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.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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!
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!
Monday, November 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, November 06, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)