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.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 17, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
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 eye on the docket every day or so to see if the judge’s decision has come down yet.
It has not.
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 eye on the docket every day or so to see if the judge’s decision has come down yet.
It has not.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Response to a press release printed by the Cambridge Chronicle without attempt at balance
1. Report on the hustings.
2. Letter to the Editor in response.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Report on the hustings.
A gentleman passing by at a visibility slowed down enough to tell me that the Cambridge Chronicle had published a favorable report on the destruction of Magazine Beach.
Marilyn found a copy on line and gave me a link.
It turned out to be what looks a City of Cambridge press release printed with minimal edits and no attempt at unbiased coverage.
We issued our press release, which is provided below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/press-release-cambridge-council-and-dcr.html.
Cambridge’s was printed. Not only was our release not printed, it was not even used as a source to show the other side of Cambridge’s nonsense.
2. Letter to the Editor in response.
On November 3, I sent the following to the Cambridge Chronicle as a response. Since I use the phrase “flat out lies” in the conclusion, after proving contents of the press release to be such, it is possible that the letter may be deemed too intemperate for publication.
*************
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I was told about your buried report on the mudpit just created at Magazine Beach.
It turns out to seem to be a loosely edited press release with no attempt to be objective.
The City of Cambridge, in its press release, brags about a large number of municipal benefits from this project. It mentions exactly none.
The City of Cambridge brags about public meetings. To the extent the outrage on the Charles River has been discussed at public meetings, public input has been ignored.
To the extent the outrage on the Charles River has been mentioned in public meetings, the City of Cambridge has kept secret the important stuff:
1. Destruction of Green Maintenance to replace it with Chemical maintenance.
2. Poisoning of local birds feeding on the chemicals as part of an ongoing destruction of as much life as can be destroyed on the Charles River. Related is the annual poisoning of bird eggs.
3. The deliberate and heartless starving of the Charles River White Geese and the barring of them from 90% of their habitat.
4. The blocking off of the Charles from Magazine Beach by the construction of a bizarre wall of vegetation, at the same time as useful vegetation on the Charles needed for migrating birds is destroyed twice a year.
5. The destruction of all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for vegetation being destroyed, needlessly or otherwise, in the BU Bridge reconstruction. Half of that destruction is for staging that could and should be placed under Memorial Drive.
6. Silly destruction of trees.
Agents of Cambridge / the DCR have bragged about the bizarre wall of vegetation. They conducted a media event to brag that it would help swimming. Walling off Magazine Beach helps swimming?
The DCR has spent something like eight years promising they would not harm the Charles River White Geese. Poisoning them is harm. Starving them is harm. Taking their habitat away from them is harm. Destroying the vegetation they live in in the tiny area which has been left to them as their ghetto is harm.
And nine city councilors create con game organizations saving the world’s environment and not wanting to know about the Charles River.
So the edited press release looks like Pablum based on flat out lies of public input and public benefit.
Business as usual from the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.
2. Letter to the Editor in response.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Report on the hustings.
A gentleman passing by at a visibility slowed down enough to tell me that the Cambridge Chronicle had published a favorable report on the destruction of Magazine Beach.
Marilyn found a copy on line and gave me a link.
It turned out to be what looks a City of Cambridge press release printed with minimal edits and no attempt at unbiased coverage.
We issued our press release, which is provided below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/press-release-cambridge-council-and-dcr.html.
Cambridge’s was printed. Not only was our release not printed, it was not even used as a source to show the other side of Cambridge’s nonsense.
2. Letter to the Editor in response.
On November 3, I sent the following to the Cambridge Chronicle as a response. Since I use the phrase “flat out lies” in the conclusion, after proving contents of the press release to be such, it is possible that the letter may be deemed too intemperate for publication.
*************
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I was told about your buried report on the mudpit just created at Magazine Beach.
It turns out to seem to be a loosely edited press release with no attempt to be objective.
The City of Cambridge, in its press release, brags about a large number of municipal benefits from this project. It mentions exactly none.
The City of Cambridge brags about public meetings. To the extent the outrage on the Charles River has been discussed at public meetings, public input has been ignored.
To the extent the outrage on the Charles River has been mentioned in public meetings, the City of Cambridge has kept secret the important stuff:
1. Destruction of Green Maintenance to replace it with Chemical maintenance.
2. Poisoning of local birds feeding on the chemicals as part of an ongoing destruction of as much life as can be destroyed on the Charles River. Related is the annual poisoning of bird eggs.
3. The deliberate and heartless starving of the Charles River White Geese and the barring of them from 90% of their habitat.
4. The blocking off of the Charles from Magazine Beach by the construction of a bizarre wall of vegetation, at the same time as useful vegetation on the Charles needed for migrating birds is destroyed twice a year.
5. The destruction of all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for vegetation being destroyed, needlessly or otherwise, in the BU Bridge reconstruction. Half of that destruction is for staging that could and should be placed under Memorial Drive.
6. Silly destruction of trees.
Agents of Cambridge / the DCR have bragged about the bizarre wall of vegetation. They conducted a media event to brag that it would help swimming. Walling off Magazine Beach helps swimming?
The DCR has spent something like eight years promising they would not harm the Charles River White Geese. Poisoning them is harm. Starving them is harm. Taking their habitat away from them is harm. Destroying the vegetation they live in in the tiny area which has been left to them as their ghetto is harm.
And nine city councilors create con game organizations saving the world’s environment and not wanting to know about the Charles River.
So the edited press release looks like Pablum based on flat out lies of public input and public benefit.
Business as usual from the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Visibility 370, Governor’s Ethics Committee Lacks Credibility.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Visibility 370, October 30, 2008.
2. Governor Creates Ethics Panel.
3. Follow Up to Governor.
4. The Governor Responds.
1. Visibility 370, October 30, 2008.
Marilyn did a visibility on Thursday to the usual good response.
2. Governor Creates Ethics Panel.
A message to Governor Patrick, left at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us this morning.
*********
RE: Governor’s Ethics Committee Lacks Credibility
Senator Diane Wilkerson has been indicted for various unethical charges. She previously has received sanctions for ethics lapses.
You have now created an “ethics” panel to discuss ethics in government.
My impression as I have watched her has that she and the DCR feel very compatible to me.
I have no reason to think that money is changing hands.
The variety of techniques of lying that the DCR has used over the past eight years, however, has been nothing less than flabbergasting.
The DCR would never have gotten away with their many and ongoing items of destruction of the environment on the Charles River without their plethora of lying techniques.
I have filed repeated complaints with you.
Are you serious about ethics?
I doubt it.
I doubt very seriously that the ongoing pattern of multiple techniques of lying by the DCR will receive even the slightest notice by you or your committee. It certainly seems to have gotten no interest on your behalf.
I thus have no respect for the committee.
3. Follow Up to Governor.
I just left the following at the same address:
RE: Ethics Committee. DCR not as good as Wilkerson?
*******
Following up my message of a few minutes ago, I have no reason to believe Senator Wilkerson is a liar.
4. The governor responds:
I received the following at about 1:30 pm. The header is omitted because it raises hell with this report for technical reasons.
***********
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with Governor Patrick. The Governor values your opinions and enjoys hearing from people across the Commonwealth. Please know that your views are always welcome in this administration.
The Governor and his staff strive to review every piece of correspondence in a timely manner. If appropriate, we will forward your message to the appropriate staff member, department or the state agency that can best address your concerns.
If you need an immediate response, please call the Governor’s Office at 617-725-4005 to speak with a Constituent Services Aide. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with Governor Patrick. Stay involved and engaged...this is your government!
1. Visibility 370, October 30, 2008.
2. Governor Creates Ethics Panel.
3. Follow Up to Governor.
4. The Governor Responds.
1. Visibility 370, October 30, 2008.
Marilyn did a visibility on Thursday to the usual good response.
2. Governor Creates Ethics Panel.
A message to Governor Patrick, left at http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us this morning.
*********
RE: Governor’s Ethics Committee Lacks Credibility
Senator Diane Wilkerson has been indicted for various unethical charges. She previously has received sanctions for ethics lapses.
You have now created an “ethics” panel to discuss ethics in government.
My impression as I have watched her has that she and the DCR feel very compatible to me.
I have no reason to think that money is changing hands.
The variety of techniques of lying that the DCR has used over the past eight years, however, has been nothing less than flabbergasting.
The DCR would never have gotten away with their many and ongoing items of destruction of the environment on the Charles River without their plethora of lying techniques.
I have filed repeated complaints with you.
Are you serious about ethics?
I doubt it.
I doubt very seriously that the ongoing pattern of multiple techniques of lying by the DCR will receive even the slightest notice by you or your committee. It certainly seems to have gotten no interest on your behalf.
I thus have no respect for the committee.
3. Follow Up to Governor.
I just left the following at the same address:
RE: Ethics Committee. DCR not as good as Wilkerson?
*******
Following up my message of a few minutes ago, I have no reason to believe Senator Wilkerson is a liar.
4. The governor responds:
I received the following at about 1:30 pm. The header is omitted because it raises hell with this report for technical reasons.
***********
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with Governor Patrick. The Governor values your opinions and enjoys hearing from people across the Commonwealth. Please know that your views are always welcome in this administration.
The Governor and his staff strive to review every piece of correspondence in a timely manner. If appropriate, we will forward your message to the appropriate staff member, department or the state agency that can best address your concerns.
If you need an immediate response, please call the Governor’s Office at 617-725-4005 to speak with a Constituent Services Aide. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with Governor Patrick. Stay involved and engaged...this is your government!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)