Bob reports:
The judge in Monteiro v City of Cambridge, on or about June 2, will take action that commences the appeals period in this case. The Cambridge City Council has started to position itself to evaluate whether the City Council will fund an appeal.
I have been told that the Cambridge City Council is not capable of doing what should be done on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This opinion is based on the individual limitations of the members of the Cambridge City Council.
I personally think that people who so clearly and publicly claim to stand for civil rights might actually stand for civil rights. And the Monteiro case involves the deliberate destruction of the life of a black woman, Cape Verdean, department head in response to her filing a civil rights complaint.
The Chronicle editor has done an excellent job evaluating this case as a personal matter of the City Manager.
This evaluation should feature in the decision of the Cambridge City Council on whether or not to fund an appeal.
If the Cambridge City Council does fund an appeal, the fact that this case is a personal matter with regard to the Cambridge City Manager should feature in the voters’ evaluation of the qualifications of the members of the City Council to hold office.
The very strong opinion of judge and jury is that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in clear and knowing violation of civil rights laws protecting Ms. Monteiro’s right to file a civil rights complaint. His action has been determined illegal and “reprehensible.”
The judge’s decision tears apart each and every argument of the Cambridge City Manager in court. That decision may be read on the Internet at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. That decision includes a shocking evaluation of the testimony of the Cambridge City Manager.
If the Monteiro decision is not appealed, the City Manager’s treatment of Malvina Monteiro is a matter which has been litigated.
The City Manager has rather strong clauses in his contract paying him a large golden parachute should he be fired. It is not unthinkable for such clauses to be found void as against public policy in the face of such a court decision.
I see nothing complicated about it.
We have nine city councilors who claim to be pro-civil rights.
We have nine city councilors who should be accepting the decision of judge and jury and voting to fire the Cambridge City Manager.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Change in start of BU Bridge repairs
1. Introductory.
2. Press Release from DCR.
3. Afterthought.
Bob reports:
1. Introductory.
The following Press Release was issued by the DCR on May 15, 2009, and forwarded by the Cambridge City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association on their listserve on May 18.
The key part of this is the comment on the BU Bridge repair project and its needless destructiveness to the environment. This is a change from the announcement I passed on from a planning group meeting last week.
The anticipated bid date is repeated as early June.
Commencement of work is now scheduled for fall.
This change in commencement of work is very clearly to fit it with Cambridge practices.
The hypocrites lie about themselves during election campaigns, and they do the really rotten stuff the week after the election.
I am rotating between eight plus bad guys and 7½ plus bad guys. My increasing evaluation is to look at Councilor Kelley’s conversion to a statement of support for the Green at Magazine Beach in light of his apparent destructiveness of the Green everywhere else that I know of.
Eight plus bad guys.
2. Press Release from DCR.
For immediate release Contact: Wendy Fox
May 15, 2009 617-626-1453
DCR BEGINS REPAIRS ON BU BRIDGE
One Boston-to-Cambridge lane will be closed to vehicles
The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is set to begin repairs on the BU Bridge that will require one Cambridge-bound lane to be closed to vehicles.
Effective this evening, the downstream sidewalk (on the side with Boston-to-Cambridge vehicular traffic) will close. The adjoining Boston-to-Cambridge traffic lane also will close to vehicular traffic, but will be open for pedestrians and cyclists.
“We know these lane and sidewalk closings will be inconvenient, but in the interest of public safety, these repairs have to be made,” said DCR Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. “We appreciate the public’s patience as this work moves forward.”
A recent inspection by TranSystems identified two structural elements under the roadway and sidewalk that need to be repaired. DCR’s design contractor, STV Inc. of Boston, will design the repairs, and Unified Contractor Inc. of Melrose will start the work as early as next week.
In the meantime, and during the work, the downstream sidewalk will be closed to all pedestrians, and the right-hand Boston-to-Cambridge lane will be closed to vehicles and reserved for pedestrians.
As part of Governor Patrick’s $3 billion Accelerated Bridge Program, aimed at quickly repairing the Commonwealth’s most neglected bridges, DCR is currently soliciting bids for a full rehabilitation of the BU Bridge. A contract for that work, estimated to cost about $20 million, is expected to be awarded in June, and work would begin in fall 2009.
The current repairs, expected to cost about $100,000 and be completed three weeks, also will be funded through the Accelerated Bridge Program. The downstream sidewalk is expected to remain closed during the full bridge rehabilitation. The upstream sidewalk, which has been undergoing repairs, is expected to reopen later this month.
To learn more about the Accelerated Bridge Program, visit www.mass.gov/ acceleratedbridg es.
To learn more about DCR projects, visit www.mass.gov/ dcr/projects.
3. Afterthought.
Public comment about the preceding project, the BU Bridge Sidewalk project is now being described as “BU Bridge Repairs.”
Yet more dirty tricks.
The game with the bad guys has always been to lie through word games and secret definitions, or, for that matter, whatever dirty trick works.
Now they are deliberately confusing the two projects, one of which is responsible, the other of which is business as usual.
Another factor to consider is the long record of bad faith. A delay which can be reversed at will can just be a tactic to catch responsible people off guard.
The Monteiro judge is right.
“Reprehensible” is a very appropriate word.
2. Press Release from DCR.
3. Afterthought.
Bob reports:
1. Introductory.
The following Press Release was issued by the DCR on May 15, 2009, and forwarded by the Cambridge City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association on their listserve on May 18.
The key part of this is the comment on the BU Bridge repair project and its needless destructiveness to the environment. This is a change from the announcement I passed on from a planning group meeting last week.
The anticipated bid date is repeated as early June.
Commencement of work is now scheduled for fall.
This change in commencement of work is very clearly to fit it with Cambridge practices.
The hypocrites lie about themselves during election campaigns, and they do the really rotten stuff the week after the election.
I am rotating between eight plus bad guys and 7½ plus bad guys. My increasing evaluation is to look at Councilor Kelley’s conversion to a statement of support for the Green at Magazine Beach in light of his apparent destructiveness of the Green everywhere else that I know of.
Eight plus bad guys.
2. Press Release from DCR.
For immediate release Contact: Wendy Fox
May 15, 2009 617-626-1453
DCR BEGINS REPAIRS ON BU BRIDGE
One Boston-to-Cambridge lane will be closed to vehicles
The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is set to begin repairs on the BU Bridge that will require one Cambridge-bound lane to be closed to vehicles.
Effective this evening, the downstream sidewalk (on the side with Boston-to-Cambridge vehicular traffic) will close. The adjoining Boston-to-Cambridge traffic lane also will close to vehicular traffic, but will be open for pedestrians and cyclists.
“We know these lane and sidewalk closings will be inconvenient, but in the interest of public safety, these repairs have to be made,” said DCR Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. “We appreciate the public’s patience as this work moves forward.”
A recent inspection by TranSystems identified two structural elements under the roadway and sidewalk that need to be repaired. DCR’s design contractor, STV Inc. of Boston, will design the repairs, and Unified Contractor Inc. of Melrose will start the work as early as next week.
In the meantime, and during the work, the downstream sidewalk will be closed to all pedestrians, and the right-hand Boston-to-Cambridge lane will be closed to vehicles and reserved for pedestrians.
As part of Governor Patrick’s $3 billion Accelerated Bridge Program, aimed at quickly repairing the Commonwealth’s most neglected bridges, DCR is currently soliciting bids for a full rehabilitation of the BU Bridge. A contract for that work, estimated to cost about $20 million, is expected to be awarded in June, and work would begin in fall 2009.
The current repairs, expected to cost about $100,000 and be completed three weeks, also will be funded through the Accelerated Bridge Program. The downstream sidewalk is expected to remain closed during the full bridge rehabilitation. The upstream sidewalk, which has been undergoing repairs, is expected to reopen later this month.
To learn more about the Accelerated Bridge Program, visit www.mass.gov/ acceleratedbridg es.
To learn more about DCR projects, visit www.mass.gov/ dcr/projects.
3. Afterthought.
Public comment about the preceding project, the BU Bridge Sidewalk project is now being described as “BU Bridge Repairs.”
Yet more dirty tricks.
The game with the bad guys has always been to lie through word games and secret definitions, or, for that matter, whatever dirty trick works.
Now they are deliberately confusing the two projects, one of which is responsible, the other of which is business as usual.
Another factor to consider is the long record of bad faith. A delay which can be reversed at will can just be a tactic to catch responsible people off guard.
The Monteiro judge is right.
“Reprehensible” is a very appropriate word.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Monteiro: Reconsideration rejected, Details on Motions, City Council consideration.
Bob reports:
1. Motion for Reconsideration rejected.
2. Details at Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Cambridge City Council getting in to the act.
1. Motion for Reconsideration rejected.
Cambridge filed is motion for reconsideration on May 19. The Court filed its response yesterday:
*****
Motion (P#121) Upon review of all submissions and relevant case law,
the within mtoion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Bonnie H. MacLeod,
Justice). Notices mailed 5/21/2009
*****
2. Details at Cambridge Chronicle.
The Cambridge Chronicle apparently has received a copy of some of the papers on which my knowledge is limited to paper titles. Its report may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x542611448/Judge-rules-against-city-Attempt-to-appeal-discrimination-case-moot
Take care, however. The report is simplified for public consumption and, as a result, lacks legal perfection. Additionally, there are legal points which the Chronicle does not seem to understand. To the extent anything in the report conflicts with my reports, my reports should prevail.
3. Cambridge City Council getting in to the act.
The Chronicle report included city council discussion of the matter.
That came from a city council order signed by five members (a voting majority) which is published at http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=25451. This order directly addresses the Monteiro case. It was tabled and would not normally be brought up until a week from Monday.
The initial order called for money to hire special council to evaluate the situation and for closed door discussion WITHOUT THE CITY MANAGER.
A modification order from Toomey reports that the city council has already met with special council.
1. Motion for Reconsideration rejected.
2. Details at Cambridge Chronicle.
3. Cambridge City Council getting in to the act.
1. Motion for Reconsideration rejected.
Cambridge filed is motion for reconsideration on May 19. The Court filed its response yesterday:
*****
Motion (P#121) Upon review of all submissions and relevant case law,
the within mtoion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Bonnie H. MacLeod,
Justice). Notices mailed 5/21/2009
*****
2. Details at Cambridge Chronicle.
The Cambridge Chronicle apparently has received a copy of some of the papers on which my knowledge is limited to paper titles. Its report may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x542611448/Judge-rules-against-city-Attempt-to-appeal-discrimination-case-moot
Take care, however. The report is simplified for public consumption and, as a result, lacks legal perfection. Additionally, there are legal points which the Chronicle does not seem to understand. To the extent anything in the report conflicts with my reports, my reports should prevail.
3. Cambridge City Council getting in to the act.
The Chronicle report included city council discussion of the matter.
That came from a city council order signed by five members (a voting majority) which is published at http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=25451. This order directly addresses the Monteiro case. It was tabled and would not normally be brought up until a week from Monday.
The initial order called for money to hire special council to evaluate the situation and for closed door discussion WITHOUT THE CITY MANAGER.
A modification order from Toomey reports that the city council has already met with special council.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Separate Final Judgment in Monteiro to issue about June 2?
Bob reports:
1. Papers filed.
2. Analysis.
3. Summary.
It looks like there will probably be a final judgment issued by the judge for Malvina Monteiro on or about June 2.
1. Papers filed.
The judge issued the following order on Monday, May 18:
******
Motion (P#107) In light of this Court's decision on the defendant's
post-trial motions, the within motion is ALLOWED. Counsel are to
provide a proposed form of judgment for the Court within 7 days.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice). Notices mailed 5/18/2009
******
Paper 107 was filed by the Plaintiff at about the same time as the defendant's post trial motions.
It read:
Paper 107:
******
MOTION Of Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro Pursuant To Rule 54(b) For Entry
Of Final Judgment Against Defendant City Of Cambridge; and
Defendant's Opposition.
******
This action was taken in spite of the city (defendant) filing a notice of intent to seek reconsideration of the post trial motion order.
On May 19, 2009, the Defendant filed the following:
******
Defendant City of Cambridge's MOTION for Reconsideration of Decision
and Order on Post Trial Motions; Plaintiff, Monteiro's opposition to
deft's motion.
******
2. Analysis.
The reality is as follows:
There are three plaintiffs outstanding, Monteiro and two who have not had a trial yet.
Under the rules, UNLESS the judge orders otherwise, all action on a case officially is not done UNTIL all plaintiffs' complaints are resolved. The Monteiro complaint was the first to be heard. Thus, everything would normally be on hold until the other two plaintiffs complaints are tried.
The motion the judge just granted allows final judgment to Ms. Monteiro without waiting for the other two plaintiffs.
Thus, after the drafting exercise the judge calls for in her order, Ms. Monteiro will have a judgment in hand allowing her to COLLECT her judgment from the City of Cambridge (i.e., sell a couple of buildings if the city does not pay). That judgment will also allow the city to appeal the decision.
Rules are such that the plaintiff cannot get the appropriate paper to commence the collection process on the judgment until after the appeals period expires. Thus an appeal prevents collection on the judgment until the appeal is completed.
Prior to the Judge’s order, Cambridge posted notice that Cambridge will seek reconsideration of the ruling and order rejecting the city’s post-trial motions. The timing of the judge’s request for language allowed Cambridge to file its reconsideration motion with any plaintiff response attached to it before the judge is scheduled to issue her official separate Judgment.
Cambridge proceeded with filing the motion for reconsideration.
Since the actual separate judgment will not be issued until after receipt of the Cambridge reconsideration request, the judge has left herself room to change her mind in light of VERY persuasive language by Cambridge, while the judge is simultaneously moving forward the final judgment with relative speed.
3. Summary.
That motion for reconsideration had better be very persuasive if the city expects to prevail.
It would appear highly unlikely that the motion for reconsideration will be that persuasive.
June 2, give or take a few days, I anticipate final and separate judgment. That judgment will be followed by time for appeal. If Cambridge does not appeal, Cambridge had better pay or see some of its property sold at auction.
1. Papers filed.
2. Analysis.
3. Summary.
It looks like there will probably be a final judgment issued by the judge for Malvina Monteiro on or about June 2.
1. Papers filed.
The judge issued the following order on Monday, May 18:
******
Motion (P#107) In light of this Court's decision on the defendant's
post-trial motions, the within motion is ALLOWED. Counsel are to
provide a proposed form of judgment for the Court within 7 days.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice). Notices mailed 5/18/2009
******
Paper 107 was filed by the Plaintiff at about the same time as the defendant's post trial motions.
It read:
Paper 107:
******
MOTION Of Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro Pursuant To Rule 54(b) For Entry
Of Final Judgment Against Defendant City Of Cambridge; and
Defendant's Opposition.
******
This action was taken in spite of the city (defendant) filing a notice of intent to seek reconsideration of the post trial motion order.
On May 19, 2009, the Defendant filed the following:
******
Defendant City of Cambridge's MOTION for Reconsideration of Decision
and Order on Post Trial Motions; Plaintiff, Monteiro's opposition to
deft's motion.
******
2. Analysis.
The reality is as follows:
There are three plaintiffs outstanding, Monteiro and two who have not had a trial yet.
Under the rules, UNLESS the judge orders otherwise, all action on a case officially is not done UNTIL all plaintiffs' complaints are resolved. The Monteiro complaint was the first to be heard. Thus, everything would normally be on hold until the other two plaintiffs complaints are tried.
The motion the judge just granted allows final judgment to Ms. Monteiro without waiting for the other two plaintiffs.
Thus, after the drafting exercise the judge calls for in her order, Ms. Monteiro will have a judgment in hand allowing her to COLLECT her judgment from the City of Cambridge (i.e., sell a couple of buildings if the city does not pay). That judgment will also allow the city to appeal the decision.
Rules are such that the plaintiff cannot get the appropriate paper to commence the collection process on the judgment until after the appeals period expires. Thus an appeal prevents collection on the judgment until the appeal is completed.
Prior to the Judge’s order, Cambridge posted notice that Cambridge will seek reconsideration of the ruling and order rejecting the city’s post-trial motions. The timing of the judge’s request for language allowed Cambridge to file its reconsideration motion with any plaintiff response attached to it before the judge is scheduled to issue her official separate Judgment.
Cambridge proceeded with filing the motion for reconsideration.
Since the actual separate judgment will not be issued until after receipt of the Cambridge reconsideration request, the judge has left herself room to change her mind in light of VERY persuasive language by Cambridge, while the judge is simultaneously moving forward the final judgment with relative speed.
3. Summary.
That motion for reconsideration had better be very persuasive if the city expects to prevail.
It would appear highly unlikely that the motion for reconsideration will be that persuasive.
June 2, give or take a few days, I anticipate final and separate judgment. That judgment will be followed by time for appeal. If Cambridge does not appeal, Cambridge had better pay or see some of its property sold at auction.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Analysis of Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee meeting April 14, 2009; announcement of CAC meeting June 10, 2009
Archie Mazmanian’s analysis of the April 14, 2009 Urban Ring Phase 2 Citizens Advisory Committee meeting:
The CAC meeting April 14 included a presentation by A Better City (ABC) Planning Director and CAC Co-Chair Tom Nally.
The presentation provided several slides, with suggestions for taking several limited steps. EOT’s Ned Cod did not seem too impressed with this but perhaps bit his tongue to “comply” with the March 6, 2009 DEIR Certificate issued by Ian A. Bowles, Secretary, Executive 0ffice of Energy and Environmental Affairs. No handouts were made available to members of the public in attendance; we could only look at the slides and listen to Nally’s general narrative.
This demonstrates the “power” of ABC and its development-membership that I referred to in an earlier letter posted on the Chalres River White Geese blog March 17, 2009. After the close of the meeting, I asked Ned Codd if the ABC slides would be posted on the Urban Ring website together with EOT’s presentation. He said he thought so, subject to ABC’s permission. I suggested that these became public records and should be included. In fact, ABC’s proposal in its entirety should be disclosed to the public under the circumstances so the public can be in a position to comment on them at a later date.
There were no positive messages presented at this meeting, especially in light of recent transportation events and MA budget cutting. In fact there seemed to be a suggestion from Ned Codd that the LMA tunnel might not be affordable under FTA requirements for New Starts federal funding, as MA has to be able to demonstrate availability of project funding beyond what FTA may provide; and it was not clear that MA could do this.
In the public comment period, I “tiraded” that I was hearing at this meeting the voice of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the 2003 Iraq conflict about “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns" that also seem to plague Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. Public transit has major problems now, and they are getting worse. I further “tiraded” that assuming Phase 2 passes muster and is completed, say, by 2020, public transit problems surely would have further worsened in the interim, such that Phase 2 would only serve as a “band-aid” when surgery is required, in the form of Phase 3 with its light/heavy dedicated rail. As to no LMA tunnel, I further “tiraded” that the traffic mess in the LMA currently is measurable and superimposing Phase 2 surface routes through LMA should reveal the absurdity, the futility of “no tunnel” since what happens in the LMA, unlike Vegas, does not stay in the LMA and causes traffic problems in surrounding neighborhoods.
What’s sad is that the Legislature is not seriously addressing transportation issues. At some point public transit users will become vociferous, especially with the economy far from recovery, as it may become more difficult commuting to their jobs. The Greater Boston area relies upon public transit. The Greater Boston area provides much of MA’s economic activity. Solving these problems will be expensive since the problems have long been neglected and ignored. MA cannot rely upon federal funding to address these problems. The Legislature has to come up with a way to find the money—and fast! Band-aids won’t stop the bleeding.
You may post this letter on your Blog, if you wish.
Archie Mazmanian
Brookline, MA 02446
Archie now notes that on April 22, 2009, EOT posted on its website its presentation including the ABC slides: www.theurbanring.com/currentmaterials.
Also, there will be an Urban Ring Phase 2 CAC meeting on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, from 4-6 PM at 10 Park Plaza, Conference Room 2-3. The meeting will discuss the “pending Notice of Project Change and review the proposed implementation strategy for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project.” Contact at EOT is Scott Hamwey, telephone 617-973-7210.
Marilyn Wellons
The CAC meeting April 14 included a presentation by A Better City (ABC) Planning Director and CAC Co-Chair Tom Nally.
The presentation provided several slides, with suggestions for taking several limited steps. EOT’s Ned Cod did not seem too impressed with this but perhaps bit his tongue to “comply” with the March 6, 2009 DEIR Certificate issued by Ian A. Bowles, Secretary, Executive 0ffice of Energy and Environmental Affairs. No handouts were made available to members of the public in attendance; we could only look at the slides and listen to Nally’s general narrative.
This demonstrates the “power” of ABC and its development-membership that I referred to in an earlier letter posted on the Chalres River White Geese blog March 17, 2009. After the close of the meeting, I asked Ned Codd if the ABC slides would be posted on the Urban Ring website together with EOT’s presentation. He said he thought so, subject to ABC’s permission. I suggested that these became public records and should be included. In fact, ABC’s proposal in its entirety should be disclosed to the public under the circumstances so the public can be in a position to comment on them at a later date.
There were no positive messages presented at this meeting, especially in light of recent transportation events and MA budget cutting. In fact there seemed to be a suggestion from Ned Codd that the LMA tunnel might not be affordable under FTA requirements for New Starts federal funding, as MA has to be able to demonstrate availability of project funding beyond what FTA may provide; and it was not clear that MA could do this.
In the public comment period, I “tiraded” that I was hearing at this meeting the voice of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the 2003 Iraq conflict about “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns" that also seem to plague Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. Public transit has major problems now, and they are getting worse. I further “tiraded” that assuming Phase 2 passes muster and is completed, say, by 2020, public transit problems surely would have further worsened in the interim, such that Phase 2 would only serve as a “band-aid” when surgery is required, in the form of Phase 3 with its light/heavy dedicated rail. As to no LMA tunnel, I further “tiraded” that the traffic mess in the LMA currently is measurable and superimposing Phase 2 surface routes through LMA should reveal the absurdity, the futility of “no tunnel” since what happens in the LMA, unlike Vegas, does not stay in the LMA and causes traffic problems in surrounding neighborhoods.
What’s sad is that the Legislature is not seriously addressing transportation issues. At some point public transit users will become vociferous, especially with the economy far from recovery, as it may become more difficult commuting to their jobs. The Greater Boston area relies upon public transit. The Greater Boston area provides much of MA’s economic activity. Solving these problems will be expensive since the problems have long been neglected and ignored. MA cannot rely upon federal funding to address these problems. The Legislature has to come up with a way to find the money—and fast! Band-aids won’t stop the bleeding.
You may post this letter on your Blog, if you wish.
Archie Mazmanian
Brookline, MA 02446
Archie now notes that on April 22, 2009, EOT posted on its website its presentation including the ABC slides: www.theurbanring.com/currentmaterials.
Also, there will be an Urban Ring Phase 2 CAC meeting on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, from 4-6 PM at 10 Park Plaza, Conference Room 2-3. The meeting will discuss the “pending Notice of Project Change and review the proposed implementation strategy for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project.” Contact at EOT is Scott Hamwey, telephone 617-973-7210.
Marilyn Wellons
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Further Thoughts on Chronicle Letter - Monteiro
Bob reports:
On looking at the letter as edited in Thursday's Chronicle, the editing significantly improved the letter.
As edited, it concentrated solely on the important issue, the Monteiro case and Cambridge's extremely bad political establishment.
The big problem is a very bad political establishment in the City of Cambridge.
On looking at the letter as edited in Thursday's Chronicle, the editing significantly improved the letter.
As edited, it concentrated solely on the important issue, the Monteiro case and Cambridge's extremely bad political establishment.
The big problem is a very bad political establishment in the City of Cambridge.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
A Clarification on Councilor Kelly.
Bob reports:
The Cambridge Chronicle has been doing very well by me, very well. It hurts to have to do a perhaps picky correction, but I do try to be accurate. So I feel compelled to make a correction, at least in this forum, on the version of my letter of praise for the Cambridge Chronicle printed in today’s (5/14/09) paper.
The letter as written is reproduced below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/praise-for-cambridge-chronicle-monteiro.html. The letter was accurately copied by the Chronicle on line.
The hard copy edition omitted the fifth through seventh paragraphs. This was rather clearly an edit to fit the letter into available space. The edit, however, kept the content solely on the Monteiro case and omitted my listing of a bunch of other problems.
My summary paragraph blasts eight plus city councilors. The text as published only really supports blasting seven. Eight deserve to be blasted as stated in those three paragraphs. I doubt very seriously that Councillor Kelley, who is the eighth councilor in this regard, would be interested in a follow up explicitly blasting him on the other civil rights issue, on environmental and animal abuse issues, and on zoning abuses while pointing out that he did not vote to rehire the City Manager. That vote makes the letter as published technically only relevant to seven councilors.
In this regard, however, I note that Councillor Kelley Monday publicly, and belatedly, objected to the ongoing destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach. Kelley did not object to the outrageous introduced starvation wall. Kelley did not object to the heartless starvation of the Charles River White Geese. Kelley did not object to the outrages associated with the BU Bridge repairs. Kelley did not object to the destruction of all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. Kelley did not object to the twice yearly destruction of all protective vegetation lining the Charles River except for the bizarre introduced wall at Magazine Beach. Kelley did not object to the annual poisoning of the eggs of water fowl. Kelley did not object to the continuing and unnecessary destruction of healthy trees on a large scale by the City of Cambridge. Councilor Kelley did object to the destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach.
I will continue my highly distressed observations.
The Cambridge Chronicle has been doing very well by me, very well. It hurts to have to do a perhaps picky correction, but I do try to be accurate. So I feel compelled to make a correction, at least in this forum, on the version of my letter of praise for the Cambridge Chronicle printed in today’s (5/14/09) paper.
The letter as written is reproduced below at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/praise-for-cambridge-chronicle-monteiro.html. The letter was accurately copied by the Chronicle on line.
The hard copy edition omitted the fifth through seventh paragraphs. This was rather clearly an edit to fit the letter into available space. The edit, however, kept the content solely on the Monteiro case and omitted my listing of a bunch of other problems.
My summary paragraph blasts eight plus city councilors. The text as published only really supports blasting seven. Eight deserve to be blasted as stated in those three paragraphs. I doubt very seriously that Councillor Kelley, who is the eighth councilor in this regard, would be interested in a follow up explicitly blasting him on the other civil rights issue, on environmental and animal abuse issues, and on zoning abuses while pointing out that he did not vote to rehire the City Manager. That vote makes the letter as published technically only relevant to seven councilors.
In this regard, however, I note that Councillor Kelley Monday publicly, and belatedly, objected to the ongoing destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach. Kelley did not object to the outrageous introduced starvation wall. Kelley did not object to the heartless starvation of the Charles River White Geese. Kelley did not object to the outrages associated with the BU Bridge repairs. Kelley did not object to the destruction of all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. Kelley did not object to the twice yearly destruction of all protective vegetation lining the Charles River except for the bizarre introduced wall at Magazine Beach. Kelley did not object to the annual poisoning of the eggs of water fowl. Kelley did not object to the continuing and unnecessary destruction of healthy trees on a large scale by the City of Cambridge. Councilor Kelley did object to the destruction of Green maintenance at Magazine Beach.
I will continue my highly distressed observations.
DCR Presentation; BU Bridge “Repairs”, Bridges to be Removed from them?
Bob reports.
On Wednesday afternoon, May 13, I attended a meeting of the “Regional Transportation Advisory Council” at the Transportation Building in Park Square, Boston.
Representatives of the Department of Conservation and Recreation made a presentation on their Parkway and Bridge Program.
They stated that the BU Bridge repair contract is anticipated to be awarded by June 3 for work starting July 4.
They showed a map of the project which included the irresponsibly located staging as previously reported. The most important part of the map from an environmental perspective was that the portion of the goose meadow which they did not intend to further destroy this time is marked something like “Geese Protection Area.”
This is the department which goes out of its way to destroy as much wildlife as it can get away with on the Charles River between the Harbor and the Watertown Dam.
This is the department which has spent nearly ten years promising no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese and then explaining that starving them is not harming them, followed by bragging about starving them.
This is the department which has timed the work around the BU Bridge to maximize harm to the Charles River White Geese.
This is the department which has, starting in 2004, destroyed all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation which they propose to destroy as part of this project.
The “Geese Protection Area” is a DCR created mudpit, with all previously undestroyed ground vegetation destroyed as part of this project, half of the destruction for staging which is unnecessary in that location and highly appropriate for under the nearby Memorial Drive overpass.
Featured very prominently in their presentation was a photo of the EMPTY but very beautiful Ebersol Fields near Massachusetts General Hospital. Ebersol Fields is the prototype of the outrage going on on Magazine Beach. Ebersol Fields, as a byproduct, has created poisoning of the Charles River with annually recurrent algae infestation. The DCR tossed on Tartan when their beloved poisons were not sufficiently destructive to pests at Ebersol Field. The DCR, like the City of Cambridge, is offended by GREEN maintenance which has existed on the Charles River for the better part of the last century.
The DCR also commented on pending legislation to destroy responsibilities of the DCR.
Based on their presentation, it would appear that all of the actors in the State House support taking away bridge responsibilities from the DCR. The DCR hopes that they will be allowed to finish the Bridge Repair projects.
Based on their presentation, there appears to be a difference of opinion as to whether parkways should be taken away from the DCR. One of the projects the DCR continued to push in their presentation would needlessly destroy hundreds of healthy trees between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach.
The DCR’s sycophants brag that Memorial Drive will look terrific in 40 years.
This entity fits very well with the City of Cambridge.
Reprehensible is an excellent word.
*************
The above report has been posted for the governor.
On Wednesday afternoon, May 13, I attended a meeting of the “Regional Transportation Advisory Council” at the Transportation Building in Park Square, Boston.
Representatives of the Department of Conservation and Recreation made a presentation on their Parkway and Bridge Program.
They stated that the BU Bridge repair contract is anticipated to be awarded by June 3 for work starting July 4.
They showed a map of the project which included the irresponsibly located staging as previously reported. The most important part of the map from an environmental perspective was that the portion of the goose meadow which they did not intend to further destroy this time is marked something like “Geese Protection Area.”
This is the department which goes out of its way to destroy as much wildlife as it can get away with on the Charles River between the Harbor and the Watertown Dam.
This is the department which has spent nearly ten years promising no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese and then explaining that starving them is not harming them, followed by bragging about starving them.
This is the department which has timed the work around the BU Bridge to maximize harm to the Charles River White Geese.
This is the department which has, starting in 2004, destroyed all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse except for the vegetation which they propose to destroy as part of this project.
The “Geese Protection Area” is a DCR created mudpit, with all previously undestroyed ground vegetation destroyed as part of this project, half of the destruction for staging which is unnecessary in that location and highly appropriate for under the nearby Memorial Drive overpass.
Featured very prominently in their presentation was a photo of the EMPTY but very beautiful Ebersol Fields near Massachusetts General Hospital. Ebersol Fields is the prototype of the outrage going on on Magazine Beach. Ebersol Fields, as a byproduct, has created poisoning of the Charles River with annually recurrent algae infestation. The DCR tossed on Tartan when their beloved poisons were not sufficiently destructive to pests at Ebersol Field. The DCR, like the City of Cambridge, is offended by GREEN maintenance which has existed on the Charles River for the better part of the last century.
The DCR also commented on pending legislation to destroy responsibilities of the DCR.
Based on their presentation, it would appear that all of the actors in the State House support taking away bridge responsibilities from the DCR. The DCR hopes that they will be allowed to finish the Bridge Repair projects.
Based on their presentation, there appears to be a difference of opinion as to whether parkways should be taken away from the DCR. One of the projects the DCR continued to push in their presentation would needlessly destroy hundreds of healthy trees between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach.
The DCR’s sycophants brag that Memorial Drive will look terrific in 40 years.
This entity fits very well with the City of Cambridge.
Reprehensible is an excellent word.
*************
The above report has been posted for the governor.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Praise for Cambridge Chronicle - Monteiro Case
1. Chronicle Reports.
2. Letter of Praise.
Bob Reports:
1. Chronicle Reports.
In the April 30, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, the Chronicle had the Monteiro case as its lead headline.
The Chronicle wrote a very specific and quite good editorial on the matter.
The Chronicle editorial may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x303487854/Editorial-Gambling-with-our-money.
It leads with:
“Gambling with taxpayer money. That’s essentially what Cambridge City Manager Bob Healy has done in a case that has lasted 11 years, embarrassed City Hall and cost taxpayers a whopping $6 million, if you include the more than $1 million in legal fees.”
Another juicy comment:
“The image of an unelected public official proposing fee hikes while pursuing his own expensive personal legal battle that so far seems unconquerable doesn’t sit well with us.”
The latest, May 7, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, featured a guest editorial by an East Cambridge activist. It went into specific examples of outrageous behavior by the city.
This letter, by Mark Jaiquith, may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x342382829/Guest-commentary-The-Bob-Healy-conundrum.
It leads with: “Has Cambridge had enough of Bob Healy?”
And comments later:
“It would be easier to deal with good old-fashioned graft, but we have something else, in my judgment no less corrupt. It’s a culture within government that what matters is the city’s bond rating, doing what He wants.”
2. Letter of Praise.
I sent the following letter on May 7, after reviewing the paper:
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
You are to be commended for your editorial and for the guest editorial on the Monteiro case.
I particularly appreciated the examples given in the guest editorial.
Cambridge has a dishonest government. Cambridge keeps the voters in control through intermediaries who do not identify themselves as intermediaries and who commonly use secret definitions and who use other improper techniques.
A government which does what was done to Ms. Monteiro is not "pro-civil rights." Seven continuing city councilors rehired the City Manager.
A government which tries to keep a handicapped elder from using her guide dog is not "pro-civil rights." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
A city government which routinely and needlessly destroys many healthy trees, but which runs around calling itself "pro-environment" is not "pro-environment." A city government which destroys green maintenance at Magazine Beach and walls off Magazine Beach from the Charles River is not "pro-environment." A city government which heartlessly abuses beautiful valuable animals is not "pro-environment." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
A city government which destroys zoning protections while claiming to be doing the opposite is not honest. All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
I can see unidentified representatives running around calling it "politically correct" to defend reprehensible government behavior.
I can see unidentified representatives running around repeating Cambridge’s civil rights nonsense, the civil rights nonsense which was discredited by the well thought out opinion of the Monteiro judge.
I can see unidentified representatives calling it AGAINST "political correctness" TO BE IN SUPPORT of the civil rights of this BLACK WOMAN.
"Political correctness" is other than what somebody’s handler calls "politically correct" this week, especially when the record in reality is so bad and so contrary to "political correctness."
Too many voters of Cambridge have too long been kept away from the reality that we have at least eight really bad city councilors who are responsible for the current really bad city government.
I can see too many voters being told by unidentified representatives that Cambridge has a decent government. I can see too many unidentified representatives running around who do not want to know that Cambridge’s government has been found reprehensible by verdict of judge and jury.
Your editorials are an excellent first step toward responsibility in Cambridge government.
We need to go beyond the first step. Cambridge needs a government which is not reprehensible.
2. Letter of Praise.
Bob Reports:
1. Chronicle Reports.
In the April 30, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, the Chronicle had the Monteiro case as its lead headline.
The Chronicle wrote a very specific and quite good editorial on the matter.
The Chronicle editorial may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x303487854/Editorial-Gambling-with-our-money.
It leads with:
“Gambling with taxpayer money. That’s essentially what Cambridge City Manager Bob Healy has done in a case that has lasted 11 years, embarrassed City Hall and cost taxpayers a whopping $6 million, if you include the more than $1 million in legal fees.”
Another juicy comment:
“The image of an unelected public official proposing fee hikes while pursuing his own expensive personal legal battle that so far seems unconquerable doesn’t sit well with us.”
The latest, May 7, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle, featured a guest editorial by an East Cambridge activist. It went into specific examples of outrageous behavior by the city.
This letter, by Mark Jaiquith, may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x342382829/Guest-commentary-The-Bob-Healy-conundrum.
It leads with: “Has Cambridge had enough of Bob Healy?”
And comments later:
“It would be easier to deal with good old-fashioned graft, but we have something else, in my judgment no less corrupt. It’s a culture within government that what matters is the city’s bond rating, doing what He wants.”
2. Letter of Praise.
I sent the following letter on May 7, after reviewing the paper:
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
You are to be commended for your editorial and for the guest editorial on the Monteiro case.
I particularly appreciated the examples given in the guest editorial.
Cambridge has a dishonest government. Cambridge keeps the voters in control through intermediaries who do not identify themselves as intermediaries and who commonly use secret definitions and who use other improper techniques.
A government which does what was done to Ms. Monteiro is not "pro-civil rights." Seven continuing city councilors rehired the City Manager.
A government which tries to keep a handicapped elder from using her guide dog is not "pro-civil rights." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
A city government which routinely and needlessly destroys many healthy trees, but which runs around calling itself "pro-environment" is not "pro-environment." A city government which destroys green maintenance at Magazine Beach and walls off Magazine Beach from the Charles River is not "pro-environment." A city government which heartlessly abuses beautiful valuable animals is not "pro-environment." All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
A city government which destroys zoning protections while claiming to be doing the opposite is not honest. All eight continuing city councilors are on the wrong side.
I can see unidentified representatives running around calling it "politically correct" to defend reprehensible government behavior.
I can see unidentified representatives running around repeating Cambridge’s civil rights nonsense, the civil rights nonsense which was discredited by the well thought out opinion of the Monteiro judge.
I can see unidentified representatives calling it AGAINST "political correctness" TO BE IN SUPPORT of the civil rights of this BLACK WOMAN.
"Political correctness" is other than what somebody’s handler calls "politically correct" this week, especially when the record in reality is so bad and so contrary to "political correctness."
Too many voters of Cambridge have too long been kept away from the reality that we have at least eight really bad city councilors who are responsible for the current really bad city government.
I can see too many voters being told by unidentified representatives that Cambridge has a decent government. I can see too many unidentified representatives running around who do not want to know that Cambridge’s government has been found reprehensible by verdict of judge and jury.
Your editorials are an excellent first step toward responsibility in Cambridge government.
We need to go beyond the first step. Cambridge needs a government which is not reprehensible.
Cambridge Pols to Council: Save the world. Indifferent to city destruction of city.
Bob Reports:
1. Introductory.
2. Response sent to City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve.
3. Call to action?
1. Introductory.
Below are an email announcing a city council vote sent over the City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve and my response. My response has not yet been sent out.
Of interest is the naming of yet another “green” organization which somehow just does not want to know about ongoing environmental destruction by the City of Cambridge.
The “environmental” group sounds a lot like eight plus “environmental” city councilors and the Cambridge city manager.
Their definition of “environmental” is dramatically demonstrated by the ongoing destruction. You may also read the definition of “environmental” by the Cambridge Pols organization at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
The opinion of judge and jury on the Cambridge City Government, “reprehensible,” may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
2. Response sent to City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve.
Sent Saturday, 5/9/09
If the councilors were serious about the world's climate and its environment, they have no further to go than their own behavior on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond, at Alewife and in the needless destruction of so many healthy mature trees in their various projects.
3. Call to action?
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, ___________ wrote:
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 8:51 PM
There is a policy order on the Cambridge City Council agenda this Monday evening (May 11) recognizing that there is a climate emergency and requesting the City Manager "to direct the appropriate city departments to increase the City's responses to a scale proportionate to the emergency and consistent with the city's own Climate Protection goals for 2010 and beyond." The full text is at http://www.cambridg ema.gov/cityCler k/PolicyOrder. cfm?item_ id=25054 Three Councillors have signed on - Marjorie Decker, Timm Toomey, and Henrietta Davis.
This comes out of a Green Decade/Cambridge initiative to ask the Council to recognize the climate emergency and mobilize the city to take appropriate action. It could be a huge opportunity - not only for a new level of action in Cambridge, but to have a much broader impact. We need to get the word out everywhere - to the public and to policy makers - that the climate crisis is now a global emergency and that we have a rapidly narrowing window in which to act if we are to have any chance of averting a runaway catastrophe.
We need as many people as possible to come to the Council meeting Monday evening to show that there is popular support for this resolution. Also, we want to get the Council to call a citywide hearing and not just pass this without meaningful follow-up. Please come if you can! Public comment starts a little after 5:30. If you want to get on the list to speak, you can call the City Council office Monday between 10 and 3 at 617-349-4280. Or you can sign up to speak when you get there. Or you can just come and not speak but show support by being there and by applauding the people who do speak.
Or if you can't come, you can email the entire Council on any item by using Council@Cambridgema .gov and the City Manager at healy@Cambridgema. gov.
1. Introductory.
2. Response sent to City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve.
3. Call to action?
1. Introductory.
Below are an email announcing a city council vote sent over the City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve and my response. My response has not yet been sent out.
Of interest is the naming of yet another “green” organization which somehow just does not want to know about ongoing environmental destruction by the City of Cambridge.
The “environmental” group sounds a lot like eight plus “environmental” city councilors and the Cambridge city manager.
Their definition of “environmental” is dramatically demonstrated by the ongoing destruction. You may also read the definition of “environmental” by the Cambridge Pols organization at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
The opinion of judge and jury on the Cambridge City Government, “reprehensible,” may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
2. Response sent to City Manager’s Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association listserve.
Sent Saturday, 5/9/09
If the councilors were serious about the world's climate and its environment, they have no further to go than their own behavior on the Charles River, at Fresh Pond, at Alewife and in the needless destruction of so many healthy mature trees in their various projects.
3. Call to action?
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, ___________ wrote:
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 8:51 PM
There is a policy order on the Cambridge City Council agenda this Monday evening (May 11) recognizing that there is a climate emergency and requesting the City Manager "to direct the appropriate city departments to increase the City's responses to a scale proportionate to the emergency and consistent with the city's own Climate Protection goals for 2010 and beyond." The full text is at http://www.cambridg ema.gov/cityCler k/PolicyOrder. cfm?item_ id=25054 Three Councillors have signed on - Marjorie Decker, Timm Toomey, and Henrietta Davis.
This comes out of a Green Decade/Cambridge initiative to ask the Council to recognize the climate emergency and mobilize the city to take appropriate action. It could be a huge opportunity - not only for a new level of action in Cambridge, but to have a much broader impact. We need to get the word out everywhere - to the public and to policy makers - that the climate crisis is now a global emergency and that we have a rapidly narrowing window in which to act if we are to have any chance of averting a runaway catastrophe.
We need as many people as possible to come to the Council meeting Monday evening to show that there is popular support for this resolution. Also, we want to get the Council to call a citywide hearing and not just pass this without meaningful follow-up. Please come if you can! Public comment starts a little after 5:30. If you want to get on the list to speak, you can call the City Council office Monday between 10 and 3 at 617-349-4280. Or you can sign up to speak when you get there. Or you can just come and not speak but show support by being there and by applauding the people who do speak.
Or if you can't come, you can email the entire Council on any item by using Council@Cambridgema .gov and the City Manager at healy@Cambridgema. gov.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Response to "Environmental" Praise for Representative Alice Wolf
Bob Reports:
Still catching up.
The following was printed in the April 23, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle.
The document from a Cambridge City Councilor to which the letter refers was written by Samuel Seidel. It is published on this blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
**********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I, with regret, have become quite skeptical of organizations and pols which call themselves “environmental” in Cambridge .
I know that I have been publicly mocked by one key Cambridge pol because I have the temerity to believe in the world’s definition of “environmentalism”. Cambridge pols, he said, have a better definition.
A letter in this week's Chronicle praises Representative Wolf on "environmental" grounds, including praise for protecting our scenic parkways and bridges.
I do not consider destruction of the Green maintenance at Magazine Beach for replacement with maintenance with herbicides to be something worthy of environmental commendation. These poisons are destructive to water fowl and not helpful to humans.
I do not consider the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation blocking access between Magazine Beach and the river to be anything other than what the key DCR bureaucrat has bragged of: a tool to starve the local waterfowl.
I see code words for protecting the environmentally reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation which, along with Cambridge and its pols, is destroying all animals living on or visiting the Charles River between the Watertown Dam and the harbor.
The DCR annually poisons as much waterfowl eggs as it can get away with. Twice a year, the DCR destroys all protective vegetation for migrating birds, except for the bizarre starvation wall at Magazine Beach .
The DCR seems to toss in as much animal harm as it can get away with in its projects. The BU Bridge repairs destroy key ground vegetation for staging that should go under Memorial Drive . The project completes total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse which has been done in stages starting in 2004.
The “protection of bridges” has included addition of light pollution on three Charles River bridges.
The DCR, Cambridge, and Cambridge pols are involved in heartless animal abuse directed at the Charles River White Geese.
Sounds to me like the definition of environmentalism being used is the 19th Century of environmentalism: destroy, destroy, destroy, and make it look good.
You add to that the apparent plans to remove the playing fields at Magazine Beach from general public use. Neighborhood kids trying to use at least one Russell Field playing field have been chased off by the police for not getting prior city permission. This same “improvement” is scheduled to be implemented at Magazine Beach .
I am not happy.
Still catching up.
The following was printed in the April 23, 2009, Cambridge Chronicle.
The document from a Cambridge City Councilor to which the letter refers was written by Samuel Seidel. It is published on this blog at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html.
**********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
I, with regret, have become quite skeptical of organizations and pols which call themselves “environmental” in Cambridge .
I know that I have been publicly mocked by one key Cambridge pol because I have the temerity to believe in the world’s definition of “environmentalism”. Cambridge pols, he said, have a better definition.
A letter in this week's Chronicle praises Representative Wolf on "environmental" grounds, including praise for protecting our scenic parkways and bridges.
I do not consider destruction of the Green maintenance at Magazine Beach for replacement with maintenance with herbicides to be something worthy of environmental commendation. These poisons are destructive to water fowl and not helpful to humans.
I do not consider the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation blocking access between Magazine Beach and the river to be anything other than what the key DCR bureaucrat has bragged of: a tool to starve the local waterfowl.
I see code words for protecting the environmentally reprehensible Department of Conservation and Recreation which, along with Cambridge and its pols, is destroying all animals living on or visiting the Charles River between the Watertown Dam and the harbor.
The DCR annually poisons as much waterfowl eggs as it can get away with. Twice a year, the DCR destroys all protective vegetation for migrating birds, except for the bizarre starvation wall at Magazine Beach .
The DCR seems to toss in as much animal harm as it can get away with in its projects. The BU Bridge repairs destroy key ground vegetation for staging that should go under Memorial Drive . The project completes total destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse which has been done in stages starting in 2004.
The “protection of bridges” has included addition of light pollution on three Charles River bridges.
The DCR, Cambridge, and Cambridge pols are involved in heartless animal abuse directed at the Charles River White Geese.
Sounds to me like the definition of environmentalism being used is the 19th Century of environmentalism: destroy, destroy, destroy, and make it look good.
You add to that the apparent plans to remove the playing fields at Magazine Beach from general public use. Neighborhood kids trying to use at least one Russell Field playing field have been chased off by the police for not getting prior city permission. This same “improvement” is scheduled to be implemented at Magazine Beach .
I am not happy.
Destroy Alewife and Save Silver Maple? Bad idea.
Bob reports:
I have been remiss in reporting published letters.
The following letter was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle on April 9, 2009. I had previously commented in these pages that I thought the Chronicle had decided not to print the letter to which I was responding.
They printed. I responded. The Chronicle published.
***********
Well meaning folks wrote a letter opposing destruction of the PRIVATELY OWNED Silver Maple Forest but supporting destruction of the PUBLICLY OWNED Alewife Reservation a hundred feet or so from Silver Maple.
A cynical reader could react that the writers’ support of environmental destruction a few feet from Silver Maple which they want protected proves the writers to be opponents of affordable housing.
Such a reaction does not reflect the singular treatment good people are subjected to when they try to protect the environment in or near the City of Cambridge.
You see, Cambridge’s extremely destructive City Manager has a massive organization which descends on good people who try to protect the environment. Techniques frequently include deceptive statements, lies, misstatements, and key omissions.
It is quite certain that the operatives did not tell these decent people a number of things.
First, there is a very reasonable alternative to destruction of the Alewife reservation. Destruction of the Alewife Reservation is for flood storage. The reasonable place for the flood storage is under the large parking lot about 500 feet south of Alewife, just north of the railroad tracks. That owner is considering developing.
Secondly, the proposed destruction comes from a government which is flat out reprehensible on environmental issues.
The support of destruction of the Alewife Reservation by these good people has a qualifier based on a third common game. The operatives commonly talk about due process and lovely reviews. They do not tell who the “reviewers” are.
The letter mentions some sort of committee. The good people who wrote the letter would never be told that the committee is appointed by the key destroyer, and they would not be told the dangers to people appointed by the Cambridge City Manager who stand up to the Cambridge City Manager.
A jury recently considered the treatment by the Cambridge City Manager of a black woman department head who had the nerve to file a civil rights action. Malvina Monteiro, according to the jury, had her life destroyed in retaliation. The jury awarded $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages. The judge is considering the verdict and hopefully will change it to firing the city manager without pension.
But we have decent people fooled into an irresponsible statement.
I have sympathy for those good people and for saving the environment which is our mutual concern. I have great lack of respect for the bad people who fooled these good people into a silly, destructive statement.
I have been remiss in reporting published letters.
The following letter was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle on April 9, 2009. I had previously commented in these pages that I thought the Chronicle had decided not to print the letter to which I was responding.
They printed. I responded. The Chronicle published.
***********
Well meaning folks wrote a letter opposing destruction of the PRIVATELY OWNED Silver Maple Forest but supporting destruction of the PUBLICLY OWNED Alewife Reservation a hundred feet or so from Silver Maple.
A cynical reader could react that the writers’ support of environmental destruction a few feet from Silver Maple which they want protected proves the writers to be opponents of affordable housing.
Such a reaction does not reflect the singular treatment good people are subjected to when they try to protect the environment in or near the City of Cambridge.
You see, Cambridge’s extremely destructive City Manager has a massive organization which descends on good people who try to protect the environment. Techniques frequently include deceptive statements, lies, misstatements, and key omissions.
It is quite certain that the operatives did not tell these decent people a number of things.
First, there is a very reasonable alternative to destruction of the Alewife reservation. Destruction of the Alewife Reservation is for flood storage. The reasonable place for the flood storage is under the large parking lot about 500 feet south of Alewife, just north of the railroad tracks. That owner is considering developing.
Secondly, the proposed destruction comes from a government which is flat out reprehensible on environmental issues.
The support of destruction of the Alewife Reservation by these good people has a qualifier based on a third common game. The operatives commonly talk about due process and lovely reviews. They do not tell who the “reviewers” are.
The letter mentions some sort of committee. The good people who wrote the letter would never be told that the committee is appointed by the key destroyer, and they would not be told the dangers to people appointed by the Cambridge City Manager who stand up to the Cambridge City Manager.
A jury recently considered the treatment by the Cambridge City Manager of a black woman department head who had the nerve to file a civil rights action. Malvina Monteiro, according to the jury, had her life destroyed in retaliation. The jury awarded $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages. The judge is considering the verdict and hopefully will change it to firing the city manager without pension.
But we have decent people fooled into an irresponsible statement.
I have sympathy for those good people and for saving the environment which is our mutual concern. I have great lack of respect for the bad people who fooled these good people into a silly, destructive statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)