Bob La Trémouille reports:
I have now seen two key people describe the judge and jury’s award to Malvina Monteiro as a discrimination award.
If it were a discrimination award, it would not even come close to that number.
The key number, $3.5 million, is penal damages for destroying Malvina Monteiro’s life in retaliation for her filing the claim.
“Reprehensible” is the judge’s word which the judge used as part of her finding. The judge clearly demonstrated the city manager’s destruction of Malvina Monteiro’s life in retaliation for Malvina Monteiro filing the civil rights claim.
Cambridge has a city council which, as usual, does not want to know what it is doing. The city council’s lack of interest in what it is doing, tars the city council with the condemnation by judge and jury.
If the city council were decent human beings, the city council would be firing the city manager without pension and without golden parachute, with permission of the judge.
Treating the Cambridge city manager the way he deserves would establish precedent, but it difficult to think of a fact situation which would more justify this precedent.
So, as you hear people saying this nonsense that the $6.9 million is a discrimination payment, listen to the judge.
Read her summary of the key evidence, as stated in her key opinion (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html).
Read her summary of the award in her judgment, in my immediately preceding post.
The judge, as she was summarizing the award, spoke of: “Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the [discrimination] claims in May of 2008". These Cambridge activists are making statements of award with regard to a complaint the Plaintiff has dismissed.
Cambridge has a reprehensible city manager and a reprehensible city council. All that is needed to see just how reprehensible the city council is is the fact that the city council considers the city manager’s behavior normal.
Cambridge has a situation in which a lot of people constantly just cannot understand what is going on. So people describe a reality which does not exist. And this fake reality gives decent human beings the impression that a really bad city government is something other than it is.
The Cambridge Chronicle’s report may be read at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x884192639/Cambridge-workplace-retaliation-lawsuit-costing-taxpayers-close-to-7M.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
The judge rules: Malvina Monteiro to be paid over $6 million.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Introduction.
2. The rulings on line.
A. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, May 21, 2010.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, Alter and Amend the Court’s Judgment, May 21, 2010.
C. Plaintiff’s Petition for Award of Fees and Costs, May 21, 2010.
D. Amended Order of Judgment, May 21, 2010.
E. Amended Final Judgment, May 25, 2010.
1. Introduction.
The latest orders in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge came down on May 21, 2010 and May 24, 2010.
Thank you to Carolyn Shipley on the Cambridgeport list for pointing this out to me.
I have gone to the Court’s docket and obtained what is reported on the docket. They follow below, with paragraphing added and line numbering deleted. If you see any inexplicable numbers, they are probably line numbers I missed. I would appreciate being informed of such errors.
This time, the reasoning of the Court has not been posted on line.
Carolyn quoted the Cambridge Chronicle's report that the award is $6.9 million. This is the Chronicle’s quote of Monteiro’s attorney as stated in the on line version of the report.
My comment provided to the Cambridgeport list read as follows:
***********
Thank you to Carolyn for reporting this.
I have not picked up the Chronicle yet and I cannot find this report on line in the Chronicle.
In contrast to the main decision, the Court's on line record, the on line docket does not include the rationalization for the decisions. I will post what little I have on the Charles River White Geese Blog.
I do not see a heck of a lot complicated about this matter.
The judge's key decision last year was excellent. The City Council should have then and still can fire the City Manager for cause, preferably with permission of the judge.
The judge has made an excellent case for firing the City Manager, with judicial permission, without pension and without golden parachute. Rather than wasting money on a silly appeal for the benefit of the City Manager, the City Council should switch sides to the side they claim to be on.
An excellent precedent can be made out of this case if the Cambridge City Council is pro civil rights.
This is yet another example of decent people deeply offended by the behavior of the City of Cambridge, and the Cambridge City Council not wanting to know what is going on.
This woman has suffered enough.
$6.9 million enough.
*********
2. The rulings on line.
A. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, May 21, 2010.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERTION:
For the foregoing reasons, the City's Motion for Reconsideration of its post trial motions on punitive damages is denied.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).
Copies mailed May 21, 2010
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, Alter and Amend the Court’s Judgment, May 21, 2010.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CLARIFY, ALTER AND AMEND THE COURT'S JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICTS:
For the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that an Amended Judgment shall issue reflecting prejudgment interest from January 5, 2005 through June 12, 5 2008 and post judgment interest on the award of damages and attorney's fees running from June 12, 2008
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).
Copies mailed May 21, 2010
C. Plaintiff’s Petition for Award of Fees and Costs, May 21, 2010.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS:
For the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that the plaintiff recover $545,842.00 in attorney's fees and $23,697.00 in costs.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).
Copies mailed May 21, 2010
D. Amended Order of Judgment, May 21, 2010.
Amended Order of Judgment:
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.
With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.
With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:
(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008, and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest, running from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied;
(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied; and,
(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842. and costs in the amount of $23,697.
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.
With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.
With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:
(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008, and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest, running from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied;
(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied; and,
(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842. and costs in the amount of $23,697.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso, J)
copes mailed May 21, 2010
E. Amended Final Judgment, May 25, 2010.
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT:
This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice, presiding, the issues having been duly tried and the jury having rendered its verdict, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.
With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.
With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:
(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum in the sum of $438,003.70 from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008,and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest($1,500,403.70), in the sum of $350,727.57 from June 12, 2008 until May 24, 2010;
The court further awards (b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum in the sum of $81,814.41 from June 12, 2008 until May 24, 2010; and,
(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842 and costs in the amount of $23,697.
Copies mailed 5/24/10.
1. Introduction.
2. The rulings on line.
A. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, May 21, 2010.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, Alter and Amend the Court’s Judgment, May 21, 2010.
C. Plaintiff’s Petition for Award of Fees and Costs, May 21, 2010.
D. Amended Order of Judgment, May 21, 2010.
E. Amended Final Judgment, May 25, 2010.
1. Introduction.
The latest orders in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge came down on May 21, 2010 and May 24, 2010.
Thank you to Carolyn Shipley on the Cambridgeport list for pointing this out to me.
I have gone to the Court’s docket and obtained what is reported on the docket. They follow below, with paragraphing added and line numbering deleted. If you see any inexplicable numbers, they are probably line numbers I missed. I would appreciate being informed of such errors.
This time, the reasoning of the Court has not been posted on line.
Carolyn quoted the Cambridge Chronicle's report that the award is $6.9 million. This is the Chronicle’s quote of Monteiro’s attorney as stated in the on line version of the report.
My comment provided to the Cambridgeport list read as follows:
***********
Thank you to Carolyn for reporting this.
I have not picked up the Chronicle yet and I cannot find this report on line in the Chronicle.
In contrast to the main decision, the Court's on line record, the on line docket does not include the rationalization for the decisions. I will post what little I have on the Charles River White Geese Blog.
I do not see a heck of a lot complicated about this matter.
The judge's key decision last year was excellent. The City Council should have then and still can fire the City Manager for cause, preferably with permission of the judge.
The judge has made an excellent case for firing the City Manager, with judicial permission, without pension and without golden parachute. Rather than wasting money on a silly appeal for the benefit of the City Manager, the City Council should switch sides to the side they claim to be on.
An excellent precedent can be made out of this case if the Cambridge City Council is pro civil rights.
This is yet another example of decent people deeply offended by the behavior of the City of Cambridge, and the Cambridge City Council not wanting to know what is going on.
This woman has suffered enough.
$6.9 million enough.
*********
2. The rulings on line.
A. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, May 21, 2010.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERTION:
For the foregoing reasons, the City's Motion for Reconsideration of its post trial motions on punitive damages is denied.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).
Copies mailed May 21, 2010
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, Alter and Amend the Court’s Judgment, May 21, 2010.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CLARIFY, ALTER AND AMEND THE COURT'S JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICTS:
For the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that an Amended Judgment shall issue reflecting prejudgment interest from January 5, 2005 through June 12, 5 2008 and post judgment interest on the award of damages and attorney's fees running from June 12, 2008
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).
Copies mailed May 21, 2010
C. Plaintiff’s Petition for Award of Fees and Costs, May 21, 2010.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS:
For the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that the plaintiff recover $545,842.00 in attorney's fees and $23,697.00 in costs.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).
Copies mailed May 21, 2010
D. Amended Order of Judgment, May 21, 2010.
Amended Order of Judgment:
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.
With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.
With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:
(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008, and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest, running from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied;
(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied; and,
(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842. and costs in the amount of $23,697.
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.
With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.
With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:
(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008, and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest, running from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied;
(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied; and,
(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842. and costs in the amount of $23,697.
(Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso, J)
copes mailed May 21, 2010
E. Amended Final Judgment, May 25, 2010.
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT:
This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice, presiding, the issues having been duly tried and the jury having rendered its verdict, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.
With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.
With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:
(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum in the sum of $438,003.70 from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008,and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest($1,500,403.70), in the sum of $350,727.57 from June 12, 2008 until May 24, 2010;
The court further awards (b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum in the sum of $81,814.41 from June 12, 2008 until May 24, 2010; and,
(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842 and costs in the amount of $23,697.
Copies mailed 5/24/10.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Kathy Podgers's video of Charles River White Geese goslings, 2010 edition
This shows us the beautiful goslings and the bare ground near the riverbank where the DCR and its allies have destroyed vegetation.
Many thanks to Kathy.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Praise for the Cambridge Chronicle
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Letter to the Editor, written 5/15/10.
2. Update, 5/21/10 and 5/22/10.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Letter to the Editor, blog entry written 5/15/10.
I have submitted the following Letter to the Editor:
************
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The Chronicle is to be commended on its handling of the City Council’s shell game on the environment in the May 3 and 10 meetings.
On May 13, the Chronicle front paged the council’s vote to allow destruction of 16,293 square feet of, according to the City Manager, “extensive tree growth” so that it could be replaced with asphalt. The council seems to be keeping that May 3 vote as secret as possible. The council specifically voted to exempt this destruction from public meetings in which the tree destruction could be meaningfully communicated to the voters.
The Chronicle seemed to ignore the oh so lovely vote on May 10. In that vote, the council said nice things about some trees owned by Cambridge. The council wondered what kind of protections there are for this limited number of city owned trees.
Supporters of the council seem unaware of the vote for destruction of 16,293 square feet of “extensive tree growth.” The supporters brag about the next to meaningless vote inquiring as to what protections exist for some trees owned by Cambridge.
Other environmental destruction the council does not want to talk about includes: the pending destruction of the core part of the Alewife reservation, the apparently ongoing destruction of thousands of trees at Fresh Pond, the planned destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive, the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach, the walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles, the heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese, and the ongoing destruction of all animals living on or visiting the first 10 miles of the Charles.
The destruction supported by all councilors present at the May 3 vote could be similar to destruction planned for an excellent grove of 104 trees on Memorial Drive. This excellent grove is quite thick. It is just reaching maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split, a little east of the Hyatt.
At absolute minimum, both the destruction voted for in the May 3 vote and the destruction pending on Memorial Drive are highway projects.
Shame, I had hoped there would be a change in the environmental approach of the Cambridge City Council.
I got conned by the machinations of the City Council’s representatives.
The Chronicle saw through the shell game. The Chronicle caught reality and the Chronicle publicized reality.
Good work.
Thank you.
2. Update, 5/21/10 and 5/22/10.
The above letter was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle’s May 21 edition along with a letter from a council supporter quite a bit separated from my letter. My letter was fourth of seven letters, very much in the middle of the editorial page. The support letter was last, on the continuing page, the op ed page.
The thought comes to mind that my letter is hardly the way to encourage nice sounding “action” by the Cambridge City Council. The trouble is that I have seen nice sounding “action” and seen nice sounding “action” and seen nice sounding “action.”
The non stop nice sounding “action” has been paralleled by a really vile reality.
This latest really vile reality was too very close to the nice sounding “action.” I have learned from ten years of really bad behavior out of the Cambridge City Council that it is difficult and actually downright silly to underestimate the Cambridge City Council.
Actually, when you include fake downzonings and other really destructive environmental harm, the record is much more than ten years.
We are dealing with a really rotten entity which stays in power by lying about itself.
1. Letter to the Editor, written 5/15/10.
2. Update, 5/21/10 and 5/22/10.
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. Letter to the Editor, blog entry written 5/15/10.
I have submitted the following Letter to the Editor:
************
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The Chronicle is to be commended on its handling of the City Council’s shell game on the environment in the May 3 and 10 meetings.
On May 13, the Chronicle front paged the council’s vote to allow destruction of 16,293 square feet of, according to the City Manager, “extensive tree growth” so that it could be replaced with asphalt. The council seems to be keeping that May 3 vote as secret as possible. The council specifically voted to exempt this destruction from public meetings in which the tree destruction could be meaningfully communicated to the voters.
The Chronicle seemed to ignore the oh so lovely vote on May 10. In that vote, the council said nice things about some trees owned by Cambridge. The council wondered what kind of protections there are for this limited number of city owned trees.
Supporters of the council seem unaware of the vote for destruction of 16,293 square feet of “extensive tree growth.” The supporters brag about the next to meaningless vote inquiring as to what protections exist for some trees owned by Cambridge.
Other environmental destruction the council does not want to talk about includes: the pending destruction of the core part of the Alewife reservation, the apparently ongoing destruction of thousands of trees at Fresh Pond, the planned destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive, the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach, the walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles, the heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese, and the ongoing destruction of all animals living on or visiting the first 10 miles of the Charles.
The destruction supported by all councilors present at the May 3 vote could be similar to destruction planned for an excellent grove of 104 trees on Memorial Drive. This excellent grove is quite thick. It is just reaching maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split, a little east of the Hyatt.
At absolute minimum, both the destruction voted for in the May 3 vote and the destruction pending on Memorial Drive are highway projects.
Shame, I had hoped there would be a change in the environmental approach of the Cambridge City Council.
I got conned by the machinations of the City Council’s representatives.
The Chronicle saw through the shell game. The Chronicle caught reality and the Chronicle publicized reality.
Good work.
Thank you.
2. Update, 5/21/10 and 5/22/10.
The above letter was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle’s May 21 edition along with a letter from a council supporter quite a bit separated from my letter. My letter was fourth of seven letters, very much in the middle of the editorial page. The support letter was last, on the continuing page, the op ed page.
The thought comes to mind that my letter is hardly the way to encourage nice sounding “action” by the Cambridge City Council. The trouble is that I have seen nice sounding “action” and seen nice sounding “action” and seen nice sounding “action.”
The non stop nice sounding “action” has been paralleled by a really vile reality.
This latest really vile reality was too very close to the nice sounding “action.” I have learned from ten years of really bad behavior out of the Cambridge City Council that it is difficult and actually downright silly to underestimate the Cambridge City Council.
Actually, when you include fake downzonings and other really destructive environmental harm, the record is much more than ten years.
We are dealing with a really rotten entity which stays in power by lying about itself.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Cambridge, MA, City Council Votes on Environmental Destruction in Watertown, MA
1. City Manager Letter.
2. City Manager Order 14A.
3. City Manager Order 14B
4. City Manager Order 14C.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
Following up on my analysis of May 13, 2010.
The following are the key documents, taken from the Minutes of the Cambridge City Council, May 3, 2010, City Manager Communication 14, http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/cmLetter.cfm?item_id=17021.
There were three roll call votes, reported on line as 8 - 0 - 1. Nobody voted in opposition. Councilor Davis was absent.
Note that the Cambridge City Council not only voted to destroy the environment, they voted to do so without the legal protections which they are supposed to be respecting.
In the following meeting, the City Council, after voting for OFF STREET environmental destruction in Watertown, voted to study procedures concerning destruction of street trees in Cambridge.
Another vote on May 3 was to attack raccoons living near the Squirrel Brand Building between Broadway and Harvard Street a block west of Windsor Street in the The Port neighborhood of Cambridge. This is a site in which Cambridge, as one of its first acts after conversion of a factory to affordable housing, was the destruction of a grove of 8 to 12 trees exceeding four stories in height. There was no opposition to attacking the local racoons.
1. City Manager Letter.
May 3, 2010
To the Honorable, the City Council:
I am submitting a request I received from the Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR") for a permanent easement of about 16,293 square feet (the "Easement") over a section of the City's water line in Watertown (the "Property") so that DCR may construct and maintain a bicycle/pedestrian path. In September of 2009, I granted a license to DCR to permit it to commence construction of the bicycle/pedestrian path over and within the proposed easement area. The bicycle/pedestrian path is part of a larger DCR/ Massachusetts Highway Department ("MHD") project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway in the City for recreational use by members of the public.
The Easement will ensure the long-term benefits of this portion of the bicycle/pedestrian path. Aside from the recreational benefit, the proposed benefits to the City will include DCR clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it to protect the water line from further root damage and from future tree growth over the water line.
I recommend that the City Council approve the grant of the requested Easement at the Property to allow for a bicycle/pedestrian path over and within the proposed easement area and approve submission of a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature in order to obtain approval under Article 97 of the grant of the requested Easement. Assuming the Article 97 legislation is granted, I will also need authorization to grant the Easement, and therefore, I am also requesting the City Council to authorize disposition of the requested Easement and diminution of the full disposition of City-owned land process pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.
Diminution of Process and Disposition of Easement under Chapter 2.110
First, the proposal must be considered by the Council pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, which governs the disposition of city-owned property. I believe this disposition is properly subject to Section 2.110.010 (G) of that ordinance. Section G provides for the disposition of city-owned property where the full process of the ordinance would be unduly burdensome. Under this section, the City Manager may request of the City Council a diminution of the process in the ordinance; approval of this request requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council. I recommend such approval at this time.
Secondly, Section 2.110.010 also requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council to authorize the City Manager to grant the Easement. I also recommend that the City Council vote to authorize me to grant the Easement, and to execute and deliver the Easement in such form and substance as I determine is necessary or advisable.
I believe that the relatively minor incursions of the bicycle/pedestrian path into, onto, or over the water line qualify this proposed disposition for the diminished process permitted by Section 2.110.010(G). Limiting the scope of review for the requested disposition would be consistent with the expressed objective of the procedure required by the Chapter: to render "a fair analysis of how the greatest public benefit can be obtained from the City property in question."
I believe that the information furnished in this letter is sufficient to enable the City Council to make a determination on this matter. Carrying out a more detailed review would require significant amount of money and staff time. Since the procedure set forth in the Chapter would be costly and the area at issue is minimal, I believe this to be the type of disposition anticipated by subsection (G) which allows for a simpler process; and I therefore request that you approve a diminution of the full disposition review process and authorize me to grant the requested Easement.
Home Rule Petition
Given that the Property is land that was acquired for the purposes of developing, maintaining, and using the City's water system, the granting of this Easement requires Article 97 legislation. Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts provides in part that "[t]he people shall have the right to clean air and water . . . ; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of . . . water, air, and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose. . . . Lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two-thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the general court." Accordingly, a Home Rule Petition must be submitted to the Legislature and must get a two-thirds vote of approval by the both the House and the Senate. I request that you approve the submission of the attached Home Rule Petition entitled, "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO GRANT A PERMANENT EASEMENT ON AND OVER CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS" to the Legislature in order to seek its approval of the Easement pursuant to Article 97.
Conclusion
Consequently, I am asking for three votes from the City Council: (1) approval of the Home Rule Petition and authorization to seek said Article 97 legislation from both the House and the Senate, (2) diminution of the process, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council, and (3) disposition of the easement, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council.
I appreciate your consideration of this matter and welcome any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
RWH/mec
Attachment(s)
2. City Manager Order 14A.
ORDERED: Pursuant to Section 2.110.010(g) of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the City Council hereby orders that the City Council shall utilize a diminished process for the disposition of a permanent easement on and over certain strips of land owned by the City of Cambridge in Watertown, Massachusetts to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by and through the Department of Conservation and Recreation, for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path as part of a Department of Conservation and Recreation and Massachusetts Department of Transportation project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway, as set forth in Robert W. Healy's May 3, 2010 letter to the City Council.
3. City Manager Order 14B
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has received a request from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR") for a permanent surface easement over a section of the City's water line in Watertown in order to construct a bicycle/pedestrian path (the "Easement"); and
WHEREAS: The permanent surface Easement sought by DCR will be used to connect large portions of a bicycle/pedestrian path on either side of the Easement area as part of a larger DCR/Massachusetts Department of Transportation project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway; and
WHEREAS: The permanent surface Easement sought by DCR will also benefit Cambridge in several ways. Not only will the Easement provide recreational benefits, but DCR will maintain the bicycle/pedestrian path so as to ensure the long-term benefits to the City of clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it, which will protect the water line from future tree growth over it and from further root damage; and
WHEREAS: The combined total of the Easement area is approximately 16,293 square feet; and
WHEREAS: It is declared that the use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the City's water line; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of the permanent surface Easement for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path connecting large portions of a bicycle/pedestrian path on either side of it would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the area now in question; and
WHEREAS: Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 15B, before executing the Easement to DCR for the above-stated purposes on the above-stated terms and conditions, the City of Cambridge must first notify the Town of Watertown that it intends to do so and ensure that the Town of Watertown does not wish to acquire the Easement for the above-stated purposes on the above-stated terms and conditions; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council declares that use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the water line and therefore that the City Manager is authorized, after determining that the Town of Watertown will not exercise any rights it has to acquire the Easement area on the same terms and conditions and for the same purposes it is being offered to DCR, to grant on behalf of the City of Cambridge, pursuant to Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the permanent surface Easement to DCR for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path and to execute and deliver such Easement in such form and substance as the City Manager determines is necessary or advisable.
4. City Manager Order 14C.
May 3, 2010
1. WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of a permanent easement over a section of the City's water line in Watertown (the "Property") to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by and through the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path (the "Easement") would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the area now in question; and
WHEREAS: The Property is land that was acquired for the purposes of developing, maintaining, and using the City's water system, and therefore, the granting of this Easement requires legislation under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts; and
WHEREAS: It is declared that the use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the City's water line; and
WHEREAS: The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is forthwith to authorize the granting of a certain Easement in land owned by the City of Cambridge in Watertown, Massachusetts, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience; now therefore be it
ORDERED That a petition to the General Court, accompanied by a bill for a special law relating to the City of Cambridge attached and entitled "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO GRANT A PERMANENT EASEMENT ON AND OVER CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS" to be filed with an attested copy of this order be, and hereby is, approved under Clause (1) of Section 8 of Article 2, as amended, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the end that legislation be adopted precisely as follows, except for clerical or editorial changes of form only.
2. City Manager Order 14A.
3. City Manager Order 14B
4. City Manager Order 14C.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
Following up on my analysis of May 13, 2010.
The following are the key documents, taken from the Minutes of the Cambridge City Council, May 3, 2010, City Manager Communication 14, http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/cmLetter.cfm?item_id=17021.
There were three roll call votes, reported on line as 8 - 0 - 1. Nobody voted in opposition. Councilor Davis was absent.
Note that the Cambridge City Council not only voted to destroy the environment, they voted to do so without the legal protections which they are supposed to be respecting.
In the following meeting, the City Council, after voting for OFF STREET environmental destruction in Watertown, voted to study procedures concerning destruction of street trees in Cambridge.
Another vote on May 3 was to attack raccoons living near the Squirrel Brand Building between Broadway and Harvard Street a block west of Windsor Street in the The Port neighborhood of Cambridge. This is a site in which Cambridge, as one of its first acts after conversion of a factory to affordable housing, was the destruction of a grove of 8 to 12 trees exceeding four stories in height. There was no opposition to attacking the local racoons.
1. City Manager Letter.
May 3, 2010
To the Honorable, the City Council:
I am submitting a request I received from the Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR") for a permanent easement of about 16,293 square feet (the "Easement") over a section of the City's water line in Watertown (the "Property") so that DCR may construct and maintain a bicycle/pedestrian path. In September of 2009, I granted a license to DCR to permit it to commence construction of the bicycle/pedestrian path over and within the proposed easement area. The bicycle/pedestrian path is part of a larger DCR/ Massachusetts Highway Department ("MHD") project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway in the City for recreational use by members of the public.
The Easement will ensure the long-term benefits of this portion of the bicycle/pedestrian path. Aside from the recreational benefit, the proposed benefits to the City will include DCR clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it to protect the water line from further root damage and from future tree growth over the water line.
I recommend that the City Council approve the grant of the requested Easement at the Property to allow for a bicycle/pedestrian path over and within the proposed easement area and approve submission of a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature in order to obtain approval under Article 97 of the grant of the requested Easement. Assuming the Article 97 legislation is granted, I will also need authorization to grant the Easement, and therefore, I am also requesting the City Council to authorize disposition of the requested Easement and diminution of the full disposition of City-owned land process pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.
Diminution of Process and Disposition of Easement under Chapter 2.110
First, the proposal must be considered by the Council pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, which governs the disposition of city-owned property. I believe this disposition is properly subject to Section 2.110.010 (G) of that ordinance. Section G provides for the disposition of city-owned property where the full process of the ordinance would be unduly burdensome. Under this section, the City Manager may request of the City Council a diminution of the process in the ordinance; approval of this request requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council. I recommend such approval at this time.
Secondly, Section 2.110.010 also requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council to authorize the City Manager to grant the Easement. I also recommend that the City Council vote to authorize me to grant the Easement, and to execute and deliver the Easement in such form and substance as I determine is necessary or advisable.
I believe that the relatively minor incursions of the bicycle/pedestrian path into, onto, or over the water line qualify this proposed disposition for the diminished process permitted by Section 2.110.010(G). Limiting the scope of review for the requested disposition would be consistent with the expressed objective of the procedure required by the Chapter: to render "a fair analysis of how the greatest public benefit can be obtained from the City property in question."
I believe that the information furnished in this letter is sufficient to enable the City Council to make a determination on this matter. Carrying out a more detailed review would require significant amount of money and staff time. Since the procedure set forth in the Chapter would be costly and the area at issue is minimal, I believe this to be the type of disposition anticipated by subsection (G) which allows for a simpler process; and I therefore request that you approve a diminution of the full disposition review process and authorize me to grant the requested Easement.
Home Rule Petition
Given that the Property is land that was acquired for the purposes of developing, maintaining, and using the City's water system, the granting of this Easement requires Article 97 legislation. Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts provides in part that "[t]he people shall have the right to clean air and water . . . ; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of . . . water, air, and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose. . . . Lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two-thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the general court." Accordingly, a Home Rule Petition must be submitted to the Legislature and must get a two-thirds vote of approval by the both the House and the Senate. I request that you approve the submission of the attached Home Rule Petition entitled, "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO GRANT A PERMANENT EASEMENT ON AND OVER CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS" to the Legislature in order to seek its approval of the Easement pursuant to Article 97.
Conclusion
Consequently, I am asking for three votes from the City Council: (1) approval of the Home Rule Petition and authorization to seek said Article 97 legislation from both the House and the Senate, (2) diminution of the process, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council, and (3) disposition of the easement, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council.
I appreciate your consideration of this matter and welcome any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Healy
City Manager
RWH/mec
Attachment(s)
2. City Manager Order 14A.
ORDERED: Pursuant to Section 2.110.010(g) of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the City Council hereby orders that the City Council shall utilize a diminished process for the disposition of a permanent easement on and over certain strips of land owned by the City of Cambridge in Watertown, Massachusetts to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by and through the Department of Conservation and Recreation, for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path as part of a Department of Conservation and Recreation and Massachusetts Department of Transportation project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway, as set forth in Robert W. Healy's May 3, 2010 letter to the City Council.
3. City Manager Order 14B
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has received a request from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR") for a permanent surface easement over a section of the City's water line in Watertown in order to construct a bicycle/pedestrian path (the "Easement"); and
WHEREAS: The permanent surface Easement sought by DCR will be used to connect large portions of a bicycle/pedestrian path on either side of the Easement area as part of a larger DCR/Massachusetts Department of Transportation project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway; and
WHEREAS: The permanent surface Easement sought by DCR will also benefit Cambridge in several ways. Not only will the Easement provide recreational benefits, but DCR will maintain the bicycle/pedestrian path so as to ensure the long-term benefits to the City of clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it, which will protect the water line from future tree growth over it and from further root damage; and
WHEREAS: The combined total of the Easement area is approximately 16,293 square feet; and
WHEREAS: It is declared that the use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the City's water line; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of the permanent surface Easement for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path connecting large portions of a bicycle/pedestrian path on either side of it would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the area now in question; and
WHEREAS: Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 15B, before executing the Easement to DCR for the above-stated purposes on the above-stated terms and conditions, the City of Cambridge must first notify the Town of Watertown that it intends to do so and ensure that the Town of Watertown does not wish to acquire the Easement for the above-stated purposes on the above-stated terms and conditions; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council declares that use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the water line and therefore that the City Manager is authorized, after determining that the Town of Watertown will not exercise any rights it has to acquire the Easement area on the same terms and conditions and for the same purposes it is being offered to DCR, to grant on behalf of the City of Cambridge, pursuant to Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the permanent surface Easement to DCR for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path and to execute and deliver such Easement in such form and substance as the City Manager determines is necessary or advisable.
4. City Manager Order 14C.
May 3, 2010
1. WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of a permanent easement over a section of the City's water line in Watertown (the "Property") to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by and through the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path (the "Easement") would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the area now in question; and
WHEREAS: The Property is land that was acquired for the purposes of developing, maintaining, and using the City's water system, and therefore, the granting of this Easement requires legislation under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts; and
WHEREAS: It is declared that the use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the City's water line; and
WHEREAS: The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is forthwith to authorize the granting of a certain Easement in land owned by the City of Cambridge in Watertown, Massachusetts, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience; now therefore be it
ORDERED That a petition to the General Court, accompanied by a bill for a special law relating to the City of Cambridge attached and entitled "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO GRANT A PERMANENT EASEMENT ON AND OVER CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS" to be filed with an attested copy of this order be, and hereby is, approved under Clause (1) of Section 8 of Article 2, as amended, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the end that legislation be adopted precisely as follows, except for clerical or editorial changes of form only.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Day 393, Tree Destruction by Cambridge City Council.
1. Day 393 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
2. I got Conned! Cambridge City Council votes for Tree Destruction.
A. Conned.
B. Destruction of trees praised by City Manager for Highway construction in Watertown voted by city council.
C. Vote to study street trees.
D. Seidel, Decker and Kelly on Raccoons.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Day 393 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
On Thursday, May 13, 2010, I conducted the 393d or more visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
I was there before the rush hour so there was minimal pedestrian traffic. Vehicular traffic was incredible, a result of half of the lanes on the BU Bridge being closed.
2. I got Conned! Cambridge City Council votes for Tree Destruction.
A. Conned.
An operative for the Cambridge Machine heavily publicized the May 10, Cambridge City Council meeting, giving the impression that Councilor Cheung was protecting four street trees near Hoyt Field, which is about 2½ blocks from the Charles River.
I was minimally impressed when I saw the motion and realized that it was a study of whatever regulations exist with regard to street trees. I pointed out to her that big destruction by the City of Cambridge and its friends is being done to non street trees. A good cheerleader, she could not hear me and insisted this was a good start.
Kathy Podgers read the Chronicle report of Cambridge vote to destroy who knows how many trees in Watertown. She attempted to pass that report on as an addition to my report of a Yahoo report concerning the vote. The Chronicle report was on line, but did not make the hard copy as far as I have yet to be able to find.
The Chronicle front paged the vote to destroy all those trees in Watertown for construction a small vehicle highway by the state. The vote was 8 for, 0 opposed, and 1 something else. I am trying to get details on the something else.
The reality is that the street tree study is exactly the opposite of a good start since it follows a meaningful vote for tree destruction.
B. Destruction of trees praised by City Manager for Highway construction in Watertown voted by city council.
Kathy Podgers has wisely pointed out the Chronicle report on the meeting the previous Monday meeting which may be found at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1560851973/Cambridge-OKs-state-bike-path-plan. It was front paged.
The city manager is quoted as justifying giving the DCR an easement over Cambridge controlled property in Watertown. He minimizes the importance on the basis that there are a bunch of trees there which would be destroyed by the proposed small vehicle highway.
So the City Council knowingly voted to destroy the trees.
Kathy Podgers comments: “Apparently, one hand gives, while the other hand takes away... “ and she quotes the Chronicle quote of Healy:
*******
“The easement will ensure the long-term benefits of this portion of the bicycle/pedestrian path,” Healy wrote. “Aside from the recreational benefit, the proposed benefits to the city will include DCR clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it to protect the water line from further root damage and from future tree growth over the water line.”
*******
A similar situation exists on Memorial Drive. A grove of about 104 excellent trees currently has reached a very beautiful maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split. This is a couple blocks east of the Hyatt.
One of the Machine’s beloved highways would decimate that grove. Those, for the most part, are not street trees. They are an excellent grove on the banks of the Charles River.
And the city council is emphasizing a STUDY of STREET trees while voting to destroy trees on Cambridge land in Watertown for another small vehicle highway. And somehow, even though they vote for destruction of city trees not on streets, the city councl cannot understand there are other trees that street trees under threat from government?
The exact language of the votes is reported above at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/cambridge-ma-city-council-votes-on.html.
C. Vote to study street trees.
Cambridge has a new City Councilor, Leland Cheung.
He submitted a motion to look into the procedure for destroying STREET trees in Cambridge. His motion has no concern for the destruction of publicly owned trees, no matter how excellent, which are not street trees.
We cannot say whether or not his study would get into the planned destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive before they are destroyed in the same manner as the Cambridge trees.
Clearly, it would not impact the trees in Watertown that the city council voted to destroy, would not impact the planned destruction of the Alewife reservation, the ongoing destruction of apparently thousands of trees at Fresh Pond, the dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach, the walling off of Magazine Beach, the ongoing and heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese or the ongoing destruction of all animals living or visiting the first ten miles of the Charles River.
From my point of view, I can see no possibility of the City of Cambridge becoming meaningfully responsible on environmental matters without firing the current City Manager and gutting The Cambridge Machine. You can add to that a similar problem with regard to Civil Rights, and you can keep on going. There are a lot of problems which simply stink, and the middle of the apparent stink has to be the core of the government.
Mr. Cheung’s motion passed without negative vote. I am checking to see if he is the person who voted something other than for or against the destruction of the Cambridge owned trees in Watertown which are being replaced with lovely paving.
D. Seidel, Decker and Kelly on Raccoons.
By contrast, there was an interesting interchange among three Machine members or beneficiaries, Seidel, Decker and Kelly.
Seidel and Decker are clearly destructive. Kelly tries to give the opposite impression.
This exchange follows on another vote last week in which a UNANIMOUS city council voted to attack raccoons in Squirrel Brand park.
The exchange among the three concerned raccoons. This exchange could be another con game from the three of them, Kelly, Seidel and Decker, trying to make Kelly look good. The three of them could consider Leland Cheung a threat, especially if Cheung, not a Machine product, turns out to be for real.
After apparently voting for this outrage, Kelley is trying to show himself as responsible on animal matters.
Seidel and Decker expressed concern that kids could get poisoned from eating the feces of raccoons.
Eight member of the city council are dumping poisons on Magazine Beach for kids to roll in and Seidel and Decker are trying to protect kids from being poisoned by eating excrement???
2. I got Conned! Cambridge City Council votes for Tree Destruction.
A. Conned.
B. Destruction of trees praised by City Manager for Highway construction in Watertown voted by city council.
C. Vote to study street trees.
D. Seidel, Decker and Kelly on Raccoons.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Day 393 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
On Thursday, May 13, 2010, I conducted the 393d or more visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
I was there before the rush hour so there was minimal pedestrian traffic. Vehicular traffic was incredible, a result of half of the lanes on the BU Bridge being closed.
2. I got Conned! Cambridge City Council votes for Tree Destruction.
A. Conned.
An operative for the Cambridge Machine heavily publicized the May 10, Cambridge City Council meeting, giving the impression that Councilor Cheung was protecting four street trees near Hoyt Field, which is about 2½ blocks from the Charles River.
I was minimally impressed when I saw the motion and realized that it was a study of whatever regulations exist with regard to street trees. I pointed out to her that big destruction by the City of Cambridge and its friends is being done to non street trees. A good cheerleader, she could not hear me and insisted this was a good start.
Kathy Podgers read the Chronicle report of Cambridge vote to destroy who knows how many trees in Watertown. She attempted to pass that report on as an addition to my report of a Yahoo report concerning the vote. The Chronicle report was on line, but did not make the hard copy as far as I have yet to be able to find.
The Chronicle front paged the vote to destroy all those trees in Watertown for construction a small vehicle highway by the state. The vote was 8 for, 0 opposed, and 1 something else. I am trying to get details on the something else.
The reality is that the street tree study is exactly the opposite of a good start since it follows a meaningful vote for tree destruction.
B. Destruction of trees praised by City Manager for Highway construction in Watertown voted by city council.
Kathy Podgers has wisely pointed out the Chronicle report on the meeting the previous Monday meeting which may be found at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1560851973/Cambridge-OKs-state-bike-path-plan. It was front paged.
The city manager is quoted as justifying giving the DCR an easement over Cambridge controlled property in Watertown. He minimizes the importance on the basis that there are a bunch of trees there which would be destroyed by the proposed small vehicle highway.
So the City Council knowingly voted to destroy the trees.
Kathy Podgers comments: “Apparently, one hand gives, while the other hand takes away... “ and she quotes the Chronicle quote of Healy:
*******
“The easement will ensure the long-term benefits of this portion of the bicycle/pedestrian path,” Healy wrote. “Aside from the recreational benefit, the proposed benefits to the city will include DCR clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it to protect the water line from further root damage and from future tree growth over the water line.”
*******
A similar situation exists on Memorial Drive. A grove of about 104 excellent trees currently has reached a very beautiful maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split. This is a couple blocks east of the Hyatt.
One of the Machine’s beloved highways would decimate that grove. Those, for the most part, are not street trees. They are an excellent grove on the banks of the Charles River.
And the city council is emphasizing a STUDY of STREET trees while voting to destroy trees on Cambridge land in Watertown for another small vehicle highway. And somehow, even though they vote for destruction of city trees not on streets, the city councl cannot understand there are other trees that street trees under threat from government?
The exact language of the votes is reported above at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/cambridge-ma-city-council-votes-on.html.
C. Vote to study street trees.
Cambridge has a new City Councilor, Leland Cheung.
He submitted a motion to look into the procedure for destroying STREET trees in Cambridge. His motion has no concern for the destruction of publicly owned trees, no matter how excellent, which are not street trees.
We cannot say whether or not his study would get into the planned destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive before they are destroyed in the same manner as the Cambridge trees.
Clearly, it would not impact the trees in Watertown that the city council voted to destroy, would not impact the planned destruction of the Alewife reservation, the ongoing destruction of apparently thousands of trees at Fresh Pond, the dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach, the walling off of Magazine Beach, the ongoing and heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese or the ongoing destruction of all animals living or visiting the first ten miles of the Charles River.
From my point of view, I can see no possibility of the City of Cambridge becoming meaningfully responsible on environmental matters without firing the current City Manager and gutting The Cambridge Machine. You can add to that a similar problem with regard to Civil Rights, and you can keep on going. There are a lot of problems which simply stink, and the middle of the apparent stink has to be the core of the government.
Mr. Cheung’s motion passed without negative vote. I am checking to see if he is the person who voted something other than for or against the destruction of the Cambridge owned trees in Watertown which are being replaced with lovely paving.
D. Seidel, Decker and Kelly on Raccoons.
By contrast, there was an interesting interchange among three Machine members or beneficiaries, Seidel, Decker and Kelly.
Seidel and Decker are clearly destructive. Kelly tries to give the opposite impression.
This exchange follows on another vote last week in which a UNANIMOUS city council voted to attack raccoons in Squirrel Brand park.
The exchange among the three concerned raccoons. This exchange could be another con game from the three of them, Kelly, Seidel and Decker, trying to make Kelly look good. The three of them could consider Leland Cheung a threat, especially if Cheung, not a Machine product, turns out to be for real.
After apparently voting for this outrage, Kelley is trying to show himself as responsible on animal matters.
Seidel and Decker expressed concern that kids could get poisoned from eating the feces of raccoons.
Eight member of the city council are dumping poisons on Magazine Beach for kids to roll in and Seidel and Decker are trying to protect kids from being poisoned by eating excrement???
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Nominal Action in Monteiro
Bob La Trémouille reports.
The case of Monteiro v. Cambridge has had numerous reports on this blog, and a link prominently posted to the key judge’s decision.
The case is in post judgment motions. Cambridge has filed notice of appeal and then admitted the notice of appeal was improperly filed.
My knowledge of the papers in front of the Court is limited to the titles of papers which have been listed on the public record in a Court document called “The Docket.”
Currently pending in front of the Court are:
1. The plaintiff’s motion to correct judgment because the judgement did not allow sufficient interest. I think this is the paper that was filed on November 4, 2009.
2. Cambridge’s motion for reconsideration of decision filed on November 3, 2009.
The parties have filed some papers since which amount to elaboration of these two motions.
On April 30, 2009, 11 volumes of transcript of testimony from various parts of the action were filed. This presumably is Cambridge’s accumulation of the record for an appeal.
The case of Monteiro v. Cambridge has had numerous reports on this blog, and a link prominently posted to the key judge’s decision.
The case is in post judgment motions. Cambridge has filed notice of appeal and then admitted the notice of appeal was improperly filed.
My knowledge of the papers in front of the Court is limited to the titles of papers which have been listed on the public record in a Court document called “The Docket.”
Currently pending in front of the Court are:
1. The plaintiff’s motion to correct judgment because the judgement did not allow sufficient interest. I think this is the paper that was filed on November 4, 2009.
2. Cambridge’s motion for reconsideration of decision filed on November 3, 2009.
The parties have filed some papers since which amount to elaboration of these two motions.
On April 30, 2009, 11 volumes of transcript of testimony from various parts of the action were filed. This presumably is Cambridge’s accumulation of the record for an appeal.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Interfaith Youth Service Helps The Charles River White Geese
Marilyn has placed the following comment and materials on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page:
***********
Here's a video from the 3rd Annual Day of Interfaith Youth Service at the goose meadow, April 18, 2010. Thanks to all the DIYS volunteers and Alex Levering Kern, Executive Director, Cooperative Metropolitan Ministries, for their help to the White Geese and the geese's feathered friends here. They've made a big difference. Marilyn
***********
Here's a video from the 3rd Annual Day of Interfaith Youth Service at the goose meadow, April 18, 2010. Thanks to all the DIYS volunteers and Alex Levering Kern, Executive Director, Cooperative Metropolitan Ministries, for their help to the White Geese and the geese's feathered friends here. They've made a big difference. Marilyn
Cambridge Machine offended by law obedience on the Charles
Bob La Trémouille reports:
An arm of The Cambridge Machine which calls itself some sort of streets coalition had a letter to the editor in the April 22, 2010 Cambridge Chronicle and in the on line edition. I have submitted the following in response.
Of possible interest is that the founder of this Streets Coalition is now officially employed by the City of Cambridge and that their office is located on the street front of an MIT dorm.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The letter objecting to MassDOT’s River Street and Western Avenue bridge repairs suffers from major omissions.
First, MassDOT is obeying the law governing the Accelerated Bridge Repair Program by restricting its planning to the bridges it is repairing.
Secondly, the writers and their friends are fighting for massive environmental destruction on the Charles River. Their demands are not restricted to these bridges and are not just for supposed traffic benefits in this area.
MassDOT is a breath of fresh air. I like seeing laws obeyed and the environment respected.
In the BU Bridge repairs, Cambridge’s destructive machine was very happy to see the Department of Conservation and Recreation violating the same laws the writers now want violated.
DCR, helped by silence of consent, kept the BU Bridge repairs and its needless environment destruction and animal abuse as secret as possible. They did this by conducting “public meetings” in Boston and in Kendall Square.
The destruction and violations of law include needless drainage construction in the animal habitat east of the BU Bridge and a needless doubling of area destroyed there. They would not provide amelioration for animals affected.
The machine was happy to have that behavior kept secret when the state was working for environmental destruction. Now a responsible agency is behaving well. The machine is distressed.
The real demands are for a small vehicle highway in Cambridge duplicating the small vehicle highway on the Boston side. The demands are environmentally destructive and dangerous to public safety.
The machine does not want to know about signs closing the Boston side at night because of muggings and rapes.
The machine supports destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges as part of highway construction. An excellent and large grove just reaching maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split is directly threatened.
Essentially virgin animal habitat at the MWRA plant is directly threatened. The animal habitat under and east of the BU Bridge would be further destroyed. The environmental outrage at Magazine Beach would be made worse.
Miles of placid riverfront throughout Cambridge would be savaged.
These unstated matters are yet another example of the reality hidden by pretty much non stop con games in Cambridge. The machine keeps telling Cantabridgians to fight for fancy buildings and ignore the destruction of water, river, trees and animal habitat.
MassDOT is a pleasant relief.
An arm of The Cambridge Machine which calls itself some sort of streets coalition had a letter to the editor in the April 22, 2010 Cambridge Chronicle and in the on line edition. I have submitted the following in response.
Of possible interest is that the founder of this Streets Coalition is now officially employed by the City of Cambridge and that their office is located on the street front of an MIT dorm.
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
The letter objecting to MassDOT’s River Street and Western Avenue bridge repairs suffers from major omissions.
First, MassDOT is obeying the law governing the Accelerated Bridge Repair Program by restricting its planning to the bridges it is repairing.
Secondly, the writers and their friends are fighting for massive environmental destruction on the Charles River. Their demands are not restricted to these bridges and are not just for supposed traffic benefits in this area.
MassDOT is a breath of fresh air. I like seeing laws obeyed and the environment respected.
In the BU Bridge repairs, Cambridge’s destructive machine was very happy to see the Department of Conservation and Recreation violating the same laws the writers now want violated.
DCR, helped by silence of consent, kept the BU Bridge repairs and its needless environment destruction and animal abuse as secret as possible. They did this by conducting “public meetings” in Boston and in Kendall Square.
The destruction and violations of law include needless drainage construction in the animal habitat east of the BU Bridge and a needless doubling of area destroyed there. They would not provide amelioration for animals affected.
The machine was happy to have that behavior kept secret when the state was working for environmental destruction. Now a responsible agency is behaving well. The machine is distressed.
The real demands are for a small vehicle highway in Cambridge duplicating the small vehicle highway on the Boston side. The demands are environmentally destructive and dangerous to public safety.
The machine does not want to know about signs closing the Boston side at night because of muggings and rapes.
The machine supports destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges as part of highway construction. An excellent and large grove just reaching maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split is directly threatened.
Essentially virgin animal habitat at the MWRA plant is directly threatened. The animal habitat under and east of the BU Bridge would be further destroyed. The environmental outrage at Magazine Beach would be made worse.
Miles of placid riverfront throughout Cambridge would be savaged.
These unstated matters are yet another example of the reality hidden by pretty much non stop con games in Cambridge. The machine keeps telling Cantabridgians to fight for fancy buildings and ignore the destruction of water, river, trees and animal habitat.
MassDOT is a pleasant relief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)