action, however, the plaintiff must rely on additional evidence beyond temporal proximity to establish causation. Id. (citations omitted). However, series of retaliatory measures starting shortly after the protected activity can justify the inference that a particular action in that series, although occurring a considerable time later, is still motivated by retaliation. Id. at 596.

The plaintiff presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the plaintiff endured a series of retaliatory measures starting shortly after her filing of the discrimination claim in September 1998. The jury heard evidence that prior to the filing of her discrimination claim, the plaintiff s employment record was satisfactory. See Mole, 442 Mass. at 592 ( f adverse action is taken against a satisfactorily performing employee in the immediate aftermath of the employer s becoming aware of the employee s protected activity, an inference of causation is permissible. ).

They also heard evidence that in November 1998, an intern reported an awkward conversation with the plaintiff to the Deputy City Manager. The Deputy City Manager instructed the intern to write a memo about the incident, which the plaintiff never received. The jury could infer that the Deputy City Manager s instruction to the intern to document her complaint without informing the plaintiff, less than two months after the plaintiff filed a claim of discrimination, constituted the beginning in a series of retaliatory measures.

The jury also heard evidence that after the city took a deposition in November of 1999 in connection with the discrimination claim, Healy held a meeting with two PRAB Board Members concerning the plaintiff s performance on the Board without the plaintiff s knowledge or input. He testified that during the meeting, the plaintiff s charge of discrimination was on his mind.

In 2000, Healy stripped the plaintiff of her duties to hire Board members, informing her that his office would conduct all interviews without her input or involvement. It is reasonable that the jury could find this to be a retaliatory measure, particularly given the plaintiff s former integral involvement as the initial screener and interviewer of candidates. In the same year, Mr. Gardner, the city s personnel director, forwarded a newspaper article in which the plaintiff was quoted about racial profiling in the Cambridge Police Department, to the police commissioner without bringing the problem to the plaintiff s attention.

Further, the plaintiff presented evidence of the city s year long investigation in 2002 into the plaintiff s relationship with and performance on the PRAB Board. The jury, taking this evidence as true, could reasonably infer that a series of retaliatory measures against the plaintiff started shortly after her filing of the discrimination claim in September 1998, and could justify the inference that even the investigation in 2002, although four years after the filing of the claim, was nonetheless motivated by retaliation. A jury could infer the requisite temporal proximity between the plaintiff s protected activity and her termination despite the five year period based on this series of retaliatory measures.

The city contends that the Special Verdicts returned by the jury defeat any possibility that retaliatory animus could be inferred from a series of retaliatory measures because the jury did not award damages for intra-employment material adverse actions.

The first Special Verdict Question stated: Did the plaintiff Malvina Monteiro prove that the City of Cambridge retaliated against her by terminating her employment? The jury answered yes and proceeded in Question Two to award $962,400 in back pay, front pay, and consequential damages as a result of the retaliatory termination.

Question Three stated: Did the plaintiff Malvina Monteiro prove that she suffered retaliation, that is, materially adverse employment action(s), other than termination of employment, because she pursued her legal rights in a discrimination claim against the City of Cambridge? The jury answered yes , yet in Special Verdict Question 4, awarded no damages as a result of the materially adverse employment actions.

The city s reliance on Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White in support of its position is misplaced. 548 U.S. 53, 67 (2006). The city relies on the Court s statement that: he anti-retaliation provision protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm as standing for the proposition that monetary damages must result from a materially adverse action to constitute retaliation. Burlington, 548 U.S. at 67. In other words, the city translates the jury s award of no damages for materially adverse actions occurring during the plaintiff s employment to mean, based on the Burlington case, that the jury found no intra-employment injury or harm and thus no actionable retaliation during the plaintiff s employment. The city claims that because the jury found no retaliation during the intra-employment period, the plaintiff s temporal proximity argument based on a series of retaliatory measures essentially collapses.

The city s interpretation of the Burlington case is an unavailing attempt to escape the jury s affirmative answer to Special Verdict Question Three that the plaintiff suffered retaliation, that is, materially adverse employment action(s), other than termination of employment, because she pursued her legal rights in a discrimination claim against the City of Cambridge.

This court declines the city s invitation to misconstrue the jury s verdict, and further notes that the city s interpretation of one line in the Burlington case is out of context. Although the Court in Burlington stated that retaliation is only actionable if it causes injury or harm, it went on to evaluate retaliation that produces an injury or harm in the context of determining the level of seriousness to which the harm must rise before it becomes actionable retaliation. Id. at 67.

The Court characterized injury or harm as circumstances in which: a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68, quoting Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Nowhere in the Court s discussion does it evaluate the level of seriousness to which the injury or harm must rise as dependent upon or in relation to a certain monetary amount of damages sustained. The Court determines whether the retaliation causes injury or harm (i.e. legally actionable retaliation) by evaluating whether the actions by the employer are materially adverse, or in other words, would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination. Id.

Here, the jury returned an affirmative verdict that the plaintiff suffered materially adverse actions throughout her employment as a result of her filing a discrimination claim. Because the jury found that the plaintiff endured materially adverse actions during her employment, the plaintiff proved her case of retaliation. The award of no damages does not alter the jury s verdict in this regard. Further, the jury assigned emotional distress and other compensatory damages for the process of termination in Question Two and very well could have intended not to duplicate damages.

The jury s finding that the plaintiff suffered a material adverse action as a result of her filing a claim of discrimination is, by definition in the Burlington case, retaliation that produces injury or harm.

3. Other Circumstantial Evidence

To the extent that the city contends that the comparative evidence still constitutes the only circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer retaliatory animus, the plaintiff presented other circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer retaliatory animus.

The jury could have inferred, taking the plaintiff s evidence as true, that the city s proffered reasons for her termination were pretext based on evidence including, but not limited to, Healy s testimony that the plaintiff s legal claims were constantly on his mind, the plaintiff s satisfactory work record prior to 1998, the character and secrecy of the year long investigation, and testimony that the plaintiff s conflicts with the PRAB Board and Police amounted to nothing more than routine disagreements.

The plaintiff s evidence was sufficient to support the jury s verdict finding retaliation.

C. Award of Punitive Damages

The city contends that the evidence presented by the plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, support a finding of punitive damages.

Punitive damages are appropriate where a defendant s conduct warrants condemnation and deterrence. Bain v. City of Springfield, 424 Mass. 758, 767 (1997). They may be awarded where the defendant s conduct was outrageous, because of a defendant s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff. Dartt, 427 Mass. at 17. Thus, a plaintiff must prove more than just simple liability for retaliation. Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, 432 Mass. 165, 178 (2000).

This court has already foreclosed the city s primary argument against the punitive damage award; that is, punitive damages cannot be awarded for the city s intra-employment conduct where the jury found that the conduct was not legally actionable. The jury, however, answered yes to Special Verdict Question Three, and found that the plaintiff suffered materially adverse actions during employment, as a result of the filing her discrimination claim. The contention that punitive damages cannot be awarded for conduct that the jury found not legally actionable fails here, where the jury expressly found the city s conduct during the intra-employment period to constitute retaliation. Moreover, even if the jury s award of no damages signified the jury s belief that the plaintiff sustained no compensatory damages for the city s retaliation during the intra-employment period, there is no requirement in our law that punitive damages may only be awarded if there is an award of compensatory damages. Bain, 424 Mass. at 767 (given the purpose of punitive damages, the key consideration is whether defendant s conduct warrants condemnation and deterrence regardless of compensatory damages).

The city similarly contends that punitive damages cannot stand because it was impossible for the jury to find the city liable at all under circumstances where an employee violated an express policy regarding City work hours, gave testimony under oath that at best obfuscated her class hours, and relied upon a suspect memo seeking permission to attend school. It is unavailing, however, for the city to argue on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that this evidence warranted a contrary finding by the jury. Tosti, 394 Mass. at 494, quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp., 381 Mass. at 4 (1980).

The city accomplishes nothing by merely pointing to what it considers to be its strongest evidence. Viewing all evidence in favor of the plaintiff, the jury could find (and did find) that the city s evidence amounted to pretext and that the real reasons for terminating the plaintiff were retaliatory.

The city s motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is denied.

II. Defendant s Motion for a New Trial, or, in the Alternative, For Remittitur

A. Standard of Review

A new trial may be granted in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the Commonwealth. Mass. R. Civ. P. 59(a). he grant or denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence rests in the discretion of the judge. See Turnpike Motors, Inc. v. Newbury Group, Inc., 413 Mass. 119, (1992), quoting Robertson v. Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett, 404 Mass. 515, 520, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 894 (1989). The judge must determine whether the verdict is so markedly against the weight of the evidence as to suggest that the jurors allowed themselves to be misled, were swept away by bias or prejudice, or for a combination of reasons, including misunderstanding applicable law, failed to come to a reasonable conclusion. W. Oliver Tripp Co. v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 34 Mass. App. Ct. 744, 748 (1993). When allowing a verdict to stand would constitute the miscarriage of justice, a new trial should be ordered. Menard v. McCarthy, 410 Mass. 125, 130 (1991).

The judge, however, should not decide the case as if sitting without a jury; rather, the judge should only set aside the verdict if satisfied that the jury failed to exercise an honest and reasonable judgment in accordance with the controlling principles of law. Robertson, 404 Mass. at 520, quoting Hartmann v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 323 Mass. 56, 60 (1948). Unlike a judge s task in deciding a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, when deciding a motion for a new trial, a judge considers the probative force of the evidence and not merely the presence or absence of any evidence on the disputed point. Id.; see also O Brien v. Pearson, 449 Mass. 377, 384 (2007) (noting standard more favorable to moving party than judgment notwithstanding the verdict).

B. Excessive Damages

The city contends that the amount of the damage awards demonstrate that the jury s verdict was the product of sympathies, biases, and inflamed passion.

The city maintains that $962,400 awarded in lost back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages is excessive where the highest amount of damages demonstrated by the evidence is $103,805. Moreover, the city maintains that the emotional distress award in connection with the termination of the plaintiff s employment was excessive where the plaintiff only advanced evidence of emotional distress suffered during her employment for the city, and not due to her termination. Finally, the city protests the amount of the punitive damages award as extraordinary because the plaintiff advanced no evidence that the city s conduct was an outrageous affront to her dignity.

1. Compensatory Damages

A new trial on the ground of excessive or inadequate damages will be granted only when the damages are so great . . . that is may be reasonably presumed that the jury, in assessing them, did not exercise a sound discretion, but were influenced by passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption. Bartley v. Phillips, 317 Mass. 35, 41 (1944) (citations omitted) (noting judge has no right to set aside damages merely because he would have assessed damages in a different amount). Motions for a new trial on the theory that the damages were inadequate or excessive ought not to be granted unless on a survey of the whole case it appears to the judicial conscience and judgment that otherwise a miscarriage of justice will result. Moose v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 43 Mass. App. Ct. 420, 427 (1997), quoting Walsh v. Chestnut Hill Bank & Trust Co., 414 Mass. 283, 292 (1993). A judge s refusal of a grant of a new trial will not be disturbed unless the damages awarded were greatly disproportionate to the injury proven . . .. Id., quoting Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 391 Mass. 815, 822 (1984); see also Labonte, 424 Mass. at 824. Although damages need not be proven with mathematical precision, Rombola v. Cosindas, 351 Mass. 382, 385 (1966), there must be enough evidence to make a reasonable estimate of damages without speculation or guesswork. Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 402 Mass. 385, 388 (1988).

Surveying the whole case, the damages awarded by the jury are not excessive.

With regard to the award of compensatory damages consisting of back pay, front pay, and consequential damages, the city s primary contention is that the award bears no relationship to the highest number supported by what it claims to be the sole piece of evidence, Trial Exhibit 26 entitled Plaintiff Monteiro s Income and Pension Benefits.

The city overlooks, however, that the jury heard evidence in addition to Trial Exhibit 26 on the issue of damages. The plaintiff testified about lost pay, her unsuccessful search for comparable jobs, the end of her career as Executive Secretary of PRAB, the importance of her work and career, and her obliged work as a translator without vacation, pension, holiday, health or sick time benefits after the termination of her employment. The jury also heard evidence that other city employees, holding similar positions to the plaintiff, did not retire until their late 50s or into their 60s.

Trial Exhibit 26 further laid out different pension benefit scenarios that could have occurred if the plaintiff had not been terminated, including the amount she would have received if she was terminated after twenty years of service, if she had retired after twenty years of service, and if she had retired at 55 years old after 29 years of service. It also stated her then current pension options after being terminated in 2003. Additionally, the jury could have calculated lost health, vacation, and sick benefits since her termination in the award.

If anything, the different pension scenarios articulated in Trial Exhibit 26 ensured that the award of front pay, back pay, and consequential damages was not the result of speculation or conjecture, but instead a reasoned estimate based upon a factual scenario the jury found most supported by the testimonial and documentary evidence.

There is no indication that the jury failed to exercise honest and reasonable judgment in arriving at the compensatory damages figure. In light of the evidence, the jury s award of $962,400 for front pay, back pay, and consequential damages was neither greatly disproportionate to the plaintiff s injury nor does it represent a miscarriage of justice to necessitate a new trial or, in the alternative, a remittitur.

2. Emotional Distress Damages

The city further challenges the emotional distress damage award of $100,000 as excessive and reflective of the jury s inflamed passion, bias, and sympathies, thus requiring a new trial, or in the alternative, at least a 75% remittitur.

Determining whether damages are excessive is difficult because claims for damages for emotional distress are inherently difficult to prove with certainty, to rebut, and to evaluate. Labonte, 424 Mass. at 825 (citations omitted) (remitting emotional distress damages although plaintiff suffered depression, where he did not take medication, took on new projects after termination, was relieved to be released from emotional distress of job, was not hospitalized, and depression was short lived); see also Smith v. Bell Atlantic, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 702, 724 (2005) (distinguishing Labonte and upholding emotional distress damages based on employer s refusal to accommodate plaintiff s handicap where her distress was not short lived and lasted a number of years).

The city maintains that the emotional distress damages could not have been awarded for the period of the plaintiff s medical treatment and medical leave of absence during her employment for the city, because the jury concluded that the city s conduct during the plaintiff s employment did not amount to retaliatory adverse employment actions. As already articulated, the jury expressly found the city liable for materially adverse actions during the intra-employment period, therefore finding the city liable for retaliation during the employment period. Furthermore, the award of no damages for intra-employment material adverse actions is irrelevant where the jury awarded damages for emotional distress for the process of termination in Special Verdict Question Two. It is a reasonable inference that the jury did not intend to duplicate emotional distress damages already awarded in Question Two, and instead awarded one sum of emotional distress damages for all materially adverse actions of the city, whether during the employment period or upon termination.

The jury listened to the testimony at trial, including the testimony from the plaintiff and the plaintiff s therapist, Ms. Finguerra. They could infer from the testimony of Ms. Finguerra that the plaintiff suffered emotional distress from the Spring of 2002 to 2003, necessitating medical treatment, the taking of psychiatric drugs, and a medical leave of absence from the city s employ. Ms. Finguerra testified that the plaintiff was nowhere near a clinical end point of her psychiatric problems when she was terminated by the city. A jury could reasonably find, based on the therapist s testimony, that the plaintiff endured significant pain as a result of both intra-employment actions, particularly the year long investigation and stripping of her managerial duties, and the materially adverse action of termination. Further, the jury heard the plaintiff testify about the importance of her career as Executive Secretary of PRAB, and the hurt and loss she felt during the investigation and termination of her employment. See Smith, 63 Mass. App. Ct. at 723-724 (refusing to grant new trial or remit emotional distress damages totaling $207,000 for handicap discrimination in light of evidence that plaintiff s career was her whole life, that her unsuccessful efforts to work from home frustrated her, and that as a result she suffered anxiety and diminished self-esteem).

After listening to the testimony firsthand, the jury composed as they , of persons from varying walks of life and reflecting a variety of experience, ma a particularly suitable institution for assessing . . . emotional damage, and were in the best position to evaluate the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff. Borne v. Haverhill Golf & Country Club, Inc., 58 Mass. App. Ct. 306, 320 (2003).

The evidence before the jury was sufficient to award emotional distress damages, and their award does not compel a conclusion that they were influenced by bias, passion, corruption, mistake or prejudice. Smith, 63 Mass. App. Ct. at 724.

3. Punitive Damages

Finally, the city most vehemently contends that the evidence was insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

The city first argues that punitive damages should not have been awarded at all where the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant s conduct was an outrageous affront to her dignity that was both recklessly indifferent to her rights and egregiously beyond the pale of what our society tolerates. Dartt, 427 Mass. at 17.

The city points to the fact that an earlier jury in 2005 was unable to reach a verdict on the simple retaliation claim, and as such, it was unreasonable for the jury in this trial to find outrageous conduct and award punitive damages.

This trial, however, was before a different jury, faced with a different presentation of a case and a separate and distinct opportunity to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and other evidence. The hung jury in the first trial in no way mandates the same decision by a different jury in this case.

The city next argues that a penalty of this magnitude against a municipality is not appropriate where the punishment is being meted out to the citizens of Cambridge.

This argument plainly ignores that the Commonwealth and its subdivisions are liable for punitive damages under G. L. c. 151B on the same basis as other persons and employers. Clifton v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 445 Mass. 611, 623 (2005). Not only are municipalities subject to punitive damages in the same regard as other defendants, but deliberate violations of G. L. c. 151B, by those charged with the public duty to enforce the law equally, present a heightened degree of reprehensibility. Clifton, 445 Mass. at 623-624 (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority held to higher standard), quoting Dalrymple v. Winthrop, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 611, 621 (2000); see also Ciccarelli v. School Dep t. of Lowell, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 787, 796 (2007) (City of Lowell charged with public duty to enforce law equally).

Healy, and the City of Cambridge, are subject to increased scrutiny for their retaliatory actions, particularly where Healy took this action in capacity as a high-ranking public official. Ciccarelli, 70 Mass. App. Ct. at 796 (Deputy Superintendent of Personnel s deliberate retaliation subject to heightened standard where charged with public duty to enforce law equally). The city of Cambridge does not get a free pass to unlawfully retaliate against its employees and avoid the imposition of punitive damages simply by virtue of its status as a taxpayer funded municipality; to the contrary, the city is held to a higher standard of reprehensibility.

The city requests that this court remit the amount of the punitive damage award if a new trial is not granted.

A court upholds a punitive damage award unless it clearly appears that the amount of the award exceeds the outer boundary of the universe of sums reasonably necessary to punish and deter the defendant s conduct. Zimmerman v. Direct Fed. Credit Union, 262 F.3d 70, 81 (1st Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

The court uses a three-part test to assess the reasonableness of a punitive damages award:

1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant s conduct;

2) the ratio of the punitive damages award to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff; and

3) a comparison of the punitive damages award to criminal or civil penalties for comparable misconduct.

Labonte, 424 Mass. at 826-827, citing BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574-575 (1996).

First, the jury had adequate evidence before it to find Healy s conduct reprehensible.

Healy indicated, in his testimony, that he was aware of the legal implications of retaliation, and that the plaintiff s discrimination claim was constantly on his mind. Such conscious disregard for the law of retaliation would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendant s disrespect for the law. See Zimmerman, 262 F.3d at 82, quoting BMW of N. Am., Inc., 517 U.S. at 576-577.

The jury heard evidence of the city s actions over the five years following her charge of discrimination, including decreasing the plaintiff s managerial duties such as interviewing and hiring prospective Board members, depriving her of the opportunity to respond to complaints like other employees were given, and embarking upon a secretive investigation of which the plaintiff was the target. A jury could find, and did find, that the city mounted a deliberate, systematic campaign to punish the plaintiff as a reprisal for her effrontery in lodging a discrimination claim. Zimmerman, 262 F.3d at 82 (awarding punitive damages where defendant stopped inviting plaintiff to Board meetings, humiliated plaintiff at company-wide meeting, excluded her from management retreat that she once organized, and decreased job responsibilities).

The jury also heard inconsistent testimony as to Healy s reasons for terminating the plaintiff, and was free to draw their own conclusions as to whether he was covering up his wrongdoing. Ciccarelli, 70 Mass. App. Ct. at 798 (jury free to draw conclusion that superintendent s testimony an effort to cover up his wrongdoing).

Moreover, Healy, as city manager, is charged with the public duty to enforce the law equally, and as a result, his conduct is subject to a heightened degree of reprehensibility. Clifton, 445 Mass. at 623-624.

The jury, proceeding on the collective sum of their experiences, appear to have worked their way to dollar amounts that reflect the jurors assessment of the reprehensibility of Healy s conduct, and what it will take to deter like conduct in the future by the . Borne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 323.

As to the second consideration, the ratio between the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff ($1,062,400) and the award of punitive damages ($3,500,000) is within constitutional limits. Borne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 322 (less than 4:1); Ciccarelli, 70 Mass. App. Ct. at 798 (5:1 ratio affirmed); Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 24 (1991) (4:1 ratio constitutional); Zimmerman, 262 F.3d at 82 (2:1 ratio within standards). Here, the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages is about 3:1, and is not excessive in relation to the plaintiff s actual harm.

Lastly, this court must determine whether the punitive damages award is within the range of penalties for comparable misconduct.

The First Circuit in Zimmerman looked to other sections of G. L. c. 151B mandating treble damages for intentional age discrimination, as a proper comparison for the reasonableness of punitive damages awarded in a retaliation case. Zimmerman, 262 F.3d at 83. The Court reasoned that because the legislature capped punitive damages for intentional age discrimination at treble damages, but left damages for other types of discrimination uncapped, it likely intended to permit recovery greater than treble for other types of discrimination such as retaliation. Id. The Supreme Judicial Court in Clifton v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. also looked to the imposition of the treble damages cap for age discrimination in G. L. c. 151B as indicative of the legislature s intent not to impose a limit on the amount of punitive damages necessary to punish employers who discriminate. Clifton, 445 Mass. at 623-624. It is likely that the legislature did not intend to impose a limit on the amount of punitive damages necessary to punish employers, like the city, who retaliate. Further, the city was on notice that retaliating against the plaintiff in violation of the statute potentially could subject them to a similar level of punitive damages. Zimmerman, 262 F.3d at 83.

The punitive damages award is sufficiently within the range of damages to be awarded for comparable misconduct under G. L. c. 151B. Where the jury had adequate evidence before it to find Healy s conduct reprehensible, the ratio of the punitive damages to the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff is reasonable, and the punitive damage award is sufficiently within the range of civil penalties for comparable misconduct under G. L. c. 151B, the court denies the city s motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, for remittitur, of the punitive damage award.

C. Juror Conduct

The city next contends that a juror s smile allegedly directed towards the plaintiff s attorney the day before the verdict was announced is evidence that the verdict was a result of inflamed passion, biases, or sympathies.

This incident prompted the city to inquire of the court as to any bias that the juror had failed to report during impanelment, specifically as to his profession. The court responded to the city s inquiry by stating that the juror had indicated he was retired, the city had the opportunity to discuss the juror before seating him (and in fact had specifically discussed him because his wife was disclosed to be a lawyer at a firm with which the city s attorney had done business). The court noted that the jurors, in general, at what was the end of a very long day, had been talking and laughing in the hallway prior to entering the courtroom.

The court renews its response to the city, and further notes that the city has not pointed to anything in support of its contention that this juror s behavior was anything more than an unconscious smile or gesture, let alone the product of bias.

D. References to Race

The city points to a number of incidents in support of its claim that the issue of race discrimination hung over the trial and caused the jury to render a verdict inflamed by passions, bias, or sympathies.

First, the city maintains that this court s refusal to admit the jury s verdict in favor of the city on the plaintiff s discrimination claim and also disclose that the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the retaliation claim in the first trial, caused the jury to draw inferences that the city did not prevail on either the discrimination or retaliation claim.

The city s argument lacks merit because liability for the underlying discrimination claim has no bearing on liability for retaliation. Mole v. University of Massachusetts, 442 Mass. 582, 591-592 n.13 (2004) ( The fact that a complaint is later found to be unmeritorious does not preclude a retaliation claim based on the protected activity of pursuing that complaint. ); Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 432 Mass. 107, 122 (2000) (jury s verdict on discrimination could not have affected their verdict on retaliation where elements of discrimination and retaliation do not intersect; jury could find retaliation without finding discrimination). Any evidence of the prior discrimination claim was not probative of whether the city retaliated against the plaintiff.

Further, this court specifically addressed the possibility of jury speculation, instructing the jury that the claim of discrimination is not before the jury, and it is impermissible for you to speculate with regard to its past or future resolution. To make sure the jury understood, this court further instructed the jury: let me remind you again of what I said at the outset of the trial. While you have heard of various events and proceedings relating to Ms. Monteiro s charge of discrimination, filed on September 17, 1998, and you may consider those events as you deliberate, you may not consider the substance of the discrimination claim. That is not before you.

Jurors are expected to follow instructions, and there is nothing before this court suggesting they did not do so. Gath, 440 Mass. at 493.

Nor did the court s refusal to disclose the hung jury on the retaliation claim in the first trial cause the verdict to be a product of bias, sympathies, or inflamed passion. It was within this court s discretion to exclude evidence of the previous jury s inability to reach a verdict where the probative value of such evidence was outweighed by the prejudice that would result if a jury knew that a previous jury had deliberated over the same issue. Bank, 451 Mass. at 670 (trial judge afforded discretion in determining evidence s prejudicial effect on jury). The jury in this case was entitled to make its own decision, based on its own assessment of the evidence, without the improper influence of a previous jury s failure to reach a verdict.

The city next contends that the admission of the comparative discipline evidence of city employees Mr. White and Mr. Bernais inflamed the passions of the jury, because the evidence unfairly suggested that Healy was predisposed to treat perpetrators of racial misconduct more leniently than he did Ms. Monteiro.

As previously stated, the evidence was admitted for the purpose of demonstrating that Healy treated other employees serious misconduct differently than the plaintiff s. The plaintiff never suggested or argued that this evidence should be considered for any other purpose, and the court s instructions to the jury ensured that they would consider the discipline of Mr. White and Mr. Bernais only if the employees were similarly situated in all relevant respects.

The city lists several other racial references during the trial that it contends caused the jury s verdict to be a product of bias, inflamed passion, or sympathy.

Its contention that witnesses such as Ms. Monteiro, Ms. English, and Councilor Reeves interjected the issue of racial profiling by the Cambridge Police into the case lacks merit where much of PRAB s work during the plaintiff s tenure involved work on racial profiling. The plaintiff was afterall the head of Cambridge s Police Review and Advisory Board and thus her work with regard to racial profiling or any other problem in the Cambridge Police Department was certainly relevant in demonstrating her performance, work ethic, and contributions to PRAB. The city did not object to the plaintiff s references to racial profiling at trial. It is also noteworthy that the city s own witnesses, Commissioner Watson and Mr. Winter, referenced racial profiling during their testimony.

Moreover, the city s contention that plaintiff s counsel erred in cross-examining Cindy Ramsey because counsel suggested that Ramsey s terminology in the investigative report referenced a racial faction on PRAB is equally without merit, particularly where city s counsel did not object to the questioning. The jury had the opportunity to independently review Ramsey s report, draw their own conclusions as to the meaning of terminology based on Ramsey s testimony, and assess the credibility of Ramsey s explanation of the terminology.

Finally, plaintiff s counsel s reference to an incident where Mr. Gardner forwarded an article, in which the plaintiff was quoted about racial profiling in the Cambridge Police Department, to Police Commissioner Watson, does not warrant a new trial.

The city did not object to plaintiff s counsel s first reference to Mr. Gardner s forwarding of the newspaper article, and upon its objection to the second reference, the objection was promptly sustained. Plaintiff s counsel immediately moved on to another topic once the objection was sustained. Mr. Gardner s action in forwarding the newspaper article to Commissioner Watson, without forwarding it to the plaintiff, was in evidence. Any improper reference to Mr. Gardner s motive in forwarding the newspaper article was cured by this court s sustaining the city s objection.

E. Plaintiff s Counsel s Closing Arguments

The city objects to plaintiff s counsel s statements to the jury in her closing that a committee had been reviewing the flex-time policy before its formal institution where the jury heard no evidence of the existence of a flex-time drafting committee.

Upon review of the transcript of the closing arguments, this court disagrees that the plaintiff s reference to the existence of the term flex-time and a committee prior to the policy s formal institution was impermissible.

Several documents, including Healy s announcement of the Policy on Flexible Work Arrangements and the actual Flex-Time Policy, were before the jury. The jury could infer, based on language used in the announcement and the actual policy, that the flex-time policy resulted from some discussion and planning prior to its implementation. The jury was free to use their common sense to evaluate whether the term flex-time commonly was used prior to the formal institution of the city s flex-time policy. They could use their own experiences as employees and employers to infer that the drafting of a flex-time policy suggests a process of discussion prior to its formal implementation. They could credit or discredit arguments of plaintiff s counsel and city s counsel with regard to whether the memo was fabricated, and also were free to credit or discredit Healy s testimony about the flex-time memo based on their assessment of his credibility. Moreover, Plaintiff s counsel was entitled to respond to the city s theme in its closing that the plaintiff s flex-time request memo was fabricated, so long as her representations to the jury were based on reasonable inferences from the evidence. Mason v. General Motors Corp., 397 Mass. 183, 192 (1986) (scope of closing argument limited to comments on facts and evidence and fair inferences that can be drawn from the facts and evidence). Plaintiff s counsel was free to appeal to the jury s common sense that the term flex-time was not invented by Healy prior to institution of a formal policy, just as city s counsel suggested to the jury that flex-time was not a concept that was bouncing around in 1997 the way it is today.

This court instructed the jury that the arguments made in each counsel s closing were not evidence. Commonwealth v. Jones, 432 Mass. 623, 629 (2000) (prosecutor s argument did not amount to substantial miscarriage of justice where judge instructed jury twice that closing arguments were not evidence). The court also responded to the city s objection to the flex-time reference by reminding the jury that if counsel misstates any matter you know it s your memory that counts. Obviously they are arguing their version of what the evidence showed, and they re trying to point that out to you. If the evidence didn t - - does not support it that s your decision. These instructions sufficiently cured any impropriety, in the event there was one, that resulted from plaintiff s argument that the flex-time policy was developed by a committee prior to its formal institution in March 1998. See Lou v. Otis Elevator Co., 2008 WL 2097380, at *2 (Ma.Super. Mar. 28, 2008) (Lemire, J.) (closing remarks not improper where jury instructed that closings are not evidence and that it is their recollection of evidence that governs).

Upon review of the transcript of the closing arguments, the court also finds that plaintiff s counsel did not make inexcusable misstatements that inflamed the passions, bias, or sympathies of the jury. The plaintiff s remarks in her closing do not warrant a new trial. Rolanti v. Boston Edison Corp., 33 Mass. App. Ct. 516 (1992) ( In civil cases, we have found few instances where a new trial was granted because of an overreaching closing argument. ).

F. Circumstantial Evidence That Flex-Time Memo Was Fabricated

The city argues that allowing the verdict to stand would constitute a gross miscarriage of justice in the face of overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the flex-time memo was fabricated. Specifically, the city points out that the term flex-time was not used by the city at that time the memo was drafted, the plaintiff failed to disclose her reasons for the flex-time request, the plaintiff referred to a nine month period as temporary, and she scheduled make up days precisely from 7:00 am to 6:30 pm as required by the formal policy. Faced with overwhelming circumstantial evidence of the fabricated memo, the city claims, a reasonable jury would be compelled to reject any suggestion of retaliatory animus.

This court disagrees. The jury had other evidence before it that undercut and discounted the evidence suggesting that fabrication of the flex-time memo was the reason for the plaintiff s termination. The jury could consider Healy s testimony, in which he never listed the fabrication of the flex-time memo as a reason for the plaintiff s termination. They could also consider his testimony that he was not positive that his office received the flex-time memo. They listened to the plaintiff s testimony with regard to the memo. As already discussed, the jury had the Policy on Flexible Work Arrangements and the actual Flex-Time Policy before it, and could draw reasonable inferences from that evidence that the policy was not created in a vacuum and further, that the term flex-time was widely used in society prior to the city s institution of the policy.

G. References to Plaintiff s Background and Life Experience

The city next objects to references made to the plaintiff s background in plaintiff s counsel s opening statement, direct examination of the plaintiff, and closing argument. The city maintains specifically that plaintiff s counsel erred in referring to plaintiff s experiences in coming to this country from Cape Verde and encouraging jurors to take the measure of the woman , as improperly engendering sympathy and bias.

As a preliminary note, city s counsel did not object to references to the plaintiff s background during either the opening or closing statement. Nonetheless, the references to the plaintiff s background were relevant to the jury s assessment of her credibility. Plaintiff s counsel was entitled to point out the importance of this career to the plaintiff based on the her past experiences, to the jury. Moreover, this court instructed the jury that they shall not be swayed by prejudice, bias, sympathy, or anger.

H. Cross-Examination of Healy

The city notes that plaintiff s counsel inappropriately held Healy to yes or no questions that could not be answered in that fashion, leaving the jury with the impression that he was non-responsive or evasive.

This argument lacks merit.

The court actually denied plaintiff s counsel s motion to strike Healy s answer to her question about the reasons for the plaintiff s termination. The court denied the motion to strike the answer as non-responsive, and allowed Healy to testify, at length, as to his reasons for the termination of the plaintiff, despite plaintiff s counsel s attempts to stop him in the middle of his answer. This is just one example of an answer to which Healy was not limited to a yes or no.

To the extent plaintiff s counsel limited Healy to yes or no answers, she did so permissibly and succeeded in conducting an effective cross-examination. Healy simply was not credible, and the jury was entitled to form this opinion based on his demeanor on the stand and his inconsistent and incoherent testimony.

The city s inability to rehabilitate Healy after plaintiff s counsel s cross-examination does not make the jury verdict one based on inflamed passion, sympathy, or bias.

I. Unusual Level of Jocularity and Humor in Courtroom

The city next accuses this judge of permitting an unusual level of jocularity and humor in the courtroom, which may have influenced the jury s approach to the serious case before them.

This argument is not only without merit, but insulting to counsel and the court. The city points to no specific example of how the pleasant and civil atmosphere in the courtroom may have influenced the jury s decision. Further, although we do not have the benefit of the full transcript, during the trial, this court made a point of referencing the tenor of the relationship among the lawyers and the judge, indicating that the relationship was one of mutual respect and good will and specifically instructed the jury not to be influenced by any perceived light heartedness of the court or counsel, and that this was a matter of grave importance to the parties. During the final charge, the court reiterated that the jury was not to consider anything the court might have said or done as any reflection of the court s opinion, because any such opinion was irrelevant .

J. Court Bias

The city next suggests that the judge brought to the jury s attention the fact that plaintiff s counsel, Ms. Studen, was a former student of hers.

Again, while the court does not have a transcript, the reference was made under the following circumstances. In the course of examining a witness, counsel for the city had inquired regarding a document she had placed on the visual monitor. She neglected to offer the exhibit and Ms. Studen stood up, handed it to her and asked if she had forgotten to offer it. Relieved, counsel said yes, thanks so much and everyone, including the jurors and counsel, laughed. It was at that point that the court said something to the effect of and I taught her ethics and everyone laughed again. While the remark might well have been better left unsaid, there was no objection made or any request for curative instruction. It was, however, sometime after this episode that the court gave the instructions referenced above regarding the atmosphere in the courtroom.

K. Verdict Against the Weight of Evidence

The city maintains that the Special Verdict in this case regarding retaliatory discharge was against the substantial weight of the evidence and cannot be allowed to stand where the plaintiff offered no direct or circumstantial evidence of retaliatory animus.

The court has already addressed the city s argument in its decision denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In summary, the plaintiff produced much circumstantial evidence including, but not limited to, comparative evidence of similarly situated employees and evidence of a series of retaliatory measures starting shortly after the plaintiff s filing of her discrimination claim. The evidence also included, but was not limited to, Healy s testimony that the plaintiff s legal claims were constantly on his mind, the plaintiff s satisfactory work record prior to her filing a discrimination claim, Healy s treatment of the plaintiff during the year long investigation, and testimony that the plaintiff s conflicts with the PRAB Board and Police amounted to nothing more than routine disagreements.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence, taken together with the jury s assessment of both the plaintiff and Healy s credibility, supports the jury s finding that the city s reasons for terminating the plaintiff amounted to pretext for retaliation.

III. DEFENDANT S OTHER MOTIONS

The city s Motion to Strike Plaintiff Monteiro s Memorandum in Response to Defendant s Supplemental Post-Trial Submission dated August 1, 2008, and Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal dated July 15, 2008, are both denied.

ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Defendant City of Cambridge s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict; Motion for a New Trial, or in the alternative, Remittitur; Motion to Strike Plaintiff Monteiro s Memorandum in Response to Defendant s Supplemental Post-Trial Submission; and Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, be, and hereby are, DENIED.

Dated: April 2009 (Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso Justice of the Superior Court)

Update on Monteiro Case

Bob reports:

I have filed a number of reports on the case of Monteiro v Cambridge. This is a jury case in which the jury verdict found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The jury awarded $1.1 million or so real damages and $3.5 million penal damages. Verdict came down last May with a hearing on post trial motions June 10 followed by paper submissions that ended August 4.

I am hoping the judge will replace part of the award with a firing of the Cambridge City Manager without pension.

Recently, Cambridge was allowed to file jury transcripts of part or all of the trial. These apparently occurred on March 3 and March 31. I say "apparently" because all I have access to is the docket which, for the most part, only shows the titles of documents filed.

On April 22, 2009, Cambridge filed two papers entitled "Statement of Supplemental Authority."

It looks like Cambridge is worried, probably for good reason.

Hip, hip, hooray for the good guys.

Environmental Destroyers Defend DCR As Usual

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On Tuesday, April 7, there will be a vote in the State Legislature on a proposal by Governor Patrick to take a limited ability for environmental destruction away from the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The DCR with the governor's very clear support (He does not want to know what is going on.) is destroying all animals visiting or living on the Charles River, insofar as they can get away with it.

The most recent outrage is a particularly nasty aspect to the BU Bridge repairs, reported below.

The DCR is using whatever weapon it has to destroy animal life. A little here, a little there, and eventually they succeed in "creating" a river without animals.

The Governor's proposal is minimal. It should be supported.

The reprehensible Charles River Conservancy and the proudly environmentally destructive Representative Martha Walz have publicly, as usual, opposed protecting the environment with this minor change in powers.

The Cambridge City Manager's friends in the abutting Cambridgeport neighborhood have passed on nonsensical communications from environmental destroyers objecting to the small environmental improvement of taking this power away from the DCR.

If you get a chance, it would be nice to communicate support for the change to the legislature. We have been through this many times. With the unanimously environmentally destructive legislative contingent from Cambridge, these improvements routinely lose.

Praise for the Cambridge Chronicle, Charles River Conservancy analysis

1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn's Response.
3. Kathy Podgers' comment.
4. Update, March 26, 2009.
a. Marilyn printing.
b. Well intended but back-stabbed letter on Alewife not published in hard copy.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.

The Cambridge Chronicle seems to be getting better at weeding out misleading communications.

The very destructive Charles River Conservancy put out a press release praising itself concerning swimming in the Charles River.

This was printed by the Chronicle on line, but does not seem to have been printed in last week's (March 19, 2009) Cambridge Chronicle.

One of the City Manager's groups announced that the press release was going to be in that edition of the Chronicle. Marilyn Wellons sent in a response, which is now posted by the Chronicle at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1331540183/Letter-Swimming-in-the-Charles-is-bait.

2. Marilyn's Response.

Her response reads:

“Swimming in the Charles” is the bait repeatedly offered by the Charles River Conservancy to mobilize support for whatever “restoration” or “enhancement” of riverfront parkland the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge are offering at the moment. Now, as Cambridge prepares to replace grass adapted to the riverfront at the DCR’s Magazine Beach with commercial sod, an irrigation system, fences and chemical maintenance, we see the bait once more.

Once again people are invited to connect their hopes for safe swimming to what is, in fact, further destruction of the environment. To swim safely in the river at Magazine Beach, the DCR, Cambridge, the CRC, or any other entity with money would have to build an entire swimming pool, complete with filtration system, and sink it in the river. Sediment with heavy metals, not any poop from waterfowl, is the toxic element here.

The fields Cambridge and the DCR are installing must be chemically maintained and their use restricted, as Cambridge intends, to keep the “quality of turf our players deserve,” in the words of a DCR official defending the use of herbicides at the DCR’s Ebersol Fields, also on the Charles.

In correspondence with elected officials, the DCR has said only it never “intends” to use chemicals. It uses them anyway, when “needed.” Algae blooms fed by the chemical runoff from Ebersol Fields near MGH in Boston forced the cancellation of the Charles River swim in 2006. Since then, the CRC has been forced to move the event ever earlier, from September to June, to avoid the now inevitable toxic bloom just offshore.

Maintenance of the commercial sod at Magazine Beach will apparently be at the discretion of Cambridge officials. They make noises about “integrated pest management,” a euphemism for continued use of pesticides and other chemicals. Children and wildlife alike need no exposure to these toxins courtesy of our city or the DCR.

This bait invites “environmentalists” to weigh in once again with misinformation against waterfowl, who legitimately belong on the river (if not on a river, where?) and to dismiss those of us who actually enjoy contact with the natural world, including geese.

As for any “organic” care of lawn grasses, why are these “environmentalists” not celebrating the nitrogen, naturally applied by geese, to riverfront meadows?

3. Kathy Podgers' comment.

Kathy Podgers offers the following comment:

Thanks for posting this. Marilyn's letter is special, especially considering all the hours she has put into attending numerous meetings by half a dozen "official" organizations. I appreciate her knowledge and advocacy on this issue, and count her a true friend to Cambridge neighbors, as well as a fount of knowledge.

We have collected some 500 signatures to end the folly at Magazine Beach, which is rightfully called Captain's Island, and I hope you can all join us to end the further destruction of one of Cambridge's precious natural resource's, and work with us to restore it to it's beauty. Perhaps you saw the piece in the Sunday Globe Magazine on the 10 best places to live? Two of them featured wetlands and geese.

4. Update, March 26, 2009.

a. Marilyn printing.

In the March 26, 2009 edition, the Cambridge Chronicle printed a version of Marilyn's letter which was improved by her after she posted the above on the Internet.

b. Well intended but back-stabbed letter on Alewife not published in hard copy.

Also on line but not in the Cambridge Chronicle is a letter signed by a bunch of apparently well intentioned people which reads like they have been shafted by operatives friendly to the City of Cambridge / the eight plus bad city councilors (eight because there is one new member).

After speaking out in defense of the Silver Maple Forest, the letter supports the destruction of the Alewife reservation based on "planning."

"Planning" is another con game. People appointed by the Cambridge City Manager support destruction of whatever the Cambridge City Manager and eight plus bad city councilors are destroying.

Operatives friendly to the Cambridge City Manager / eight plus bad city councilors con well intentioned people into stabbing themselves in the back loudly proclaiming the beauties of "Planning." The operatives neglect to mention the vile environmental record of the Cambridge City Manager and neglect to mention the vile environmental record of eight plus Cambridge city councilors.

They also neglect to mention Monteiro v. City of Cambridge in which a jury found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of a black woman Cape Verdean department head because she filed a civil rights complaint.

The jury awarded $1.1 million plus damages and $3.5 million penal damages. The judge is reviewing the decision. It is my hope she orders the City Manager fired and stripped of his pension.

But the operatives always sound so good.

Silver Maple Forest

Bob reports:

The following letter was printed by the Cambridge Chronicle in its March 19, 2009 edition. It was side by side with a letter from Ellen Maas on the Silver Maple.

Ellen has worked closely with the City of Cambridge and friends of the Cambridge City Manager on the issue.

In particular, Ellen bitterly opposes prevention of destruction of the Alewife reservation by the City of Cambridge. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, the only constructive achievement by any member of the public in the area was the downzoning of a parking lot to open space followed by its conversion to open space. This was accomplished by Sheila Cook with my drafting. Ellen and her friends severely mistreated Sheila Cook.

*******

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

RE: Silver Maple Forest

The Cambridge City Council’s vote in favor of protecting the Silver Maple Forest should be looked at in context.

This is private property, mostly in Belmont .

The environmental record of the eight continuing city councilors on public property in or related to Cambridge is outrageously bad.

On the Charles, they and their friends seem to be destroying all animals living or visiting the river or its banks. This is emphasized by the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation at Magazine Beach which seems to have no purpose except starvation, and by the ongoing mudpit at Magazine Beach which is intended to destroy green maintenance and replace it with fertilizer maintenance poisoning the resident birds. Then there is the needlessly destructive BU Bridge repair project.

Then there is Fresh Pond, apparently thousands of healthy trees and animal habitat being destroyed to introduce 1000 saplings.

Then there is the Alewife Reservation, in Cambridge , a hundred or so feet from Silver Maple. Slated to be destroyed with destruction of habitat. Why? For flood storage that should be placed under a parking lot 500 feet to the south, a parking lot which is about to be built on.

So how should we react to Silver Maple, Cambridge city councilors who destroy Cambridge ’s publicly owned environment, loudly proclaiming their environmental sanctity with regard to privately owned property mostly in Belmont ?

Nothing complicated about it, just another cynical con game.

Robert J. La Trémouille
875 Massachusetts Avenue, #31
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139-0015
617-283-7649

Magazine Beach pesticides opposition

Cambridge residents concerned about the environment are contacting the City Council, registering opposition to the city's plans for Magazine Beach. These plans are to install professional-level fields, maintain them with chemicals including pesticides, and, to protect the stressed commercial turf, restrict use. Parts of Russell Field in North Cambridge are now open only with advance approval from the city.

Ann Spanel submitted the following letter to the City Council and copied it to the Cambridge Conservation Commission.

******

Dear Cambridge City Councilors:

I am strongly opposed to the use of pesiticides on ANY of Cambridge's fields, for any reason. I testified to that effect some years ago at a number of City hearings, and it was my understanding that the City's policy was NOT to use these poisons on our fields. Children and pets use these fields, and I am very concerned that you are adding ONE MORE TOXIN to our parks. . . . Cambridge is making it very hard for me to walk my dog safely in a City park. I am not at all pleased to learn that you plan to spray a field at Danehy Park as well. The idea that a field I could be walking on a pesticided field and my dog tracking pesticides into my house is unacceptable to me.

Cambridge is digging up and replacing the grass adapted to the riverfront environment [at Magazine Beach]. At great expense it's installing 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, and an irrigation system. The resulting, very expensive fields will need restricted use (as the city is doing at a new field in Danehy Park) and chemicals to maintain the "quality of turf our players deserve," as the DCR spokesperson told the Boston Conservation Commission about Ebersol Fields.

I am further concerned that Cambridge may follow suit in using Tartan, a pesticide forbidden to be used near water, that the DCR used on Ebersoll Field.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

****

Other residents wishing to register opposition can also e-mail the City Council (Council@Cambridgema.gov), and the Conservation Commission (jwright@CambridgeMA.GOV).

Marilyn Wellons

Analysis of the Urban Ring Certificate and Update

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Analysis by Archie Mazmanian.
2. Update from the State: Comments Posted.

1. Analysis by Archie Mazmanian.

Archie Mazmanian provides the following.

I apologize to Archie and the reader for my delay in posting this. I have been overloaded and I thought it was a lot longer than it is.

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

There follow some of my initial reactions to MEPA’s Certificate dated March 6, 2009, in response to EOT’s RDEIR/DEIS filing. It runs some 9 pages and is available via EOT’s Urban Ring website: www.theurbanring.com.

1. While the bottom line of the Certificate calls for EOT to “ … submit a Notice of Project Change [NPC] to identify early action items and address issues pertaining to the phasing, financing, timing of construction, and implementation of the overall project … “ in effect it calls for a “do-over.” Reading between the lines, the Secretary tries to make lemonade out of the lemon that is EOT’s RDEIR/DEIS.

2. The Certificate state: “ … the NPC should include a copy of each comment letter … and thoroughly respond to each substantive comment received.” This is to be accomplished “ … no later than June 30, 2009.” I can hardly wait. The Certificate, at its end, lists 72 “Comments Received.”

3. For some reason, the Secretary gushes over “A Better City” (ABC), a not-for-profit (but perhaps not charitable) organization made up of developers and their support systems of attorneys, etc. This is the same ABC that lauded the Big Dig through its many travails over a long period of time at great taxpayers’ expense, a significant portion of which expense perhaps made its way into the coffers of ABC members. I recall ABC chastising complaints of North Enders whose neighborhood greatly suffered and was inconvenienced by the Big Dig for such a long period of time. With the same “usual suspects” salivating over Phase 2, what can we expect from ABC if and when Phase 2 gets underway?

4. And the Secretary applauds the CAC for its support of Phase 2. We all know that the main co-chair of the CAC is ABC’s designee. And there are many CAC members who are designees of powerful institutions, such as the LMA, Harvard, MIT and BU. Perhaps a review of the “Comments” made by CAC members representing residential neighborhoods and EOT’s responses thereto may paint a distinct minority position from that of the CAC institutional majority.

You may post this on your website if you wish. Perhaps others with residential neighborhoods interests may wish to provide their comments on the Certificate. Pending June 30th, might we expect CAC or other public meetings?

Thanks, Archie.

***********

I know nothing about “A Better City.” It, however, sounds very much and too much like entities which show up in Cambridge featuring friends of the Cambridge City Manager and the ilk.

2. Update from the State: Comments Posted.

Archie forwarded the following update:

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

Dear CAC Members and Interested Parties,

All of the comment letters submitted to the MEPA office on the RDEIR have now been posted to the project website, www.theurbanring.com. The direct link to the comment letters is here https://www.commentmgr.com/projects/1169/docs/RDEIR_Comment_Ltrs.pdf

Please let me know if you have any questions or problems accessing the file.

Thanks,

Regan

Regan Checchio
Public Affairs Manager
Regina Villa Associates
51 Franklin St., 4th floor
Boston, MA 02110
Ph: 617-357-5772 ext. 14
Fax: 617-357-8361
E-mail: rchecchio@reginavilla.com

Environmental Destruction in North Cambridge

Bob La Trémouille reports:

About a week or so ago, I attended a meeting of the North Cambridge city manager group, the North Cambridge Defense Fund.

A lady attended who was distressed about the denial of use of a playing field at Russell Field to residents.

Russell Field is perhaps 300 feet east of Alewife station.

It has recently been “improved.”

Children have been thrown off an unused soccer field because they did not obtain permission from city officials to use this soccer field, right near their homes.

The same sort of outrage is scheduled for Magazine Beach after the eight environmental destroyers on the Cambridge City Council finish replacement of green maintenance with chemical maintenance.

An individual in the room who has more than ten years experience fighting for fake downzonings recommended talking with the group’s former leader, Craig Kelley.

Kelley is one of the eight continuing environmental destroyers on the Cambridge City Council. Kelley had the fraud to run as an environmentalist while “neglecting” to mention support for environmental destruction by the city of Cambridge where it counts. Kelley also neglected to mention support for heartless animal abuse on the Charles River. Kelley is a tertiary environmentalist and a primary environmental destroyer. In the secret definition the Cambridge pols use, this is “environmentalism.”

Kelley also has been part of the more than a decade of destruction of zoning protections through fake downzonings.

The individual recommending Kelley calls himself a zoning expert. He goes to the City Manager to find out his opinion on zoning issues.

This neighborhood is near where Jeff Manzelli lived, and for whose “leaders” Jeff expressed such contempt in his report in his report at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/litigants-opinion-on-monteiro-judge.html. I entitled Jeff's report “A litigant’s opinion on the Monteiro judge."

Papers filed in Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports.

The following docket entry was added on March 3, 2009:

1 Defendant's submission of trial transcripts as available on date of
2 filing

This is an apparent implementation of the entries I reported on at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/monteiro-case-update.html, below.

A litigant's opinion on the Monteiro judge

Jeff Manzelli, who did an excellent job creating the Charles River White Goose website, was a defendant in a pro-se tort suit in front of the judge handling the Melvina Monteiro court case.

He reports that the pro-se action against him was rather outrageously false.

According to Jeff, some new neighbors had moved into the upstairs apartment in the two family where he had lived for quite awhile. The new neighbors decided they wanted him out, not because of bad behavior by him, but essentially because he was not their "type."

Jeff gives the following report on what he saw of the judge. I have edited his comments to delete details of the situation which brought him to Court and to substitute generic descriptions for the names of two male participants. I have otherwise fully retained his report on the court experience.

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

The Court Case

The Ugly One and matriarch coerced their dim-witted bully son to file a pathetic, hand-scrawled tort court against me. All allegations were false, and he appeared sans witnesses. Given the risk associated with such allegations, I was well prepared, with eight supporters, having also been prepped pro-bono, by various friendly attorneys. I watched McLeod-Mancuso judgify for hours until our turn. During this time, she had the judgely opportunity to observe all of us there in the pews of the religion of bogosity called American Justice.

Due to the child being involved, (the child was being abused, but by his psycho "family") their complaint was given way too much weight, of course. Then my complaint was presented, and the tide turn (because it predated theirs. Sick as Shit Legal Tip: ALWAYS FILE FIRST!!!) Within minutes the complaining son was shouting at Mancuso who asked him whether he was "thick-headed." (Words cannot describe.) I felt the cloud lifting and showed my new lease, and explained I had been driven out. She sent the dispute to mediation.

Mediation is "secret" but I can say that things worked out to minimize harm to me, and to the poor kid, whom the "family" had terrorized for their "gain," calling me "the bad man."

My View on Da Judge

My opinion's a bit limited on her handling of technical questions, as the legal points I saw argued were mostly obscure case law. So I see her as being very cautious and thorough, unlikely to have a mistrial. Bends over backwards, giving benefit of doubt in all situations, extending deadlines, and so forth. She's infinitely patient, the opposite of a "Judge" Judy.

But where the City is involved, even a strong Judge can cave to "influence." and Cambridge is probably the most elite-controlled city I've lived in, CCTV being an example of a well-controlled PR front for the powers that do be do be doo.

Urban Ring Phase 2 - EOT Extension

1. Report.
2. Bob Replies.

1. Report.

Archie Mazmanian reports the following:

At EOT's website there are posted EOT's request for a two-week extension to March 6, 2009, and its grant. I take this to mean that EOT needed more time to respond to MEPA with respect to the many comments submitted on the RDEIR/DEIS. But I am confused by this in the response: "The Certificate on the RDEIR will now be issued on March 6, 2009." I would assume it might take MEPA months to review the RDEIR/DEIS, public comments and EOT responses to such comments. Maybe the "Certificate" is some sort of formality.

Considering the post-RDEIR/DEIS filing events about Harvard's financial problems and its development delays in Allston, as well as the economy in general, it would seem that EOT should withdraw the RDEIR/DEIS because of significant changes in circumstances. Or at a minimum, EOT should submit an Addendum reflecting such changes and their impacts, with an opportunity for the public to comment. Otherwise, MEPA's review would non-reflective of reality.

EOT has no meetings scheduled at least through May. It seems as if it has its head in the sand.

And Brookline's Transportation Board will consider the impact on Brookline of the BU Bridge redesign at its May 5th meeting. I understand the contracts for the redesign have been let out. What can Brookline do other than perhaps consider traffic changes on Brookline streets? And what can Cambridge do, assuming that the redesign will impact traffic in Cambridge? It seems that there is no coordination between not only municipalities and the state but also between state agencies.

Archie Mazmanian

2. Bob Replies.

The City of Cambridge and all eight continuing city councilors are the bad guys.

Monteiro Case Update

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Action this Week.
2. Evaluation.
3. Brief summary of the Record.
4. Prior Judge’s order in response to City’s Motion for Verdict for Defense.


1. Action this Week.

The following entries were placed on the docket during the past week in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Division Superior Court Civil Action MICV2001-02737:

I do not have access to papers in the case. I solely have access to the docket which is very abbreviated summaries of papers filed and similar actions.

February 25, 2009:

1 Pleading, Copy of 3 Transcripts, returned to Joan A Lukey, Esq.:
2 court does not except copies.

Joan A. Lukey is the City of Cambridge’s lawyer.

February 26, 2009:

1 Per Judge MacLeod-Mancuso's direction, clerk requested copies of
2 transcripts from Tracy E. Brown, Assistant to Defense Counsel, Joan
3 Lukey to be delivered to the Court. Copies of transcripts recevied
4 from: May 5, 2008, May 20, 2008, May 21, 2008 and transcript of
5 portions of testimony of Robert Healey (Pages 86-92)

2. Evaluation.

My guesstimate of the situation is that the longer the judge sits on this case, the more likely she is to come up with an order firing the Cambridge City Manager with loss of pension.

The actions of the City of Cambridge look to me like acts of desperation as a result of the city’s attorney agreeing with me in my guesstimate.

The judge is extending Cambridge every courtesy, thus documenting the judge's reasonableness toward the City of Cambridge.

3. Brief summary of the Record.

In May 2008, a jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had deliberately destroyed the life of a black woman Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The jury ordered $1.1 million or so real damages plus $3.5 million penal damages.

Cambridge moved for verdict for the defendant notwithstanding the jury verdict or for reduction in damages.

In June a hearing was conducted on the motion. There were post hearing filings apparently stemming from the hearing, the last of which was in August.

In November, first the plaintiff’s attorney, then the defendants attorney filed letters with the court. I presume these were reminders to the court that the court’s decision was awaited on the post trial motions.

4. Prior Judge’s order in response to City’s Motion for Verdict for Defense.

On June 2, 2005, the following was placed on the docket by Judge Catherine A. White, the judge in the first trial:

No. Docket Entry:
1 ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict and/or
2 Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict:
3 Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a
4 long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of
5 discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However,
6 there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably
7 be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this
8 Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time
9 makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable. Plaintiff's statement
10 of supplemental authority, forwarded to the Court on April 21, 2005
11 does not persuade the Court to change its earlier rulings.
12 Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's earlier denial of
13 a motion for directed verdict on this issue is denied, and the motion
14 for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence remains
15 denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a) report to the Appeals
16 Court is also denied. ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed
17 Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed
18 Verdict: Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that,
19 admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial
20 complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate
21 her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that
22 could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events.
23 Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the
24 passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable.
25 Plaintiff's statement of supplemental authority, forwarded to the
26 Court on April 21, 2005 does not persuade the Court to change its
27 earlier rulings. Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's
28 earlier denial of a motion for directed verdict on this issue is
29 denied, and the motion for directed verdict at the close of all of
30 the evidence remains denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a)
31 report to the Appeals Court is also denied. Dated: May 27, 2005
32 (White, Catherine A.) Justice of the Superior Court. Dated: May 27,
33 2005

Marilyn Wellons's comments on Urban Ring Phase 2

Public comment on the Urban Ring Phase 2 bus system was due February 10, 2009. Marilyn Wellons sent the following to Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian A. Bowles and Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Director Richard Bourre that day.

Dear Secretary Bowles, Mr. Bourre:

re: Urban Ring Phase 2 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, EOEA #12565

The revised draft acknowledges significant uncertainties regarding routes, financing, and regional and national economic futures. It nevertheless attaches numbers to critical factors affecting the realization of its goal, stated in the Executive Summary at 1.1, to reach a Locally Preferred Option (LPA). With these numbers and much less uncertainty it assesses the environmental costs and benefits of the LPA. Herewith my suggestions for further revision:

During ten year’s participation in discussions of the Urban Ring Phase 2 (UR2) for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), my focus has been on the Charles River environment around the Grand Junction Railroad and/or Boston University bridges. It has necessarily expanded to include other proposed river crossings and the Beacon Freight Yards in Allston.

Phase 3. I very much support public transportation, mass transit, and, in principle, the Urban Ring. Like many others, I favor going directly to the 2001 Major Investment Study’s (MIS) Phase 3A2 rail in the central corridor while improving existing bus routes, such as the No. 47, for example. Given the cost of the tunnel through Longwood Medical Area (LMA), the need to keep all Phase 3 options open (Secretary’s May 20, 2005 Certificate), and the renewed understanding of mass transit’s benefits, this makes more sense to me than spending money on BRT. Consequently the RDEIR’s failure to maintain alternative UR3A2 at the northern end of the LMA tunnel raises serious doubts about the state’s commitment Phase 3 and, with it, to environmentally responsible transportation planning.

Analysis of the RDEIR’s understanding of the Charles River and other riverfront parkland and of the Beacon Freight Yards does nothing to dispel these doubts.

Open Space. Beginning with Table 5.5.B’s misidentification of Charles River parkland around the UR2 river crossing in Cambridge (Segment B, sector 6) as entirely “commercial” (p. 5-11), the RDEIR fails to see the value of this land’s current use, in addition to sports and cycling, as urban wild—home to waterfowl, songbirds, rabbits, and hawks—and passive open space. Later references to “recreation” in the inventory of parks are to active uses, with no apparent sense of open space as a place for the re-creation of the human mind and spirit. Thus at the B6 Charles River crossing, the document’s attempt at fine-grained description of parkland vanishes. It quickly pulls away from the plants, animals, and humans whose habitat this is, to a satellite-level view of the entire “17-mile linear park . . . stretching from Watertown to the Charles River Dam in Boston” and its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It notes bicyclists, walkers, and joggers, but not the many thousands of people who need unmediated contact with the natural world and have found it here.

The RDEIR at Section 5.7 cites “common,” not rare or endangered, plants and animals in this sector, apparently to dismiss their destruction as trivial. Just this indifference to the “common” has made many species rare, endangered, or extinct. Understanding the worth of the “common”—including us city dwellers—was the foundation of the Charles River Reservation in the first place. Also, please note the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), M.G.L. Ch. 131, is not restricted to protecting rare or endangered species. Consigning this “common” habitat to destruction, or accepting the rationalization that damage from UR2 is not permanent (Table 5-45, p. 5-146) is a travesty.

Please note that for UR2’s river crossings at the Malden and Charles Rivers Chapter 91 will apply. Not only will permanent structures replace parkland, but destruction will extend throughout the Riverfront Areas, unchecked by the WPA. Through 310 C.M.R. Sec. 10.58 (6), Chapter 91 nullifies the WPA in this land, i.e., riverfront in historically tidal rivers between the Mean Annual High Water Mark and a parallel line that is 200 feet away in Medford, 25 feet in Everett and Cambridge. As we have seen at the BU Bridge in Cambridge, Chapter 91 means that Conservation Commissions will not be able to require alternatives analysis, impose a less environmentally damaging alternative from UR2’s proponents for work within these Riverfront Areas, nor require mitigation (MADEP File #123-0215). While the RDEIR notes where in UR2 Chapter 91 applies, it fails to record the consequences.

The effect of Ch. 91 on WPA protections, themselves assumed in federal law requiring environmental review of this transportation project, would thus seem to raise serious, and unaddressed, questions about the validity of the RDEIR itself in the federal process.

Beacon Yards. The RDEIR fails to assess the environmental consequences of reducing or eliminating the Beacon Freight Yards. Harvard’s plans for this land are important to the RDEIR’s estimates of regional growth in jobs and population, hence ridership, hence the viability of UR2. However, the planned change from intermodal freight in the urban core to institutional uses will increase truck traffic in the region, with negative effects on public health. The RDEIR does not, for example, ask whether the presumed increase in public transportation ridership and assumed reduction of vehicle trips will offset these unexamined effects. It is not clear that the state’s Freight Study will consider this issue, or if it will, whether the results will be available before filing of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

I hope for consideration of these issues. Again, they raise serious doubts about the state’s commitment to environmentally responsible transportation planning as manifest in the UR2 RDEIR. While there is no doubt all involved in UR2 have worked long and hard on it, bureaucratic momentum alone should not justify the project.

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons

Urban Ring Submittal by Bob

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On February 9, 2009, I delivered by hand a hard copy of the following to MEPA with regard to the Urban Ring Phase 2.

This blog format does not convert footnotes from word processing programs. I have manually inserted the footnote notations in the text and have retyped them as endnotes placed at the very end of the report.

On February 10, 2009, I sent an electronic version to Mr. Bourre at his listed email.

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

Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
ATTN: MEPA Office, EOEA #12565
Richard Bourre, Assistant Director
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report / Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project

Contents.

1. Introductory.
A. General Concerns.
B. Specific Environmental Defects: Falsehoods and Omissions.
C. I have no intent to ascribe lies to the authors of this report.
D. What I support. Major environmental omissions in Analysis.
E. My background.
(1) Urban Ring.
(2) Railroad and legal experience.
(3) Environmental Experience on the Charles.
(4) Environmental Experience using Zoning and Rent Control.
(5) Environmental Experience Protecting Valuable Trees against the City of Cambridge.
2. General defects which doom the proposed report.
A. Introductory.
B. It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.
(1) Alternatives incorporated in Phase 3.
(2) Initial heavy rail phase in place of bus tunnel.
(3) Light Rail in Allston to support Harvard’s relocated Medical School, etc.
(4) The RDEIR/DEIS violates the terms on which the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005, was based.
C. Environmental Chapter.
3. Terminology tricks used by supporters of the BU Bridge crossing.
4. Environmental Chapter.
A. Overview.
B. Figure 5-1 contains blatant falsehoods.
(1) Introduction.
(2) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
(3) Animal habitat including wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries is falsely identified as in commercial use, industrial use, or transportation use.
(4) A significant portion of the area right at water’s edge east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge is misidentified as transportation use.
(5) On the Boston side, pretty much everything west of the BU Bridge is identified as in transportation use. Much of that identification is false.
(6) The bizarre nature of figure 5-1 may be dramatically recognized by observing the photograph of “sector 6" which is part of Figure 5-4 (sectors 5-8) on page 5-33.
(7) Google maps.
B. Table 5-5.B.
C. Figure 5-2.
D. Section 5.5.2, Air Quality Modeling Analysis.
E. Plants and animal species in habitat.
(1) General.
(2) The Charles River White Geese.
(A) Introduction.
(B) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.
(C) Heartless Animal Abusers sound strikingly like heartless wife abusers.
(D) Wide recognition of value.
(3) Other residents and visitors.
F. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.
G. Wetlands Designation.
H. Estimated Water Resources Impacts by Alternative (acres), Table 5-21, page 5-80.
I. Wetlands Impacts, Table 5-22, page 5-80.
J. Estimated Filled Tideland Impacts by Alternatives (Acres), table 5-23, page 5-81.
K. Environmental Consequences. Analysis on page 5-82.
L. Section 5.15.3.1, affected environment, on page 5-143
M. Table 5-45, Areas of Moderate to Severe Impact in Section B, on page 5-146.
N. Comment from President Obama’s Inaugural Address.
5. Specific structural aspects of the proposal. Chapter 2, locally preferred alternative.
A. Bus proposals.
B. Longwood Medical Area Tunnel.
C. Kenmore (Heavy Rail) v. BU Bridge (Light Rail) Crossing.
(1) General.
(2) Kenmore Crossing.
(3) The BU Bridge crossing.
(4) Comparison of BU Bridge Crossing to Kenmore Crossing:
D. Kenmore Crossing — Initial phase conducted as part of Phase 2.
E. Allston proposal.
Addendum: What to do about the Charles River?
Endnotes [ed: were footnotes in submittal, this format does not permit footnotes]



Sir:

1. Introductory.

A. General Concerns.

My concerns about this report are threefold:

• General defects which doom the proposal.
• Specific environmental defects of the proposal.
• Specific structural aspects of the proposal.

B. Specific Environmental Defects: Falsehoods and Omissions.

My analysis includes objecting to false statements and inexcusable omissions about land use, animal habitat, quality of animal residents and environmental quality on the Charles River in the environmental section. In part, I document my objections on photographic evidence elsewhere in the RDEIR/DEIS. I also cite URL’s for large amounts of evidence on the Internet.

I find these defects not surprising. My decade long experience with the Department of Conservation and Recreation has exposed me to a large variety of techniques of deceit pretty much all of which I simply consider lying. I will hereafter refer to this agency as the DCR regardless of the name it was using at the time. I will not waste your time making a distinction among names.

My analysis includes one key flat out lie, that the DCR would do “no harm” to the Charles River White Geese. The DCR has repeated this lie many times over the past nine years in the DCR’s ongoing fight to destroy the environment of the Charles River, and to obscure its heartless animal abuse.

The obviousness of this flat out lie and the very great frequency of times it has been made reenforces exactly the value and importance of the Charles River White Geese. This is in aposition to that other status repeatedly proclaimed by the DCR.

A person continues in management capacity who has repeatedly promised “to do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese and who has starved them, confined them to a tiny part of their mile long habitat and then destroyed almost all the vegetation in the ghetto to which he has confined them. This person’s continued presence clearly demonstrates the moral, intellectual and environmental depravity of the DCR.

These defects in the package are consistent with the pattern of DCR falsehoods.

C. I have no intent to ascribe lies to the authors of this report.

Please note that, while repeatedly objecting to lies, I, in no way, ascribe the falsehoods to the team managing the Urban Ring package.

The original manager for the MBTA is a good friend.

I have no reason to have negative personal thoughts about the current Urban Ring team either.

D. What I support. Major environmental omissions in Analysis.

I initially proposed the Kenmore (Heavy Rail) crossing for the Urban Ring subway in 1986 about six years before the state started to recognize it as an option. I proposed it because it makes sense from a transportation point of view and corrects the very real environmental defects in the preexisting BU Bridge (light rail) crossing.

I understand the Cambridge-Longwood portion of the proposal and the Allston portion.

The busway proposals could very likely make sense outside this core subway and Allston area, either solely or in a mix with subway construction. The fact that they could make sense outside this area does not mean that the busway proposals should be forced on an area where they quite simply do not make sense.

As part of Phase 2, I support heavy rail subway using the Longwood Medical Area tunnel with direct connection to the Orange Line at Ruggles. I support a longer tunnel in Phase 2 ending at a temporary terminus at Kenmore/Yawkey. The modified tunnel would work well as the beginning part of an Urban Ring heavy rail subway using the Kenmore Charles River crossing. Failure to analyze such a heavy rail use as an alternative to the LMA bus tunnel is a major defect in this proposal report.

As stated in greater detail below, Allston service should be provided with a Green Line, light rail, spur running from the Commonwealth Avenue / BU Bridge intersection through Harvard Allston to the still existing Harvard Square subway tunnel. Connection can be made to Harvard Station by the existing busways. Failure to analyze such a heavy rail use as an alternative to the silly bus spaghetti proposed is a major defect in this proposal.

The Urban Ring project should provide meaningful transportation improvements. Bureaucratic intransigence is no excuse for doing these bizarre bus proposals, things which are downright silly and which include destructive parts of the BU Bridge crossing alternative currently called part of Phase 3.

E. My background.

(1) Urban Ring.

I have worked on the Urban Ring project since the mid 80's. I first proposed the Kenmore crossing six years before it became part of the official analysis.

(2) Railroad and legal experience.

I have two years on the ground railroad experience.

I am a lawyer in civil practice.

(3) Environmental Experience on the Charles.

I am the co-CEO of Friends of the White Geese, a Massachusetts non-profit founded in 2000 to defend the environment and the animals of the Charles River. One of the first acts of Friends of the White Geese was to discredit “Friends of Magazine Beach,” a group with connections to the Cambridge City Manager which had been fighting for environmental destruction in the BU Bridge area.

It was not long after this occurred that the “Charles River Conservancy” announced itself with overlapping membership to the “Friends of Magazine Beach.” This entity, with major developer funding, has proceeded to be involved in very heavy destruction of animal habitat, protective vegetation and the eggs of waterfowl. They have done these things as agent for the DCR.

Friends of the White Geese has been very active in the years since our creation. To date, we have prevented the outright killing of the Charles River White Geese. Killing them was advocated by the local State Representative and the MSPCA in a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle on August 4, 2000[1].

Friends of the White Geese has minimized the effectiveness of many lies which have been put out those who seek to destroy the environment of the Charles River and the many animals living near or visiting the Charles River. The lies include outrageous nonsense about the Charles River White Geese. I will analyze the Charles River White Geese in detail below.

To put it succinctly, unfounded insults have been tossed at these beautiful, valuable creatures by those working to destroy the Charles River’s environment. These insults most effectively demonstrate that heartless animal abusers sound a lot like heartless wife beaters when they are talking about their victims.

The Charles River White Geese are not the only targets of this ongoing campaign of destruction targeted at the animals of the Charles River. They are, however, the most visible and the most beloved.

(4) Environmental Experience using Zoning and Rent Control.

I have major downzoning victories. I have protected key and very visible parts of the environment in the City of Cambridge. Working as legal advisor, strategy advisor, and institutional memory for various groups, I, by vote of the Cambridge City Council, have protected ground level open space, housing and air quality while emphasizing reasonable levels of construction.

One of my victories forced the Inn at Harvard on Harvard University rather than a 72% larger building without surrounding open space and without the beauty of its varied walls. This victory was part of a series of downzonings which provided responsible protections for about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares.

Another victory, using rent control regulations, saved an historical building in a key Harvard Square location from needless destruction by Harvard. Again, the individual who was the most visible enemy in that fight has been active in Cambridge City Manager related initiatives.

Groups similar to the “Charles River Conservancy,” with connections to the Cambridge City Manager, are very active and very destructive in the City of Cambridge. My biggest problem in my environmental activities has been self-proclaimed “activists” with undisclosed ties to the Cambridge City Manager’s people. The self-proclaimed “activists” too often achieve exactly the opposite of what they claim to stand for.

(5) Environmental Experience Protecting Valuable Trees against the City of Cambridge.

On appeal, I obtained a preliminary injunction against Cambridge to prevent the needless destruction of what was one of the city’s best parks, a densely developed park consisting of a grove of about 30 one hundred plus year old trees.

The trial judge found that that park was not a park. The judge allowed major destruction as part of a proposal which promised many saplings in a nearby location. The Cambridge City Manager’s people bragged about something like 50 saplings being planted elsewhere when they destroyed the one hundred plus year old trees.

The saplings have since reached maturity. Almost all of the many saplings, fully grown, have recently been destroyed by the City of Cambridge. Destruction was for the obvious Phase 2 of the project which destroyed the hundred plus year old trees.

A Cambridge City Manager related group fought for the destruction of the hundred plus year old trees. Very recently, people who had been taken in by the City Manager’s friends were shocked when the replacement saplings were destroyed after reaching full growth.

The latest insult is a proposal to deck over the tiny park which has the remnants of those now one hundred thirty plus year old trees so that this undestroyed remnant of the ancient trees become very large potted plants.

The City of Cambridge is one of the principal actors in the ongoing destruction of the Charles River environment.

The key “regulators” are appointees of the environmentally destructive Cambridge City Manager[2].

2. General defects which doom the proposed report.

A. Introductory.

There are four basic defects which doom the proposed report.

• It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.
• It violates the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005.
• The environmental chapter includes clear and key falsehoods.
• The environmental chapter has significant omissions.

Your attention is drawn to the bottom of page 6 of the Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated May 20, 2005. Please note in the SCOPE section the first paragraph under “Project Phasing,” which states the following in sentences 2 and 3:

. . . the Revised DEIR should demonstrate that the implementation of Phase 2 would not adversely affect the implementation of Phase 3. I strongly encourage the MBTA to work towards implementing Phase 1 and to reconsider the phasing of the project to advance certain elements of Phase 3, which is proposed to use dedicated rights-of-way to provide heavy rail, light rail, BRT or some combination of these modes and would engender greater support for the Urban Ring concept as a whole than the implementation of Phase 2, which would rely heavily on buses in mixed traffic.

B. It does not consider all reasonable alternatives.

The submittal fails the most basic of requirements for an Environmental Impact Report by failing to consider having rail possibilities being accomplished in place of bus alternatives incorporated in Phase 2.

(1) Alternatives incorporated in Phase 3.

The submittal fails the most basic of requirements for an Environmental Impact Report by failing to consider having either of the two rail possibilities being accomplished at the same time as Phase 2 in place of bus alternatives incorporated in Phase 2.

The draft report fails to consider going forward with the Heavy Rail (Kenmore Crossing) or Light Rail (BU Bridge Crossing) Subway alternatives instead of going forward with the bus nonsense in those areas. These are simply designated by fiat as being in Phase 3.

(2) Initial heavy rail phase in place of bus tunnel.

As stated in detail below, it would make excellent sense IN PHASE 2 OF THE URBAN RING to use the proposed LMA bus tunnel instead as the initial phase of the heavy rail Kenmore Crossing alternative Urban Ring subway.

The LMA tunnel used as heavy rail could be connected directly to the Orange Line at Ruggles Station and have a temporary terminus at the Kenmore-Yawkey station. The Kenmore-Yawkey station is proposed to be located under Brookline Ave. over the Mass. Pike as part of the Kenmore crossing Urban Ring heavy rail alternative.

This initial phase Urban Ring heavy rail could be operated as a spur off the Orange Line and would provide direct service between Kenmore and the LMA on one end and Downtown Crossing, Tufts Medical Center and North Station, Charlestown and Malden, among other destinations.

This option is not considered in the RDEIR/DEIS. It should be considered in the RDEIR/DEIS.

(3) Light Rail in Allston to support Harvard’s relocated Medical School, etc.

The draft report fails to consider going forward with a Green Line (light rail) spur instead of the bus spaghetti in Allston.

A Green Line Spur would make excellent sense off the Commonwealth Avenue line (B line). Appropriate switches could be placed in the existing tracks in the vicinity of the Commonwealth Avenue - BU Bridge intersection. The spur should then run over the west bound lanes of Commonwealth Avenue and the northern sidewalk, then proceed on air rights above the commuter rail.

Rather than doing the silly turns at the Beacon Yards, the Green Line spur should proceed in a straight line above the Beacon Yards to Harvard’s proposed new boulevard north of Cambridge Street. The slope of the Mass. Pike just south of Cambridge Street is perfect for a raised Green Line to proceed above it.

After crossing Cambridge Street, the spur should promptly go through a portal and be constructed under Harvard’s proposed boulevard to North Harvard Street, and then proceed, underground cut and cover, south of and then west of Harvard Stadium. It should travel under the Charles River and under JFK Park, connecting with the still existing subway tunnel from Harvard Station which ends under the walkway between the Charles Hotel and Harvard’s JFK School of Government.

This tunnel connects directly to the bus tunnel in Harvard Station at Brattle Square.

A single terminal track could end at the bus tunnel, making transfers to bus and Red Line traffic through the existing tunnels.

Storage and layover tracks could be placed west of Harvard Stadium under cut and cover.

A permanent storage facility for Green Line vehicles should be considered for location at the Beacon Yards should the Beacon Yards no longer be needed for railroad use. It would be relatively simple to run a siding off the raised Green Line spur directly to the Beacon Yards.

(4) The RDEIR/DEIS violates the terms on which the secretary’s order of May 20, 2005, was based.

The secretary specifically required that Phase 2 not interfere with or predetermine Phase 3 construction.

The construction in Cambridge and over the Charles River resolves the crucial decision of Phase 3 in favor of the alternative which, from a transportation and environmental point of view, is the inferior of the two alternative Charles River crossings.

The proposal puts the Commonwealth in a position where the Commonwealth cannot go forward with the Kenmore (heavy rail) crossing and must go forward with the BU Bridge (light rail) crossing. Furthermore, the proposal accomplishes significant parts of the environmental damage associated with the BU Bridge crossing, which damage is part of the reasons for which the BU Bridge (light rail) crossing should be rejected[3].

C. Environmental Chapter.

Please see below.

3. Terminology tricks used by supporters of the BU Bridge crossing.

One of the many techniques of lying is games with terminology.

An initial objection must be made to the tactics of certain people who support the inferior BU Bridge (light rail) crossing.

One reason I reject light rail (BU Bridge crossing, Green Line technology) is because the purpose of the Urban Ring, as long as I have worked on it, has been to provide an alternative to taking the subways downtown. Light rail simply will not get people off the subways. It cannot compete because it is not fast enough.

There are other, environmental and structural, reasons to reject the light rail (BU Bridge crossing) subway alternative in favor of the heavy rail (Kenmore crossing). See below.

Supporters of the light rail BU Bridge subway option use terminology games to confuse well meaning individuals. The repeated use of the term “light rail” by BU Bridge crossing advocates to describe both subway alternatives confuses good people and creates the apparently deliberate effect of having people who would support heavy rail (Kenmore crossing) use the words “light rail” not realizing they are being had.

Such tactics are not acceptable, but should be recognized when reviewing comments. A lot of people have been fooled by this con game and use the term “light rail” to support the heavy rail Kenmore crossing or simply to support subway construction in general.

“Light rail” is street cars. Street cars are not an acceptable alternative. Street cars simply would not divert enough people from the central subway. Most people do not even think of street cars when thinking of subway, but individuals with unidentified agendas are fighting for street cars and doing their best to confuse people.

This lying by word games should not be rewarded.

4. Environmental Chapter.

A. Overview.

The chapter has major omission of analysis of animal habitat and includes information which is demonstrably false.

The cause could be falsehoods originating in the DCR which is aggressively destroying the natural environment of the Charles River.

B. Figure 5-1 contains blatant falsehoods.

(1) Introduction.

Figure 5-1 lists supposed uses on the Charles River which are flatly and simply false. The area which is falsified is exactly the area most subject to irresponsible environmental destruction. These false statements extend to the related text as well.

I find it no coincidence that the DCR and Cambridge have for the better part of a decade now been working to destroy the environment in the area of Cambridge falsified on this figure, that area within a half mile east and west of the BU Bridge. Similarly, there are clear falsehoods in the figure with regard to areas west of the BU Bridge in Boston.

The environmental destructiveness of these two entities is by no means final. Temporary success of irresponsible behavior should not be confused with permanent disruption. In particular, the Cambridge City Manager could be on the way out, by order of court in a civil rights case with Cambridge as the defendant. Additionally, all nine Cambridge City Councilors claim to be pro-environment (and pro-civil rights).

(2) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.

To make it worse, the environmental destructiveness in the BU Bridge area has been prominently supported by the most basic of lies.

Starting in spring 2000 when the public started objecting to their attacks on the Charles River White Geese, DCR representatives repeatedly lied to many people concerned about the future of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The DCR representatives repeatedly denied any intent to harm the Charles River White Geese.

We had the plans. We knew these claims were lies. The DCR kept repeating the lies.

Even after they started starving the Charles River White Geese, DCR representatives repeated the lie that they had no intent to harm. The most visible of the liars, Richard Corsi, has justified the denial of intent to harm by claiming that starving them is not harming them. Corsi recently bragged in a public meeting that the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which replaced wetlands and animal habitat at Magazine Beach was keeping the Charles River White Geese from their food.

The Boston Sunday Globe printed a report on the attacks in early October 2004 which quoted this lie of Corsi’s right next to a photo of these hungry geese looking for their food at Magazine Beach but overwhelmed by construction equipment destroying their access.

The continued employment of Richard Corsi by the DCR shows very prominently the DCR’s contempt for the truth and for the environment.

(3) Animal habitat including wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries is falsely identified as in commercial use, industrial use, or transportation use.

According to Figure 5-1, the most delicate areas near the BU Bridge on the Charles River in Cambridge are in commercial use. These are animal habitat. They are wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries.

Full time users include the 25 year resident Charles River White Geese and permanent resident Pekin Ducks. Visitors include Canada Geese, Red-Tailed Hawks, Mallard Ducks, and many gulls. Rabbits have been seen in residence. Uses vary from open fields to temporary bizarre designer bushes which should be removed and should never have been introduced.

Many web sources are specified below with photographs and analysis truthfully identifying uses in this area.

Figure 5-1 misidentifies at least half of Magazine Beach to the west of the BU Bridge in Cambridge as commercial use.
An excellent photo of the DCR destroying wetlands abutting the Charles River in this area appeared in the Boston Globe, October 17, 2004 under the title “Battle of White Goose Beach.” There is a line in the middle of the commercial area west of the BU Bridge. That line could be the division between the playing fields / animal habitat and the MWRA plant which itself is covered with grass.

Figure 5-1 misidentifies the nesting area of the Charles River White geese, immediately to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, once again as commercial use.

A very recent photograph of this area appeared in the Boston Globe on September 14, 2008, in an article entitled “But who speaks for the Geese?” available on line at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/14/but_who_speaks_for_the_geese/. This photo gives a closeup on an Emden gander with a number of other geese behind him. Behind them are some of the little vegetation which has not yet been destroyed by the DCR between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse in the ongoing destruction since 2004.

In October 1999, Boston University acting for the DCR destroyed this area to plant grass. They put in a silly graveled walk. They called this a park. It was almost totally unused except by the animals whose homes were destroyed trying to remake their lives. The supposed pathway proceeded to wash into the Charles. Nature healed as many wounds as possible and the place grew back.

The DCR’s supposed Charles River Master Plan called for Magazine Beach to be a meadow to the river. There is a chance they may have changed their supposed Master Plan after the fact.

In September 2004, the DCR destroyed the wetlands at Magazine Beach next to the Charles River. They destroyed the protective vegetation lining the Charles River. They turned this area into a mudpit preventing access to the grass needed by the Charles River White Geese.

Simultaneously with this action, the City of Cambridge completed a sewer project east of the BU Bridge across from the Hyatt Hotel. They walled off that grass with plastic walls for no explained reason.

SIMULTANEOUSLY the DCR and its ally destroyed all the food of the Charles River White Geese by blocking their access and forced them to live only in a ghetto without eatable grass, the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.

Since 2004, the DCR has simply destroyed the ground vegetation, destroying almost all of it between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, they dug it up and turned a vibrant ecosystem into bare land. Poisoning is likely since nothing has grown back where they have done their destruction.

In 2001-2004, there were several large scale, clearly professional instances of nest destruction with nesting geese “disappearing.” They were rather clearly killed and moved elsewhere for defending their nests, their eggs and their tiny babies.

In 2001, an individual obviously copycatting the DCR, killed many white geese on their nests. He then killed Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle.

The assassination of the leader of the gaggle led the 11 pm news on Channel 4. Channel 4 played the retrieval of his corpse from the river as the very first item on the news.

The Cambridge Chronicle dominated its front page with their report of our memorial service for Bumpy.

The DCR and Cambridge egged on the killer with the silence of consent in spite of repeated demands from the public for condemnation of the goose killings, stating that this nut was a threat to humans as well as to animals.

That fall, the animal killer graduated to rape and murder of a young woman. His group raped her where he had been beating to death nesting geese. His group murdered her on the Grand Junction railroad bridge.

The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing her rape and murder. The Cambridge City Council, after egging on her murderer with their silence, DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where she was victimized. The only one who mentioned the location, Councilor Henrietta Davis, promptly swallowed her words and looked around the room in a guilty manner.

Current supposed plans would destroy what little ground vegetation the DCR has not destroyed. A significant portion of the destruction is clearly unnecessary.

The DCR plans to reinstate the 1999 park construction which failed so miserably as opposed to the animal habitat which is vibrant except when attacked by the DCR.

Figure 5-1 misidentifies areas of woody perennials, trees abutting the Charles River to the east of the BU Bridge and on both sides of the Grand Junction railroad between the Charles River and Memorial Drive. All these areas are identified as commercial use.

Figure 5-1 misidentifies a heavily wooded area between the Grand Junction and the BU Boathouse as industrial use. All the ground vegetation in this area has been destroyed by the DCR.

The BU Boathouse could be properly identified as a water related use.

(4) A significant portion of the area right at water’s edge east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge is misidentified as transportation use.

It should properly be identified as open space or animal habitat.

(5) On the Boston side, pretty much everything west of the BU Bridge is identified as in transportation use. Much of that identification is false.

There is a large meadow immediately west of the BU Bridge which is also bounded by the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction and Soldier’s Field Road. All of the waterfront between the BU Bridge and the River Street Bridge is animal habitat in a slope at and just above the water level and is developed parkland above this slope. The DCR is involved in ongoing attempts to destroy all animal life on the Charles River. There is an ongoing project next to the BU Bridge attacking wildlife and protective natural vegetation.

All these areas are falsely identified as in transportation use.

The meadow on the Boston side is proposed for the highway connecting the Grand Junction bridge and University Road. The Cambridge side would be destroyed for a lot of stuff identified and not identified. Staging and subordinate highways under various misleading names are most likely.

(6) The bizarre nature of figure 5-1 may be dramatically recognized by observing the photograph of “sector 6" which is part of Figure 5-4 (sectors 5-8) on page 5-33.

The BU Bridge crosses the river in the middle of the photograph. The heavily treed areas above (east) and below (west) on the left (Cambridge) side are identified in Figure 5-1 as industrial use. The meadow which is misidentified as transportation use is the green patch just below (west) of the right (south) end of the BU Bridge. All those trees to the left (north) of the meadow are called transportation use.

The sector 7 photograph on the same page is a much inferior view but it still shows a significant number of trees on the upper (south) side of the Charles River to the right (west) of the BU Bridge.

(7) Google maps.

The falsity of these statements in the document may be confirmed at maps.google.com, using the satellite view. These are large areas.

B. Table 5-5.B.

Table 5-5.B identifies uses near the BU Bridge as follows: Transportation 10.1%, residential, 35.5%, Recreational 0.0%, commercial 17.3%, industrial 0.0%, urban open space 12.7%, water 11.4%. This would rather clearly be based on the FALSE information discussed immediately above.

At absolute minimum, the recreational use is clearly erroneous. Designations of Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, the meadow east of the BU Bridge is almost certainly erroneous, similarly the woods bordering it and the woods between the Grand Junction Railroad and the BU Boathouse. Similarly, a very major part of Magazine Beach is misidentified.

As well, the meadow west of the BU Bridge and bounded also by Commonwealth Avenue, the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction, and Soldier’s Field Road is misidentified as transportation use. Eyeballing the meadow west of the BU Bridge on Google Maps, it would appear to be about 150 to 200 feet square. This is not a small area of meadow, especially in the middle of a city.

Based on these problems, Table 5-6 on page 5-13, Summary of Anticipated ROW Impacts along the Urban Ring Project Corridor Based on Current Land Uses, seems highly suspect both for Cambridge and Boston. Notwithstanding this, the categories seem to be stacked against meaningful communication when animal habitat and open space is being destroyed.

C. Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2 on page 5-25 could possibly be correct but the results taken in real life demonstrate severe problems in the criteria.

I am looking at the area to the east of the water front animal habitat area being destroyed by the use of the Grand Junction Bridge. This area includes four red colored areas, two between Memorial Drive and Vassar Street, two north of Vassar Street. These four areas are MIT dorms / housing and include the school’s athletic fields. According to the explanation for the colors, these four areas satisfy both of the Social Justice criteria being evaluated. One of these areas could include a homeless shelter which is in a building rented from MIT and subject to conversion to MIT purposes at the end of the rental period.

A similar evaluation applies to much of the Boston University campus. The sea of red to the west of Kenmore Square has very little ownership other than by Boston University. The coloring immediately changes when leaving BU owned areas.

Each of the MIT and BU areas are very much exclusively university housing or other university facilities, although there are some business uses in very limited areas.

Both areas include hotels.

D. Section 5.5.2, Air Quality Modeling Analysis.

Section 5.5.2 is striking in its total lack of any information for the BU Bridge area.

E. Plants and animal species in habitat.

(1) General.

Section 5.7 purports to refer to plant and animal species in habitats. Section 5.7.2 concerns the BU Bridge area. Not mentioned is the antipathy of the DCR to animals living or visiting their property and the ongoing efforts by the DCR to destroy such life by whatever technique is open to it.

Nonetheless, the BU bridge area, IN SPITE OF GROSS MISBEHAVIOR by the DCR and its accomplices contains a vibrant population of living animals.

It very clearly is a waterfowl refuge. Failure to include it as such violates section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 codified 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 and implemented through Final Rule at 23 CFR 774, with a new rule March 2008 23 CRF 774.

Similarly, the riverbank on the south side of the Charles River west of the Grand Junction bridge is also a waterfowl refuge.

(2) The Charles River White Geese.

(A) Introduction.

Most valuable and very popular are the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.

The gaggle consists mostly of Emden Geese and White China Geese with a limited population of Toulouse Geese / Toulouse descendants. Some of the White China descendants bear vestigial Brown China markings.

For most of the past 30 years, they have lived in a habitat of about a mile east and west on the north side of the Charles River centering on the BU Bridge. Within that habitat, they did a minimigration, living in other parts of the habitat for 9 months of the year, and returning to their nesting area in the spring for mating and rearing of the young. The Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese is the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side.

They are a unique population. They are a tourist attraction which surprises people who encounter them. People go out of their way to visit them from various Boston suburbs. They are popular with local commuters who enjoy their beauty. If properly publicized they would be an even more valuable part of the Charles River world.

These are free animals who have survived on their own with very little human assistance for nearly 30 years until Cambridge and the DCR started their ongoing attempts to destroy them.

The uniqueness of a free gaggle of waterfowl which has lived in this wild area surrounded by civilization for nearly three decades and which has maintained a continuity of community cannot be understated.

(B) “We will do no harm” to the Charles River White Geese.

The DCR has noted the importance of the Charles River White Geese by the DCR’s repeated and flat out lies over the past ten years that the DCR had no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. The DCR defines starving the Charles River White Geese as not harming them. The DCR defines as taking the most environmentally destructive possible alternatives in various projects as not harming them.

(C) Heartless Animal Abusers sound strikingly like heartless wife abusers.

The DCR has irresponsibly confined the Charles River White Geese to the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side, directly impacted by Grand Junction plans. The statement that these proposals (page 5-67, section 5.7.2, Environment Consequences) “would not result in adverse impacts” is a knowing lie. The characterization of this important gaggle as “low value” is similarly a knowing lie.

(D) Wide recognition of value.

The beauty of these excellent and unique animals may be viewed at the follow sites. Their importance, their very presence, and the presence of many other animals, may be recognized through the fact that this list includes but a portion of the references obtained through Google. I offer this information and these citations in response to the continued lies coming out of the DCR:

• The Charles River White Geese website: http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org.
• The Charles River White Geese blog: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com.
• Historic Pages Photo Appreciation, proving historical analysis dating back to 1989: http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.
• Della Huff’s Show on goslings: http://www.pbase.com/dellybean/goslings
• Roy Bercaw: Visit to the Charles River White Geese, June 16, 2007: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/charles-river-white-geese-June-16-2007.html.
• Roy Bercaw, A day at the Goose Meadow, April 2000 (note date in framing portion differs from the date in the video): http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html
• Cambridge Candle, January-February 1999: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html
• Zip Docs 02139, documentary about Charles River White Geese: http://cctvcambridge.org/node/2037
• MOVIE: “White Geese” by Akai Hoto, on deviantART: http://akaihato.deviantart.com/art/MOVIE-quot-White-Geese-quot-25167453
• Pictures taken along the Charles, 2004.07.16: http://www.aq.org/js/gallery/2004.07.16-charles/
• Freeman A. Report: 07/22/01, Charles River Wildlife Killings, The Charles River White Geese: http://www.freemanz.com/fzdc/political/01_07_22/index.htm
• Radio Boston, The Charles River (photos of the White Geese): http://www.flickr.com/groups/782470@N21/pool/with/2566129288/
• Charles River White Geese, YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM
• Photos of the Charles River White Geese, Linden Tea: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linden_tea/2196474800/
• iNaturalist.org report, observations by Tueda: http://inaturalist.org/observations/185
• White Geese video by Amy Rothwell: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6983789396318540077
• Fun on Foot in America’s Cities by Warwick Ford, Nola Ford: The Cambridge White Geese greet visitors: http://books.google.com/books?id=gAmIj4gh_7oC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22Charles+River%22+and+%22White+Geese%22&source=bl&ots=qUMjZm1ZPN&sig=2IRf_Rnz7cnP1xX4IkEB31x9wr8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

I will post this letter at charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com to simplify checking of these citations.

The Grand Junction rail and bridge use would be devastating to this valuable and threatened population of animals.

(3) Other residents and visitors.

The meadow to which the DCR in its extreme misbehavior has confined the Charles River White Geese also has included hawks, sea gulls, Canadas and various types of ducks. It is a haven for migratory waterfowl in spite of nearly ten years of DCR misbehavior.

Rabbits and other rodents are commonly visible.

F. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.

This ongoing pattern of lying would appear to come from the severe lack of fitness of key people in the DCR for their jobs. The mentality of these individuals is very clearly parks surrounded by cities. They rather clearly attack and destroy living creatures in their jurisdiction under whatever guise presents itself.

These individuals have no use for any areas which are wild as opposed to urban. They are aggressively destroying the wild areas on the Charles River because the wild areas on the Charles River do not fit their preconceived and incompetent ideas.

These individuals are very simply and aggressively unfit to manage environmentally sensitive environments because their reflexes are the reflexes of the 19th century. Their agents brag of support for 19th Century standards. 19th Century standards in turn caused so much environmental destruction. 19th Century standards continue to destroy our world because incompetents such as the DCR managers are so actively implementing the 19th Century equivalent of environmental management.

The DCR has a goal of and actively works for the driving away or killing water fowl in the water habitats of and near the Charles River controlled by the DCR. This is in sharp contrast to responsible environmentalists who object to the ongoing destruction of areas used by and needed for the survival of migrating waterfowl.

This is exactly the opposite of the goals of these reviews which are to safeguard wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries.

The key DCR people are unfit for their jobs.

G. Wetlands Designation.

On Page 5-73, the southern portion of the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, immediately east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side, is specifically protected as wetlands.

H. Estimated Water Resources Impacts by Alternative (acres), Table 5-21, page 5-80.

This shows 0.300 acres impacted for segment B, sector 6. This should include that portion of the Charles River bounded by the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, by the BU Bridge, and by animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for the approval of this approval. The text on page 5-82 seems to indicate impact.

I. Wetlands Impacts, Table 5-22, page 5-80.

This shows 0.27 acres impacted for segment B, sector 6. This should include the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for this approval.

The text at the bottom of page 5-82 seems to indicate otherwise.

I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.

J. Estimated Filled Tideland Impacts by Alternatives (Acres), table 5-23, page 5-81.

0.39 acres is listed as impacted for segment B, sector 6. I presume this is the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge, the area to which the DCR has consigned the resident waterfowl by its misbehavior, misbehavior which can and should be reversed as a condition for the approval of this approval. The text on page 5-82 seems to downplay impact. Impact should not be downplayed.

I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.

K. Environmental Consequences. Analysis on page 5-82.

Does not include discussion of the likely major impact on the animal habitat / waterfowl refuge to the east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. This directly abuts the Grand Junction Railroad and Bridge. “Incidental” impact is likely to be major.

I would suggest that the conditions listed in the supplement to this report be made conditions for approval if it is approved and I do not think it should be approved.

L. Section 5.15.3.1, affected environment, on page 5-143

This section mentions Charles River Reservation but makes no mention of water fowl habitat / refuge.

On the Boston side, this section mentions the Charles River Esplanade on the east. It makes no mention of the meadow bounded by the BU Bridge, the Mass. Pike, the Grand Junction Railroad and Soldiers Field Road through which would pass the connector from the highway proposed for the Grand Junction bridge to the underpass under the BU Bridge.

M. Table 5-45, Areas of Moderate to Severe Impact in Section B, on page 5-146.

Sector 6 mentions modifications to Memorial Drive and Grand Junction railroad bridge.

There is no mention whatsoever of the water fowl habit on either side, between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse and on the south bank of the Charles west of the BU Bridge.

The project would be devastating to Charles River Wild Geese and to the many other geese, ducks and other water birds which use this area as a refuge.

N. Comment from President Obama’s Inaugural Address.

The following comment stood out to me in our president’s inaugural address.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

I have given a very small fraction of the wide variety of techniques of deceit to which we have been exposed by the DCR, Cambridge and their friends since the attacks on the Charles River started in October 1999.

In the middle of the environmental destruction the DCR and Cambridge responded to the killing of Nesting Geese and of the leader of the gaggle with a silence of support.

Their follower reached a climax with the rape and murder of a young woman in the Nesting Area and on the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

What is the difference between flat out silencing dissent and creating a company union organization funded by developer dollars which runs around claiming to be defending the Charles River while aggressively destroying it? This creates a wall for those who want to defend the Charles by the creation of a group which sounds great and destroys positive attempts to meaningfully defend the Charles River, as well as destroys the environment of the Charles River.

This is the standard function of a Company Union.

This is the so-called Charles River Conservancy, an entity which has acted as the agent of the DCR in destroying eggs of waterfowl and protective vegetation for more than five years now. In 2005, the Charles River Conservancy conducted a photo opportunity at Magazine Beach claiming that the 2004 destruction of the wetlands and food access made swimming easier. This was the creation of the bizarre wall of INTRODUCED vegetation BLOCKING OFF Magazine Beach from the Charles River and starving the White Geese.

The DCR has commonly worked through agents and then denied the actions of its agents as its actions. This is one of the many techniques of lying.

In that first attack on the environment of the Charles River in October 1999, the DCR worked through Boston University. Boston University started the destruction BEFORE a hearing scheduled on the matter in front of the Cambridge Conservation Commission, and completed the destruction before they were legally allowed to start any destruction.

Boston University then denied doing the destruction until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission six months later. Boston University then blamed the denials on the president’s secretary and starting bragging about the environmental destruction.

I have since objected to the highest levels of the DCR about Charles River Conservancy destructiveness ACTING AS AGENT for the DCR, poisoning waterfowl eggs, destroying protective ground vegetation. The response at a public meeting conducted in the boathouse just west of the Longfellow Bridge in Boston amounted to:

That is the Charles River Conservancy, what are we supposed to do?

At a recent meeting of a body appointed by the Cambridge City Manager, the DCR specifically admitted and accepted responsibility for environmental destructiveness by the Charles River Conservancy using politically correct words.

A flat out lie of lack of responsibility in a public meeting translates into reality when talking to political appointees appointed by a fellow destroyer.

In my analysis, I do my best to ignore fake distinctions pushed by the DCR. Lies are lies are lies. And claiming there is a distinction among the many skillful lying techniques is one of too many flat out lies.

It would be nice if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a government in reality which matches our government’s lovely claims of openness and of environmental concern.

5. Specific structural aspects of the proposal. Chapter 2, locally preferred alternative.

A. Bus proposals.

As stated above, it is entirely possible that the bus proposal makes sense outside the Cambridge to LMA and Allston portions of the proposal, with or without later subway construction. Bus routing in Cambridge to LMA and Allston portions is quite silly.

First of all, overlapping bus routes (page 2-3) are nothing but overlapping bus routes. They are not a rapid transit system.

B. Longwood Medical Area Tunnel.

The Fenway/LMA bus tunnel is an expenditure of $1.7 billion dollars for a bus tunnel that contains one bus stop? Bizarre, especially since the buses would leave the tunnel and drive in city rush hour traffic and be subject to the normal results. Equally bizarre in that there are now three alternatives for the northern portion of the tunnel.

The tunnel connecting to a Yawkey - Kenmore station under Brookline Avenue over the Mass. Pike as part of the Kenmore (heavy rail) subway crossing makes excellent sense in a proposal which is implementing heavy rail. It should be constructed connecting directly to Ruggles and to the Kenmore - Yawkey station as the first phase of an ultimate Urban Ring subway line. It should be constructed as a spur off the Orange Line. That would be the first portion of a heavy rail Urban Ring line. As part of phase 2, it would make excellent sense.

Even without the ultimate Urban Ring line extension, such a first subway stage could handle an Orange Line alternate route from Oak Grove to Ruggles to Kenmore. This would drastically increase transportation possibilities for LMA and Kenmore travelers, including Fenway Park.

At the Ruggles end, the train tunnel could be an alternate route for Orange Line trains. At the Kenmore-Yawkey end, the trains could operate in the same manner as the existing Alewife Station on the Red Line: two trains could stand at the Kenmore-Yawkey stop at a time, picking up passengers, with a switch just before arriving at the Kenmore — Yawkey stop.

Running trains through to a temporary terminus at Kenmore — Yawkey would eliminate the need for a rather duplicative stop next to the Riverside line at Park Drive, the current Fenway Park station, proposed as part of the LMA tunnel.

This could be phase 1 of full implementation of Urban Ring heavy rail, the Kenmore crossing.

Depending on the direction of the connection at Ruggles, people traveling traveling to or from Kenmore or the Longwood Medical Area could have one stop travel to any point on the existing Orange Line even without full implementation of the Urban Ring.

C. Kenmore (Heavy Rail) v. BU Bridge (Light Rail) Crossing.

(1) General.

I have worked on the Urban Ring since about 1985 because it is an excellent concept. The idea is to take pressure off the increasingly overloaded central subway system in Boston. The idea is to create a new subway line connecting the existing spokes so that people do not have to go into Downtown Boston to go from one outer point to another outer point.

There are two possible crossings of the Charles River, the Kenmore Crossing (which I first suggested in 1986), and the BU Bridge crossing. I suggested the Kenmore Crossing because the BU Bridge crossing is so destructive to the environment of the Charles River, and because of that silly stop in Cambridgeport, the Putnam Avenue/Fort Washington stop. As it has developed, details have come out under which the Kenmore Crossing is increasingly more superior. So naturally, the dirty tricks have started.

The Urban Ring subway would run from Charlestown / Somerville to Roxbury. There are variations as to how far it would go in either direction.

The environmental problem is at the Charles River.

The two possible Urban Ring Charles River crossings each connect proposed stations in Cambridge and in the Longwood Medical Area. The Cambridge station which is not controversial would be at Massachusetts Avenue where Massachusetts Avenue crosses what is now the Grand Junction railroad track. This track is located between Albany and Vassar Streets, near the heart of the MIT Campus. The Longwood stop seems to be getting firm at Avenue Louis Pasteur and Longwood Avenue.

(2) Kenmore Crossing.

The Kenmore Crossing would proceed under the Grand Junction tracks and then turn south under the MIT playing fields and under the Charles River to Kenmore Square. It would have a station under Brookline Avenue over the Massachusetts Turnpike. At that point, it would connect to the three Green Line branches going to Brookline, Newton, and Allston, and to the Commuter Rail coming in from Framingham and Worcester. It would provide a covered connection between the Commuter Rail Yawkey Station and the existing Kenmore Station. This station would provide excellent connection to Fenway Park. It would be heavy rail, Orange Line technology, which would allow the trains to run as alternate service / extensions on the existing Orange Line as well.

(3) The BU Bridge crossing.

The BU Bridge Crossing would be light rail, streetcars. It would have two additional stops. It would stop in Cambridge at the end of Putnam Avenue where it hits the railroad tracks near Fort Washington Park. It would then, by the original plans, proceed under the Charles River. This passage would cause severe damage to the environmentally sensitive area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse where the Charles River White Geese and other animals live whereas the Kenmore crossing is environmentally neutral.

Directly against the Massachusetts Turnpike there would be a stop at Mountfort and St. Mary’s. This is one block from the heart of the BU Campus, Morse Chapel. At this point, the BU Bridge crossing would connect to the Commonwealth Avenue (B) branch of the Green Line and connect to the Framingham-Worcester line. Connection to the Commonwealth Avenue line would be by a tunnel under St. Mary’s Street to the southern sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue. Commuters would then have to cross Commonwealth Avenue traffic exposed to the weather to get to one of the three Green Line branches.

Commuter Rail would not have direct connection to the other two Green Line branches, and would overload the Commonwealth Avenue line during morning rush hour. The original plans called for Yawkey Station to be moved away from Fenway Park so that it would be next to Mountfort Station, drastically reducing support for Fenway Park.

The line would proceed to a new station located under Park Drive about two blocks away. The new station would directly connect to the existing Fenway Park station on the Riverside (D) branch on one side and to a new station under Beacon Street on the Cleveland Circle ( C ) branch.

(4) Comparison of BU Bridge Crossing to Kenmore Crossing:

• The connections to the three western Green Line branches would be accomplished by two stations two blocks from each other instead of one station which would also connect to commuter rail,

• Commuter rail transfers would be made drastically inferior,

• Support for Fenway Park would be drastically inferior,

• The purpose of the Urban Ring would be drastically degraded because light rail is incredibly slower than heavy rail, and

• Green Line vehicles would not be able to switch off onto the Orange Line, providing greatly inferior flexibility of the system.

• The clear inferiority of the BU Bridge crossing is itself an environmental defect because that inferiority makes this crossing pretty much impossible to get meaningful riders off the central subway.

• In addition to pushing buses and environmental destruction for an area which should have the heavy rail subway, the existing proposal would make the heavy rail subway impossible in favor of the far inferior light rail subway. This is accomplished by the highway construction proposed for the BU Bridge area.

D. Kenmore Crossing — Initial phase conducted as part of Phase 2.

The proposed phase 2 second stop on the busway at the existing Fenway Park station is duplicative. If the tunnel runs as a heavy rail tunnel to Kenmore/Yawkey, the money could be much better spent on the really valuable Kenmore station as the temporary terminus of the Urban Ring subway.

The proposed portals in the phase 2 proposal are flatly and simply silly.

Please note that building an initial phase of the Urban Ring subway from Ruggles to Kenmore would in no way prevent possible extension of the Urban Ring subway to Dudley or Dorchester.

Just as a connection to Kenmore/LMA can be accomplished by switches west of Ruggles, switches east of Ruggles could connect to a spur / Urban Ring subway to Dudley or Dorchester. The western switch would support traffic to / from Malden, Downtown Crossing going to / from the LMA/Kenmore. The eastern switch would support traffic to / from Forest Hills connecting to / from Dudley or Dorchester. Traffic traveling to / from Dudley or Dorchester to / from the LMA, Kenmore and further Urban Ring points would simply go through both switches.

This bus thing is a very expensive, silly one bus stop bus way.

E. Allston proposal.

The fetish for buses gets carried to a silly extreme in the Allston proposal.

The proposal is silly, especially when compared to the obvious alternative rapid transit service.

Access by Green Line on a spur from the Commonwealth Avenue line at the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue is simple, relatively inexpensive and highly efficient. Connection can be made directly to Harvard Station through the subway tunnel which continues to exist coming out of the busway and running to the wall between Harvard’s JFK School and the Charles Hotel.

The southern/eastern end of the Green Line spur can readily be constructed, first by placing switches on the existing Green Line tracks and extending those spurs over the highway and then over the edge of that bridge. The Green Line spur can be constructed on air rights over the commuter rail south of the Massachusetts Turnpike. The air rights light rail route can readily continue over the Beacon Yard and can easily be run over Cambridge Street to Harvard’s new boulevard where it can proceed to be built cut and cover.

The slope of the Mass. Pike south of Cambridge Street is ideal for running the Green Line spur over it.

The Green Line spur can continue under the new boulevard to North Harvard Street, then go around Harvard Stadium. There would be room west of Harvard Stadium for sidings for layovers. The Green Line spur can continue underground and under the Charles with a very direct route under JFK Park and minimal damage to JFK Park and minimal costs to connect directly to Harvard Station’s Red by way of the existing busway. The busway functions as Silver Line routes. Ready connections can be made to them as well.

Should the Beacon Yards no longer be needed for freight use, the Beacon Yards could readily be converted to Green Line storage. Access would be easy by a spur run off the overhead Green Line spur.

Once again, failure to propose and study this obvious Green Line spur as an alternative to the bus nonsense in Allston is an environment defect because the spur would be so clearly superior to the bus nonsense and could get people out of cars.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille

cc:

Ned Codd
Director of Program Development
Exec. Office of Transportation and Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116

Governor Deval Patrick
Massachusetts State House
Room 360
Boston, MA 02133

Cambridge City Council
c/o City Clerk, City Hall
795 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139

Addendum: What to do about the Charles River?

The problem on the Charles River is a subset of man’s destruction of our world, but with the added hypocrisy of holier than thou nonsense in Cambridge and a wide variety of lying from the state bureaucracy.

Cambridge and the state bureaucrats are aggressive implementors of the failed and very destructive policies of the 19th Century, but they are implementing those policies in the 21st Century, destroying what little of nature has not been destroyed to date in the areas under their control.

Cambridge has been on the receiving end of a Civil Rights suit and a very strong jury verdict which is now under review by the judge. The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of a black, woman Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. This case could result in very major sanctions. The jury called for $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages. That case, at least in theory, could clean up Cambridge.

The state bureaucrats and their lies and their accomplices are the more immediate problem.

Key people in the DCR are quite simply unfit for their positions because of their contempt for the environment which is their trust. The most visible problem, Richard (Frederick?) Corsi, very clearly has demonstrated lack of fitness for his office, combining environmentally vile behavior, heartless animal abuse, and rather proud and public lying. To him, at minimum, should be joined the current DCR commissioner and Julia O’Brian, the woman who was head of planning for the then Metropolitan District Commission at the beginning of this continuing outrage.

I propose:

1. Chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else.

2. Return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap.

3. Kill the new, expensive drainage system at Magazine Beach. Green maintenance does not require this expenditure.

4. Let the Charles River White Geese return to Magazine Beach, their home of 25 years.

5. Let them return to their nesting area, the location of the current proposal for environmental destruction, as they deem necessary.

6. Put the staging for the BU Bridge repair project where it was for the BU Bridge sidewalk project, a location which is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.

7. To the extent these requirements delay the BU Bridge repair project, so be it. The DCR has scheduled things for maximum destruction. Minor delays for responsible behavior comport to the delays the DCR has already incurred in the area attempting to introduce vegetation at Magazine Beach which is unfit for planting on the Charles River. It should be noted that former Transportation Secretary Frederick Salvucci has publicly advocated delay of the BU Bridge repair project to coordinate it with needed work on the Boston side.

8. Prohibit the continuation of destruction of protective vegetation lining the Charles River. Require twice annual chopping to one foot of the bizarre designer vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach, or, better yet, require its removal. Prohibit the continued poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl.

9. Change the drainage to the Cambridge side in the BU Bridge repair project so that the draining goes into the existing Memorial Drive drainage. The complicated system IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ANIMAL HABITAT is just another technique to destroy the natural environment for which the DCR has such great contempt. Just another piece of bad faith.

10. Prohibit further work of any nature impacting the Charles River by the so-called Charles River Conservancy.

11. End the plans to destroy more than 449 to 660 healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.

12. End the plans to destroy all the cherry trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge.

13. Fire the destructive managers at the DCR.

The environmental destructiveness of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project on the Charles River is most definitely NOT free standing but fits in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR and Cambridge. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.

Endnotes [ed: were footnotes in submittal, this format does not permit footnotes]

1. They used the phrase "humane treatment." When I sarcastically proposed "humane treatment" for the rep in a flier, he went on local cable accusing me of proposing that he be assassinated. Another technique of lying.

2. The level of control exercised by the Cambridge City Manager over his appointees is demonstrated by the ongoing case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court Case MICV2001-02737. In this Civil Rights action, the plaintiff is a black Cape Verdean woman who was a department head in the City of Cambridge.

The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed her life (fired her) in retaliation for her filing a Civil Rights complaint. The jury awarded $1.1 million plus real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.

The judge is considering the verdict. It will be interesting to see if she orders the city manager fired and stripped of his pension. I am familiar with the docket and press reports of the case. The papers are on the judge's desk. The docket spells out a previous motion for judment by the judge which was rejected by the previous judge in the case.

The Cambridge City Manager has been quoted in the press as saying that the judge erred by not telling the jury that the plaintiff's Civil Rights complaint was rejected by the prior jury. There is no way that a bad civil rights complaint gives the Cambridge City Manager the right to destroy an employee's life in retaliation.

3. The use of the term "light rails" for subway proposals is very visible among people who have been active in the Cambridge City Manager's company union organizations in Cambridge. These "activists" seem to have very major positioning in the local chapter of at least one supposedly national environmental organization.

Temporary Internet Change, Urban Ring

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following was received on February 9, 2009 from the Urban Ring consultants:

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

Due to a server problem with the Urban Ring website, the RDEIR/DEIS is being
temporarily hosted on the Livable Streets website at
. EOT expresses its thanks
to Livable Streets for its commitment to public involvement on this project.

In addition, the document continues to be available in hard copy at public
libraries throughout the project corridor. The locations of these libraries and
information on how to submit comments on the project are still available on the
Urban Ring project website at www.theurbanring.com
.

We apologize for any confusion and inconvenience caused by this significant
computer problem, and we wanted to bring this to your attention as soon as
possible because the comment period closes tomorrow, February 10. If you have
any questions, you may contact me or Regan Checchio at 617-357-5772 x14 or
rchecchio@reginavilla.com.

Thank you.

Ned Codd

Urban Ring, Minutes January 6, 2009 Urban Ring Public Meeting Posted, Instructions for Submitting Comments

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Archie Mazmanian has been kind enough to pass on the URL for the minutes of the January 6, 2009, Urban Ring Public Meeting.

He has been frustrated with apparent delays in their being posted.

The minutes may be found at: https://www.commentmgr.com/projects/1169/docs/transcript%20final%202.pdf.

Please do not forget that comments on the urban ring environmental submission are due to the state next week. Two dates have been publicized. One was February 9, 2009. The Urban Ring website says February 10, 2009.

Copying the information from the home page, www.theurbanring.com, with edits for simplification:

***********

The Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/DEIS) is now available. Please click here [Ed. you need the home page.] to download a copy of the document.

Print Copies of the RDEIR/DEIS can be found at the following libraries (click on each location to view directions):

. . . .


Comments on the document must be submitted in writing (oral comments made at the public hearing will not be recognized by the MEPA office). A 60-day comment period has been established. Comments must be received no later than February 10, 2009. Written comments must be addressed to:


Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office, EOEA #12565
Richard Bourre, Assistant Director
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
617-626-1181 (fax; please follow up with a print copy of the fax)
Email [ed., link: Richard.Bourre@state.ma.us]

Public comments on the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS must be made to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, through the Commonwealth's Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process. The federal government conducts its own review of the document to ensure adequacy of the document under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and accepts public comment to the NEPA process in two ways: First, the comments made at the January 6 Public Hearing will be included in a transcript that will be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Second, the Executive Office of Transportation will compile all comment letters submitted to the EOEEA Secretary, along with response to comments, and submit them to FTA after the completion of the comment period (which closes on February 10, 2009).

Commenters may also copy the Project Manager at EOT:

Ned Codd
Director of Program Development
Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
617-973-7473

Praise for yet another con game on the Charles River and Response

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Letter - Self-Praise.
2. Comment from Victory2008 - Animal Abusers abuse Humans.
3. Animal Abusers and Nine Heartless City Councilors.

1. Letter - Self-Praise.

I have sent the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. It follows the usual orgy of praise from the apologists for the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge Chronicle posted it on their website on February 11, at 8:49 am.

TO: Editor, Cambridge Chronicle

RE: Letter: Congratulations on Charles River Zoning Change

Congratulations to the Cambridge City Council for yet another con game on the Charles River.

The supposedly great zoning change looks a lot different if taken in context, especially if you look at reality instead of self praise.

Three years ago, nine city councilors destroyed zoning protections on Memorial Drive across from Magazine Beach. They falsely said they were doing exactly the opposite.

The Planning Board lives in reality. The Planning Board implemented what the City Council voted for, without the lies, in the expansion of the Radisson hotel ON TOP OF Memorial Drive sidewalk.

So now, the city council is bragging about a great achievement. They say they are doing what they said they did three years ago, but allowing the Radisson expansion, and allowing a whole bunch of secret fine print.

At the same time, nine city councilors are digging up seven acres of dirt and grass at Magazine Beach, and replacing it with dirt, grass and chemicals. They also call themselves “Green.”

At the same time, nine city councilors continue at Magazine Beach a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which seems to have no purpose except to starve the local animals.

At the same time, the city councilors’ buddies at the DCR are destroying every bit of vegetation which they did not destroy between the BU Bridge and the Boathouse since 2004. 2004 is when the DCR and nine city councilors started starving the Charles River White Geese. They call the latest “improvement” the BU Bridge repair project.

The fact that that destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach is bizarre is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.

The fact that a key part of the BU Bridge repair destruction is for staging that belongs under Memorial Drive is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.

The fact that nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council and their friends at the DCR continue their attacks on the Charles River White Geese is irrelevant. Nine city councilors have passed the zoning change on Memorial Drive.

If you do not believe that all that is irrelevant, just listen to the City Council’s apologists praise the zoning change on Memorial Drive, a zoning change which does NOTHING other than undo the absolute minimum they can get away with of zoning they should not have passed three years ago.

2. Comment from Victory2008 - Animal Abusers abuse Humans.

February 12:

They say people who abuse animals will do the same to humans.

3. Animal Abusers and Nine Heartless City Councilors.

Bob, February 13:

A young woman was raped and murdered near the BU Bridge in Fall of 2001.

The Cambridge City Council spent an hour discussing the incident and DID NOT WANT to know where it occurred.

Henrietta Davis was the only one to mention the location. She swallowed her words and looked around guiltily.

It was a gang accomplished rape and murder.

One of the participants had been beating to death nesting Charles River White Geese there. She was raped where he had been beating beautiful MOTHER geese to death. She was murdered on the railroad bridge just above.

When this person was beating to death mother geese, decent human beings went to the Cambridge City Council. Decent human beings demanded that the Cambridge City Council condemn the animal abuse.

Decent human beings told the nine heartless animal abusers exactly what Victory2008 said.

The Cambridge City Council was 'neutral' with a wink and a nod.

After the animal abuser did the same to this woman, the Cambridge City Council DID NOT WANT TO KNOW where this young woman was raped and murdered.

Objections to state concerning fake BU Bridge repair meeting

Bob La Trémouille Reports.

On January 29, 2009, I sent the following letter to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with copies to: The Governor, The Department of Conservation and Recreation, former Transportation Secretary Francis Salvucci and the Cambridge City Council.

The letter has some oddities in it because it is a patchwork. It concerns the fake meeting of January 27, 2009 concerning BU Bridge repairs but the letter is an expansion of my letter of November 19, 2008 to the Governor concerning the first fake meeting on the subject. An extended portion of this letter is a copy of part of my ongoing draft comments concerning the Urban Ring environmental document.

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

RE: BU Bridge Reconstruction Project

Gentlemen:

The bulk of this letter is based on my letter of November 19, 2008 to Governor Deval Patrick, with one addition.

Tuesday evening, January 27, 2009, I attended what claimed to be a public meeting on the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project.

This was one of three recent meetings concerning construction in the BU Bridge area. Only one, reconstruction of the bridge over Memorial Drive to Magazine Beach, is environmentally neutral. Only that one is being held in the neighborhood.

The first meeting on BU Bridge reconstruction was conducted in response to a request by the Cambridge Conservation Commission in response to the fact that the environmental destruction is occurring in Cambridge. That meeting was conducted in Boston on the Boston University campus.

A follow on meeting in the neighborhood was promised.

The follow on meeting was conducted combined a totally different project and located in Kendall Square, far from the destruction.

The total lack of environmental comment by the speakers and the absence of anybody other than me in the room concerned about the BU Bridge area emphasized a clear agreement among residents and bureaucrats that the meeting was being conducted in bad faith.

There is nothing surprising about this, this incident of bad faith repeats a decade of bad faith in the DCR’s ongoing fight to destroy the environment of the Charles River.

I demand that the DCR be obliged to at least go through the motions of being a decent, responsible organization.

A meeting should be conducted in the neighborhood.

Notwithstanding that, Secretary Salvucci is to be commended for repeating his advice that the project be delayed to coordinate it with related work on the Boston side.

I think the project should be delayed to reverse damage on the Cambridge side as stated below.

I find it unlikely that the project will be delayed because, more than anything else, it is the goal of the DCR to destroy the natural environment on the Charles River.

My prior letter, with one addition to the text and an added addendum:

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

Please be advised of my opposition to the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project as currently proposed. I do think that the project can be accomplished with minimal responsible modifications to the proposal.

I propose:

1. Chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else.

2. Return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap.

3. Kill the new, expensive drainage system at Magazine Beach. Green maintenance does not require this expenditure.

4. Let the White Geese return to Magazine Beach where they lived for 25 years.

5. Let them return to their nesting area, the location of the current proposal for environmental destruction, as they deem necessary.

6. Put the staging where it is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.

7. To the extent this delays the current project, so be it. The DCR has scheduled things for maximum destruction. Minor delays for responsible behavior comport to the delays the DCR has already incurred in the area attempting to introduce vegetation at Magazine Beach which is unfit for planting on the Charles River.

8. Prohibit the continuation of destruction of protective vegetation lining the Charles River. Require twice annual chopping to one foot of the bizarre designer vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach, or, better use, require its removal. Prohibit the continued poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl.

9. Change the drainage to the Cambridge side so that it goes into the existing Memorial Drive drainage. The complicated system IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ANIMAL HABITAT is just another technique to destroy the natural environment for which the DCR has such great contempt. Just another piece of bad faith.

This project is most definitely NOT free standing but is carefully coordinated to fit in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.

The DCR is in the process of destroying all living beings on the Charles River, either directly or indirectly through destroying their ecosystem. The goal is to replace a viable and mixed ecosystem with a dead ecosystem. A balance of nature is being replaced with a suburban lawn. And a lot of lying has been and continues to be used in that regard. The important lie in this project is the claim that the project is independent of the DCR’s many other environmental outrages in the area.

Key in this project’s link to environmental destruction is deliberate and cumulative harm to the local animal and vegetation population.

In 2004-2005, the DCR took their food away from the Charles River White Geese by destroying the wetlands at Magazine Beach and replacing that wetlands with an introduced wall of bushes blocking access from the Charles River to most of Magazine Beach.

The DCR and Cambridge have just expanded on that destruction by digging up all the grass at Magazine Beach, the 25 year food and habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The grass has been replaced with a mudpit. It is the intention of the DCR and Cambridge to poison that grass with new additions to the soil whether technically called “chemicals” or otherwise.

The DCR has denied any responsibility for the actions of its agent, Cambridge. The DCR is playing the DCR’s usual irresponsible game of saying don’t talk to me, talk to my coconspirator/agent. No way. It is all one package. It is all highly irresponsible. The denial of responsibility is yet another type of the very varied amount of lies we have seen from the DCR over the past nine years.

A summary of the record:

In September 2004, the DCR and Cambridge simultaneously walled off the Charles River White Geese from all of their food.

The DCR destroyed access at Magazine Beach with the construction zone followed by the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation. At a public meeting during the past week, a DCR representative bragged that this bizarre wall prevents the feeding of the Charles River White Geese. The bizarre wall of vegetation directly violates the so-called Charles River Master Plan.

Cambridge destroyed access at the BU Boathouse and across from the Hyatt Regency by installing a wall of plastic between the Charles River and the grass.

In the past five years, the DCR through its agents has destroyed every piece of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation in the core nesting area just east of the BU Bridge which this project proposes to destroy. This is the only portion of their habitat that DCR and Cambridge did not bar them from in 2004.

So pretty much all of the world of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously destroyed to them, and they would now be confined to an artificially created (by the DCR) mudpit in one quarter of their nesting area in place of the mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge where they lived until September 2004.

This extreme and deliberate cruelty is inexcusable.

Its importance is emphasized by the flat out lie that the DCR put out about the Charles River White Geese starting in 2000, repeatedly stated and continuing even after the DCR and its agents / associates imposed starvation and deprival of habitat in 2004:

The promise that the DCR would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese.

This has been followed up by the demand of the DCR at the recent meeting in Boston that the Charles River White Geese find temporary housing while this latest destruction is inflicted on them. This is the sort of sick mentality by which man is destroying our world, compounded by the obvious stupidity of the demand, given their proven attachment to their home of nearly 30 years, and the high likelihood that the DCR would happily kill them if they did move.

The heartlessness of this latest attack is compounded by the simultaneous and totally needless conversion of Magazine Beach, the primary habitat of the Charles River White Geese, into a mudpit.

The combination of the two projects destroys the little that was not destroyed in September 2004, AND prevents immediate conversion of Magazine Beach to use Magazine Beach as the nine month home of the Charles River White Geese, which is the proper nine month residence of the Charles River white Geese anyway.

The DCR’s priorities in the BU Bridge area should be reversed.

Use of and destruction of the nesting area for staging should be prohibited. Staging under Memorial Drive is good for the sidewalk project. It should be good for the Memorial Bridge project.

If use of the staging area under Memorial Drive delays the project, that is the fault of the DCR.

Instead of timing the project to maximize animal harm, it should be timed to minimize animal harm. The totally unnecessary destruction of Magazine Beach to replace green maintenance with chemical maintenance should be stopped in its tracks. GREEN seeding of grass should be resumed. The bizarre massive athletic complex should be killed and fields with athletics on top of it should resume.

Instead of the DCR’s current semi-annual destruction of valuable native ground vegetation twice a year everywhere on the Charles below the Watertown dam, the protective vegetation should be allowed to resume.

The bizarre INTRODUCED wall of vegetation walling off Magazine Beach should be chopped to the ground and removed instead of the semi-annual destruction of useful vegetation, and the resumption of this wasteful destruction should be prohibited. Mr. Corsi at a meeting last week essentially bragged that this wall is starving the Charles River White Geese in response to a question.

The total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse should be reversed by normal seeding. The tiny portion that has not been destroyed should not be destroyed except for that area next to the BU Bridge needed for the BU Bridge project.

Once Magazine Beach once again becomes fit to use and the destroyed vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse is returned to normal, the Charles River White Geese should be allowed to resume their migratory lifestyle within their mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge, spending most of their life at Magazine Beach in A HEALTHY GREEN environment, with nesting at the destroyed nesting area only interrupted insofar as necessary to do the work on the BU Bridge within 25 feet of the BU Bridge for the most part, less near the water.

To the extent the current irresponsible timing is impacted by responsible behavior, that is the fault of the DCR for proposing irresponsible timing.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille

ADDENDA:

1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”
2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.
3. Example of “independent activity.”
4. Response to DCR / City of Cambridge Characterization of the Charles River White Geese.
A. Introductory.
B. Wide recognition of value.
C. Other residents and visitors.
D. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.

1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”

It is my understanding that a purported citizens group created by an employee of the Cambridge City Manager will be approaching the board claiming some sort of independent existence and not informing the board of its connection to the Cambridge City Manager.

Please note my objections to the claimed independent status of this group and to its very destructive goals.

This group calls itself something like “liveable streets coalition.” It is a highway organization with goals too close to those of the Cambridge City Manager. It is fighting for a new highway which would destroy approximately 83 out of the 110 trees located between the Hyatt and the Memorial Drive split. It is also supporting destruction of the Nesting Area for a similar highway connecting to the railroad bridge.

I condemn these outrageous proposals and I condemn the tactics behind these proposals.

The Cambridge City Manager is a co-conspirator with the DCR in the destruction of the environment of the Charles River. The Cambridge City Manager’s supposed independent organization is fighting for his very destructive cause.

The Cambridge City Council will hopefully fire the Cambridge City Manager because of a jury verdict finding heartless behavior in a civil rights matter, $1 + million damages, $3.5 million punitive damages.

If the Cambridge City Council behaves in a responsible manner, perhaps we will see fewer of these supposed citizen’s groups with undisclosed connections to the Cambridge City Manager.

2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.

The level of lying and the variation of the techniques of lying by the DCR over the past nine years has been nothing less than incredible.

I believe nothing that the DCR says that would help them in their quest for the destruction of all living beings on the Charles River.

At its last discussion of this matter, the Conservation Commission questioned why the DCR has not conducted public meetings on this matter with its major harm to Cambridge. The DCR with entirely unsurprising bad faith conducted a meeting on the BU campus and invited a whole bunch of developer types. They did not conduct their meeting in a location convenient for Cambridge residents who are concerned about the DCR’s belligerent lack of responsible behavior.

One flat out lie from the Boston meeting has been abandoned: that the vegetation needlessly being destroyed for staging is larger than the area available under the BU Bridge. The latest explanation (and the DCR keeps on varying explanations) is that the excess destruction is for convenience. The DCR brags that the DCR is too lazy to cross one and a half lanes of traffic for their staging.

The other flat out lie from the Boston meeting seems to continue: This is the bizarre lie that the Charles River White Geese WILL find temporary housing as justification for the needless destruction of their homes.

I anticipate that the “expert” who made this bizarre statement will plead stupidity.

“Oh, you mean there is a difference between the White Geese and the Canadas?”

Claiming to be this stupid after being introduced as an expert is another variety of flat out lying.

The Canadas are migratory.

The White Geese are permanent residents for nearly 30 years and have remained in their devastated habitat after the outrages of 2004 and after the ongoing destruction of ground vegetation in their consigned ghetto.

That very major attachment to their home of nearly 30 years says everything and proves the comparison to Canadas to be a flat out lie.

I anticipate that the DCR’s “expert” will brag that the DCR’s “expert” does not understand the difference.

3. Example of “independent activity.”

In the Boston meeting, I was shouted down by a person known to be a friend of the DCR and Cambridge when I attempted to respond to the above analyzed two outrageous lies of the DCR.

There are too many friends of the DCR and Cambridge running around falsely claiming to be independent.

I consider the activities of such people and their claims of being “independent” just another technique of lying.

4. Response to DCR / City of Cambridge Characterization of the Charles River White Geese.

A. Introductory.

Most valuable among the Charles River residents and very popular are the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.

The standard insults tossed at the Charles River White Geese reaffirm the fact that heartless animal abusers sound a lot like heartless wife beaters when discussing their victims. The fact that the DCR has spent nearly a decade lying that the DCR has no intent to harm them is very strong proof that the insults as well are lies.

The gaggle consists mostly of Emden Geese and White China Geese with a limited population of Toulouse Geese / Toulouse descendents. Some of the White China descendants bear vestigial Brown China markings.

For most of the past 30 years, they have lived in a habitat of about a mile east and west on the north side of the Charles River centering on the BU Bridge. Within that habitat, they did a minimigration, living in other parts of the habitat for 9 months of the year, and returning to their nesting area in the spring for mating and rearing of the young. The Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese is the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side.

They are a unique population. They are a tourist attraction which surprises people who encounter them. People go out of their way to visit them from various Boston suburbs. They are popular with local commuters who enjoy their beauty. If properly publicized they would be an even more valuable part of the Charles River world.

These are free animals who have survived on their own with very little human assistance for nearly 30 years until Cambridge and the DCR started their ongoing attempts to destroy them.

The uniqueness of a gaggle which has lived in this wild area surrounded by civilization for nearly three decades cannot be understated.

The DCR has noted the importance of the Charles River White Geese by the DCR’s repeated and flat out lies over the past ten years that the DCR had no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese. The DCR defines starving the Charles River White Geese as not harming them. The DCR defines as taking the most environmentally destructive possible alternatives in various projects as not hurting them.

The DCR has irresponsibly confined the Charles River White Geese to the meadow just east of the BU Bridge on the Cambridge side, directly impacted by Grand Junction plans. The statement that these proposals (page 5-67, section 5.7.2, Environment Consequences) “would not result in adverse impacts” is a knowing lie. The characterization of this important gaggle as “low value” is similarly a knowing lie.

B. Wide recognition of value.

The beauty of these excellent and unique animals may be viewed at the follow sites. Their importance, their very presence, and the presence of many other animals, may be recognized through the fact that this list includes but a portion of the references obtained through Google. I offer this information and these citations in response to the continued lies coming out of the DCR:

· The Charles River White Geese website: http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org.
· The Charles River White Geese blog: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com.
· Historic Pages Photo Appreciation, proving historical analysis dating back to 1989: http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.
· Della Huff’s Show on goslings: http://www.pbase.com/dellybean/goslings
· Roy Bercaw: Visit to the Charles River White Geese, June 16, 2007: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/charles_river_white_geese_June_16_2007.html.
· Roy Bercaw, A day at the Goose Meadow, April 2000 (note date in framing portion differs from the date in the video): http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends_of_charles_river_white_geese.html
· Cambridge Candle, January-February 1999: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html
· Zip Docs 02139, documentary about Charles River White Geese: http://cctvcambridge.org/node/2037
· MOVIE: “White Geese” by Akai Hoto, on deviantART: http://akaihato.deviantart.com/art/MOVIE_quot_White_Geese_quot_25167453
· Pictures taken along the Charles, 2004.07.16: http://www.aq.org/js/gallery/2004.07.16_charles/
· Freeman A. Report: 07/22/01, Charles River Wildlife Killings, The Charles River White Geese: http://www.freemanz.com/fzdc/political/01_07_22/index.htm
· Radio Boston, The Charles River (photos of the White Geese): http://www.flickr.com/groups/782470@N21/pool/with/2566129288/
· Charles River White Geese, YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM
· Photos of the Charles River White Geese, Linden Tea: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linden_tea/2196474800/
· iNaturalist.org report, observations by Tueda: http://inaturalist.org/observations/185
· White Geese video by Amy Rothwell: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=_6983789396318540077
· Fun on Foot in America’s Cities by Warwick Ford, Nola Ford: The Cambridge White Geese greet visitors: http://books.google.com/books?id=gAmIj4gh_7oC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22Charles+River%22+and+%22White+Geese%22&source=bl&ots=qUMjZm1ZPN&sig=2IRf_Rnz7cnP1xX4IkEB31x9wr8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

The Grand Junction rail and bridge use would be devastating to this valuable and threatened population of animals.

I will post this letter at charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com. That will simplify your check of these URL’s.

C. Other residents and visitors.

The meadow to which the DCR in its extreme misbehavior has confined the Charles River White Geese also has included hawks, sea gulls, Canadas and various types of ducks. It is a haven for migratory waterfowl in spite of nearly ten years of DCR misbehavior.

D. Lying originates in lack of fitness for positions to which appointed.

This ongoing pattern of lying would appear to come from the severe lack of fitness of key people in the DCR for their jobs. The mentality of these individuals is parks surrounded by cities. The seem to constantly attack and destroy living creatures in their jurisdiction under whatever guise presents itself.

These individuals have no use for any areas which are wild as opposed to urban. They are aggressively destroying the wild areas on the Charles River because the wild areas on the Charles River do not fit their preconceived and incompetent ideas.
They are very simply and aggressively unfit to manage environmentally sensitive environments because their reflexes are the reflexes of the 19th century which caused so much environmental destruction and which continue to destroy our world because these incompetents are so active in the 19th Century equivalent of environmental management.

The DCR has a goal of and actively works for the driving away or killing water fowl in the water habitats controlled by the DCR. This is in sharp contrast to responsible environmentalists who object to the ongoing destruction of areas used by and needed for the survival of migrating waterfowl.

The key DCR people are unfit for their jobs.

Environmental Destroyers Don't Know Their Part of the Charles River

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following entry appears in the January newsletter of the reprehensible Charles River Conservancy:

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

CRC Weighs in on State’s Accelerated Bridge Rehabilitation Program

As the DCR proceeds with the much-needed restoration of the Charles River bridges under Governor Patrick’s Accelerated Bridge Program, the CRC has weighed in . . . to ensure that the Craigie Street and B.U. Bridges also become more user-friendly for pedestrians and bicyclists and provide better access to the parklands. To read more, click here.

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

The total lack of expressed concern of the CRC for the environment in this posting is not at all accidental.

I will shortly post my objections to the BU Bridge repair proposal.

The bad faith public hearing on this proposal was combined with a hearing on the repairs to the Craigie Drawbridge.

The Craigie Drawbridge is located just south of the Museum of Science and is perhaps half a mile from Mass. General Hospital. The Craigie Drawbridge is part of the DCR's McGrath & O'Brien Highway. McGrath & O'Brien shows on Google Maps as Charles River Dam Road. The Craigie Drawbridge allows Charles River traffic to travel from the Charles River to Boston harbor in spite of the Charles River Dam.

The proposed work has nothing to do with Charles River access except for concerns about people with regard to the sidewalk and bike lanes. The proposed work has everything to do with the fact that the drawbridge is very old and needs work.

The location of the hearing on the BU Bridge was part of the bad faith. Combining the two hearings was another part of the bad faith.

There is a Craigie Street in Cambridge. It is perhaps half a mile from the CRC's Harvard Square offices.

The Craigie Drawbridge is perhaps four to five miles from Craigie Street.

Interesting, this destructive group had an office close to the Craigie Drawbridge. They could have had a clear view of the Craigie Drawbridge from their building is except that the viaduct holding the Green Line blocked their view. The CRC does not seem to even know what or where the Craigie Drawbridge is.

Photos of Magazine Beach from 1901

Thanks to Phil Barber for providing the following two photos.

The name at that time was "Captain's Island."

He comments:

Hi Bob, hope this finds you well. I've found some old photos of Magazine Beach which I haven't seen republished elsewhere. They're from the City Engineer's Annual Report for 1901.

Martin Luther King, Jr., the Charles River, Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA, USA, City Manager Rehired

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following was forwarded by Karen Parker:

__._,_.___

"The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we
live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have
guided missiles and misguided men."

"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but
also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man,
but you refuse to hate him."

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of
former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit
together at the table of brotherhood. "

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate
cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." ... "Love is the only
force capable of transforming an enemy into friend."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

He was a very wise man.
__._,_.___

The paragraph that caught my eye immediately was:

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

A couple of points:

1. Sounds to me like a very destructive state bureaucracy and Cambridge pols with regard to the environment, EXCEPT they are not that stupid.

2. The mentality of the City of Cambridge on Civil Rights has included the following position on Civil Rights laws: "We have our laws. They are better than the Federal Laws. How dare they expect us to respect Federal law."


UPDATE: I have recently updated my reporting on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. I gave my opinion that the judge in the case could be preparing an order firing the Cambridge City Manager without pension because he was found to have destroyed the life of Melvina Monteiro, a black, Cape Verdean, female department head, in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

That report may be found below at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-is-judge-in-monteiro-case-doing.html.

The Cambridge City Council, with pretty much the very minimal formalities, just rehired the Cambridge City Manager for another term of three years.

Comments on Urban Ring Environmental Review Due Feb. 10, available on Line

1. General.
2. The Urban Ring Explained.
3. Filing Requirements on this Document.
4. My Status.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.

Please remember that the Urban Ring RDEIR/DEIS may be downloaded from http://www.theurbanring.com/currentmaterials.asp?area=gen.

2. The Urban Ring Explained.

The spelled out acronym is Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report / Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I think. Basically, this is a very important submittal in the ongoing bureaucratic efforts to put in a massive bus system rather than putting in needed heavy rail subway in Boston. The bus system includes some strikingly environmentally destructive aspects on the Charles River which are included in one of the two rapid transit options for the Urban Ring subway concept in Boston.

I have worked on the Urban Ring since about 1985 because it is an excellent concept. The idea is to take pressure off the increasingly overloaded central subway system in Boston. The idea is to create a new subway line connecting the existing spokes so that people do not have to go into Downtown Boston to go from one outer point to another outer point.

There are two possible crossings of the Charles River, the Kenmore Crossing (which I first suggested in 1986), and the BU Bridge crossing. I suggested the Kenmore Crossing because the BU Bridge crossing is so destructive to the environment of the Charles River. As it has developed, details have come out under which the Kenmore Crossing is increasingly more superior. So naturally, the dirty tricks have started, especially from people with visible or not visible connections to the Cambridge City Manager.

The Urban Ring subway would run from Charlestown / Somerville to Roxbury. There are variations as to how far it would go in either direction.

The environmental problem is at the Charles River. The two possible crossings each connect proposed stations in Cambridge and in the Longwood Medical Area. The Cambridge station which is not controversial would be at Massachusetts Avenue where Massachusetts Avenue crosses what is now the Grand Junction railroad track. This track is located between Albany and Vassar Streets, near the heart of the MIT Campus. The Longwood stop seems to be getting firm at Avenue Louis Pasteur and Longwood Avenue.

The Kenmore Crossing would proceed under the tracks and then turn south under the MIT playing fields and under the Charles River to Kenmore Square. It would have a station under Brookline Avenue over the Massachusetts Turnpike. At that point, it would connect to the three Green Line branches going to Brookline, Newton, and Allston, and to the Commuter Rail coming in from Framingham and Worcester. It would provide a covered connection between the Commuter Rail Yawkey Station and the existing Kenmore Station. This station would provide excellent connection to Fenway Park. It would be heavy rail, Orange Line technology, which would allow the trains to run as alternate service / extensions on the existing Orange Line as well.

The BU Bridge Crossing would be light rail, streetcars. It would have two additional stops. It would stop in Cambridge at the end of Putnam Avenue where it hits the railroad tracks near Fort Washington Park. It would then, by the original plans, proceed under the Charles River. This passage would cause severe damage to the environmentally sensitive area where the Charles River White Geese and other animals live whereas the other crossing is environmentally neutral.

There would be a stop at Mountfort and St. Mary’s. This is one block from the heart of the BU Campus, Morse Chapel and directly against the Massachusetts Turnpike. At this point, it would connect to the Commonwealth Avenue (B) branch of the Green Line and connect to the Framingham-Worcester line. Connection to the Commonwealth Avenue line would be by a tunnel under St. Mary’s Street to the northern sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue. Commuters would then have to cross Commonwealth Avenue traffic exposed to the weather to get to one of the three Green Line branches.

Commuter Rail would not have direct connection to the other two Green Line branches, and would overload the Commonwealth Avenue line during morning rush hour. The original plans called for Yawkey Station to be moved away from Fenway Park so that it would be next to Mountfort Station, drastically reducing support for Fenway Park.

The line would proceed to a new station located under Park Drive about two blocks away. The new station would directly connect to the existing Fenway Park station on the Riverside (D) branch on one side and to a new station under Beacon Street on the Cleveland Circle ( C ) branch.

Thus the connections to the three western Green Line branches would be accomplished by two stations two blocks from each other, commuter rail transfers would be made drastically inferior, support for Fenway Park would be drastically inferior, and the purpose of the Urban Ring would be drastically degraded because light rail is incredibly slower than heavy rail. Additionally, Green Line vehicles would not be able to switch off onto the Orange Line.

In addition to pushing buses and environmental destruction for an area which should have the heavy rail subway, the existing proposal would make the heavy rail subway impossible in favor of the far inferior light rail subway.

3. Filing Requirements on this Document.

Comments on the document must be submitted in writing (oral comments made at the public hearing will not be recognized by the MEPA office). A 60-day comment period has been established. Comments must be received no later than February 10, 2009. Written comments must be addressed to:
Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Director of Program Development
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office, EOEA #12565
Richard Bourre, Assistant Director
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
617-626-1181 (fax; please follow up with a print copy of the fax)
Email comments should go to: Richard.Bourre@state.ma.us.

Commenters can copy the Project Manager at EOT:

Ned Codd
Director of Program Development
Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
617-973-7473

To request a print or CD version of the RDEIR/DEIS, please contact Regan Checchio, Regina Villa Associates, at 617-357-5772 x14 or by email to rchecchio@reginavilla.com.
It is a bit late to go for hard copy or CD, I would think.

4. My Status.

I myself am far into my draft. It is about 9 pages long so far with heavy analysis of the environmental chapter, which has major defects.

So far, I object to the failure to formally include heavy rail or light rail among the alternatives studied, and to the failure to formally include a Green Line spur from the BU Bridge / Comm. Ave. to Harvard Station as an alternative in Allston transportation.

Archie Mazmanian on Urban Ring Public Meeting

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Archie Mazmanian of Brookline has passed on the following email sent to Ned Codd, the Urban Ring project Manager on Friday, January 16. Some apparently electronic errors creeped into the version he passed on. I have cleaned them up. The January 6 meeting was the official public hearing on Urban Ring project. It was conducted in Government Center in Downtown Boston. It was a small to moderate sized meeting room, and it was filled. Regina Villa is the consultant.

The Light Rail on Washington Street refers to Washington Street in Boston’s South End and Roxbury neighborhoods. This neighborhood lost Orange Line heavy rail service in the 1980’s with lovely promises of replacement. That replacement turned out to be fancy buses.


RE: Jan. 6, 2009 Public Hearing Comments Transcript


Ned,

I assume my earlier request to Regina Villa was passed on to you. I have been linking to EOT's Urban Ring website to see if the transcript has been posted. Will the transcript be posted and if so timely well prior to the Feb. 10th close of public comments? The extent of comments at this public hearing was far greater than at the CAC meetings, most of which I attended. You may recall my repeated statements over the past several years that there was lacking a ground-up support for Phase 2 demonstrated either at CAC meetings or in the media. This was demonstrated at this public hearing. In contrast, there was substantial ground-up support for light rail on Washington St. but not for BRT.

Archie Mazmanian

DCR Bridge Meeting in Context of DCR Environmental Destruction

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. DCR Meeting, General.
2. Formal communication.

1. DCR Meeting, General.

On Wednesday, January 14, 2009, the Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted a public meeting on its bridge repair program.

Former Transportation Secretary Fred Salvucci spoke in favor of delaying the BU Bridge repair to coordinate it with other highway work pending on the Boston side.

The next meeting, in a striking but typical example of bad faith, will be January 27. It will be combined with a discussion of the Craigie Drawbridge at the Museum of Science and will be conducted on the MIT campus near Kendall Square. A subsequent meeting on the footbridge over Memorial Drive connecting Magazine Beach will be held at the Morse School.

Interesting. Non controversial meeting held in Morse School in the neighborhood.

Two meetings on highly controversial BU Bridge repair, first conducted in Boston in response to a request from the Cambridge Conservation Commission, second conducted in Kendall Square combined with another bridge.

Business as usual from a strikingly irresponsible DCR.

I responded on January 15, 2009, with the following letter to the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs and to the Secretary of Transportation and Public Works, copies to DCR and the Governor.

To put it succinctly, it is my opinion that the DCR is belligerently destructive of the environment, is using the bridge repair process as an excuse to forward its cause, and is making a mockery of the public reviews by locating environmentally sensitive meetings, BU Bridge, in inconvenient locations while putting environmentally neutral meetings in convenient locations.

The DCR’s public description of the Charles River White Geese shows that heartless animal abusers sound strikingly like heartless wife beaters when talking about their victims. I provide a page full (the PS at the end) of web citations on the Charles River White Geese, a tiny portion of the cites available. Why is it that the heartless animal abusers are saying one thing and so many people are treating these very valuable beings as something to be cherished?

2. Formal communication.

I attended the “public meeting” on the accelerated bridge repair program last night sponsored by the DCR.

I was distressed but not at all surprised to hear Commissioner Sullivan refer to environmentalism as “pedestrians and bicyclists.” By doing so, he reaffirmed his department’s contempt for the animals, the land, and the natural vegetation which are his duty to protect, a duty for which DCR has contempt.

A few days ago, I attended a Boston Conservation Committee meeting in which the DCR made a presentation. A commissioner asked about why bordering vegetation on the Muddy River was allowed to get as overgrown as it has. The DCR representative looked shocked. If they did not let it get overgrown, animals might get on the land from the river.

The DCR has been poisoning the eggs of as much waterfowl as it can get away with. The DCR has been destroying as much natural protective vegetation on the Charles River as it can get away with. The DCR warps whatever it does to destroy resident animals, visiting animals and natural protective vegetation.

The DCR’s head is firmly in the 19th Century with the bizarre environmental destruction associated with its that century. The DCR is an aggressive part of man destroying our world.

The DCR and its commissioner are unfit to make environmental decisions. He should be fired, and his agency should be cleansed of his fellow environmental destroyers.


In implementing these destructive policies combined with continuing practices of bad faith and flat out lying, the DCR, since 2000, has repeatedly promised to do no harm to the Charles River White Geese who have lived for nearly 30 years in a mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge.

They DCR demonstrated their lack of fitness for their duties by proceeding with starving the Charles River White Geese by the bizarre wall of vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach, heartless destruction of habitat, and the ongoing replacement of GREEN maintenance at Magazine Beach with CHEMICAL maintenance and the associated poisoning to all animals who eat off it. A representative has recently bragged that the wall starves the geese.

The DCR likes the accelerated bridge program. It gives them another chance to find excuses for environmental destruction.

To no surprise, they are attacking the beautiful and valuable Charles River White Geese.

The program puts staging in the middle of what little of their habitat which has not been taken from them instead of under Memorial Drive where it belongs. The staging would destroy the last ground vegetation which the DCR has not destroyed since 2004 between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.

The program puts a new water filtration device in the habitat for drainage off the BU Bridge which should connect instead to existing drainage under Memorial Drive. Why do something that makes sense when you can destroy animal habitat?

The DCR has told the Charles River White Geese to move. The DCR claims to have no duty to their charges. The DCR is totally unwilling to destroy the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation at Magazine Beach to allow the Geese to return to their feeding ground at Magazine Beach for most of the last 30 years. The DCR is totally unwilling to continue Magazine Beach in GREEN maintenance instead of introducing their beloved chemicals. The last time they introduced their beloved chemicals in support of NON WATER RELATED activities on the Charles was at the playing fields next to Mass. General Hospital. Their beloved poisons did not work, so they added Tartan and poisoned the Charles River.

The management of the BU Bridge repairs has been done with typical lack of responsibility. The environmental irresponsibility in the project is in Cambridge. The Cambridge Conservation Commission asked for a public hearing. So the DCR conducted one, in Boston.

The DCR is now conducting other public meetings concerning their bridge projects.

They are repairing the pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach over Memorial Drive. This project is environmentally responsible, so a public hearing is being held at the Morse School near Magazine Beach.

They are also conducting another public meeting on the BU Bridge project. The meeting has been combined with the environmentally neutral Craigie Drawbridge project, on the MIT Campus near Kendall Square.

Typical bad faith.

The destruction of nearly all the ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been conducted with no meaningful public input. The BU Bridge repair project would now needlessly destroy all that which they have not destroyed to date.

The annual destruction of as many eggs of waterfowl as they can get away with is conducted with no public input.

The destruction of as much protective vegetation as they can get away with on the Charles and the associated driving away of migrating waterfowl is conducted with no meaningful public input.

The bizarre wall of introduced vegetation at Magazine Beach has been conducted with no meaningful public input, although DCR apologists, with the usual lie techniques, conducted a photo opportunity to brag that this WALL would encourage swimming. While useful natural vegetation is destroyed twice a year, this silly starvation tool is allowed to grow without apparent limit.

The poisoning of the dirt at Magazine Beach is being conducted with no meaningful public input.

Public input on any of these projects would be irrelevant in any case.

The DCR’s heads are firmly in the sands of the 19th Century. The DCR is aggressively destroying as much of our world’s environment as it can. The outrages at and near the BU Bridge/Magazine Beach must be reversed, and new outrages ended.

PS: Heartless animal abusers sound a lot like heartless wife beaters. Both do a lot of flat out lying about how useless their victims are.

To no great surprise, the heartless animal abusers at the DCR and their apologists put out lies about the VERY VALUABLE Charles River White Geese.

The following are but a few URL’s obtained in a Google search for the Charles River White Geese. Fire the DCR commissioner. Fire the rest of his crew with their contempt for the environment and for the living beings in it.

• The Charles River White Geese website: http://www.friendsofthewhitegeese.org.
• The Charles River White Geese blog: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com.
• Historic Pages Photo Appreciation, proving historical analysis dating back to 1989: http://www.historicpages.com/geese/wg.htm.
• Della Huff’s Show on goslings: http://www.pbase.com/dellybean/goslings
• Roy Bercaw: Visit to the Charles River White Geese, June 16, 2007: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/charles-river-white-geese-June-16-2007.html.
• Roy Bercaw, A day at the Goose Meadow, April 2000 (note date in framing portion differs from the date in the video): http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html
• Cambridge Candle, January-February 1999: http://www.cambridgecandle.com/candle_online/jan_feb1999/14_geese.html
• Zip Docs 02139, documentary about Charles River White Geese: http://cctvcambridge.org/node/2037
• MOVIE: “White Geese” by Akai Hoto, on deviantART: http://akaihato.deviantart.com/art/MOVIE-quot-White-Geese-quot-25167453
• Pictures taken along the Charles, 2004.07.16: http://www.aq.org/js/gallery/2004.07.16-charles/
• Freeman A. Report: 07/22/01, Charles River Wildlife Killings, The Charles River White Geese: http://www.freemanz.com/fzdc/political/01_07_22/index.htm
• Radio Boston, The Charles River (photos of the White Geese): http://www.flickr.com/groups/782470@N21/pool/with/2566129288/
• Charles River White Geese, YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXYQqjoidIM
• Photos of the Charles River White Geese, Linden Tea: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linden_tea/2196474800/
• iNaturalist.org report, observations by Tueda: http://inaturalist.org/observations/185
• White Geese video by Amy Rothwell: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6983789396318540077
• Fun on Foot in America’s Cities by Warwick Ford, Nola Ford: The Cambridge White Geese greet visitors: http://books.google.com/books?id=gAmIj4gh_7oC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22Charles+River%22+and+%22White+Geese%22&source=bl&ots=qUMjZm1ZPN&sig=2IRf_Rnz7cnP1xX4IkEB31x9wr8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

I will post this communication on charlesriverwhitegeese.blogspot.com. That will give you an electronic version to simplify check of these citations.

At the top of the list of links in the blog is a link to my prior communication spelling out quite exact ways to responsibly accomplish the BU Bridge project while being a responsible member of the world’s environment.

“Social Justice” in Cambridge, MA, USA

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Environmental Destruction in Cambridge starts with the “progressives.”
2. Chronicle letter.
3. Follow Up.
4. Links.
5. Chronicle Publication.


1. Environmental Destruction in Cambridge starts with the “progressives.”

The Cambridge City Manager and his ilk have been very aggressive neutralizing Cambridge residents who want to do good.

What they do is set up organizations dominated by the bad guys or by well meaning people who are duped, but they sound so good.

There are many, many, many such incidents. One very recent such incident was the creation of a group which calls itself the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association. This was openly created by friends of the Cambridge City Manager at the request of the Cambridge City Manager.

They organized about the pending sale and development of property owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, the Blessed Sacrament Church and School in the Cambridgeport neighborhood of Cambridge.

A year or two later, after a lot of yelling about the project being too large, they announced a “victory” for the neighborhood.

These people who had organized about a project they called too large SUCCEEDED IN MAKING THE PROJECT LARGER, and they bragged about it without using those words.

The group has a spinoff which they call "Greenport." In a neighborhood directly under attack by an environmentally reprehensible city and state government, this group calls itself after its neighborhood and is HOSTILE to discussing environmental attacks on the neighborhood. It concentrates on saving the world.

The technical name for such groups is "company union."

With a very long record in mind, of which this is only a tiny part, an oped piece in the Cambridge Chronicle caught my eye.

It was first on line and then in the hard copy edition. I just tried to find it on line to provide a link, but it no longer seems to be on line.

The article was part of a series by the city’s Republican activists.

The author had been checking out schools and was shocked by what he saw as training in “Social Justice." He was concerned that kids were being indoctrinated in the ways of the left.

My concern, knowing reality in Cambridge, is that environmental or civil rights destructiveness could be sold as the opposite of what it is.

Of particular concern to me is anything which would give the false opinion of the nine very destructive Cambridge City Councilors. These destructive people, as usual, would be advertised as being on the side they claim to be on.

I have submitted the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle.

2. Chronicle letter.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I appreciated the oped piece on Social Justice. My concern about such training is that kids will be taught that Cambridge is a good example of Social Justice.

An excellent analysis of social justice in Cambridge was the jury’s decision in Malvina Monteiro v. Cambridge. The Monteiro jury found that the City Manager destroyed the life of a Black Cape Verdean woman who was a department head in Cambridge because she filed a civil rights complaint. The jury ordered Cambridge to pay her $1.1 million in real damages and $3.5 million in penalties.

The judge is deciding what to do with this verdict. I would not be surprised to see the judge order the City Manager fired and stripped of his pension. She would be making law, but press reports indicate an excellent case for making law.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has twice found probable cause of discrimination because the city council is trying to keep a handicapped woman from using her guide dog. The victim says, in addition, that a group of rogue cops have abused her guide dog in the lobby of the police station and have not been punished.

"Environmentalism" from the City is best known for heartless animal abuse: the deliberate starvation and destruction of habitat targeted at the valuable and popular Charles River White Geese.

This is part of an effort in which Magazine Beach is being walled off from the Charles River by bizarre introduced vegetation. Green maintenance is being destroyed at Magazine Beach and replaced with chemical maintenance, poisoning feeding birds.

The state’s BU Bridge repairs would extend the needless, heartless destruction.

Or Fresh Pond? Perhaps thousands of trees plus animal habitat are being destroyed to put in a thousand saplings.

Or the imminent destruction of the Alewife Reservation? This is proposed for flood storage that should be put under a parking lot 500 feet to the south, a parking lot which is about to be built upon.

And too many open space projects start with needless destruction of trees.

I am concerned about training in social justice in Cambridge schools because I think the behavior of the City and its friends will be communicated to kids as something to respect.

In civil rights and the environment, Cambridge is worthy of the contempt expressed by the Monteiro jury. Kids should not have Cambridge shown to them as some sort of good example.

3. Follow Up.

I tried to include the abuse of the guide dog by a roomful of rogue cops as succinctly as possible.

The lobby of the Cambridge Police Station has a camera trained on it to provide evidence usable by the police.

To no surprise whatsoever, they “forgot” to put in a tape that day.

I had the victim and her dog on our cable show, The Cambridge Environment, the next day.

The dog is ordinarily very effusive. The dog was very visibly still shaken by the experience.

4. Links.

The following is my article below going into detailed analysis of the matters pending in the Monteiro case:

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-is-judge-in-monteiro-case-doing.html

The Boston Globe had a good write up on the case. It may be found at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/28/ex_cambridge_city_worker_is_awarded_45m_in_suit/?page=2.

5. Chronicle Publication.

The above letter was posted by the Cambridge Chronicle on line at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1060496916/Letter-Social-justice-dissected, at 7:02 am, January 6, 2009.

It was printed in the January 8, 2009 edition in a very prominent place on the first letters page continuing on the second letters page. A related op ed piece was printed on the third op ed page. Strikingly good coverage.

BU Bridge work and environmental damage

Marilyn Wellons reports on her e-mail letter dated December 17, 2008, to David Mohler, Deputy Secretary for Planning in the Executive Office of Transportation, about plans for the Boston University Bridge, and posts the letter below.

Report:

At Boston and Cambridge Conservation Commission hearings on August 20 and November 17, 2008, respectively, the Department of Conservation and Recreation showed its plans to repair the bridge. They include a "rehabilitation" of the stormwater system. Unlike other work on the structure, this "rehabilitation" actually increases its footprint--the area of ground it covers--rather than conform to the existing one.

At a public meeting on October 16, 2008 at Boston University, DCR Deputy Commissioner for Operations Jack Murray stated that the DCR is a parks agency first and manager of highways second. However, in Cambridge the new stormwater system will inflict serious and permanent damage to the urban wild that is home to the Charles River White Geese, Canada geese, mallard ducks, rabbits, hawks, and migrating songbirds, among other species. The damage to the goose meadow is consistent with the DCR's long-standing plan to eliminate the Charles River White Geese from the river through habitat destruction, among other means.

At the BU meeting Mr. Murray also said that, under the terms of the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP), the footprint cannot be expanded to accommodate better, safer bicycle and pedestrian access.

Whether the footprint can nevertheless expand for the DCR's new stormwater system is the question posed in my e-mail to Deputy Secretary Mohler. I believe he chairs the newly established ABP Oversight Council.

The question arises because the DCR has invoked M.G.L. Chapter 91, the recently revised law governing certain work in filled tidal wetlands. By invoking Ch. 91, the DCR effectively nullifies the Cambridge Conservation Commission's ability under the Wetlands Protection Act to require an alternative stormwater system that would avoid damage to the environment. Thus on November 17 the Cambridge ConCom found it was unable to require the DCR to tie drainage from the BU Bridge into the DCR's own stormwater system for Memorial Drive at the Reid Overpass, treat it with the device planned, and use Mem Drive's existing outfall--drain pipe--into the river. This was a possibility the DCR acknowledged in its Cambridge filing. The DCR nevertheless chose to add the new structure.

The two new structures on the Boston and Cambridge ends of the bridge expand its footprint. As such, they require a pro forma license from the Department of Environmental Protection. The letters cited in my e-mail to David Mohler are correspondence between the DCR consultant and DEP officials concerning the expanded footprint and the DEP's determination that the DCR needs a new Ch. 91 license for the footprint's new elements.

The matter of the expanded footprint is not, I think, trivial. Given current concern about the state's transportation funding crisis and history with the Big Dig, this question of control seems to have some point. Holding bridge repairs to the existing footprint is a primary ABP means of control over scope and cost. It will be interesting to learn what Mr. Mohler's take on the issue is.

E-mail letter:

Dear David Mohler:

It is my understanding that the Accelerated Bridge Program requires repairs to conform to any given bridge's existing footprint. For example, the Boston University Bridge cannot be expanded to accommodate bicycles, despite the great need.

Most of the work to repair the BU Bridge will be within the existing footprint. However, the Department of Conservation and Recreation's proposal for "rehabilitation of the existing stormwater management system" will expand it.

This seems contrary to the terms of the ABP. Since you supervise this program I write [to] ask for your opinion.

Please see the letter, attached here, from DCR consultant Kathryn Barnicle to Ben Lynch and Alex Strysky, Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulation Program, dated October 24, 2008. In para. 2, Ms. Barnicle states that "[t]he only work proposed outside of the existing footprint of the bridge is two stormwater outfalls needed to meet the Massachusetts Stormwater Policy." The letter includes plans for reach of these new structures, one in Boston, one in Cambridge.

Also attached is Mr. Lynch's response to Ms. Barnicle, dated November 20, 2008. In paras. 2 and 3, Mr. Lynch distinguishes between work to repair the bridge, which requires no new Chapter 91 license, and the "additional outfalls and associated drainage structures." These are "new structures . . . and therefore require c. 91 licensing prior to construction of those drainage facilities."

The structures are shown on plans on pp. 3-4 of Ms. Barnicle's letter as well as in DCR filings with the Boston and Cambridge Conservation Commissions.

In the DCR's Notice of Intent, filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission (DEP File # 123-0215, August, 2008 [Revised October 2008]) Drawings No. 3 and 4 show the extent of the change. Section 3.2, Proposed Work, describes the change to the footprint on the Cambridge side in some detail (plans for equivalent changes to the footprint on the Boston side [is] in the DCR's NOI with the Boston Conservation Commission, DEP # 006-1171):

"The water quality structure will be a [hydrodynamic separator] installed 25 feet east of the bridge . . . . Extending from the water quality structure will be 120 feet of 12 inch concrete pipe. . . . At the end of the line a flared end section will be mated to the new pipe and a riprap channel will be installed . . . . The riprap channel will extend 5 feet from the water line to the outlet of the pipe" (p. 3-2).

Cleaning up Boston Harbor is an important and necessary task. Given the crisis in our transportation system, maintaining the integrity of the Accelerated Bridge Program is also critically important.

The DCR has identified a means of doing both: tying the new drainage system and hydrodynamic separator to the Memorial Drive stormwater system at the BU Bridge (Cambridge NOI, Section 2.2.4.1). This would also, presumably, work in Boston at Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road. The agency nevertheless has opted to change the bridge's footprint, with attendant damage to riverfront parkland.

I would be grateful if you would let me know your opinion, as the official charged with the ABP, of the proposed change to the BU Bridge's footprint. I will call to follow up later this week . . . .

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons

[Attachments as indicated above.]

Good person saves a lost goose.

Bob La Trémouille reports;

Last night, the weather was so bad, very heavy wind and rain, that a golden retriever I am familiar with refused to go out for her evening walk.

In the middle of this mess, Bernice Gittes of Pearl Street, Cambridge, realized she had a Charles River White Goose lost in her yard.

She and her son gave our lost friend an escort back to the river, one on either side, prodding him in the right direction.

Good person.

Thank you very much.

What is the Judge in the Monteiro Case Doing?

The jury decision in the Monteiro case came down in late May.

To no surprise, the opinion of the jury was strikingly similar to the opinion of a very clear majority of people in the street and of outsiders viewing things in the City of Cambridge.

You see, very easily a majority of the most visible "organizations" in the City of Cambridge have been created by friends of the Cambridge City Manager at the request of the Cambridge City Manager (or his minions), and, to no great surprise, operate to protect the Cambridge City Manager. The key people in these organizations praise the heck out of the City Manager and his nine similarly bad city councilors. Their words are commonly great. Their actions are commonly exactly the opposite, and they cannot understand the problem.

The jury expressed a much more common and very much an outsider view of the City of Cambridge and the Cambridge City Manager. The jury expressed contempt for the Cambridge City Manager. The jury found that the Cambridge City Manager deliberately destroyed a woman’s life because she had the nerve to file a civil rights claim against him.

The jury expressed their contempt as powerfully as they could. The jury ordered $1.1 million or so in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages to be paid by the City of Cambridge to Ms. Monteiro.

The city filed motions to reverse the decision. These motions, for the most part, had already been decided in a similar motion before a different judge. One exception, mentioned in the Globe article cited in a prior report, was that the Cambridge City Manager stated that he was mistreated by the failure of the jury to learn that the Civil Rights complaint which was the source of the retaliation was thrown out by a prior jury. So a bad civil rights complaint gives the Cambridge City Manager the right to destroy a woman’s life? That is quite simply not the law.

Also filed was a motion to reduce the award of damages.

The motions were heard in a hearing on June 10, and three filings followed. The first, by the City of Cambridge, was described as papers. The second was described as the plaintiff’s response. The third, on August 4, was a motion by the city to strike the plaintiff’s response.

Now we sit.

I have no access to the papers. They are on the judge’s desk. I have thus no real knowledge as to the content of the papers, only to their titles on the court’s formal list of papers which is called the court docket.

The motion to strike the plaintiff’s response to the city’s papers is highly unusual. Apparently the judge allowed Cambridge to file papers with regard to an argument at the hearing, and allowed the plaintiff to respond to the papers. The motion to strike was apparently the only avenue open to the city to respond to a plaintiff’s paper which was probably devastating.

It would be unusual for the judge to reverse the jury, especially in light of the prior judge’s ruling in the same case.

It seems to me that the judge is responding to motion to reduce damages. The jury socked Cambridge with pretty much the maximum allowed under US Supreme Court decisions, three times damages. It is very difficult to justify such an award in general, but such reprehensible behavior could possibly justify it.

The jury used a broad weapon, money, to respond to really bad behavior.

The judge is not so limited, especially since she had the city’s motion to reduce in front of her. The judge has powers of "equity" in Superior Court in addition to the powers the jury has.

I think she is recognizing that the monetary damages do not hit the point directly enough. I think she is looking at a series of statutes by which the legislature has dictated forfeiture of pension rights in response to severely gross misbehavior in office.

I think she is working on an order replacing part of the monetary punitive damages with an order that the Cambridge City Manager be fired and his pension stripped.

I find such an order a reasonable response to reprehensible behavior, another example of the contempt by decent human beings to the status quo in the City of Cambridge.

A response to an environmental destroyer – State Representative Martha Walz

Bob La Trémouille

State Representative Martha Walz is one of the few people with filthy hands to publicly brag about the outrage going on on the Charles River within half a mile of the BU Bridge.

A few days ago, she put out an email to constituents “informing” the constituents about plans on the Charles River and neglecting to mention her very reprehensible part in the plans.

The following is my response:

***********

Walz has been in the middle of the totally unnecessary heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, and the destruction of the Charles River from the beginning of her term.

She is just as vile as nine heartless members of the Cambridge City Council.

If she were a decent human being:

1. The bizarre starvation wall of designer bushes preventing access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River would be regularly chopped down or destroyed.

2. The biannual destruction of useful protective vegetation throughout the Charles River between the harbor and the Watertown dam would end.

3. The sick destruction of green maintenance at Magazine Beach would end. Green maintenance would be restored. The HEARTLESS, TOTALLY UNNECESSARY starvation attacks on the Charles River White Geese would end, and they would be allowed to return to their 25 year home and food at Magazine Beach BEFORE the BU Bridge repairs start.

4. Fancy drainage pits in Magazine Beach to drain off the totally unnecessary poisons would be ended. If you are not using poisons, you do not need the fancy drainage.

5. The near total destruction of ground vegetation by the DCR between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse would be reversed. The destruction of all undestroyed ground vegetation in that area by the BU Bridge repairs would be ended. The only destruction would be within 25 feet of the BU Bridge. Staging would be placed under Memorial Drive where it belongs. Work would start only after the Charles River White Geese were returned to a green Magazine Beach. The White Geese would be allowed to nest as necessary and the construction be fenced in that 25 foot area.

6. The annual poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl on the Charles River would end.

7. Introduction of light pollution on Charles River bridges would be reversed.

8. The reprehensible Charles River Conservancy would be recognized as the sick entity it is and be barred from future destruction on the Charles River .

But Walz is not a decent human. Walz is just another irresponsible, destructive rotter like the nine Cambridge City Councilors and the Cantabridgians in the State House.

Update on Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports:

A. Report.

We keep you abreast on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court case MICV2001-02737, because it should have very major impact on the reprehensible Cambridge, MA city government.

Apologists for the nine extremely bad city councilors say their environmental destructiveness with holier than thou hypocrisy is acceptable because they are so great on civil rights. A lot of the apologists are unaware of the secret definition being used and the real situation on that front.

A jury, 12 people not influenced by the massive organization in Cambridge that runs around calling black white, decided the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

Malvina Monteiro fits even the secret definition of civil rights. She is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of the city's Police Review board. The jury said she was fired in retaliation for filing a civil rights complaint. The jury awarded $1.1 million plus in actual damages and $3.5 million in penalties. Those penalties show the contempt that decent people have for the situation in Cambridge.

That verdict came down in May. Cambridge filed post trial motions most of which would appear to have already been denied by a prior judge with slightly different wording in the motion, although it is certainly possible that the trial judge would disagree. The one apparently new item would be an attempt to reduce the well earned and very large penalty awarded.

A hearing was conducted on the motions in June and the last, apparently related, papers were filed on August 4.

That last filing is instructive. It was a motion to strike. Apparently, at the hearing, the judge allowed Cambridge to file papers in support of its argument and allowed the plaintiff to respond, but did not create yet another step in which Cambridge could further respond to the plaintiff. Cambridge moved to strike the plaintiff's response, a highly unusual action but technically allowed. My guess is that the plaintiff's response was deadly to Cambridge's argument.

A week or so ago, the plaintiff's attorneys filed a letter to the judge apparently suggesting that six months total and nearly four months after filing of last papers should give her time to make her decision.

On November 21, 2008 (these things take a few days to get posted), the city's attorney filed her letter with the judge.

I cannot see the contents of these various documents. The file is on the judge's desk. All that is available is the title, which I essentially just gave you.

It is reasonable to assume that the city's lawyer agreed with the plaintiff's lawyers that six months after jury verdict and nearly four months after last filing is adequate time for the judge to come to a verdict.

The Boston Globe did a good write up on the case when jury decision came down. The report may be found at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/28/ex_cambridge_city_worker_is_awarded_45m_in_suit/?page=2.

The BU Bridge Repair Project: A responsible Alternative

A. Letter to Governor, Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge Conservation Commission.
I. Introductory, formal opposition.
II. Proposed Resolution of Problem.
III. Project in Context.
i. Destroying all living beings on the Charles River.
ii. Specific facts, general.
iii. Specific facts.
iii. Application of specific facts.
IV. Responsible resolution.
V. Added issues.
1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”
2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.
3. Example of “independent activity.”
B. Letter to Cambridge City Council.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

A. Letter to Governor, Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge Conservation Commission.

I sent the following letter to the governor and the DCR on November 19, 2008. The identical letter was hand delivered to the Cambridge Conservation Commission on November 17, 2008. The identical letter except for the first paragraph was mailed to the Cambridge City Council on November 19, 2008. The first paragraph is provided below.

I am adding subdivisions (Roman Numerals) in accordance with the Internet format, and to make it more clear in this format.

I. Introductory, formal opposition.

November 19, 2008

Governor Leval Patrick
State House
Boston, MA 02133

RE: BU Bridge Reconstruction Project

Sir:

Please be advised of my opposition to the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project as currently proposed. I do think that the project can be accomplished with minimal responsible modifications to the proposal.

II. Proposed Resolution of Problem.

I propose:

1. Chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else.

2. Return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap.

3. Kill the new, expensive drainage system at Magazine Beach. Green maintenance does not require this expenditure.

4. Let the White Geese return to Magazine Beach where they lived for 25 years.

5. Let them return to their nesting area, the location of the current proposal for environmental destruction, as they deem necessary.

6. Put the staging where it is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.

7. To the extent this delays the current project, so be it. The DCR has scheduled things for maximum destruction. Minor delays for responsible behavior comport to the delays the DCR has already incurred in the area attempting to introduce vegetation at Magazine Beach which is unfit for planting on the Charles River.

8. Prohibit the continuation of destruction of protective vegetation lining the Charles River. Require twice annual chopping to one foot of the bizarre designer vegetation introduced at Magazine Beach, or, better use, require its removal. Prohibit the continued poisoning of the eggs of waterfowl.

III. Project in Context.

i. Destroying all living beings on the Charles River.

This project is most definitely NOT free standing but is carefully coordinated to fit in with directly related environmental destruction efforts by the DCR. The coordination should be modified to minimize environmental destruction. Currently, the coordination maximizes environmental destruction.

The DCR is in the process of destroying all living beings on the Charles River, either directly or indirectly through destroying their ecosystem. The goal is to replace a viable and mixed ecosystem with a dead ecosystem. A balance of nature is being replaced with a suburban lawn. And a lot of lying has been and continues to be used in that regard. The important lie in this project is the claim that the project is independent of the DCR’s many other environmental outrages in the area.

Key in this project’s link to environmental destruction is deliberate and cumulative harm to the local animal and vegetation population.

ii. Specific facts, general.

In 2004-2005, the DCR took their food away from the Charles River White Geese by destroying the wetlands at Magazine Beach and replacing that wetlands with an introduced wall of bushes blocking access from the Charles River to most of Magazine Beach.

The DCR and Cambridge have just expanded on that destruction by digging up all the grass at Magazine Beach, the 25 year food and habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The grass has been replaced with a mudpit. It is the intention of the DCR and Cambridge to poison that grass with new additions to the soil whether technically called “chemicals” or otherwise.

The DCR has denied any responsibility for the actions of its agent, Cambridge. The DCR is playing the DCR’s usual irresponsible game of saying don’t talk to me, talk to my coconspirator/agent. No way. It is all one package. It is all highly irresponsible. The denial of responsibility is yet another type of the very varied amount of lies we have seen from the DCR over the past nine years.

iii. Specific facts.

A summary of the record:

In September 2004, the DCR and Cambridge simultaneously walled off the Charles River White Geese from all of their food.

The DCR destroyed access at Magazine Beach with the construction zone followed by the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation. At a public meeting during the past week, a DCR representative bragged that this bizarre wall prevents the feeding of the Charles River White Geese. The bizarre wall of vegetation directly violates the so-called Charles River Master Plan.

Cambridge destroyed access at the BU Boathouse and across from the Hyatt Regency by installing a wall of plastic between the Charles River and the grass.

In the past five years, the DCR through its agents has destroyed every piece of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation in the core nesting area just east of the BU Bridge which this project proposes to destroy. This is the only portion of their habitat that DCR and Cambridge did not bar them from in 2004.

So pretty much all of the world of the Charles River White Geese was simultaneously destroyed to them, and they would now be confined to an artificially created (by the DCR) mudpit in one quarter of their nesting area in place of the mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge where they lived until September 2004.

This extreme and deliberate cruelty is inexcusable.

Its importance is emphasized by the flat out lie that the DCR put out about the Charles River White Geese starting in 2000, repeatedly stated and continuing even after the DCR and its agents / associates imposed starvation and deprival of habitat in 2004:

The promise that the DCR would do no harm to the Charles River White Geese.

This has been followed up by the demand of the DCR at the recent meeting in Boston that the Charles River White Geese find temporary housing while this latest destruction is inflicted on them. This is the sort of sick mentality by which man is destroying our world, compounded by the obvious stupidity of the demand, given their proven attachment to their home of nearly 30 years, and the high likelihood that the DCR would happily kill them if they did move.

iii. Application of specific facts.

The heartlessness of this latest attack is compounded by the simultaneous and totally needless conversion of Magazine Beach, the primary habitat of the Charles River White Geese, into a mudpit.

The combination of the two projects destroys the little that was not destroyed in September 2004, AND prevents immediate conversion of Magazine Beach to use Magazine Beach as the nine month home of the Charles River White Geese, which is the proper nine month residence of the Charles River white Geese anyway.

IV. Responsible resolution.

The DCR’s priorities in the BU Bridge area should be reversed.

Use of and destruction of the nesting area for staging should be prohibited. Staging under Memorial Drive is good for the sidewalk project. It should be good for the Memorial Bridge project.

If use of the staging area under Memorial Drive delays the project, that is the fault of the DCR.

Instead of timing the project to maximize animal harm, it should be timed to minimize animal harm. The totally unnecessary destruction of Magazine Beach to replace green maintenance with chemical maintenance should be stopped in its tracks. GREEN seeding of grass should be resumed. The bizarre massive athletic complex should be killed and fields with athletics on top of it should resume.

Instead of the DCR’s current semi-annual destruction of valuable native ground vegetation twice a year everywhere on the Charles below the Watertown dam, the protective vegetation should be allowed to resume.

The bizarre INTRODUCED wall of vegetation walling off Magazine Beach should be chopped to the ground and removed instead of the semi-annual destruction of useful vegetation, and the resumption of this wasteful destruction should be prohibited. Mr. Corsi at a meeting last week essentially bragged that this wall is starving the Charles River White Geese in response to a question.

The total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse should be reversed by normal seeding. The tiny portion that has not been destroyed should not be destroyed except for that area next to the BU Bridge needed for the BU Bridge project.

Once Magazine Beach once again becomes fit to use and the destroyed vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse is returned to normal, the Charles River White Geese should be allowed to resume their migratory lifestyle within their mile long habitat centered on the BU Bridge, spending most of their life at Magazine Beach in A HEALTHY GREEN environment, with nesting at the destroyed nesting area only interrupted insofar as necessary to do the work on the BU Bridge within 25 feet of the BU Bridge for the most part, less near the water.

To the extent the current irresponsible timing is impacted by responsible behavior, that is the fault of the DCR for proposing irresponsible timing.

Sincerely,



Robert J. La Trémouille

V. Added issues.

ADDENDUM:

1. Objection to recognition of “organization.”

It is my understanding that a purported citizens group created by an employee of the Cambridge City Manager will be approaching the board claiming some sort of independent existence and not informing the board of its connection to the Cambridge City Manager.

Please note my objections to the claimed independent status of this group and to its very destructive goals.

This group calls itself something like “liveable streets coalition.” It is a highway organization with goals too close to those of the Cambridge City Manager. It is fighting for a new highway which would destroy approximately 83 out of the 110 trees located between the Hyatt and the Memorial Drive split. It is also supporting destruction of the Nesting Area for a similar highway connecting to the railroad bridge.

I condemn these outrageous proposals and I condemn the tactics behind these proposals.

The Cambridge City Manager is a co-conspirator with the DCR in the destruction of the environment of the Charles River. The Cambridge City Manager’s supposed independent organization is fighting for his very destructive cause.

The Cambridge City Council will hopefully fire the Cambridge City Manager because of a jury verdict finding heartless behavior in a civil rights matter, $1 + million damages, $3.5 million punitive damages.

If the Cambridge City Council behaves in a responsible manner, perhaps we will see fewer of these supposed citizen’s groups with undisclosed connections to the Cambridge City Manager.

2. Approach to interpretation of DCR Comments.

The level of lying and the variation of the techniques of lying by the DCR over the past nine years has been nothing less than incredible.

I believe nothing that the DCR says that would help them in their quest for the destruction of all living beings on the Charles River.

At its last discussion of this matter, the Conservation Commission questioned why the DCR has not conducted public meetings on this matter with its major harm to Cambridge. The DCR with entirely unsurprising bad faith conducted a meeting on the BU campus and invited a whole bunch of developer types. They did not conduct their meeting in a location convenient for Cambridge residents who are concerned about the DCR’s belligerent lack of responsible behavior.

One flat out lie from the Boston meeting has been abandoned: that the vegetation needlessly being destroyed for staging is larger than the area available under the BU Bridge. The latest explanation (and the DCR keeps on varying explanations) is that the excess destruction is for convenience. The DCR brags that the DCR is too lazy to cross one and a half lanes of traffic for their staging.

The other flat out lie from the Boston meeting seems to continue: This is the bizarre lie that the Charles River White Geese WILL find temporary housing as justification for the needless destruction of their homes.

I anticipate that the “expert” who made this bizarre statement will plead stupidity.

“Oh, you mean there is a difference between the White Geese and the Canadas?”

Claiming to be this stupid after being introduced as an expert is another variety of flat out lying.

The Canadas are migratory.

The White Geese are permanent residents for nearly 30 years and have remained in their devastated habitat after the outrages of 2004 and after the ongoing destruction of ground vegetation in their consigned ghetto.

That very major attachment to their home of nearly 30 years says everything and proves the comparison to Canadas to be a flat out lie.

I anticipate that the DCR’s “expert” will brag that the DCR’s “expert” does not understand the difference.

3. Example of “independent activity.”

In the Boston meeting, I was shouted down by a person known to be a friend of the DCR and Cambridge when I attempted to respond to the above analyzed two outrageous lies of the DCR.

There are too many friends of the DCR and Cambridge running around falsely claiming to be independent.

I consider the activities of such people and their claims of being “independent” just another technique of lying.

B. Letter to Cambridge City Council.

The letter to the Cambridge City Council was identical except for the first paragraph which reads as follows:
**************

Please be advised of my opposition to the BU Bridge Reconstruction Project as currently proposed. Your actions are part of the problem. The project can be accomplished with minimal responsible modifications to the proposal.

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

The agenda for the next meeting, November 24, 2008, is posted on line. The letter is not included. So, I anticipate it was not received in time. Not terribly surprising, I anticipate it will be on the following week’s agenda.

DCR / Cambridge attacks in Cambridge Chronicle

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

The letter sent by Marilyn Wellons reported on this blog a few days ago was printed, apparently without edit, by the Cambridge Chronicle in its 11/20/08 Edition.

Immediately following Marilyn’s letter was the following letter from me, also with no apparent edits:

**********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

Your report on the DCR plans for BU Bridge reconstruction quotes me as shouting “nonsense.” You misquoted the DCR position I was responding to and neglected to mention that I had been at the mike and that my return to the mike was blocked by a DCR/City Council supporter loudly yelling against allowing me to respond.

The DCR representative proclaimed that the DCR and Cambridge have the right to, for silly reasons, take the entire world of the Charles River White Geese away from them and that the White Geese have a duty to find another place to live on their own and then come back.

This is the sort of outrageous mentality by which man is destroying our world.

As bad as this is, the real level of behavior of the City Council and the DCR is even worse.

In 2004, they took away 90% of the 25 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese. They introduced a bizarre wall of ten foot high vegetation at Magazine Beach which violates the DCR’s stated goals for Magazine Beach and blocks access to the Charles River instead of assisting swimming as claimed by their apologists; and they built a wall of plastic across from the Hyatt to keep the White Geese from that grass / food for no stated reason.

They isolated the Geese between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. They then destroyed all vegetation except for what they now demand to destroy.

The area next to the BU Bridge is needed for repairs. The DCR is demanding destruction above what is necessary, so that the combination will destroy EVERY bit of ground vegetation they have left. They claim to be destroying for staging. First they claimed the area of vegetation being destroyed is larger than the area under Memorial Drive being released by the sidewalk project. Now that that has been shown to be false, they just want to destroy because they are too lazy to cross the street.

The responsible alternative would be: (1) chop down the bizarre vegetated wall at Magazine Beach, as the DCR chops down useful vegetation everywhere else (2) return Magazine Beach to the historical green maintenance instead of chemicals and fertilizer and a new, expensive drainage system to drain the crap, (3) let the White Geese return to Magazine Beach where they lived for 25 years, (4) let them return to their nesting area as necessary, and (5) put the staging where it is environmentally responsible, under Memorial Drive.

Yes, I said “nonsense.” The statement was nonsense and my detailed response was blocked with very clear lack of fair play.

Monteiro Case

Bob La Tremouille has kept us posted about this case, in which a jury awarded $4.5M (including $3.5M punitive damages) against the City of Cambridge for retaliation against the former head of the Cambridge Police Review and Advisory Board. She had the temerity to file a lawsuit that the city had discriminated against her.

Although the jury found the city had not discriminated, it found the city had indeed retaliated for the filing.

Cambridge has appealed the decision, and the judge in the case has yet to rule on the appeal.

Bob now reports that the docket records a paper "dated 11/10/08 from Laura Studen and
Ellen Zucker. The docket does not identify the content and it would just be added to the file.

"The are the plaintiff's attorneys. I assume they are reminding the judge that the jury's decision was six months ago and the papers have not changed since August. I would imagine that they think something should be happening."

Bob will report further in due course.

Marilyn Wellons

********

Bob replies:

Thanks for the accurate summary.

Oneof the key issues to remember when dealing with the nine hyprocrites on the Cambridge City Council is the explanation of their apologists for their environmental vileness.

The apologists say that these outrageous people have a right to be environmentally destructive and lie that they are exactly the opposite because they are so good on "Civil Rights."

Montero is a Black Woman, Cape Verdean.

The nine hypocrites have their own secret definition of civil rights (as usual), but Montero satisfies every part of their secret definition.

Marilyn Reports on DCR Report to Neighborhood

Marilyn has submitted the following to the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle:

Editor, Cambridge Chronicle

To the Editor:

At a neighborhood meeting November 12, DCR representatives once again heard about the need for improvements and proper maintenance at the pools and bath house at Magazine Beach. They also heard again about the need to repair the DCR footbridge, damaged years ago, for safe pedestrian access across Memorial Drive. Like all who use this state parkland, Cambridge residents want greater, and safer, use and enjoyment of these major facilities. Focus on the pools and footbridge has been a constant at all public meetings for ten years.

DCR representatives said they were working on all of the above and these things take time.

At Magazine Beach the DCR has had other, higher priorities. Together with Cambridge and the city’s $1.5M, it is destroying what has simultaneously been playing fields open to all, wetland habitat, and passive open space for city dwellers in need of air, light, and contact with the natural world. Our City Council and Manager, obsessed with the tax base and AAA bond rating, have chosen to appropriate state parkland for playing fields for Cambridge schools and groups, rather than invest in city-owned playing fields for our children in underserved neighborhoods like East Cambridge.

The prototype for Magazine Beach is the DCR’s Ebersol Fields, installed in May, 2006, near MGH in Boston. Runoff from chemicals applied to the commercial sod there fed the astronomical algae blooms that summer and after, undoing a $60M cleanup that had given the river a B+ rating there in late 2005. DCR representatives at the neighborhood meeting professed to know nothing about Ebersol’s role in this pollution. When asked what chemicals would be used to maintain the turf at Magazine Beach, they shrugged and pointed to Cambridge, which will be responsible for keeping its expensive stuff at peak quality. When asked what chemicals the sod they deliver will come with, the DCR did not answer.

What will our city’s so-called green policies bring to Magazine Beach, then? They’re now destroying these wetlands on the International Atlantic Flyway, redoing the riverfront path to previous specifications for a road suitable for cars and small trucks, and damaging mature trees at the northeast edge. They deny humans access to the river and river views with a wall of plants unique to the Charles: 10’ high, they are never whacked, not even for the Head of the Charles.

Some amenity our $1.5M is buying.

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons
651 Green Street
Cambridge 02139

Visibility 373, Good Guys and Bad Guys

Bob La Trémouille reports:



1. Visibility 363, November 11, 2008.

2. Good guys, Brighton, 11/11/08.

3. Bad guys, Cambridgeport, 11/12/08.



1. Visibility 363, November 11, 2008.

I was at the BU Bridge / Destroyed Nesting Area during rush hour.

Apparently because of the Veteran's Day holiday, traffic was down severely.

Percentage of takes on leaflets was up dramatically. It looked like I was meeting a lot of new people who were quite interested.

2. Good guys, Brighton, 11/11/08.

I went from the BU Bridge to the Green Streets meeting in Brighton.

These well meaning people spent an hour seeking a very minimal level of green space.

The sort of green space they are fighting for, Cambridge City Councilors routinely destroy, either because mature trees are in the middle of saplings or because the City Councilors change zoning to allow construction to the sidewalk.

3. Bad guys, Cambridgeport, 11/12/08.

The DCR was in Cambridgeport last night.

It is constantly amazing to see them contradicting themselves. There is no reality when words have no meaning.

The most important comment was that Corsi claims to support lawns to the Charles when appropriate. Last night, he claimed to think that Magazine Beach is not appropriate.

Fascinating, now his beloved Charles River Master Plan, according to him, seems to be a flat out lie when it calls for a lawn to the Charles at Magazine Beach and no bizarre wall of introduced designer bushes.

We are dealing with people who very consistently say what will work to get this particular audience happy.

Visibility No. 372, Cambridge Conservation Commission hearing November 17, 2008

Marilyn Wellons reports on leafleting at the BU Bridge on Monday, November 10:

It was dusk but, as usual, many drivers gave thumbs-up on seeing the sign to Save Magazine Beach. Even in the dusk they, cyclists, and passers-by took the flyers.

When people stopped to talk they wanted to know what was going on at Magazine Beach, and to say how much they enjoy the urban wild at the goose meadow. Many of them check it out every day as they cross the bridge. They tell me they love it, and draw strength from this contact with the natural world.

I told them about Cambridge's destruction of habitat and playing fields open to all Magazine Beach. Some people say they're not Cambridge residents, but are upset to learn the city is essentially appropriating state parkland for the privileged use of its own groups.

I also alerted them to the Department of Conservation and Recreation's plans to destroy the goose meadow--home to rabbits, hawks, mallard ducks, migrating songbirds and waterfowl as well as the White Geese--under the guise of work on the BU Bridge.

The Cambridge Conservation Commission will hear the DCR's request to destroy the goose meadow at its hearing on November 17, 2008, at 8:30 pm at the 2nd floor conference room, 344 Broadway (corner of Inman Street). All who care about this place should plan to attend, if at all possible, I say.

The DCR claims it needs to clear all of the meadow 100 feet from the river to the sidewalk for construction staging. In fact it could go under the Reid Overpass at the BU Bridge rotary, where staging for the sidewalk repair is now. That equipment will be gone and there's plenty of room beyond what it occupies for the larger project.

Further, the DCR wants to clear a 50-foot wide work zone in the nesting area for, among other things, a stormwater drainage system that could go elsewhere.

Although the proposed staging area is technically beyond the ConCom's jurisdiction, destruction there will necessarily affect the 100' zone that is within its jurisdiction. And the stormwater system and work zone next to the bridge is certainly within that jurisdiction.

Will the ConCom approve all this destruction? It has accepted the DCR's lies about Magazine Beach--that human activity had so altered what is normally rich habitat that the habitat no longer existed there--and approved the project that itself is even now destroying that habitat. Whether it will go along with the DCR's convenient lie that it must use the goose meadow for staging and stormwater management, and consent to wholesale destruction of habitat on the Charles remains to be seen.

Day 371, Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA.

1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.
2. Environmental destroyers on the attack.
3. Update on Monteiro v. Cambridge.
A. Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA.
B. Current Mayor downright indignant when approached about her attacks on the little guy.
C. Abuse of the handicapped.
D. Abuse of Women. Abuse of Blacks. Abuse of employees complaining about violation of their Civil Rights.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Report from the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The past several days have been rainy.

Today, November 9, was clear, so I gave it a try.

What a wind!!!

Nice people, big sign. I did not last long.

2. Environmental destroyers on the attack.

In Cambridge, with its Con Game organizations, the louder many groups yell that they are pro-environment, the more they should be suspect.

By now, the nine destructive city councilors do not have to give orders. Their followers know what to do.

Don’t look at the outrage on the Charles. Don’t look at the outrage at Alewife. Don’t look at the outrage at Fresh Pond. Don’t look at the needless environmental destruction in so many city projects. Let’s save the world.

A well establish Con Game type of group in Cambridgeport is putting on a speech with regard to saving the world.

A related group is talking about putting on a referendum to save the world.

Sounds like something truly reprehensible must be going on for the con games to be coming so loud and fast.

Interesting. Something truly reprehensible is going on.

3. Update on Monteiro v. Cambridge.

A. Civil Rights in Cambridge, MA.

Part of the con game coming out of the nine city councilors’ representatives is: How dare you object to their irresponsible destruction of the environment. Think of how great they are on Civil Rights!!!

Part of this nonsense is the usual secret redefinition of terms.

Civil Rights is the rights of the little guy.

In Cambridge, MA, they have redefined "civil rights" as the rights of politically powerful lobbies.

B. Current Mayor downright indignant when approached about her attacks on the little guy.

The current mayor was downright indignant when a representative wanted to discuss her heartless treatment of the animals of the Charles River.

Her explanation translated as: How dare you bother me with this. That is the little guy.

C. Abuse of the handicapped.

Cambridge and the Cambridge City Council have been trying to take the use of her guide dog away from a handicapped woman.

She has now had two findings of probable cause of discrimination made by the Massachusetts Commission aAgainst Discrimination.

D. Abuse of Women. Abuse of Blacks. Abuse of employees complaining about violation of their Civil Rights.

This is Monteiro v. Cambridge.

In May, a jury found that Cambridge had discriminated against Melvina Monteiro a black woman (Cape Verdean?) who was head of the Police Review Board.

The jury found the discrimination to be retaliation by firing her for filing a civil rights complaint.

The jury awarded $1.1 million in actual damages (approximate) plus $3.5 million in penal damages.

Cambridge filed motions to amend or throw out the verdict. These motions were similar to a motion which a previous judge in the case threw out a couple of years ago, except that there is now a dollar verdict which the judge might want to reduce.

Rather clearly, the jury was trying to send a message. The jury’s message was that Cambridge’s behavior was reprehensible.

The judge held a hearing on the motions and Cambridge and the plaintiff then filed various papers.

I keep an e