Action in Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.
2. Matters pending, new action.


1. Introductory.

This report updates the situation on Malvina Monteiro, et al. v. City of Cambridge et al., Middlesex Superior Court Civil Action 2001-02737 (simplifying citation for sake of clarity).

In this case, judge and jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had destroyed the life of a black woman who was head of Cambridge’s Police Review Board in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The key judge’s decision may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. One word summarizes her analysis: “reprehensible.”

The award currently exceeds $5 million, about $1.1 million damages, $3.5 million penal damages and $.5 million interest.

There are several matters pending in the Monteiro case. I do not have access to the papers, only to the “docket.” From the docket, I can get the title of the papers filed by the parties and commonly get the full opinions of the judge with a lot of formatting, especially paragraphing, lost.

The jury’s verdict was announced in April 2008.

After the post trial motions were filed, argued and supplemental filings filed, it took something like nine months before the judge issued her EXTREMELY WELL WRITTEN decision on the various matters. Clearly, she takes her time and does good work.

After that, the judge issued a formal judgment. This commonly is the end of a case unless it is appealed.

2. Matters pending, new action.

The current items of major significance now pending are:

a. The plaintiff’s post judgment motion to increase the interest paid the plaintiff on the damages awarded.

b. The defendant’s motion to reconsider the decision. This motion was filed shortly after a court decision came down on penal damages.

Each motion, of course, was opposed by the other side.

On Tuesday, December 28, 2009, the Court received a formal paper entitled “Plaintiff Monteiro Submission Of Supplemental Authority.”

Translated into English, it would appear that the Plaintiff’s attorney has submitted additional legal arguments in support of the Plaintiff’s position on one of the pending motions. An educated guess would be that the filing was with regard to the Defendant’s motion to reconsider.

WHISTLING IN THE DARK? (Part III)

Archie Mazmanian is the principal contributor, edited by Bob.

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Prior reports in this series.

1. Archie’s Report.

What if a MA governmental employer fails to comply with subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute? (The Statute is available at: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/149-185.htm - download and print it out for reference. Also, refer to Parts I and II of this series.)

Section 180 of Chapter 149 provides:

“Whoever violates a provision of this chapter for which no specific penalty is provided shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.”

While Section 185 of Chapter 149 provides for certain damages to an employee under subsection (d), there is no specific penalty prescribed for an employer’s failure to comply with the notices required by subsection (g).

Whether a MA governmental employee has standing to enforce Section 180 is not clear. However, Section 2 of Chapter 149 provides:

“The attorney general shall, except as otherwise specifically provided, enforce the provisions of this chapter, and shall have all necessary powers therefor.”

Presumably the MA Office of the Attorney General (“AG”) could seek the enforcement of such a fine from a MA governmental employer under Section 180 for failure to comply with subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute.

The Whistleblower Statute has been in force since early in 1994. It is not clear just how many MA government employers are in compliance with their subsection (g) requirements. Surely the AG has the authority as well as the responsibility to enforce compliance with subsection (g). Is the AG doing so?

What are the incentives for MA government employers to comply with subsection (g)? The possibility of “punishment by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars” does not seem like a realistic incentive, even assuming that the AG were to seek such fines pursuant to Section 180 of Chapter 149.

Might the public policy behind the enactment of the Whistleblower Statute serve as an incentive to comply with the requirements of subsection (g)? Or is there reason for such employers to fear the results of such compliance? MA governmental employees following this series might check with their employers to determine whether the latter are in compliance with subsection (g). Such compliance would not only afford protection to such employees with respect to their employment but would also protect the public by serving to lessen inappropriate conduct by employers that might impact the public fisc.

While the failure of a MA governmental employer to comply with subsection (g) does not deprive an employee of rights under the Whistleblower Statute, the employee may not become aware of such rights in the absence of such compliance. Thus, the employer’s failure, intentional or otherwise, to so comply may diminish the rights of an employee with respect to unlawful retaliatory action against the employee by the employer. Might this serve as a perverse incentive on the part of a MA government employer NOT to comply with subsection (g)?

[Part IV of this series will address how MA governmental employees and the public might address such non-compliance with subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute.]

2. Prior reports in this series.

Part 2: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-ii.html.

Part 1: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-i.html.

Good Boston Globe Op Ed Against Department of Conservation and Recreation

Bob reports:

Eric Chivian has had published in today’s (12/27/09) Boston Globe’s on line edition (and probably hard copy as well) an op ed entitled “The folly in felling Bay State’s Forests.”

This is an intelligent analysis of the logging tendencies of the reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation. It may be found at http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/12/27/the_folly_in_felling_bay_states_forests/.

I have already posted a response concerning the Charles River and the interrelationship with the reprehensible City of Cambridge. (That judge has an excellent choice of words.)

Thanks to Archie for pointing the op ed out.

It should be noted that the Cambridge Pols are involved in a non-stop praising exercise in support of this vile entity. This is basically an example of really bad people falsely praising other really bad people with the intension that both the bad guys look good to the unaware victim.

On looking over the comments, I note a lot of other comments critical of this reprehensible bureaucracy. In particular, it would appear that the DCR is said to have lost “FSC certification” in April 2009.

These are really rotten people. There is a comment at the end about the governor’s failure to clean up the mess.

DREAMING OF A CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE CHRISTMAS

Archie Mazmanian reports:

With all the holiday songs, Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" comes to mind and I wish Gov. Deval Patrick on down might consider this variation:

"I'm dreaming of a Charles River White Geese Christmas,
Just like the ones I used to know ...."

Fulfillment of this wish would benefit generations to come. Gov. Patrick, a pardon is in order.

WHISTLING IN THE DARK? (Part II)

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.
2. Much more minimal research by Bob.

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.

The City of Cambridge website is quite extensive, with search aids providing access to various public documents, records and information. However, despite my extensive search efforts, I was unable to link to any notices required by subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute. (See Part I of this series. The Whistleblower Statute is available at: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/149-185.htm - download and print it out for reference.) While I did find several references to General Laws Chapter 149, I found none for its Section 185.

The neighboring Town of Arlington has posted its “Employee Handbook” on the Internet in PDF form, available by “Googling” Town of Arlington Whistle Blower Policy. Its Whistleblower Policy is on pages 11 and 12.

Perhaps the City of Cambridge has posts of the required subsection (g) notices on bulletin boards at its public facilities. [Note: My search of the bulletin boards on the third floor of City Hall on 12/23/09 failed to reveal such notices. There is a detailed laminated post prepared by the Office of the MA Attorney General (“AG”) relative to MA Wage and Hour Laws with reference to certain provisions of Chapter 149 but not to the Section 185 Whistleblower Statute.] It would seem helpful to not only Cambridge employees but also to its residents if such notices were readily available at its website.

While Arlington’s Whistleblower Policy may satisfy the letter of subsection (g), does it capture its spirit? (I should point out that Arlington’s Whistleblower Policy, which has long been in place, is much more detailed than the much later Town of Brookline steps to comply with subsection (g) referenced in Part I.) Here are some thoughts on Arlington’s Policy in considering what information should subsection (g) notices contain to inform “employees of their protection and obligations under [the Whistleblower Statute]”:

1. While reference is made to “retaliatory action” against an employee, the definition of that term is not included. Subsection (a)(5) of the Whistleblower Statute defines this as: “ … the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.” It would seem important that employees be aware of this definition.

2. While the Policy states: “Employees aggrieved by a violation of this law may institute civil action in the Superior Court in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 149, Section 185(d)”, subsection (d) provides that such an action may be brought within two (2) years of an alleged violation, that a jury trial can be claimed, and that broad remedies are available for such an alleged violation, including treble damages, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. It would seem important that employees be aware of this.

3. The Policy fails to disclose the circumstances described in subsection (e)(1) to the effect that if a court finds the action taken by the employee “was without basis in law or in fact, the court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs to the employer.” Nor does it disclose the circumstances in subsection (e)(2) under which attorneys’ fees may not be assessed (but presumably court costs could). It would seem important that employees be aware of these provisions.

4. The Policy includes this requirement: “The employee must, by written notice, bring the activity, policy or practice in question to the attention of the persons designated by the Town to receive such notice unless [certain listed exceptions are applicable].” It would appear that this is intended to reflect subsection (c) of the Whistleblower Statute. However, paragraph (1) of subsection (c) seems to be limited to “an employee who makes a disclosure to a public body” of an alleged violation; that such a disclosure to a public body would not afford an employee with protection against retaliatory action provided by subsection (b)(1), unless the employee first brings the matter “to the attention of a supervisor of the employee by written notice and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice.” [Paragraph (2) of subsection (c) sets forth exceptions to paragraph (1).] The term “public body” is defined in subsection (a)(3) of the Whistleblower Statute with much specificity. But subsection (b)(1) of the Whistleblower Statute also applies to disclosures, actual or threatened, by an employee other than to a “public body” that would entitle an employee to protection against “retaliatory action” presumably without the need for the written notice required by subsection (c)(1) regarding disclosure to a “public body.” For example, the definition of a “public body” does not include newspapers and other media (including TV and the Internet).

My comments on the Arlington Whistleblower Policy are not intended to be critical of the Town of Arlington, which based upon my research has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of subsection (g) of the Whistleblower Statute much more so, and much earlier, than most of MA’s 350 cities and towns. Rather, my interest is in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of subsection (g). Perhaps the MA AG should be providing assistance to MA governmental employers in its monitoring of such employers’ compliance with subsection (g) to ensure that their notices satisfy its requirements. (See Part I concerning the role of the AG with the Whistleblower Statute.)

[Part III of this series will address the consequences to a MA governmental employer if it fails to comply with subsection (g).]

2. Much more minimal research by Bob.

I emailed HR at Cambridge and was referred to the laminated poster on the third floor of Cambridge City Hall which Archie describes in his third paragraph above.

Urban Ring 2 Delay Granted

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.
2. Related Items.

Edited, with added matter by Bob.

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.

EOEEA Commissioner Bowles with his December 16th response to MassDOT's Mullan granted the latter's 30 day extension request. (This has been posted at the Urban Ring website.) Mr. Mullan has yet to schedule any public meetings in advance of the new Jan. 15, 2010 "drop-dead" response date.

2. Related Items.

Archie’s prior report on the Mullan request is below at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/urban-ring-phase-2-on-holiday.html.

The Bowles response may be read at: http://www.theurbanring.com/documentframeset.asp?docname=https://www.commentmgr.com/Projects/1169/docs/Bowles_URP2_Response_Dec1609.pdf.

Blizzard creates fully predictable emergency for the Charles River White Geese

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have posted the following on both the Governor and the MassDOT sites in their email receptacles, at 9:20 and 9:21 am, 12/20/09.

It should be noted that, in addition to creating this outrage, the City of Cambridge has the nerve to have a delegate at the environmental congress. Council Davis, the delegate, is one of the most environmentally destructive members of an environmentally very bad city council.

Archie Mazmanian advises me that the Secretary and CEO spells his name "Mullan" rather than "Mullen." Thank you Archie. I also note that in my attempts to be concise, I have omitted two other points which I usually include. I regret all three errors, but hopefully it was readable, and, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, did the job.


Secretary and CEO Jeff Mullen
MassDOT

PLEASE TRANSMIT COPY TO WHOMEVER IS IN A POSITION TO REACT

RE: Wildlife Emergency at the BU Bridge Repair Construction Site

Dear Mr. Mullen:

You have an environmental crisis forced on you by the environmentally reprehensible people at DCR and the City of Cambridge.

I am talking to the construction site / goose habitat east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge.

Since 2000, DCR has constantly reaffirmed that they have no intention to harm the beautiful and valuable nearly 30 year native Charles River White Geese. They and Cambridge have repeatedly proven these claims false. Cambridge goes even farther in their lies about their environmental destructiveness.

The DCR and Cambridge want no animal life living on or visiting the Charles River between the Watertown Dam and the Harbor. They have implemented this vile goal with heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese.

For nearly 30 years, Charles River White Geese have lived in the area east of the BU Bridge. They have nested there and they have gone there for protection against the elements.

The DCR turned this into a construction zone with maximum abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese.

Perhaps half of the construction zone is unnecessary destruction of vegetation and habitat. The portion next to the Memorial Drive ramp is inexcuseable. The parking could easily have been placed under Memorial Drive. This area is commonly pretty empty.

Additionally, responsible behavior would have allowed the Charles River White Geese access to and feeding rights at Magazine Beach where they have fed for most of the past 30 years.

This is walled off with a bizarre wall of introduced bushes which serve no viable function except to starve the geese. Cambridge joins the DCR in contempt for the valuable native vegetation they destroy there. The Boston Conservation Commission has applied sanctions to the DCR for destroying the same vegetation on the Boston side.

Cambridge and the DCR have destroyed grass which survived for the better part of a century and replaced it with sickly stuff that needs poisons. They have decreased the size of the playing fields for a drainage system to drain off poisons which should not be used and which will flow into the Charles in heavy weather.

East of the BU Bridge, the DCR has destroyed pretty much all of the ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. Their construction zone destroyed pretty much what they did not destroy in the previous four years.

I beg of you.

Control the plows in that inexcusably large construction zone.

It seems certain that, if the DCR or Cambridge were involved, they would dump the snow on top of the quarter of the area which is less destroyed habitat.

Please keep the plowed snow out of the tiny area which is the only remnants of the Charles River White Geese’s mile long habitat.

Dump it in the area WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Dump it in that part of the construction zone next to the on ramp.

Thank you in advance for your courtesy.

You have the very great disadvantage of dealing with truly reprehensible people at the DCR and Cambridge. Cambridge has been called “reprehensible” by judge in the civil rights case of Monteiro v. Cambridge. There rather than destroying beautiful valuable animals, according to judge and jury, they destroyed the life of a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Decent people should not have the situation you have had forced on you east of the BU Bridge.

But if all people were decent, the powers that be in Cambridge and the DCR would be removed.

Cy: Governor Patrick

WHISTLING IN THE DARK? (Part I)

Archie Mazmanian reports the following.

His report, of course, is highly relevant given the now $5 million plus award to Malvina Monteiro. Judge and jury found that Cambridge destroyed the life of this black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge summed up her decision using the word “reprehensible.” Monteiro case still in Superior Court considering post trial motions. [Bob comment]

**********

Are employees and residents of the City of Cambridge aware of the MA Whistleblower Statute set forth in Section 185 of Chapter 149 of the MA General Laws? Subsection (g) of Section 185 provides:

“An employer shall conspicuously display notices reasonably designed to inform its employees of their protection and obligations under this section, and use other appropriate means to keep its employees so informed. Each notice posted pursuant to this subsection shall include the name or the person or persons the employer has designated to receive written notifications pursuant to subsection (c).”

Is the City of Cambridge in compliance with both the letter and spirit of subsection (g)? Are the required notices conspicuously displayed? Are they furnished routinely to new employees? Are all employees appropriately kept informed?

The Whistleblower Statute has been around since the 1990s. A few years ago, I learned that my Town of Brookline was not in compliance with subsection (g) following a public records request. To their credit Brookline officials promptly addressed this by preparing and distributing notices to Town employees pursuant to subsection (g), although in my view such notices did not comply with both the letter and spirit of subsection (g).

For purposes of Section 185, subsection (a)(2) defines “employer” as:

“ … the commonwealth, and its agencies or political subdivisions, including, but not limited to, cities, towns, counties and regional school districts, or any authority, commission, board or instrumentality thereof.”

Chapter 149, and thus Section 185, falls within the jurisdiction of the MA Office of the Attorney General (“AG”) for enforcement. How many of MA governmental employers are in compliance with subsection (g)? How, if at all, does the AG monitor compliance by such employers?

Now, no one likes a snitch. Recall the scene in the movie “Sparticus” when a Roman leader offers certain amnesties to slaves if the identity of Sparticus were revealed. One by one a chained slave would rise from the mass of slaves and say “I am Sparticus” until all the slaves, including Sparticus, rose to so declare themselves. Sparticus’ cause was worthy of protecting, as these slaves well recognized.

But what about a conscientious MA governmental employee faced in the course of employment with situations described in subsection (b)(1) of Section 185:

“ … an activity, policy or practice of the employer, or of another employer with whom the employee’s employer has a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment.”

Should the employee just remain silent, i.e., not snitch? Should the employee consider resigning, for reasons of conscience or otherwise? Well, Section 185 prohibits retaliatory action by a MA governmental employer against an employee who decides not to remain silent.

The MA Whistleblower Statute is narrowly drawn and is much less protective than federal whistleblower provisions. In my view, protections for MA governmental employees should be expanded. But I don’t have confidence that MA legislators have the political will or courage to do so, considering the history of corruption that has been exposed by federal authorities.

Even so, the Whistleblower Statute we do have should be enforced, from the top down. After all, public funds are involved. Enforcement just might diminish the need for MA governmental employees to blow the whistle, thus better preserving the public fisc.

[I plan to follow up with additional commentary on this topic. Interested viewers may access the MA Whistleblower Statute at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/149-185.htm ]

URBAN RING PHASE 2 ON HOLIDAY

Archie Mazmanian reports:

The Urban Ring website – www.theurbanring.com - has posted the 12/15/09 letter of intentions response from MassDOT Secretary and CEO Jeff Mullan to MA EOEEA. (See the 12/3/09 commentary below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/day-389-urban-ring-phase-2-on-life.html: “Urban Ring Phase 2 on Life Support?”) Secretary Mullan seeks a one-month’s extension for this letter of intentions requirement. [ed: Letter may be found at: http://www.theurbanring.com/documentframeset.asp?docname=https://www.commentmgr.com/Projects/1169/docs/Mullan_URP2_Response_Dec1509.pdf]

Mullan makes reference to the 12/1/09 CAC public meeting, which Bob and I attended and reported on, and to certain meetings, perhaps not public, with representatives of the Urban Ring “compact communities” (Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Somerville and Brookline) and with “the business and institutional community – notably A Better City and MASCO.”

Mullan made his extension request “[in] order to hear all viewpoints at this critical juncture of the [Urban Ring] project ….” Does Mullan have in mind listening to the viewpoints of residential neighborhood groups? Keep in mind there are very few CAC members representing residents in the Phase 2 corridor. Some of us residents speak up at public CAC meetings. But are residents’ viewpoints presented or considered at the seemingly non-public meetings with the listed municipalities, business and institutional interests, whose interests may dramatically differ from those of residents?

Many of us residents will be busy with the upcoming holidays. So perhaps Mr. Mullan should promptly set up public meetings for just after the New Year for residents to be heard in advance of his anticipated January 15, 2010 deferred letter of intentions so that it may reflect the sentiments of residents. MassDOT cannot ignore our honking as it has ignored that of the Charles River White Geese. The new MassDOT must have transparency to succeed."

“Environmental Congress” — Chronicle prints short version and honors me in the process.

1. Introduction.
2. Version printed by Chronicle different from what I gave you.
3. An honor to be printed based on the context of the editorial and op-ed pages.
4. Councilor Davis’ letter.
5. Version of my letter printed.

Bob Reports:

First of all, we have reached a milestone. This is the 400th posting on this blog. It pairs very nicely with the fact that, a few days ago, I performed the 390th visibility at the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, although the latter number is probably understated.

1. Introduction.

A few days ago, I passed on to you an op ed I submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle concerning yet another fake environmental initiative coming out of the environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council, an “Environmental Congress” scheduled for this coming Saturday. Its primary importance is to lie that this environmentally destructive entity is the opposite.

That will be done through a whole bunch of pious mouthings about the environment with very major omissions: the ongoing environmental destruction being inflicted on the City of Cambridge by the Cambridge City Council and its friends.

They have been doing this for years. The lies simply do not stop coming and the environmental destruction simply does not stop coming.

2. Version printed by Chronicle different from what I gave you.

The version of my communication which the Chronicle printed in its December 10, 2009 edition, was an alternate, 400 word version. I gave them an 800 word version and a 400 word version and told the editor it was his choice.

Oddly, the 400 word version is probably written better. The 800 word version is technically more accurate, including quite a few more facts that the vast majority of readers will not notice, but I think they have importance. Additionally, the extra words were used to try to communicate the reality of the situation better.

The short version is below.

3. An honor to be printed based on the context of the editorial and op-ed pages.

However, this was a very striking editorial / op ed page since the editor included almost every major issue he could hit, and he did me the honor of including my letter in this presentation.

On the left of the two pages, to the far left, is an editorial encouraging people to give to the Salvation Army in this time of need.

The other four columns are headed with an editorial cartoon lampooning the process by which the Cambridge City Council chooses its mayor.

Below the cartoon is an op ed by the gentleman who was the only newcomer elected to the City Council during the election. He speaks on the choosing of the mayor.

Below this are two letters to the editor occupying the balance of the four columns in shortened height since they are below the editorial cartoon and the op ed on the mayor selection. My letter, reproduced below, fills the first two shortened columns and part of the third. The balance of the space is occupied by a letter written by Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis.

The oped page is pretty much occupied by two articles entitled “Reflections on rent control” and “Eight years of protesting the war.”

4. Councilor Davis’ letter.

Davis’ letter was most definitely properly paired with mine. Davis’ letter is highly important because of what it might say.

How do you compare levels of destructiveness among a bunch of people who are all doing the same very destructive stuff?

Davis, in my personal opinion, is the worst member of the City Council environmentally because she has very loudly praised the destruction on the Charles, because she seems to be a leader in the destructiveness, and because she has combined this with non stop holier than thou falsehoods of her claims of being an environmental saint.

A careful reading of her letter might indicate a leveling of her rhetoric.

I do not see a leveling of the destructiveness or even any signs of common decency such as changing sides and becoming pro-environment, or changing sides and being something other than a heartless animal abuser.

I do see a leveling of the rhetoric.

The letter is written as a late thank you to the voters for her reelection. I do not believe in coincidences. I deliberately transmitted my submittals very early, and I deliberately posted the long version very early.

My submittals are clearly controversial and are loaded with facts.

My early transmittal and publicizing of my early transmittal was deliberately intended to allow or even provoke a response.

Davis’ letter reads like a response, if you are accustomed to reading extreme statements such as are the norm in the City of Cambridge.

Davis’ letter reads like a response because she talks about “guid[ing] Cambridge to become a national leader in energy innovation”, not environmentalism, not greenness, energy innovation.

This is the field she has been working on. This is her con game that she is, in spite of a very destructive reality “pro environment.”

The rhetoric may or may not have changed.

The destructiveness is not changed but can be reversed.

The destructiveness can be reversed because what we need is for a truly reprehensible City Council to switch sides to the side it claims to be on.

Don’t hold your breath.

5. Version of my letter printed.

Interestingly, my oped included a lot of bullets which I went through a lot of bother to communicate. The short version did not, but the editor added a number of bullets, making it parallel. Frankly, I have not compared the version printed to what I sent. I presume it is the short version.

***********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The City Council is sponsoring yet another environmental event. They will save the world and ignore the environmental destruction being done by Cambridge and its friends.

Ignored will be:

The coming destruction of the Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed about 500 feet away.

The destruction of perhaps thousands of trees at Fresh Pond for a thousand saplings.

Environmental destruction as a normal part of too many Cambridge projects, particularly healthy trees.

Hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat being destroyed between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, apparently using Obama money.

Heartless animal abuse of the 28 year resident Charles River White Geese: the ongoing starving of them and the near total destruction of their habitat.

Poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach to feed sickly grass after destroying healthy grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons.

A bizarre wall of introduced bushes at Magazine Beach which has no value except starving native animals.

Decrease of playing fields at Magazine Beach for a drainage system to drain off the poisons, sure to fail in severe weather.

The meeting’s chair brags of Lorenz Park on Broadway. His people destroyed more than twenty 100+ year old trees on Cambridge Street for buildings that should have been placed at Lorenz Park. His and his friend [ed: typo, should have been plural] filed many “downzonings” with undisclosed fine print that limited or reversed the descriptions claimed for the proposals.

He was the biggest single problem in my three downzonings of Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Central Squares.

In the first initiative, he and his friends demanded an upzoning by destroying first floor open space and first floor housing throughout half the area. The neighborhood association they claimed to be representing voted to reject the chair and his friends, after the group essentially destroyed the initiative. This outrage created the canyon on Bay Street. This outrage allowed one or more large buildings which the chair later condemned when selling a zoning petition named after him.

Then there is the Inn at Harvard which another of my petitions forced on Harvard in spite of the chair’s nonsense. The chair almost got the Inn at Harvard constructed 72% larger, probably without grass.

The city council will conduct yet another con game in which the most important achievement will be the false impression given to people that the councillors are, as they constantly declare, saints on environmental issues.

Day 390, More fake environmentalism from Cambridge, MA, December 12.

1. Day 390 at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
2. Cambridge, MA hosts a fake environmental conference.


Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Day 390 at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

I did a visibility on the far side of the BU Bridge on December 4 because pedestrians are no longer allowed on the side by the destroyed nesting area.

A brief look at the parking lot dumped on top of three quarters of the nesting area indicated once again, that the needless destruction was needless. There was plenty of room there, and there was plenty of room under Memorial Drive where the parking would be put if Massachusetts and Cambridge had responsible governments.

Folks, as usual, were quite responsive, both pedestrians and drivers.

2. Cambridge, MA hosts a fake environmental conference.

The environmentally reprehensible government of the City of Cambridge, MA, is conducting another con game loudly and falsely calling themselves environmental saints.

This one will be conducted December 12 in Cambridge City Hall.

I have offered the following op ed to the Cambridge Chronicle and a short version should the editor wish to print my communication as a letter to the editor.

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

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

“They would never stoop so low.”

People simply cannot believe that Cambridge City Councillors and their friends are as destructive as they are on the environment.

This standard Council analysis comes from their pretty much nonstop claims of sainthood.

The City Council calls their latest environmental event a “congress.” As usual, they will save the world and ignore the environmental destruction being done by themselves and their friends.

Ignored will be:

● The coming destruction of the Alewife reservation for flood storage that should be placed about 500 feet away under a parking lot just north of the commuter rail. That parking lot is on the verge of being developed without the flood storage.

● The ongoing destruction of perhaps thousands of trees at Fresh Pond for what has been described as “a thousand” saplings.

● Environmental destruction in too many projects, particularly needless destruction of healthy trees.

● The ongoing and accelerating outrages on the Charles River:

 Hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat being destroyed between the BU and Longfellow Bridges, apparently using Obama money.

 Heartless animal abuse continues of the 28 year native Charles River White Geese: deliberately starved for five years; their habitat needlessly reduced to a fraction of what it was. It is down to a quarter of what was a three month visiting area: their nesting area.

 The Magazine Beach playing fields were quite uniformly considered not needing upgrade. So:

▸ Poisons are being dumped on the fields to feed sickly grass. The sickly stuff replaces healthy grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons.

▸ A bizarre wall of bushes has been introduced between Magazine Beach and the Charles with no value except starving native animals.

▸ Part of the playing fields have been replaced for drainage to remove the poisons. It is sure to fail in severe weather.

Particularly telling is the choice of a chair.

The chair brags that he got his neighborhood Lorenz Park on Broadway. More than twenty 100+ year old trees on Cambridge Street were destroyed as part of the creation of this grassy area.

The buildings that were placed on top of those hundred year old trees should have been placed at Lorenz Park. It replaces two buildings which stood at that location for most of the last century.

The chair and friends have filed many “downzonings” with undisclosed fine print that limited or reversed their claims for the proposals.

Three examples:

Their first petition was named after the chair. He bragged about benefits listed on a particular page. I repeatedly pointed out that the next page proved his claims to be false. He never would look at the next page.

The most recent petition, fronted by his friends, destroyed open space requirements on the north side of Memorial Drive. The sponsors bragged that they increased open space requirements. The words were belied by undisclosed fine print.

His design review zoning has a provision which requires all submittals to obey the requirements of the zoning law. Then you discover that the developer can be exempted from any requirement in the section, INCLUDING the requirement to obey the zoning law.

The chair was the biggest single problem in my three downzonings of Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Central Squares.

In the first initiative, he and his friends demanded an upzoning by destroying first floor open space and first floor housing throughout the residential half of the area.

They claimed to be acting on behalf of a neighborhood association. They destroyed the initiative by making this false claim through half the consideration of the zoning petition.

The neighborhood association ultimately rejected the chair and his friends.

This outrage created the canyon on Bay Street. This outrage forced us to concede major parts of the petition because of the time spent responding to his rogue group.

This concession allowed one or more large buildings which the chair later condemned. Those buildings would have been illegal under the petition he killed and were made illegal under the petition we finally passed, after the fact.

Then there is the Inn at Harvard.

The chair falsely told the neighborhood group defending East Harvard Square: “You have made your deal with the City Council. Now you must negotiate with the Planning Board.”

He bullied major, unneeded concessions, but the group finally stood up to his outrageous falsehood. The group would not concede on the Inn at Harvard.

He almost got the Inn at Harvard constructed 72% larger, probably without grass.

The city council’s “congress” is yet another lie from environmental destroyers who keep on claiming that they are saints on environmental issues.

Looking at the unstated omissions, this “congress” is yet another con game.

The most important achievement will be the false impression that city councillors who, with their friends, are destroying Cambridge’s environment are saints on environmental issues.

Day 389, URBAN RING PHASE 2 ON LIFE SUPPORT?

1. Day 389 at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
(a) Conditions.
(b) Actual visibility.
(c) More games from Cambridge.
2. URBAN RING PHASE 2 ON LIFE SUPPORT?
a. Archie.
(1) Introduction.
(2) Board Comments.
(3) Archie’s comments.
(4) Balance of Meeting.
(5) Summary.
b. Bob.
(1) General.
(2) Urban Ring.
(a) Orange Line Spur to Longwood Medical Area.
(b) Green Line Spur to Harvard Allston.

Bob La Trémouille reports with a major contribution from Archie Mazmanian.

1. Day 389 at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

(a) Conditions.

Tuesday afternoon I did a visibility for the first time since the needlessly destructive work on the BU Bridge commenced.

I was immediately greeted by a State Police officer who was under the impression that I needed a permit to leaflet. I disabused her of that impression.

She next informed me that the location we have been using for 388 visibilities was illegal. That is also questionable based on the fencing, but it is very clear that there are no longer any pedestrians able to walk next to the goose meadow on the eastern side of the BU Bridge. Since pedestrians are the target of the fliers, I moved sign, leaflets and visibility to the western, Boston side.

Before moving, I observed the nature of the construction site, formerly the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. It was quite clear that the vast destruction for parking that belongs under Memorial Drive was unnecessary.

The geese were crowded into the not yet destroyed southeastern corner.

(b) Actual visibility.

I did say hello to quite a few people and got good responses from drivers.

Actual contact is down because the rush hour is now after dark, and the rush hour is the ideal time.

(c) More games from Cambridge.

Tuesday evening, Cambridge conducted one of its usual con games. They are bragging of “healthy” playgrounds. I leafleted concerned their poisoned playground at Magazine Beach, and the reality of massive environmental destruction throughout Cambridge.

Electronic copies of the flier may be obtained by emailing me at boblat@yahoo.com.

December 12 is Cambridge’s next con game: They, yet another time, are going to save the world just as long as their destruction of Cambridge is kept secret.

2. URBAN RING PHASE 2 ON LIFE SUPPORT?

Ed: I have inserted sectioning in Archie’s report.

a. Archie.

(1) Introduction.

The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting Tuesday evening (12/1/09) was well attended not only by its members but also the public. More importantly, Jeff Mullan, Secretary and CEO of the recently established MassDOT, was present. Mr. Mullan admitted to being by training and experience a highway man (in the good sense, of course) and that he needs to and will listen carefully concerning the Urban Ring, which he referred to as a regional transit project (about which more will be said later in this commentary).

(2) Board Comments.

After a brief presentation by Mr. Mullan, the discussion by CAC members was opened. However, the Chair had to prod members to speak. So a member from Somerville offered comments that included the concept of going directly to Phase 3’s light/heavy rail. The large room was very quiet and attentive. (Both Bob and I have from time to time expressed this view in varying ways.) Then other CAC members offered comments and questions that made clear the need for MassDOT and CAC to continue on with the Urban Ring.

It was pointed out by several institutional CAC members, especially from the Longwood Medical Area (LMA) and MIT, that development projects underway and planned in the Urban Ring corridor have assumed that Phase 2 would come about, as such projects would require and rely upon good public transit to provide economic growth for the Urban Ring corridor expected to result from such projects. (Notably, the voice of Harvard was not heard during this discussion.)

The public discussion and question period began ahead of schedule. Bob expressed his longtime view of a rail system that he may wish to add to this post.

(3) Archie’s comments.

My comments started with the word “Dithering” as descriptive of the Urban Ring over these many, many years. (This came to mind as Pres. Obama was scheduled later that evening to respond with his Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy that he had been reviewing for only a few, short months that Dick Cheney referred to as “dithering.”) I repeated my suggestion over the years that Phase 2 be skipped and go directly to Phase 3’s light/heavy rail, as suggested earlier by a CAC member; that there should be rethinking of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) technology for Phase 2 as it has not proven to be successful with the Silver Line except in its fully dedicated tunnel portion to Logan Airport; that Phase 2 as currently proposed fails to provide sufficient dedicated busways for the BRT 60-foot articulated buses. I also pointed out that the LMA cannot be properly serviced by Phase 2 with surface routes, that tunneling is required. I briefly raised concern with the Charles River crossing, especially if the BU Bridge is part of the route, pointing out that the current work on the BU Bridge will result in a permanent reduction from four (4) to three (3) lanes for motor vehicles.

(4) Balance of Meeting.

Other public comments stressed the long-term importance of public transit planning for the area and its economy. Stephanie Pollack of Partners was especially effective in this regard. And Mr. Mullan listened very attentively to what she said. Ms Pollack also pointed out that while the December 15, 2009 response of MassDOT to EOEEA is important regarding its intentions for the Urban Ring, it must be kept in mind that by March 31, 2010, MassDOT is to submit a detailed Notice of Project Change (NPC) to continue the MEPA process. Ms Pollack reminded all of the requirements of the consent order on environmental matters that the Urban Ring was a response to in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Ms Pollack also pointed out that the Urban Ring is not just a regional transit project because of its importance to the economy of the entire State. Hopefully Mr. Mullan will change his regional view of the Urban Ring.

(5) Summary.

So perhaps for now the Urban Ring is on life support. Mr. Mullan and his staff should be very busily engaged between now and December 15th with its required statement of intent regarding the Urban Ring. Following the upcoming holiday season respite, MassDOT and the CAC will have only a few months to come up with its NPC. Members of the public will also have to pay attention at upcoming CAC meetings to be in a position to submit comments on the NPC during its public comment period. Public transit is important to the region and the entire State economically and otherwise. Failure to address this surely will result in capacity problems for the radial lines in and out of the core in Boston. This is not the time for a “DO NOT RESUSCITATE” order. But it must be done right, without dithering.

b. Bob.

(1) General.

I was pleased with Mr. Mullan’s approach to the meeting and to the group.

I was not at all pleased to see the individual sitting to his right. This gentleman is a former Cambridge City Councilor who resigned in the last year or so to take his current job.

He ran as an environmentalist and proceeded to be part of Cambridge environmentally very destructive government.

He occupied a seat which has been “Harvard’s seat” for over a generation. Under the oddities of Cambridge’s election law, he was temporarily replaced by a non-Harvard person. The person who will now fill the seat is a grad student at MIT and Harvard. Interestingly, he publicly associated himself primarily with MIT.

(2) Urban Ring.

I supported the Notice of Project Change which has now been abandoned to the extent it emphasized buses in the northern part of the Urban Ring area while backing down on buses in the rest of the area. Buses can possibly make sense in the northern area. In the southern area (including most of Cambridge) it is a silly substitute for rail.

I gave two examples:

(a) Orange Line Spur to Longwood Medical Area.

The Longwood Medical Area consists of worldwide renown hospitals, notably Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital and Boston Children’s Hospital. BWH was referred to as Partners by Archie, above. This is a holding company which constitutes its partnership with Mass. General Hospital and others.

These hospitals have been pushing a very expensive buried busway which would have one real stop, at Longwood and Louis Pasteur, a point convenient to all three hospitals. At one end, the tunnel would go ALMOST to Ruggels Station on the Orange Line, and on the other end, ALMOST to Kenmore Station on the Green Line. It does go to Yawkey Station on the Commuter Rail.

I pointed out that I suggested the Kenmore Crossing for Heavy Rail as part of the rail proposal, the real proposal. I proposed it in 1986. It was adopted as an alternative by the MBTA in 1992.

I said that the LMA tunnel has been forced into the bus nonsense. It is silly for buses. Connected to Ruggles Station on one end and Kenmore / Yawkey Station on the other, it makes excellent sense as an Orange Line spur.

This construction would be a phase 1 of a new rail subway line linking all the subway lines and offering an alternative to going downtown.

Its phase 1 construction from Ruggles to LMA to Kenmore would provide excellent rapid transit service for LMA and Kenmore with excellent Green Line and Commuter Rail connections. In particular, it might give commuter rail people a very real alternate route.

The Kenmore Station, built under this initial phase, is the jewel of the Heavy Rail Kenmore Crossing with its connections to three Green Line branches, and to the Framingham/Worcester commuter rail.

(b) Green Line Spur to Harvard Allston.

I supported a route Harvard proposed a couple of years ago for connection of its new Allston campus to the rest of Boston while substituting an economic approach for Harvard’s very expensive approach.

Harvard proposed a Red Line spur coming out of Harvard Station to their Harvard Allston campus and then running by a very expensive “deep bore” construction under the Beacon Rail yards to the BU / Mountfort area, which is perhaps .2 mile southeast of the BU Bridge.

The proposal would require rebuilding of Harvard Station.

I said that the route makes sense. The method is way too expensive.

I proposed a Green Line spur coming off the Commonwealth Avenue Green Line branch at the BU Bridge, being constructed on air rights over the Commuter Rail, south of the Mass. Pike, going over the Beacon Yards and, after Cambridge Street, dropping down and proceeding cut and cover on the route Harvard proposed in the B School / Harvard Stadium area.

In sharp contrast to the Harvard proposal, connection to Harvard Station would be by a tunnel which still exists to Harvard Station and is unused. It runs from the Brattle Square busway entrance to the wall between Harvard’s Kennedy School and the Charles Hotel.

Representative Wolf responds on Monteiro

Bob reports:

On November 16, 2009, I printed a report concerning a filing of legislation by Representative Alice Wolf which seemed to relate to the Monteiro case, and concerning the City of Cambridge’s latest con game initiative on the environment.

The title was “Con games on Monteiro and the Environment?"

I commented:

“People talking about the outrages going on or planned on the Charles River commonly have reacted with the comment, or the equivalent: “They would never stoop so low.”

“The reason for this reaction is the non stop bragging from the Cambridge City Council and their friends about their holiness. Altogether too often, the claims of sainthood are not only false but exactly the opposite of reality.”

I characterized Representative Wolf’s initiative as “ambiguous,” the City of Cambridge’s initiative as a “very clear instance” of yet another con game.

My comments may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_11_16_archive.html.

I have received the following email from Representative Wolf, sent late the evening of November 30:

"Bob

"I happened to see your piece on Wolf and Monteiro.

“In case you are uninformed, I testified at both trials on behalf of Monteiro, largely around city government structural issues as requested by her lawyer.

“Alice K. Wolf
”State Representative”

State Urban Ring Comments Between The Lines

Archie Mazmanian provides the following. He is adding to his report published immediately below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/urban-ring-phase-2-mark-twain.html.

I apologize to Archie for the delay in posting this follow up.

Bob La Trémouille

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

Former EOT Secretary Aloisi, Jr.'s October 29, 2009 letter to EOEEA referenced in the preceding post titled “Urban Ring Phase 2 + Mark Twain” includes:

"2. An Early Start on Rail in Phase II:

The CSX agreement with the Commonwealth makes a rail option for Urban Ring service in part of the corridor running from East Boston through Chelsea and continuing along the Grand Junction tracks to Allston very achievable. The existence of such a dedicated right-of-way, along existing tracks, is a highly promising alternative that will be further explored. The cost-effectiveness and environmental benefits of DMU service for this portion of the Urban Ring corridor in the Phase II timeline need to be explored."

Will the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) pay much attention to this at its December 1st meeting? This rail option has been discussed for several years but not extensively by the CAC at its many meetings while the CSX deals with the Commonwealth and with Harvard remained to be resolved.

Consider the extent to which the Grand Junction trestle under the BU Bridge would have to be expanded for such rail, including environmental issues to be addressed. Also consider the potential benefits to Harvard with respect to its potential commercial development of the now Harvard-owned Beacon Yards after CSX’s operations have been relocated.

Some of us have suggested abandoning Phase 2 and going directly to Phase 3's light/heavy rail. Perhaps Aloisi's proposal might be considered as Phase 2.5. But that leaves up in the air the most important and anticipated heavily trafficked southerly portion of Phase 2 that would service the Longwood Medical Area with Bus Rapid Transit (either on surface routes or via an expensive tunnel), which may not be compatible with rail AND the Charles River crossing for Phase 2 whether on, over or under the BU Bridge.

Yes, as suggested in the preceding post, there is much to read between the lines of the letters recently posted at the Urban Ring website. We’ll have to patiently await the December 1st meeting to see if the CAC is on track with this.

URBAN RING PHASE 2 + MARK TWAIN

Archie Mazmanian Reports:

After his obituary was mistakenly published, Mark Twain sent this cable from London to America:

“The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

Perhaps the same could be now said of my October 8, 2009, report at this Blog titled: “Urban Ring: Phase 2 Is Dead! Long Live Phase 3!” [Ed: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_10_08_archive.html]

The newly established MA Department of Transportation (DOT) will host a meeting of the Urban Ring’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on December 1, 2009. While no details were provided in the DOT’s notice, a visit to the Urban Ring website at www.theurbanring.com reveals the reasons based upon several documents recently posted:

06-Nov-2009 Letter to MassDOT from Secretary Bowles, EOEEA [Ed: https://www.commentmgr.com/Projects/1169/docs/Bowles_URP2_Response_Nov0609.pdf ]

29-Oct-2009 Letter to EOEEA from Secretary Aloisi [Ed: https://www.commentmgr.com/Projects/1169/docs/Aloisi_URP2_NPCLtr_Oct2909.PDF]

15-Oct-2009 Letter to EOEEA from Secretary Aloisi [Ed: https://www.commentmgr.com/Projects/1169/docs/Aloisi_URP2_Ltr_Oct1509.PDF].

To access these letters, click on Reference Materials, then click on Current Materials, where they are listed at the top under the heading “Notice of Project Changes – June 30, 2009” and available for downloading by linking.

I plan to attend the CAC meeting on December 1st and will report on it the next day or so. Rather than discussing the contents of these letters now, I suggest carefully reading them as there is much to digest, with quite a bit appearing between the lines. Just as a tease, however, I read Secretary Bowles’ letter as a verbal spanking of then Executive Office of Transportation Secretary Aloisi. An initial response from DOT to EOEEA is required by December 15th, which may determine the extent to which Phase 2’s death may have been exaggerated.

Please read the entire report, available at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_10_08_archive.html, as it relates to the fate of the Charles River White Geese under the new DOT that should be pressured to stop the annihilation of the White Geese; and this is no EXAGGERATION!

Con games on Monteiro and the Environment?

Bob reports:

1. Introductory.
2. Monteiro.
3. The environment.
4. Summary.
5. The pitch.


1. Introductory.

People talking about the outrages going on or planned on the Charles River commonly have reacted with the comment, or the equivalent: “They would never stoop so low.”

The reason for this reaction is the non stop bragging from the Cambridge City Council and their friends about their holiness. Altogether too often, the claims of sainthood are not only false but exactly the opposite of reality.

There have been two recent instances which could be the same old same old, one ambiguous instance on Monteiro, one very clear instance on the environment.

2. Monteiro.

Representative Alice Wolf has reportedly file legislation concerning wage inequality. This is according to a Cambridge Chronicle on line posting dated November 12, 2009. Rep. Wolf claims to be taking steps to strike down differences between groups which have no rational justification.

Malvina Monteiro, according to judge and jury in Monteiro v. Cambridge had her life destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager because Ms. Monteiro filed a civil rights complaint alleging that she was subjected exactly that kind of discrimination.

The judge called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” in an excellent opinion.

We tell our children that actions speak louder than words. The norm with Cambridge Pols is to ignore vile actions and brag about words which claim exactly the opposite.

Former Councilor Wolf, to the best of my knowledge, has been “neutral” on the Cambridge City Manager’s destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.

Nine Cambridge City Council who claim to be saints on civil rights issues have spoken very clearly about their real position in their reaction to the “reprehensible” behavior by City Manager Healy.

Exactly ZERO city councilors have voted to fire Healy to protect Cambridge from him.

Exactly ZERO city councilors have voted to fire Healy to protect Cambridge employees from him.

Exactly ZERO city councilors have filed a motion to fire Healy to protect Cambridge from him.

Exactly ZERO city councilors have filed a motion to fire Healy to protect Cambridge employees from him.

Exactly ZERO city councilors have voted to ask the Monteiro judge to order Healy’s firing without pension and without a whole bunch of bennies.

Exactly ZERO city councilors have filed a motion to ask the Monteiro judge to order Healy’s firing without pension and without a whole bunch of bennies.

Seven city councilors have voted to add to the millions the city has already spent defending Healy’s destroying the life of this black woman. Why are they spending millions defending Healy?

Well, the judge and jury say he destroyed the life of this black woman for having the nerve to file a civil rights claim alleging she was be unfairly paid because of her female / black status.

But it is nice of Representative Wolf to be filing a bill which seems to support the side that Malvina Monteiro had her life destroyed for espousing.

It is impossible for me to tell if Wolf is standing up to the Cambridge City Council or giving them a smoke screen.

It is very frequently impossible to tell the difference when you are dealing with things in the City of Cambridge.

I would like to think that Representative Wolf is standing up to the Cambridge City Council with her filing. I would be very pleased to publicly praise her for standing to the “reprehensible” Cambridge City government (quoting Judge Bonnie MacLeod).

3. The environment.

The Cambridge City Council is scheduling yet another conference to save the world’s environment. Naturally, they have no intention of stopping their destruction of the world in the City of Cambridge. Naturally, they have no intention to stop their stop their heartless animal abuse.

Their approach, as usual, is to lie about the side they are on.

The Cambridge City Council has chosen a chair for their conference. The chair has a record which well fits the environmental record of the Cambridge City Council.

In support of the City of Cambridge, he destroyed the best park in his neighborhood, 20 or 30 extremely thick trees which would now be 130 or 140 years old, probably. Destruction was for a project that should have been built on a site which had previously had buildings. This site which was turned into a land bank. The land bank has been developed on in development which was obviously expected from the beginning, either the project that was put in or some comparably destructive project.

This individual has been involved in outrageous destruction of zoning protection through a bunch of City Manager drafted petitions for whom the fine print belied the loudly proclaimed large letters. I will mention only two instances. First, he had a zoning petition named after him. He ran around the city bragging on the protections on something like page 6. The immediately following page proved page 6 or whatever it was a lie. Secondly, a similar stunt was recently pulled by friends of his to destroy exactly the zoning protections they claimed to be protecting on the north side of Memorial Drive.

I could go on and on and on.

4. Summary.

It is horrifying to think that Cambridge’s level of government ethics has now apparently sunk below those of the City of Somerville.

The current situation may have been in place or coming for awhile. I recall an instance when Mr. Capuano, the then Mayor of Somerville, stepped in to force Cambridge to obey its own zoning ordinance in a Cambridge city project impacting Somerville. The city council’s latest proclaimed saint, as has been too common, was on the wrong side of that one as well.

I regret that I have good reason to be ashamed of my government.

It is even worse to see nonsensical claims being put out by that government of their own sainthood in direct contradiction of reality.

I would like to think that Representative Wolf is standing up to the Cambridge City Council with her filing. I would be very pleased to publicly praise her for standing to the “reprehensible” Cambridge City government (quoting Judge Bonnie MacLeod).

Regrettably, I have seen of her brag, falsely, of her environmental sanctity in a manner similar to the Cambridge City Council. Her hands are filthy on the Charles River.

Heartless animal abuse, outrageous environmental destruction. How dare you mention that. Don't I keep on telling you how holy I am.

Similarly, there is a VERY strong united front put out by the Cambridge Pols. The environmental destruction has been a non stop united front. I have never seen Wolf stand up to that united front.

I have seen too much nonsense over too many years.

I am skeptical.

Her initiative sounds very much like: Heartless destruction of a woman's life. How dare you talk about such things. Don't I keep telling you how holy I am.

The "environmental" initiative from the really bad Cambridge City Council is too, too parallel, and too much part of the long standing pattern of cynical con games.

I would love to be proven wrong.

Wolf could start with the heartless animal abuse and environmental destruction on the Charles. Stopping that is within her power.

I imagine instead, she will show up at the city council's environmental con game and brag about her women's rights initiative, making the audience think that both she and the Cambridge City Council are holy.

5. The pitch.

*********

Heartless, downright vicious abuse of the Charles River White Geese, poisons on the Charles. Don't talk about them. You offend me.

Heartless, downright vicious abuse of Malvina Monteiro, a city manager declared "reprehensible" by judge and jury. Don't talk about them. You offend me.

Besides don't we all keep telling you how holy we are and how holy our friends are.

********

My response: Deep, unrelenting offense.

Register of Probate sanctioned for misbehavior, how about Cambridge City Manager for Monteiro?

Bob Reports.

The Cambridge Chronicle reported on line a few days ago that Somerville has acted to strip former Registrar of Probate John Bonomo of his pension for service as a Somerville employee because he has pled guilty to large thefts of state and campaign funds while serving as Registrar of Probate.

I submitted the following letter. The quotes and all facts stated about Bonomo are from the Chronicle article. I regret the failure to cite the source of the Bonomo quotes and facts. The letter was published on line by the Chronicle on November 11, and in hard copy in the November 12, 2009 paper, page 13.

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

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

“State law says that if you are convicted of a crime that involves theft from a public agency or other serious violations of your oath of office, you can have your pension rescinded.”

So says Somerville’s spokesperson with regard to Somerville’s attempts to strip from former Registrar of Probate John Bonomo his pension for employment by the City of Somerville. Bonomo has pled guilty to abuse of office as Registrar of Probate to the extent of theft of more than $100,000 in public and campaign funds.

“Reprehensible” says Middlesex Superior Court Judge Bonnie MacLeod with regard to the findings of judge and jury against Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy in Monteiro v. Cambridge. The Monteiro judgment exceeds $5 million, including $3.5 million penal damages and $500,000 interest.

Judge and jury have found that Healy deliberately violated civil rights laws by destroying the life of a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

“Other serious violations of your oath of office.”

Stealing $100,000 is very severe misbehavior. Is it more “reprehensible” than deliberately destroying a woman’s life? Healy’s destruction of Malvina Monteiro’s life is now valued by judge and jury at more than $5 million.

Employment law is largely judge made law. The judge has a very clear legislative indication that when serious violations are committed in office pension can be forfeited. Is it unreasonable to think that the judge would be willing to extend the law to apply to the “reprehensible” treatment of Malvina Monteiro by Robert Healy if asked to do so by the City Council of the City of Cambridge?

Cambridge has city councilors who proclaim their sainthood on civil rights issues. Cambridge is spending millions to defend actions by Healy with regard to which the judge has filed a very sound opinion calling Healy “reprehensible.”

The Monteiro case is still in front of Judge MacLeod.

Can the self-proclaimed saints on the Cambridge City Council demonstrate the level of integrity and concern for integrity in office that the City of Somerville is attempting to display?

Can the self-proclaimed saints on the Cambridge City Council show their concern for integrity in office and ask Judge MacLeod to fire Healy without pension?

One Cambridge City Councilor Replaced

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have been looking at all the sources I can think of. It appears that Robert Winters' website has the best information.

It would appear that Leland Cheung, with MIT connections, will replace Larry Ward on the Cambridge City Council.

Ward was the mid-term replacement for a Harvard related city councilor (and environmentally destructive "environmentalist") who took a job for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He was elected through fine print in the election process of 2007.

I have been trying to figure out if Cheung was endorsed by the Sierra Club. If anybody can pass that on to me at boblat@yahoo.com, that would be appreciated. My memory is that Minka vanBeuzekom was the only non-incumbent so designated.

That lack of endorsement is good. I consider an endorsement by the Sierra Club a kiss of death, first of all because they have consistently endorsed environmentally reprehensible incumbents. Secondly because I see people very visible in the group who have extremely bad environmental records in Cambridge.

The Sierra Club people I see spent significant time over a decade destroying the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance with zoning petitions written by the Cambridge City Manager, lovely words, terrible AND UNDISCLOSED fine print. The very visible presence of these people combined with terrible Cambridge endorsements makes the Sierra Club, as far as I am concerned on local matters, a Cambridge City Manager influenced organization.

Non-endorsement by the Sierra Club is most definitely not to guarantee that he is a good guy, but at least he does not appear to be tainted by a very bad organizational situation.

The next oddity is the MIT connection. His MIT connection is very much a mixed situation.

MIT is one of the big beneficiaries of the environmental destruction on the Charles River and one driving factor behind the massive environmental destruction is the institutions.

However, and a very big however, is that Mr. Cheung's MIT connection is as an MIT student. The Charles River White Geese and RESPONSIBLE environmental behavior on the Charles River have had major support from MIT students and staff.

A similar situation exists at Boston University except that both camps, the institution and its student/staff have been much more visible, both for good and for bad.

We will watch the situation very closely.

Congratulations to Mr. Cheung, but Cambridge politics is a very bad world if you live in reality rather than the very strange substitute for reality which Cambridge pols live in.

We will see.

Bob endorses for Cambridge City Council.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

The following is a comment I left on the Cambridge Chronicle’s web site in response to their endorsements:

***********

Well, let's see, we have a bunch of people who claim to be saints on civil rights and the environment.

We have a judge who has called the City of Cambridge / City Manager 'reprehensible' for destroying the life of a black female department head, Malvina Monteiro. See http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. Her report does a very good job demonstrating that the city manager should be fired without pension. Apparently Civil Rights is 'different' when it comes to the Cambridge City Manager.

We have 'green' candidates who UNANIMOUSLY dump poisons on Magazine Beach, and have no problems with destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive, apparently thousands at Fresh Pond, and the entire reservation at Alewife. Plus massive destruction of animal habitat and heartless animal abuse.

You combine 'reprehensible' records with claims of sainthood and you have a really bad bunch of incumbents.

Their following explain their environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse with noises that sound like Michelle Obama's first husband. Fortunately they do not make the same noises about Malvina Monteiro.

The ONLY person on the ballot who appears to be meaningfully pro environment is Kathy Podgers. One challenger is endorsed by a Sierra Club which very visibly has people who have records of close contact with the 'reprehensible' city manager. Mr. Sullivan could be as bad as the incumbents on the environment.

Kathy Podgers, then throw the other challengers (minus two) in a hat.

The incumbents? Do you really think that 'neutrality' on destroying a woman's life in retaliation for filing a civil rights complaint is sainthood on civil rights? And massive destruction of the green and belligerently heartless animal abuse is sainthood on the environment.

A Decent Person relates to Waterfowl

1. Nice Video.
2. Archie Comments.


1. Nice Video.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Thanks to my sister Jeanne for providing the following video and to Archie for insisting we post it.

It is excellent and a striking change from the "reprehensible" (quoting a Superior Court judge, see the link) situation in Cambridge, MA, and the state bureaucracy on the Charles River.

This is normal decency. The Cambridge, MA pols and the state bureaucrats are a very vile aberration.

Please click the triangle to witness this lifesaving action.



2. Archie Comments.

The Charles River with its dams is in reality a large public pool.

Perhaps Gov. Deval Patrick could emulate the gentleman in the private swimming pool and save our Charles River White Geese from their inevitable annihilation that would otherwise result from the actions currently being taken by the State and Cambridge. Gov. Patrick can lead the way.

Will he save the gaggle, or gag?

REVERSE FOIE GRAS ON THE CHARLES

Archie Mazmanian reports [paragraphing added]:

Animal rights groups continue to protest against the force-feeding of geese to enlarge their livers to delight gourmets.

Here on the Charles River, Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are not being cruel to our White Geese by force-feeding them. Rather, these Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are being even crueler to our White Geese with their annihilation policy that will eventually starve them to extinction.

Our Charles River jewel has a flaw in it that does not require a jeweler’s loop: it’s the Commonwealth and Cambridge officials starving to extinction our web-footed friends.

Monteiro Update — Cambridge filing.

1. Background on the Monteiro Case.
2. New Action.


Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Background on the Monteiro Case.

This concerns Malvina Monteiro et al. v. City of Cambridge et al., Middlesex Division of the Superior Court Docket Number MICV2001-02737.

The City of Cambridge has pending against it a decision of judge and jury that Cambridge destroyed the life of a black woman former department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The damage award at latest count exceeded $5 million, including $3.5 million penal damages and about $500,000 interest.

The key judge’s decision was very well written and included the judge’s evaluation of the City of Cambridge as "reprehensible." It may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge_issues_decision_denying.html.

On June 26, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to clarify, alter and amend the judgment. I have been informed that the purpose of this motion is to persuade the judge to increase the interest award.

The motion was heard on August 26, 2009. No decision on the motion has come down as far as I can see on the docket.

Cambridge filed notice of appeal and later admitted that its notice of appeal was untimely filed and thus void.

2. New Action.

On October 20, 2009, Cambridge filed a "Defendant City of Cambridge's Notice of intent to file motion for reconsideration of decision and order on post-trial motions regarding punitive damages."

This would appear to be an attempt to reopen prior motions which were denied in association with the above link.

The reason for filing such a notice of intent is that Cambridge’s motion has to be reviewed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff given a chance to attach a response to that motion before the motion can be filed.

Cambridge is filing the notice of intent so that the judge will know that the Cambridge motion is coming should the judge wish to respond to the plaintiff’s pending motion for clarification. I will not bother you with further legal analysis.

Day 388, Chapter 91 work delayed, thank you. Globe Editorial on Rivers.

1. Day 388.
A. Destroyed trees.
B. Workers at the destroyed nesting area.
C. Response as good as ever.
2. Chapter 91 approval delayed, thank you.
3. Globe editorializes on rivers, how about the Charles River White Geese?


Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Day 388.

A. Destroyed trees.

Walking to the destroyed nesting area, I had to pass the entrance to Magazine Beach.

There were two recent stumps, one on either side of the entrance. What looked like sawdust was on either side.

The DCR has a great deal of convenient disease, one on either side of the entrance?

B. Workers at the destroyed nesting area.

The first thing that was visible was excavation equipment in the traffic island at the very end of the BU Bridge.

A worker told me that “they” were there shooting videos. There was a team of three in orange work clothes as part of his group on the destroyed nesting area side. Others were in the middle of the bridge on that side, not in the bright protective clothing.

There was a car / SUV in the nesting area. As I left, I saw a man not dressed in the orange work clothes getting into it.

C. Response as good as ever.

People were busily taking fliers. I actually had more cars pulling over for fliers than usual.

I told them about the governor’s action, below. That cheered them up.

The geese were quite lethargic, not moving around much. Their world has been destroyed. There is not much to move about.

2. Chapter 91 work approval delayed, thank you.

Marilyn communicated with the governor’s office last week.

They said the chapter 91 approval to build a drainage system in the destroyed nesting area had not been approved. This construction is very much unnecessary with many alternatives in the area, from direct connection to the sewer plant immediately west of the BU Bridge to connection into existing facilities.

She was informed that the governor’s office is responding to the controversial nature of the project.

English translation: keep up the calls and emails. The governor is being responsive.

What you can do and contact information may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/contact-information-for-people-to.html.

3. Globe editorializes on rivers, how about the Charles River White Geese?

Archie Mazmanian comments:

I trust you have seen the Boston Sunday Globe lead editorial [on October 18, 2009] titled "Rethink policy on river water - leave some for the fish."

No mention is made of the plight of the Charles River White Geese under the Commonwealth's (and Cambridge's) annihilation policy.

The editorial closes with this: "In the meantime, the state should stick to a definition of 'safe yield' that ensures the safety of vulnerable plants and animals." Yes, fish are animals; but so are the White Geese. Why isn't the Globe kind to our web-footed friends as well as the Charles' fish?

*********

Ed: The editorial may be found at:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/10/18/rethink_policy_on_river_water___leave_some_for_the_fish/

Candidates claim to be pro-environment.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Letter to Editor of Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Summary. Candidate qualifications.


1. Introduction.

Tuesday evening, October 14, a group of organizations conducted questioning of Cambridge City Council candidates on environmental issues.

It is my understanding that there was one question addressing a real environmental issue, and that Kathy Podgers got onto the list.

My compliments to Kathy. It was an excellent job.

My understanding of answers is included in the following Letter to the Editor which I have submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle.

The incumbent to whom I am responding is Craig Kelley. The other candidate is Mr. Sullivan.

2. Letter to Editor of Cambridge Chronicle.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

At the “environmental” city council questioning Tuesday, one city councilor blamed the outrage on the Charles River on the voters: the position is: “They should have kept us from doing it.”

One voters’ position is: “they would never stoop so low.” “Support” has been next to non-existent. A lot have been objecting.

The city council’s position has been: (1) “we do not want to hear about it,” and (2) “we are environmental saints.”

The claim of sainthood is based on a definition of environmentalism which “protects the world” but “How dare you talk to us about our destruction of the earth, water and animals of Cambridge !”

It is only “too late” at Magazine Beach and on the Charles if the claims of environmental holiness are lies.

The heartless animal abuse aimed at resident animals and the Charles River White Geese for the last five years has not killed the gaggle. Give them back their food, stop and reverse the silly destruction of their habitat and behave in a responsible manner in public works projects.

The state destroys all protective vegetation on the Charles River twice a year, EXCEPT for the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation at Magazine Beach . Have them destroy this bizarre wall. The wall has no apparent purpose except for starving the animals, and the state has bragged of the starvation.

Cambridge has converted Magazine Beach from GREEN maintenance to POISON maintenance. The change belies the claim that the City Council is GREEN. How to resolve? Stop poisoning Magazine Beach . If they were doing other than lying when calling themselves GREEN, the stopping of poisoning would be flat out simple.

One candidate said their poisons are not poisonous. If so, why the expensive drainage system to keep the poisons out of the Charles, a drainage system which cannot possibly work in the worst storms? If you stop the poisons, you SHOULD kill the drainage, to keep away future poisons. That would free up playing fields to, once again, be used as playing fields.

What to do: dump dirt on top of the drainage systems, and then grass.

The heartless animal abuse? Stop not wanting to know what you are doing.

The voters are not responsible for the outrage on the Charles River : an environmentally destructive, “reprehensible” government is. “Reprehensible” quotes a civil rights judge.

Then there are those hundreds of healthy trees which are about to be destroyed.

3. Summary. Candidate qualifications.

I certainly am open to discussions with candidates other than the long time city council incumbents.

I have yet to see a serious environmental candidate other than Kathy Podgers.

All the incumbents who have been in office more than a few months are unfit for office because of their contempt for the Cambridge environment which only they are responsible for destroying. Additionally, they are all unqualified to remain in office because they have failed to vote to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

In my opinion, putting aside the non-stop environmental outrages, there is also an excellent case for firing the Cambridge City Manager without pension. It was made by the Judge in the Monteiro case in her detailed opinion. No city councilor has even moved a vote to fire him.

The judge’s opinion may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html

Some candidates have been endorsed by the Boston chapter of the Sierra Club. That I consider a kiss of death. The Sierra Club has, very visibly, a number of people who have done outrageous harm to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance with fake downzonings written by the Cambridge City Manager. Sierra Club endorsements in Cambridge elections are difficult to separate from this record.

A brief conversation with the one non-incumbent endorsed by the Sierra Club, Minka van Beuzekom, left me with the very strong feeling that I do not want any more to do with her than I do with the incumbents.

Right now, after Kathy Podgers, I would toss the other non-incumbent candidates’ names into a bowl and vote for them in the order of blind selection.

One possible exception is Mr. Sullivan. His comment that the poisons being dumped on the banks of the Charles are not poisonous puts him pretty much into a league with the incumbents.

OARS UP FOR THE CHARLES RIVER WHITE GEESE

Archie Mazmanian comments [paragraphing by editor, Bob]:

Welcome to oarsmen/women participating in the Regatta on the Charles. They come from all parts of the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere to enjoy the friendly environs of our jewel, the Charles River.

I don’t know if these oarsmen/women from beyond our area are aware of the plight of the Charles River White Geese. But as environmentalists, they should become aware of the efforts of MA and Cambridge government officials to annihilate the White Geese.

These oarsmen/women may not be rowing east of the BU Bridge in their races to the habitat of the White Geese. But it would be a nice gesture on their part to raise their oars at some point nearby in honor, in support of the White Geese and in protest of their annihilation.

Then these oarsmen/women can take the message of the plight of the Charles River White Geese back home with them, so that regionally, even nationally these MA and Cambridge government officials can be exposed for their annihilation efforts.

Let’s be kind to our web-footed friends.

I invite these oarsmen/women to visit the Goose Meadow. If MA and Cambridge government officials have their way, the Goose Meadow may be gone by next year’s Regatta. OARS UP!

BLOODLESS ABATTOIR ON THE CHARLES

Archie Mazmanian reports:

Many years ago, long before the Charles River was reconfigured into its current form by filling tidelands and constructing dams, it served as a disposal, including in particular for the Allston/Brighton stockyards and abattoirs. The venerated Harvard Business School (HBS) is built on land filled in the reconfiguring of the Charles. Some years back (early 1970s), a Professor at HBS was hosting a Board of Directors meeting of a corporation I represented (he and I served on the Board). He gave a brief history of HBS, including an odor problem that developed at the site that finally was determined to be methane leaking from the soil through the floors of HBS. The source of the methane was determined to be cattle hides long buried there, disposed of years earlier by the abattoirs.

Fortunately, quite a bit of progress has been made over the years to lessen the environmental issues caused by the stockyards and its abattoirs. No longer would MA and its municipalities permit such dumping to go on with the Charles or other waters. Over recent years, efforts have been made to make the Charles swimmable, including at Magazine Beach that once was swimmable. (I recall my family taking me there when we lived in Somerville in the mid 1930s.) Alas, public funds are low. Despite former Governor Weld’’s famous dive into the Charles before he bailed out of MA, the Charles is not yet swimmable for humans.

But there is life in the Charles. I’’m not sure how successfully the herring run up the Charles to spawn in recent years. But there are fish in the Charles. And then there are the ducks and other seabirds that partake of the Charles in season.

And let’’s not forget the year-round Charles River White Geese that have given great pleasure to us, especially our children. The Charles is a jewel, a joy for our urban area, with its open expanse a respite from the densities of urban life, permitting communing with nature. But now these White Geese face annihilation at the hands of MA and Cambridge government officials. What we have is a bloodless abattoir at the White Geese’’s habitat in the area of the BU Bridge. Because it is bloodless, these government officials may feel their hands are clean. But are they? Would you shake their hands? Or vote for them?

Governor Patrick's response to e-mail about Memorial Drive and Obama funds

On October 13, 2009, I received the following e-mail from Governor Patrick's office. It responded to correspondence about my e-mail of October 10, 2009, posted on the blog as part of the report on Day 387.

Dear Ms. Wellons,


On behalf of Governor Deval L. Patrick, thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We have forwarded your correspondence to the Executive Office for Administration and Finance for further review. If necessary, please be assured that someone in that office will follow up with you as soon as possible. We are committed to addressing your concerns promptly.


To ensure transparency, the Governor has created the Massachusetts Recovery and Reinvestment Plan website where you can find details regarding recovery spending as they become available.


Again, thank you for writing Governor Patrick. Please know that the Governor is grateful to have your voice as part of this discussion, and he hopes you will stay involved in your government moving forward. Now, more than ever, your participation matters.


Sincerely,

Governor Patrick's Constituent Services Team

617-725-4005

www.mass.gov/governor/contact

*****

Bob La Tremouille and I will continue to check on the status of funding for the DCR's "Memorial Drive Historic Parkways" project and post it here.

Marilyn Wellons

Day 387, Marilyn to Governor Patrick on Obama Moneys and the Outrage on Memorial Drive.

1. Day 387.
2. Marilyn to the Governor on Obama Moneys and the Outrage on Memorial Drive.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Day 387.

This afternoon, October 10, 2009, I did a visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

It is such a relief to be talking to decent human beings. I know they are the majority, but there are so many bad guys floating around in Cambridge politics that, when you are doing Cambridge politics, the bad guys make themselves appear something other than the tiny, vile, minority they are.

This afternoon: Lot of nice people, people driving by beeping and showing support.

Some very good people talking with me.

Very nice afternoon. Normal, very nice people. Not Cambridge pols.

2. Marilyn to the Governor on Obama Moneys and the Outrage on Memorial Drive.

Marilyn filed the following today, October 10, to the governor through his “email” technique on his website.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is Obama moneys.

***********

Dear Governor Patrick:

Midnight tonight is the deadline for the state to submit its Section 1512 Report to the Federal Transit Administration for use of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 under that section.

Section 1512 covers Grants, Cooperative Agreements and Loans and includes what the state has received for the Department of Conservation and Recreation’’s ““Memorial Drive Historic Parkways Initiative Demonstration Project”” Phase 2.

Please note, at ARRA-2-06, that the report must “[e]xplain how the infrastructure investment will contribute to one or more purposes of the Recovery Act”:

(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.

(2) To assist those most impacted by the recession.

(3) To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring
technological advances in science and health.

(4) To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.

(5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases."

“Mem Drive Historic Parkways” Phase 2 is worse than wasteful. It diverts money from essential services for DCR assets. It destroys trees that sequester carbon and so contributes to climate change. It removes habitat protected by the Wetlands Protection Act.

One possible argument of transportation or long-term economic benefit would be that it increases the capacity of Mem Drive and thus furthers the diversion of traffic from Storrow to Memorial Drive. Another would be that it continues to create an Urban Ring Phase 2 infrastructure off the official books, to keep UR2’s total cost deceptively low.

Your Administration’s Section 1512 Report will surely be explicit if these are the reasons for the project.

I hope you will decline to fund the DCR’s “Memorial Drive Historic Parkways” Phase 2, and will follow the Section 1512 Report with interest.

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons

URBAN RING: PHASE 2 IS DEAD! LONG LIVE PHASE 3!

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Bob’s response.


1. Archie’s Report.

Archie Mazmanian Reports:

Recent reports on the demise of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring may be premature. No federal funding is currently available. A report in the Brookline TAB (October 1, 2009) states that Phase 2 has been moved to an “illustrative list” described by a budget analyst for the MBTA Advisory Board as follows:

“Illustrative projects are, by definition, projects that we do if we had the money, but we don’t have the money.”

The TAB report continues: “Even as a project on the illustrative list, the Urban Ring won’t receive funds for the next 20 years unless the list is amended down the road,” according to this analyst.

Surely newer technology will come along to replace Phase 2’s 60-foot articulated buses that were to be operated in much mixed traffic over narrow streets that are currently heavily traveled. If Phase 2 somehow survives after a couple of decades of being in financial and political gridlock, surely it will not be recognizable as we have known it.

But the demise of Phase 2, real or imagined, should not deter Phase 3 with its light/heavy rail on dedicated tracks. Public transit needs improvement in Greater Boston to survive. Phase 3 is one answer. LONG LIVE PHASE 3!

However, the demise of Phase 2 is not a reprieve of the current death sentence for the Charles River White Geese. Phase 2’s impact, if it had survived, would have been felt years down the road. The chief governmental villain in the ongoing annihilation of the White Geese is the DCR with its BU Bridge repairs/renovations project that have been underway for some months. The City of Cambridge has apparently been cooperating with DCR in the squeeze of the White Geese in their habitat.

Come November 1st, the humongous state transportation reorganization will commence implementation. It is touted as long needed reform. The DCR becomes a part of the Highway Division and no longer a separate agency. This should result in better coordination of our highways and bridges, without dealing with agency fiefdoms that may serve at cross-purposes.

The new Department of Transportation (DOT) is to be headed by a five member professional board to be appointed by the Governor. These members are to serve without compensation. Two members are to be experts in the field of transportation finance, two transportation planners and one a registered civil engineer. The Chair of this board cannot be an employee of DOT, suggesting that the others can be so employed. At a conference I recently attended, I was told that none of the members will be DOT employees. I am not aware that Governor Patrick has made any of these appointments as yet. It is not clear exactly what will be the role of the board in dealing with the Secretary of Transportation to be appointed by the Governor who will serve as the CEO of DOT.

With this reorganization in place, no longer will DCR rule the roost of the White Geese. Friends of the Charles River White Geese should promptly get the attention of the new board and CEO of DOT to prevent the current annihilation of the White Geese. And pressure on Governor Patrick should continue. Maybe an invitation should be extended to Governor Patrick (as well as to the new board and CEO) to visit the site of the annihilation. If it’s too cold, perhaps we could accommodate them with goose-down coats. With the reorganization in place, there will be no excuse for Governor Patrick to continue to ignore the annihilation of the White Geese. The buck stops with him.

Archie Mazmanian

2. Bob’s response.

There is one aspect to Archie’s report that confuses me.

It is my recollection that there are two possible Urban Ring Charles River heavy / light rail crossings on the Table.

One, the heavy rail, would cross the Charles River near the Mass. Ave. Bridge and make Green Line connections and Commuter Rail connections at Kenmore. The station would be under Brookline Avenue over the Mass. Pike. It would have tunnel connections to the south to Kenmore / Green Line and, to the west, to Yawkey Station on the Commuter Rail. It would also be very convenient for Fenway Park.

The other, the light rail / streetcar, would cross in the goose habitat and make Green Line connections at two new stations.

One would be located at St. Mary’s and Mountfort adjacent to the commuter rail. This is a block from Marsh Chapel, the heart of the BU campus. This station would connect to the Commonwealth Avenue line by a tunnel under St. Mary’s. to the south side of Commonwealth Avenue. People would then cross traffic and weather to get to the existing BU Central stop on the Commonwealth Avenue (B) line.

The other station would be located under Park Drive between Beacon Street (C line) and the existing Fenway Park station on the Riverside (D) line. A new Green Line station would be constructed under Beacon Street at Audubon Circle. Tunnel connections would go in both directions.

The original plans called for moving Yawkey Station next to the Mountfort Station.