Large Alewife Parking Lot Returned to Nature; self-proclaimed “Friends” doesn’t want to know who did it

1. The parking lot at AD Little, in the Alewife reservation.
2. The zoning change which saved the parking lot in the Context of the fake groups.
A. Response of the “Friends of Alewife Reservation” to Sheila Cook’s rezoning the parking lot for open space.
B. The General Context.
C. Groups related to the “Friends of the Alewife Reservation.”
(1). The “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.”
(2). The “Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association.”
(3). Other fake groups.
D. Psychobabble.
(1). General.
(2). It is impolite to accurately call destruction destruction.
(3). You can’t win. You can’t win. But have we got a deal for you.
(4). Trust the city manager (and city council).
(5). “Lie.”
(6). The environment of our world can be saved. On the Charles River and elsewhere near Cambridge, MA, USA, it is crucial, as part of saving our world, to beat the Cambridge Machine, the Cambridge Pols.


1. The parking lot at AD Little, in the Alewife reservation.

Decades ago, a think tank type entity, Arthur D. Little, built a complex on Route 2 near that highway’s eastern end in Cambridge. Route 2 is one of two main east-west limited access highways in Massachusetts. As part of this complex, A.D. Little got permission from Massachusetts to rent part of the Alewife reservation to use as its parking lot. The parking lot is a few hundred feet from Alewife Station, the northern / western terminus of the MBTA’s Red Line.

In 2000, Sheila Cook led a successful downzoning which limited development of that parking lot to open space zoning. I wrote the downzoning and advised her on the law.

These photos present different views of the former parking lot. It has been decommissioned during the last six years.
The free standing trees used to be on traffic islands in the parking lot. The pathway visible in the second photo connects the complex to Alewife Station. The white entity to the right in that second photo appears to be the office facility for the destruction of the Alewife Reservation.

The third photo shows the Alewife Station end of that pathway. The area behind it is pretty untouched The fourth photo also shows the former parking lot with the pathway showing in its left side.

The largest trees in these photos are smaller than the most obvious trees being destroyed in the planned clear cutting at the Alewife reservation.


















































2. The zoning change which saved the parking lot in the Context of the fake groups.

A. Response of the “Friends of Alewife Reservation” to Sheila Cook’s rezoning the parking lot for open space.

They treated her like crap.

When a developer announced his intention to obey the zoning and redevelop the parking lot as open space, the “Friends of Alewife Reservation” held a celebration/

They had a whole bunch of people they honored.

Not honored were the key people in the downzoning, Sheila Cook and me.

I have been watching this fake group for 15 years or more. I tried to organize against the destruction of the core reservation by Cambridge and the state. My response was quite universally that people would not defend the core reservation unless this fake group did. I was outorganized.

During the 15 year or so period, Sheila Cook and I have the only meaningful environmental victory at Alewife that I am aware of.

And the fake group called a party to celebrate our victory. But the party did not mention us.

And they have treated Sheila Cook like crap in response to her victory.

In the meantime, they have fought for the destruction of the core reservation BY THEIR FRIENDS while repeatedly telling well meaning people to look at everything else. Don’t look at the massive, key destruction which is totally avoidable. Chase your tails. Look at the other guy. Look at the much more difficult stuff, much less important stuff, to prevent destruction.

B. The General Context.

I have written more successful zoning changes in Cambridge, MA than any other person not employed by the City of Cambridge. I emphasized environmental protection in my changes, with a strong preference for ground floor open space and for housing in a city with too much traffic and about twice the jobs appropriate for its population. My zoning changes have always done what I have said they were doing.

The Cambridge Pols with their fake groups have fronted for a lot of zoning initiatives written by the Cambridge City Manager’s people. What was done on Memorial Drive is not at all unusual. Zoning protections were destroyed on the north side of Memorial Drive as the result of a zoning petition which was loudly trumpeted as exactly the opposite. It was written the by City Manager’s people and fronted by well established Cambridge pols.

The one reaction from me which is altogether too consistent when dealing with the Cambridge Pols and their supposedly separate groups has to be: “You can’t possibly be so stupid.”

But this clearly interconnected group keeps running around, making lovely statements and achieving altogether too often the exact opposite. They clearly are associated with each other, to the City Manager’s operation and to City Councilors to a varying degree.

It is impossible to discern, for the most part, who is really pulling the strings. The reality, however, is that they behave in such a manner that whether a particular individual is a knave or fool is irrelevant. They are belligerent and too often they blindly fight for causes with indifference to reality. The Cambridge Pols altogether too often, destroy what they claim to be defending.

C. Groups related to the “Friends of the Alewife Reservation.”

(1). The “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.”

In these reports, I have gone into comments on the supposed “Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.” This group’s representatives are downright belligerent about enforcing a self-imposed limitation which prohibits the group or anybody talking to the group from meaningfully defending the neighborhood.

My words and description of their self imposed limits are reality. The lovely words they use are that they only allow positive statements. And how do you defend the neighborhood from attack with only positive statements?

Excellent examples of their positive statements are the destruction of the environment of the Charles River which they “celebrated” after censoring negative comments. Also of importance is the destruction of zoning across from Magazine Beach through a falsely described zoning petition. If you are faced with flat out falsehoods and you are prohibited from calling falsehoods falsehoods, what happens?

Reality is that they are belligerently lying about being a neighborhood association. Just another con game.

(2). The “Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association.”

I have previously reported on very tiny portion of the destructive behavior of this group and key people. They are way beyond the scope of these reports. My reports were on my victories in rather clearly the most pivotal part of Cambridge.

I certainly have had very major victories at the expense of the Cambridge Pols in the “Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association.” I have outorganized them and I have beat them. But they keep coming back and they have done very major, avoidable damage.

“You can’t possibly be so stupid” is very much of an understatement.

(3). Other fake groups.

I could keep on going. Two further examples.

The falsely named “Harvard Square Defense Fund,” for one is an easy target. I brushed on them in my reports on the Mass. Ave. zoning.

The falsely named “Charles River Conservancy” has gotten a lot of time in these reports.

D. Psychobabble.

(1). General.

The destructiveness of the “Friends of the Alewife Reservation” is by no means unique in Cambridge, MA.

Where are these groups coming from?

Well, it is very much impossible to psychoanalyze each and every individual. The only practical aspect is to look at the destructive movement as a whole and to make educated analysis.

One reality is that a very significant percentage of Cambridge residents make their living from development. I have seen a report which, rather incredibly, says that 14% of Cambridge residents are architects. Architects make their living from environmental destruction. Their game is “getting things done” and the tougher the fight is, the greater the respect for them from their associates.

Similarly, there is a tradition of blackballing in the development industry. If you meaningfully stand up against a project, no matter how irresponsible, you can have your work possibilities disappear.

Similarly, there are people who want to please the City Manager because of the benefits possible there.

Similarly, there are a lot of Cambridge City Councilors lying about the side they are on. They keep the developers happy because the developers know their records. They keep their constituents happy because the constituents know the lies passed around on their behalf.

There are people who are loyal to Cambridge’s extremely bad city councilors.

Then again, there are the victims, the fools, the targets of the knaves, these individuals I have just described. The victims, the fools, are by far the largest number.

These are well meaning people who are conned by a massive, lying organization.

And a lot of the people who look like knaves are, in reality, victims, fools.

(2). It is impolite to accurately call destruction destruction.

This is a highly stupid position. This is the position which the fake Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association claims to live by, using different terms, of course. And proclaims itself a fake organization in the process.

This is also a very common position from the Cambridge Pols.

(3). You can’t win. You can’t win. But have we got a deal for you.

This is the loudest proclamation.

Sheila Cook, with my assistance, proved this proclamation a lie at Alewife.

So the Cambridge Pols claimed she (and I) did not exist. And they treated a hero, Sheila Cook, like crap.

They celebrated the return of that parking lot to nature by ignoring the people most responsible for it.

The Cambridge Pols claimed Sheila Cook (and I) did not exist. And they treated a hero, Sheila Cook, like crap.

(4). Trust the city manager (and city council).

A very basic flat out lie passed around by the Machine is that zoning petitions cannot be written by private citizens. They say that zoning petitions have to be written by the City Manager’s employees.

They lie behind that is exposed when you look at the very many successes (including the Alewife parking lot) I have had. The Cambridge Pols, the machine does not care. They just keep on lying.

Riohie MacKinnon, the developer of the project which included that parking lot conversion, stated to me at the celebration that he did the conversion because of the zoning requiring that the parking lot be returned to nature.

The fraudulent destruction of zoning on the north side of Memorial Drive in a petition whose fine print belied the lovely words used to describe the change when it was proposed was anything but unusual.

The Cambridge Pols say the city manager’s people can be trusted. They lie.

And that is a very crucial lie.

(5). “Lie.”

I keep using this word in talking about falsehoods bandied about by the Cambridge Pols.

The people spouting these falsehoods are communicating two things. They are making two very basic affirmations.

First, they are communicating that the statement is true.

Secondly, they are communicating that they know what they are talking about.

Now, if they are running around spouting falsehoods, one of these basic affirmations has to be false.

That certainly looks like lying to me.

(6). The environment of our world can be saved. On the Charles River and elsewhere near Cambridge, MA, USA, it is crucial, as part of saving our world, to beat the Cambridge Machine, the Cambridge Pols.

Destruction of Alewife, pre Cambridge Election Stage

1. Introduction.
2. June 30, 2011 photos of Alewife Destruction.
3. Fake Groups Aiding Destruction.

1. Introduction.

On June 30, 2011, I took a few photos of the current destruction at the Alewife reservation, just west of Alewife Station at the end of Boston’s Red Line rapid transit line.

On June 30, 2011, I took a few photos of the current destruction at the Alewife reservation, just west of Alewife Station at the end of Boston’s Red Line rapid transit line.

I will later post photos of the undisturbed reservation, particularly a part of the reservation in which I played an important part toward restoration.

The destruction photos follow, with an abbreviated analysis of the fake group system which is so important in environmental destruction in the area of Cambridge, MA.

2. June 30, 2011 photos of Alewife Destruction.

This is the area nearest Alewife Station and highly visible from the entrance to its garage.

This is the area where I spoke to the leader of the fake group during a period when the Cambridge Pols were doing one of their usual “environmental” activities fooling people into thinking they are environmentally responsible.

She was very clearly shocked at the destruction. She then published one of the usual letter in the Cambridge Chronicle talking about everything else.















This is the worst of the current destruction that I am aware of. I should think that the large trees surrounding the construction zone used to be the construction zone.

According to the signs what is going on now is relocation of utilities. This preparatory to the massive logging and destruction of the core Alewife reservation. Meaningful destruction will almost certainly be deferred until after the Cambridge municipal elections in November to allow liars on the city council to be reelected as environmental saints.















This photo is taken from the far side of Cambridge Park Drive which runs west of Alewife Station, the end of the subway’s Red Line. The view is up the access road to the destruction site. Behind the camera is the massive parking lot which would be used for flood storage in a city’s whose city council contained environmental saints rather the liars who are in it now.















This photo is of the massive parking lot which should be used for flood storage rather than destroying the essentially virgin Alewife reservation. The fraudulent situation in Cambridge City government with regard to environmentalism and all those fake groups working together is the reason for environmental destruction. The parking lot goes far into the distance. The owner wants to develop it. The issue, if Cambridge resembled its claims, would be whether he develops with flood storage beneath the buildings.















3. Fake Groups Aiding Destruction.

The fake groups in the middle of the ongoing environmental destruction in and near Cambridge, MA use whatever con will work.

It is always impossible to tell which is the knave and which is the fool, and probably irrelevant.

The City Manager’s group in Cambridgeport PUBLICLY brags that it is solely a cheerleading organization. It leads public meetings with prohibitions against negative comment. And it lies that it is a neighborhood association. You cannot be both. And you cannot prohibit negative comment and stand up to destructive behavior.

The Cambridge related group at Alewife takes a different tack. It allows negative comment, as long as the negative comment is directed away from destruction by Cambridge and its friends. Don’t look at the important stuff, stuff that could be stopped because we supposedly control the government, and the government keeps telling us that it is a bunch of environmental saints.

The reality is that a bunch of environmental knaves are helped to do their terrible things by fake groups which look like they are protectors.

The real destruction at Alewife will likely start after the fake environmentalists on the Cambridge City Council get reelected in the city elections in November. The campaign will feature a lot of false claims of environmental sainthood.

More detail on my record and that of Cambridge’s Fake Groups — Mass. Ave.

1. General Introduction.
2. La Trémouille petition.
3. Natalie Ward Petition.
4. Anderson Petition.
5. Summary.

1. General Introduction.

Cambridge’s destructive city government works through fake groups to fool people into hurting their own cause, fool them into deferring working for their causes and to stay in office.

The thing which Cambridge’s fake groups find most offensive is somebody who meaningfully stands for causes they are trying to destroy by claiming they support the causes. They cannot justify their own irresponsibility so they personally destroy the activist.

There have been multiple downzonings between Harvard and Centrals Squares. There have been three major big ones, written by me, and two very destructive bad ones.

My three big ones were the La Trémouille petition of 1980, the Natalie Ward petition of 1989, and the Anderson petition of 1998. The destructive ones were the Harvard Square Overlay District of 1984 led by the falsely named Harvard Square Defense Fund and the historically destructive Harvard Square historical petition led by the same falsely named group.

2. La Trémouille petition.

The La Trémouille petition succeeded in zoning changes from about Ellery Street on the west, north and south of Mass. Ave., and on the east to Dana Street on the north and halfway between Bay and Hancock Street on the South.

It was written by a committee appointment by the Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association and chaired by me. These fake groups work through central / coordinating committees which in turn are controlled by a tiny group, the people really controlling the entity. In turn, the central / coordinating committee is intended to control the overall group.

My committee wrote a downzoning running from the same western extreme but it went on the east to the YWCA, including it, on the north, and on the south to Sellers Street, just excluding the YMCA.

The steering committee demanded that the downzoning be turned into an upzoning.

The petition was intended to minimize traffic and maximize housing. Retail generates nine times the traffic as residential. Office generates three times the traffic.

The city manager’s fake groups maximize traffic in their petitions demonstrating major contempt for the environment. They routinely destroy ground floor open space, making the streets much less habitable. They love retail. Cambridge has too much traffic and twice the jobs it should have for its population, but the fake groups love retail.

The MCNA’s steering committee demanded retail everywhere in the petition on the first floor, with destruction of all first floor housing and open space.

The committee said that was a violation of the vote of the MCNA. The committee filed its petition.

The steering committee opposed the responsible petition filed. It reaffirmed its demands, and falsely stated it was speaking on behalf of the MCNA.

Finally, the petitioners forced a vote of the MCNA. The MCNA rejected its rogue steering committee.

By then, however, we had been fighting the rogue steering committee on the zoning for months and we were forced to cut our losses. The irresponsible buildings on the south side of Mass. Ave near Bay Street are the direct result of the actions of the rogue steering committee. The canyon which is Bay Street is the direct result of the Rogue Steering Committee.

We dropped all of the petition east of Dana Street on the north and east of what is now Bay Square on the south. We reduced commercial density and got Green Street limited to housing or open space in that area.

3. Natalie Ward Petition.

The fake groups repeatedly filed a whole bunch of lovely petitions for Harvard Square. They all lost except for the irresponsible Harvard Square Overlay District.

The Natalie Ward Petition attempted more than any prior petition and succeeded far beyond what the fake groups claimed was possible.

We downzoned an area generally running from Remington Street on the east and Bow Street on the west, with Harvard Street on the north halfway and the back lot lines the rest of the way. On the south, we went to Arrow and Bow Streets. This area was rezoned residential. The model of what we achieved is the Inn at Harvard.

Additionally, we restricted several lots between the intersection of Bow and Mass. Ave. on the north and Mt. Auburn Street on the south to office and residential uses, the same density as the north side.

The block south of Mt. Auburn Street between Banks Street and Putnam Avenue was changed to the adjacent residential zoning from zoning which was the same as the core of Harvard Square.

Three blocks south of Mt. Auburn Street near Holyoke Center were changed to the same neighborhood zoning to reflect the Harvard Houses there.

This leaves a very big gap in the middle.

We had a deal with the Cambridge City Council to wipe out the destructive Harvard Square Overlay District off Mass. Ave. in most of that area.

A key person from the MCNA steering committee came into a neighborhood group meeting and flat out lied that “You have made your deal with the City Council. Now you have to deal with the Planning Board.” That key person bullied this uncompensated yielding of that portion of this major victory.

The rest of the victory was too important to the petitioners. They stood up to the lie to that extent.

4. Anderson Petition.

The Leo Anderson Petition extended the Inn at Harvard zoning with improvements to the area from Dana Street to Inman Street on the north and, on the south from Bay Square to Sellers Street.

We also had citywide changes prohibiting parking garages for commercial use in adjacent residential neighborhoods.

We also improved the Inn at Harvard zoning to protect trees in open space, to provide more protection for neighbors and to provide meaningful protection for adjacent streets which are lower than Mass. Ave.

We modified the terms of the zoning of the commercial block between Ellery and Dana Streets to make them less intrusive.

The key person who lied his way to killing a major part of the Natalie Ward victory saw the petition on the City Council agenda. Without even reading it, he demanded to the city council the commercial upzoning his rogue steering committee had demanded in 1980. The one which the MCNA rejected when we forced a vote.

The petition was more victorious than we asked for when it came to a vote. We asked for a compromise to keep a property owner happy who lived a block away from city hall. We did not compromise enough to keep him happy. The city council went with us.

5. Summary.

The record of the Cambridge Pols with its fake groups is outrageous. The destruction of zoning protections on Memorial Drive fit the very common pattern of fake protections bragged about but turned into lies by undisclosed fine print.

My record is much broader than what I have reported above. The destructiveness of the Cambridge Pols and their fake groups is much broader than what is presented above.

That destructiveness now extends to the Charles River. That destructiveness is now a regional matter.

Fake groups and a very bad city government

1. Background.
2. The current attack on the Charles River.
3. The Grand Junction.


1. Background.

The current Cambridge City Manager has been in office since 1974, first assisting James Leo Sullivan, then on his own.

One of the first things James Leo did was to create supposed “neighborhood associations.” The first one he created called itself the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association. It very quickly was instrumental in the needless destruction of the best park in the neighborhood along with about 23 hundred year old trees.

During my decades of activism defending the environment in Cambridge, I have used zoning changes as a very effective tool for environmental protection. I have written more successful zoning changes in Cambridge than any other person not employed by the Cambridge city government, and in sharp contrast to too many examples, my petitions do what I say they do.

The most spectacular of these petitions was a series of three petitions sponsored by three different groups. The combination changed the zoning between Cambridge’s major squares, Harvard and Central Squares, to make construction much more environmentally responsible by requiring open space around buildings and requiring housing so that people can commute a shorter distance to work. Building size allowed was quite large by any neutral standard.

My zoning changes affected 85% of the area between these two major squares on Massachusetts Avenue, the main street of Cambridge. The changes significantly improved in particular, Green Street, just to the south of Massachusetts Avenue. Green Street, when I started, was overwhelming residential but more than half of the Mass. Ave. side zone the same as Massachusetts Avenue, plus it had an other block on the far side almost as bad. Green Street has been changed to totally residential and most of the changes are to zoning the same as adjacent residential streets.

My big victory is the Inn at Harvard in eastern Harvard Square. Harvard wanted that building built to the lot line and 72% larger. My vote was 7 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 in the hospital.

The biggest problem in this area as with so much of the city are the fake groups associated with the Cambridge City Manager. I repeatedly beat the people who controlled the Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association to achieve a lot, but the dirty tricks of the key people had very major destructive impact.

2. The current attack on the Charles River.

I started working to defend the Charles River when a fake group, the predecessor of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy, started organizing to destroy the environment in the BU Bridge area. They flaunted an outrageously silly and irresponsible proposal of the Cambridge City Manager. The usual response of civilians was “they would never stoop so low”, listening to the constant lies coming out of Cambridge about environmental sainthood.

"They" have stooped so low and are getting worse.

During the middle of my high profile defense of the Charles River another group was created in association with the Cambridge City Manager.

This one calls itself the "Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association."

It formed itself to organize around the redevelopment of properties formerly owned by the Roman Catholic Church. The group loudly called the proposals too large. As is very common with these groups, they succeeded in making the project larger.

This group brags that it prohibits negative discussion. Prohibiting negative discussion means that all which is allowed is cheerleading. It is downright impossible to beat off an attack when you are prohibited to talk negatively.

The group, with this bizarre code, assisted in the destruction of zoning protections around a hotel across from Magazine Beach. Zoning protections were destroyed under the lie that their zoning change did the exact opposite of what was reality. This zoning change was compatible with a whole bunch of fake downzonings associated with friends of the Cambridge City Manager / the Cambridge Pols.

Most recently, this “neighborhood association” conducted a “public meeting” on plans of the bureaucrats for the Magazine Beach area. The reality in Magazine Beach is massive environmental destruction, reduction of playing field, and blocking off of playing fields on the banks of the Charles River from the Charles River, all totally unnecessary, combined with heartless animal abuse as part of the totally unnecessary environmental destruction.

The censorship of the meeting, as is normal, allowed full communication by a very destructive agency which did significant lying to achieve the destruction achieved so far, but mention of their record was prohibited because this fake neighborhood association prohibits negative discussion.

Then the fake neighborhood association joined in a “Celebration” of the needless environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. The “Celebration” naturally did not mention the destruction.

3. The Grand Junction.

People are concerned about totally unnecessary, silly and destructive passenger traffic on the Grand Junction.

The fake neighborhood association is now showing its value to the City Manager and City Councilors.

The term is “company union.” If you cannot persuade people to help you destroy, at least you can kill organization.

The argument is that Cambridgeport has a “neighborhood association.” Creating a meaningful group would be “divisive.”

I downzoned 85% of Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Central Squares by keeping the Cambridge pols as far away as possible. They did significant harm to two of the three initiatives.

I steadily kept them further and further away from the groups. The further I kept them away, the greater the successes. I repeatedly beat them in their own controlled groups, but I should not have had to.

The property owners were not the problem. The problem was my fake friends.

Unity with the City Manager’s friends is folly.

Update on Monteiro Case

1. Latest Change.
2. Background.
3. General Background.


1. Latest Change.

The final pretrial conference on the two remaining plaintiffs in Malvina Montero v. City of Cambridge in Superior Court has been set by Order of Court, Dennis J. Curran, J., for August 11, 2011, at 2 pm in Session F at the Superior Courthouse in Woburn, MA.

This is a change of one day from the most recent date which was, apparently, set by the Clerk of Court. Order is dated July 20, 2011.

2. Background.

The key judicial paper in this matter, by Bonnie H. MacLeod, J., may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

This civil rights case originally had five plaintiffs. Two have settled, I understand, for good sums of money. The order concerns the trial of the final two plaintiffs.

The case is in Appeals Court with regard to Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro. A hearing has been conducted before a panel of three Appeals Court judges in the ordinary course on May 4, 2011. The case in Appeals Court is awaiting decision by the panel.

Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of Cambridge’s Police Review Board. She and the other plaintiffs filed complaint alleging disparate treatment by Cambridge on the basis of sex.

Her basic complaint lost in trial by one jury. A second jury found that the Cambridge City Manager had retaliated against Monteiro, that he had, among other things, fired her in retaliation for her filing the civil rights complaint.

The jury awarded approximately $1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.

The judge supported the jury’s award in the very well written opinion which I have cited above. She, among other things, certainly gave the impression she was proving the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” for his actions in this matter.

The last time I calculated the accumulated award, in May 2010, it exceed $6 million and was climbing.

The Cambridge City Council is funding its legal defense of this case in the amount of millions. The vote to fund the appeal, in spite of the excellent opinion, did not include getting an opinion from an independent qualified attorney as to whether there were grounds for appeal or if the city should pay Monteiro and fire the City Manager.

My estimation is that, if the finding of Judge and Jury is correct, the Cambridge City Manager could be fired without his golden parachute and possibly without pension.

3. General Background.

As in environmental matters, the Cambridge City Council runs around calling themselves saints on civil rights matters as well.

Their claim is a very clear lie on environmental matters.

With regard to civil rights matters, the Cambridge City Council very clearly does not want to know what it is doing on the Monteiro case, That belies their claims of sainthood on civil rights as well.

Toomey on the Grand Junction

1. Boston Globe letter.
2. Editor's Analysis.


1. Boston Globe letter.

Archie Mazmanian reports:

Yesterday's (7/22/11) Boston Globe includes a letter from Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., State Representative from a Cambridge district, responding negatively to the Globe's earlier editorial (July 11th) on the Grand Junction railroad line, raising environmental and financial issues, available at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/07/22/environmental_impact_overlooked_in_approving_glance_at_rail_plan/ (Mr. Toomey is also described as "a Cambridge city councilor.) Mr. Toomey points out the small number of Worcester commuters (8%) that would benefit from destinations near North Station; that such commuters currently have alternate access via the Orange Line at Back Bay Station.

Disrupting street traffic in Cambridge during commuter hours for such a small group makes no environmental or financial sense.

2. Editor's Analysis.

Thank you Archie.

I am very much uncertain as to where Mr. Toomey is really coming from.

Other members of the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge Pols running around "objecting" give me the very strong opinion that the real people fighting for this proposal are in Cambridge loudly yelling against it. When these types yell so loud, it has a strong tendency to look like their usual con game to get responsible members of the Cambridge community to support a "compromise" which in reality is the only game in town.

The one thing which is clear is that it is highly destructive to the Charles River on the Cambridge side and to the animals living there. As such, the con games fit in with the Cambridge Pols’ pretty much non stop attacks on the Charles River, loudly yelling the opposite of where they really stand.

The Western Avenue Project, MassDOT, and reality

1. Retaliation against bicyclists?
2. Monday night's meeting.
3. Cambridge, MassDOT, silly sidewalk bike path.


1. Retaliation against bicyclists?

The city government is supposedly furthering its enforcement of traffic laws against Cambridge’s lawless bicycle population.

The city council has spent decades not wanting to know about bicycle lawlessness. Immediately after a public works proposal for Western Avenue was announced which makes the situation worse for bicyclists on Western Avenue, the city council started getting religion on traffic enforcement against bicyclists.

It looks to me like a very bad city council is turning the screws on organized bicyclists to get support for a yet another truly bizarre proposal.

2. Monday night's meeting.

Monday night at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation meeting on the River Street and Western Avenue Bridges, I spoke twice. The second time was the main purpose for my report, praise for standing up to environmentally destructive proposals.

The first time I spoke, I addressed the comments which were tossed together at the end of the report. I concluded with a strong plea to MassDOT to manage bicycles responsibly in it s project. I commented that the silly Cambridge plans for Western Avenue are proceeding in spite of the fact that the proposal makes things worse for serious bicyclists.

Bicycles are forced to ride on part of the sidewalk on the right and swerve over to cross on a green light, and then swerve back again to get back on the sidewalk. This is total nonsense for serious commuters. The plans have no meaningful concern for left turns whatsoever.

Cambridge’s response to the trouble with its proposal is that bicycles are not required to use this silly sidewalk path, they can ride in the street. The street is narrower to make room for the silly path. So meaningful bicyclists will be forced to use a narrower roadway to get wherever they are going because of the silly path.

Clearly an inferior position.

I pled with MassDOT to responsibly manage bicycles.

At the end of my comments, a person near me broke into spontaneous applause. I think he was there to support the environmentally destructive proposal.

The situation on the bridges is worse, and the further discussion at the meeting agreed with my analysis of MassDOT following Cambridge’s silly sidewalk bike path.

There was a lot of comment on bike movement in that meeting.

There was exactly zero comment supporting MassDOT extending Cambridge’s silly sidewalk bike path.

3. Cambridge, MassDOT, silly sidewalk bike path.

The reality is that I will be very happy with MassDOT whatever MassDOT does with regard to bicycles on the bridges because MassDOT seems to be standing up to the silly highway proposal.

However, I have respect for MassDOT. MassDOT is fully aware that exactly zero people in the room supported the silly bike path. MassDOT is fully aware that the people who tend to support Cambridge’s project could very easily be supporting it because they will support anything that puts Cambridge money in the pockets of contractors.

Will MassDOT repeat Cambridge’s silliness?

Remember the people speaking most loudly for environmental destruction by their new highway spoke of a duty on the part of MassDOT to “get things done.”

They were talking like they would be talking to Cambridge or to the DCR. They were talking like an old boys club, not a responsible government agency.

Will Cambridge back down from yet another nonsensical proposal? Or will Cambridge go forward with yet another nonsensical proposal?

Suddenly enforcing bike laws (to the extent they are) says Cambridge, as usual, has no interest in reality. Ratcheting up the appearance of enforcement says that Cambridge has no interest in reality. Cambridge wants a good old boy system.

Cambridge wants obeisance. Cambridge wants its victims to praise Cambridge for screwing its victims with this silly sidewalk bike path. Cambridge is turning the screws.

MassDOT is not part of this very bizarre world.

Harvard University announces major construction on Charles River in Allston

1. Report.
2. Marilyn Wellons Comments.

1. Report.

Review of this week’s Environmental Monitor leads to the following document which is listed under Requests for Advisory Opinion in “Cambridge”: http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2011/072011em/rfao/6.pdf.

Harvard’s official Map of the Harvard Business School, at http://www.hbs.edu/about/visit.html, could be of help in understanding the proposal.

Reading through the legalize, I see a “150,000 square foot project” which will include 180 bedrooms plus a whole bunch of other stuff. Height is 78 feet which could be 8 or 9 stories.

The project includes a tunnel connecting the project to Baker Hall.

Because of that tunnel, review of the Harvard Business School Map leads me to the very strong opinion that the project will face on Soldiers Field Road and the Charles River in Harvard’s only undeveloped area between North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, adjacent to “Kresge” and to the massive Soldiers Field Park housing complex.

Please note that, as is usual when dealing with these people, this conclusion is anything but easy to come by. I think my conclusion is inescapable.

Other wording in the letter goes into Harvard’s plans for Western Avenue and misleads the casual reader (including me until I got the map) to believe this project would be on Western Avenue in Allston.

2. Marilyn Wellons Comments.

Harvard has been preparing the site for about a year. They put in fill at the SFR edge, as you can see from the elevation of the tree trunks near the fence.

MassDOT a Breath of Fresh Air at Bridge Meeting

1. General.
2. Developer types from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.
3. Other issues.
4. Summary.


1. General.

Last night, July 19, 2011, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation held a public meeting on their plans for the River/Cambridge Street and Western Avenue Bridges across the Charles River. These are the next two bridges to the west from the BU Bridge and the 30 year habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

2. Developer types from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy.

Loudly present were representatives of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy, blatant construction / design types, flaunting their contempt for the supposed purpose (looking at the name) of their organization.

They implored on MassDOT to “find a way to get things done” on their destructive highway project in the Charles River. “Getting things done” is a developer term with a secret definition. The secret definition is contempt for the environment, contempt for historical preservation, contempt for inconvenient laws, contempt for common decency.

The developer types have a dream. They want a new highway in the Charles on the Cambridge side, destroying the Charles, destroying wetlands, heartlessly abusing beautiful valuable animals and furthering the destruction of all animals, and destroying massive numbers of trees. They call this “getting things done.”

MassDOT is something the contractor types have contempt for: a public agency doing its job, a responsible, ethical, pro-environment, pro-historical protection, pro DOING THEIR JOB agency.

MassDOT thinks that, as far as their work on these two bridges goes, this irresponsible highway project is way out of bounds. The project would involve massive fill in the Charles. It would interfere with the waterway. It could require chopping holes in the bridge supports. It could only be justified from a mission point of view if both bridges could not be repaired in a historically responsible way. But they said it more nicely than I do.

I stood up and praised MassDOT. It is such a relief, after dealing with Cambridge for 35 years and the Department of Conservation and Recreation and its predecessor for perhaps 15 years, to deal with a governmental agency worthy of being proud of.

3. Other issues.

I asked MassDOT to make certain that their project complies with national standards for highway markings on one way streets.

I pointed out to MassDOT that their plans for the River / Cambridge Street bridge would cause traffic relocation to the Mass. Ave. Bridge, Memorial Drive and the Cambridge side streets, and that their traffic studies should allow for this.

MassDOT is continuing Cambridge’s bizarre bike arrangement from Western Avenue. I pointed out that Cambridge’s resolution for commuter bicycle traffic wanting to go straight ahead without a bunch of ins and outs, and for bicycles wanting to make left turns was summarized in the comment that the bikes would not be legally required to used the silly proposal. Bikes could join cars in the much narrowed car lanes.

I suggested to MassDOT that MassDOT rethink continuing Cambridge’s nuttiness.

There were other seriously thought out comments on the handling of bicycle traffic on the two bridges and the southern access.

4. Summary.

I got fed up with the poor dears with their dreams from the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. I walked out, I believe, during a plea to “get things done.”

Marilyn responds to the Globe’s lack of knowledge with historical photos.

Marilyn Wellons followed up my photo posting of yesterday here and on facebook with three photos from Phil Barber, all photos © 2008, Phil Barber.

1. Here are photos of the goose meadow from 1990 from PBarber. First one, February 1990. Next 2 are in April of that year.

My Comment:

Thank you Marilyn. Excellent photo.

It is a dramatic difference in perspective from the shots I have been posting.

The reason, I would think is that it is shot from above, on the BU Bridge. The photos I have been posting are at ground level.

Excellent, thank you.















2. Here's another, same year.

My comment:

This is a view of the portion of the current construction zone which is very much inexcusable. This is the upper / norther portion by the on ramp to Memorial drive.
















3. This was taken in 1990, 9 years before the DCR first "restored" it.

My response:

This should be an excellent view of the current construction zone.

To the left should be the BU Bridge. To the right is the on ramp to Memorial Drive.

The trees in the middle, I guess, were destroyed by the state in the 1990's. I do not remember them.

Straight ahead, in the corner would be the concrete and stariers illegally installed by BU in October 1999. BU started the work BEFORE a public hearing scheduled by the Cambridge Conservation Commission, and completed it before the first day they could legally do it.

As is tradition with the people we have been dealing with, BU denied doing the work for about six months, until they were condemned by the Cambridge Conservation Commission. BU then started bragging about the destruction and blaimed the six months of lies on the president's secretary. She was not fired.

Some more photos of an environment the Boston Globe says does not exist.

As promised in my response to the Boston Globe’s not knowing what it was talking about or not wanting to know what it is talking about, I will provide a few photos now from my March 29, 2011, shoot and follow up with more later.

The problem is the norm in the ongoing destruction of the Charles River, of Alewife, of Fresh Pond and of too much else. The real problem is a massive machine which controls liberal politics in Cambridge plus, at least on environmental matters, beyond Cambridge. It is silly to consider the fake groups which dominate the scene in Cambridge, MA, anything other than corruption. It could be one or two people lying. It could be a person not even visible in the group, lying and fooling key people.

But the reality is corruption of an excellent cause, protection of the environment, into destruction of the environment.

People who should know, such as the Boston Globe, saying this does not exist is a very major part of the problem.















In the photo of the adults with the babies crossing the track, I commented that the area on the nesting area side of the track was lush vegetation until the Charles River Conservancy started destroying vegetation for the state bureaucrats who, in turn, are coordinating closely with Cambridge. This is a shot from below to the right of where I was standing when I took that shot.

This hillside was lush vegetation. The geese happily lived in this lush vegetation. The ground vegetation was destroyed. It has not come back, implying poisoning.
















This photo is of the water end of the swath which has been destroyed for work on the BU Bridge, work which has been completed. Once again, formerly lush ground vegetation. The swath which was destroyed has not been returned. The arch is of the BU Bridge. The far side, looking through the arch, is Boston. There is a very major difference in Boston. There has been major destruction of ground vegetation on the Boston side. The Charles River Conservancy admits it and has been apologized. The difference is that Boston has a government worthy of respect. Cambridge has a government with a lot of fake groups running around telling people to look at everything else.














This area is of vegetation which was not destroyed by the state before the BU Bridge work and was not destroyed in the BU Bridge construction. The area which needed to be destroyed for access is to the left. It continues to be destroyed. Straight ahead is the silly destruction area, inexcusable from the beginning. Still destroyed. The geese are trying to live here. This vegetation was normal until and continues to be normal on the hillside. It is a tiny area in a large swath of destruction. It has since turned green.















This could be a couple, possibly trying to nest between the Grand Junction track and the steep hillside. The Grand Junction bridge is to the right. The Charles River is straight ahead.

The Charles River White Geese now nest where they can. They used to have a beautiful vegetated nesting area, part of a mile long habitat in which they did a mini-migration. Nine months of the year, they traveled, living mostly at Magazine Beach. Three months of the year, they returned to a place of natural beauty to mate and nest.

The goose to the right would be the mother goose on her eggs. The goose to the left would be the father goose protecting the nest. Geese have nested against the tracks. They have no other place left.

The state is trying to kill them piece by piece. The state, in its publicly announced plans, translating the secret definitions, says it wants to kill them. And Cambridge with its fake groups runs around calling itself holier than thou is a very major public relations campaign in support.

And the Boston Globe says they do not exist.

What the Boston Globe does not see or does not want to see.

We have recently published Archie Mazmanian’s response to a Boston Globe editorial supporting passenger use on the Grand Junction, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/little-bridge-that-could-response-to.html.

The Boston Globe’s description of the Grand Junction in that editorial stands out:

**********

the Grand Junction railroad, a little-used but strategically located 3-mile rail line that connects Allston and Cambridge via a graffiti-covered trestle underneath the BU bridge

**********

Here is a photo of what the Boston Globe does not know or does not want to know, described as “a graffiti-covered tresle underneath the BU Bridge.”















This photo was taken in April. To the left, you can see the Cambridge end of the railroad bridge. In the middle are clearly visible four of the Charles River White Geese crossing the Grand Junction railroad track.

Less visible are the tiny yellow shapes with some black on the top, to the left of the adults, pushed up against the left portion of the track. These are two tiny, perhaps, a day old babies of the Charles River White Geese.

To the right is the destruction which was their Nesting Area for most of the last 30 years. To the left and out of view is a steep incline between the track and the river. I would anticipate the nest in which these babies hatched is somewhere on that incline. These little guys look too small to get over the track, but, in order to nest, the parents have had to go on the wrong side of the tracks to have their babies.

This is what the Boston Globe does not want to know. This is where the Boston Globe wants to run passenger trains, on a route inferior to the current route from a transportation point of view, on a route where Cambridge and the state bureaucrats are doing the best they can to kill off all resident animals.

This particular technique is a silly passenger train route.

And the Globe does not, apparently, want to know reality.

I have further recent photos of this area which I will post in the next few days.

ADDENDUM: The area to the immediate right has been lush with vegetation for most of the last 30 years, but the state, Cambridge, and the Charles River Conservancy are destroying nature. The devastation you see has been CREATED since the CRC started doing the state’s environmental dirty work.

Trees targeted by environmental destroyers receiving state ENVIRONMENTAL license place money.

I have done enough detail on the reprehensible City of Cambridge and its friends in the state bureaucracy.

I have done enough detail on the fake groups they work through, including the FALSELY named Charles River Conservancy.

Here are photos taken on March 29, 2011, of a healthy, excellent grove of APPROXIMATELY 105 trees on Memorial Drive of which APPROXIMATELY 83 HEALTHY trees are slated for destruction for a bizarre highway project. This bizarre project which fits in the same level of lack of quality as the bizarre projects at Magazine Beach, bizarre, needless animal abuse in the BU Bridge project, and the destruction of pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse, rather clearly by this fake environmental group.
















These trees are but a portion of the needless destruction being fought for by this fake environmental group. The majority of trees not shown are much larger.

The fake environmental group, the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” claims it is getting moneys from the sale of ENVIRONMENTAL license plates, as just reported.

The hypocrites in Cambridge have a solution. They are fighting invasives. They do not want to know about the outrages on the Charles River, Alewife and Fresh Pond. They are fighting invasives, and will brag that they are holier than thou.















Governor Patrick may have stood in against the lies from the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats, this time, lied that they were destroying nothing but sick trees. The sick trees were destroyed years ago. The bureaucrats were seeking Obama money for the destruction. Patrick apparently stood up to the lying destroyers and said no.

It appears that the hypocrites from Cambridge are seeking money from the legislature for this bizarre destruction.

And the fake environmental group running which is the most visible supporter of this irresponsible and needless destruction claims to be getting money from environmental license plates.















This is a partial printing. All my photos from March 29 will be printed on the Charles River White Geese facebook page.

Contact information is on the “what you can do” button. Please remember, however, that pretty much all incumbent Cambridge pols should be considered beneath respect.

Mass. License plate subsidy goes to environmental destroyer.

The fake group problem in Cambridge exists in spades on the Charles River and now it is getting money which people are paying to the state to protect our environment.

The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has announced in its July 2011 newsletter that it is getting money from the Massachusetts Environment Trust. Quoting from its newsletter, “The Massachusetts Environmental Trust is funded through the purchase of specialty "Preserve the Trust" license plates.”

This group has run around since 2003 poisoning the eggs of as much waterfowl on the Charles River as it can get away with. It is actively fighting for the destruction of hundreds of healthy trees on the Charles River.

It conducted a “swim in” to support the bizarre environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach. Very prominent at Magazine Beach is a newly installed wall of introduced bushes blocking access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach, and blocking the swimming which it lied was being improved at Magazine Beach.

The Magazine Beach project supported by this group destroyed seven acres of grass which had survived for the better part of a century naturally. The responsible grass was replaced with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive.

The Charles River Conservancy aggressively supports heartless animal abuse.

I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission expressing shock upon learning about this group’s wanton destructive of native vegetation protecting migrating waterfowl on the Boston side of the Charles. This group is the obvious culprit in the destruction of pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse destroying the world of the Charles River White Geese.

The Charles River "Conservancy" cheerleads, as far as I know, pretty much every irresponsible environmental destructive project pushed by Cambridge and the state bureaucrats on the Charles River. It is the most visible pusher of an irresponsible highway to destroy parts of the Charles, its banks, its animal habitat and a very large number of trees.

Any money from the sale of environmental licence plates are going to this reprehensible group?

Outrageous.

THE LITTLE BRIDGE THAT COULD — Response to Globe Editorial

THE LITTLE BRIDGE THAT COULD
By Archie Mazmanian

The Boston Globe’s lead editorial on Monday, July 11, 2011, available here: http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-11/bostonglobe/29761832_1_commuter-rail-commuter-trains-mbta titled “MBTA should run trains from Worcester to North Station,” which includes an inset depicting the Charles River and the Grand Junction Railroad line in Cambridge, might be considered by some as a grown-up version of a children’s story involving a “little engine,” Perhaps the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) trestle under the Boston University Bridge should be now known as “The Little Bridge That Could.” While the editorial focuses only on adding a few commuter trains to the currently very limited use of the GJRL, it recognizes ambitious plans over the years which have “planners daydreaming of bike paths and streetcars.” Viewers at this Blog are familiar with the Urban Ring project’s Charles River crossing proposed for bus rapid transit articulated with 60-foot BRT buses either over or under the BU Bridge, a long-studied project which remains on hold for many reasons, including the financial condition of the Commonwealth.

The Boston Globe’s proposal may be comparable to the camel getting its nose under the tent (or in this case wet at the Charles River), although it recognizes that “[m]any Cantabrigians are wary and have rightly insisted that the MBTA ensure any additional trains don’t cause endless traffic tie-ups.” There have been tie-ups in the past, even with the limited use of the GJRL in Cambridge, but the timing of such use can avoid rush hour commuter traffic. Unfortunately, the proposed commuter trains from Framingham/Worcester would be coming and returning at times of heavy commuter traffic on Cambridge’s roads in the area of the GJRL.

Although the Globe says the addition of the commuter trains should not be costly, it does not address how many persons would benefit in comparison to how many persons would be impacted by resulting traffic tie-ups somewhat less than endless. Surely a cost/benefit study is required.

The editorial does not address potential environmental issues; nor does it address the plight of the Charles River White Geese (CRWG). Perhaps the Globe is not aware of their plight. To its credit, the Globe via columnist Derrick Z. Jackson recognizes the environmental importance to the Charles River of the reintroduction of shad. But maybe the Globe should also honk out for the CRWG, whose environs would be further diminished by the Globe’s editorial proposal.

And keep in mind that the anticipated development of Harvard’s extensive Allston real estate holdings will require significant and costly transportation infrastructure, including for public transit, which might severely test “The Little Bridge That Could’ and the GJRL through Cambridge.

Boston Herald op ed on the BU Bridge

The BU Bridge is heart of what used to be a mile long habitat lived in by the Charles River White Geese. Things have changed with the goal created by the state bureaucrats with clear Cambridge support to kill off all animals living in the Charles River Basin. The current project, like a series of frequently bizarre projects, is needlessly and heartless cruel to these beautiful, valuable beings.

The oped is entitled “A Bridge to Nowhere Fast” by Stanley Spiegel. It was published last Saturday, in hard copy and on line.

I strongly appreciate this link being passed on to me.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0709a_bridge_to_nowhere_fast/

Cambridge Pols announce attack on Invasives, still neutral or celebrating massive environmental destruction

1. Introduction.
2. The latest con game.


1. Introduction.

Cambridge Pols announce attack on invasives. They are still “neutral” or “celebrating” massive environmental destruction coming at Alewife, ongoing at Fresh Pond and ongoing and accelerating on the Charles River.

One of the key techniques by which an environmentally “reprehensible” (to quote a Civil Rights judge) City of Cambridge gets away with its environmental outrages is through pretty much non stop con games. They are defending against pretty much everything but do not want to know about their own massive destruction of the environment.

They have been known to conduct “public meetings” to allow destructive bureaucrats announce their “plans” and to explicitly prohibit comment on reality.

Of major importance, including among the typically lovely sounding sponsors are two “groups” which claim to be defending Fresh Pond.

I have seen massive, irresponsible logging by Cambridge on the Fresh Pond reservation. I have seen and heard the assistant City Manager brag of plans to plant a thousand saplings. Given the density of tree population, and the much less dense practices in their plantings, planting a thousand saplings would of necessity involve destruction of thousand of mature trees.

The City Manager brags that he has a right to only announce his “plans” on environmental destruction. If you expect to learn what he intends to destroy, well that is not relevant to his “plans”, and is something you have to pry out separately.

You can be certain that the Cambridge Pols will trump up their attack on invasives and continue not wanting to know about their irresponsible destruction at Alewife, Fresh Pond and on the Charles.

2. The latest con game.

The following is a edited version of the latest con game, taken from an broadly circulated email. Edits are intended to remove less general comments. Fresh Pond is one block from Alewife. There is no expression of concern for the forthcoming logging at Alewife.

The people passing on this invitation were involved in the celebration of environmental destruction on the Charles River which neglected to mention the environmental destruction.

**********

Please see the following description of an opportunity to protect native species at Fresh Pond and in Cambridge neighborhoods by participating in a community-wide weeding campaign for one of the invasive plants, called Black Swallow-wort.
Pod Patrol Campaign Kickoff

Sunday, July at Fresh Pond Reservation

Meet in the Water Department parking lot at the volunteer trailer.

Black Swallow-wort is one of the most aggressive invasive weeds, and it is spreading at Fresh Pond and throughout Cambridge. You can help limit its further spread by removing the jalapeno pepper - like seed pods before they release their wind-borne seeds. Join other volunteers and Water Department staff as we learn more about Black Swallow-wort and start removing pods around the Reservation; then take what you learn into your own neighborhood. During the summer we’ll be tracking our progress block by block throughout Cambridge. The Pod Patrol is sponsored by [ed: Includes two “groups” which claim to be defending Fresh Pond, an area notable for massive, needless actual / announced tree destruction by the City of Cambridge. My reading of announcements includes translation of secret definitions.].

Harvard Landbanking Shopping Center pays rewards in Allston

The environmental outrage ongoing on the Charles River can be linked in many ways to Harvard University’s empire building on the south side of the Charles River in Allston.

The latest step is reported by the Harvard Crimson at http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/7/7/masshousing-loan-charlesview-allston-harvard/.

Harvard has destroyed for all practical purposes a neighborhood shopping center in Allston by refusing to rent as vacancies occurred. The entire western side is now vacant. Undestroyed is a very large super market at the southern end, a fast food chain establishment on part of the northern / Western Avenue end, and a pet store at the northeast corner, Western Avenue and Everett Street.

Christian A. Herter Park, showing at the top of the enclosed map has been severely attacked in the state’s attacks on wildlife.

The now severely restricted habitat of the Charles River White Geese is off the map to the right and slightly down.

Harvard now owns a very high percentage of the area above / to the north of Western Avenue and below / south of Western Avenue to the right / east of the shopping center. Harvard’s ownership is nearly total east of North Harvard Street.

On the map, the pointer on the right is the location Harvard has forced to be sold to it. Harvard considers this the cornerstone of its expansion. The pointer on the left is the destroyed shopping center. According to the report, the replacement property will apparently be a high rise at the southwestern corner of the destroyed shopping center. Will Harvard lower itself to allowing people to shop there again?

Stay tuned.

A response to a proposal to feed on geese from the Charles River

The Cambridge Chronicle printed, in a non prominent place on the June 30, 2011 op ed page and on line, a letter from an individual proposing that the geese on the Charles River be used as a renewable source of food.

The following is Marilyn Wellons’ proposed response, sent to the Cambridge Chronicle on July 7. I thank Marilyn for her submission. I have been working on responses, at least in my mind. My key response which I submitted on line was, to put it mildly, not as moderate as Marilyn’s, and Marilyn’s response deservedly is not particularly moderate.

*********

To the Editor:

Responding to a recent proposal to slaughter Canada geese on the Charles River to feed metro Boston’s hungry people, I submit the following alternative.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation has estimated the resident population of Canadas between the Watertown dam and Boston harbor at about 300. By poisoning the geese’s eggs since 2003, it has worked hard with the MSPCA and the CRC to hold that number down.

Most recent online data for the Greater Boston Food Bank indicate it fed nearly 400,000 people in 2009 (http://www.gbfb.org/aboutHunger/HungerStudy.cfm). By 2010 the need was surely even greater.

Given the number of hungry in these admittedly dismal times—even if the DCR were to establish industrial goose farming on the river—the supply of Canadas (a federally protected species) would be scarcely worth the effort. There are, however, many other cheap, local sources of protein the writer of your June 30, 2011 letter has failed to consider that would begin to fill those empty stomachs.

Elsewhere in the world people turn, for example, to dogs and cats. The MSPCA’s and other local shelters, overflowing with unwanted animals, should be glad to contribute. There are even, as Jonathan Swift pointed out in his own Modest Proposal (1729), the children of the poor themselves. They are more plentiful and, roasted at a year’s age, would surpass the food value of Canadas, to be sure.

As irritating as children may be from time to time, it is nevertheless true that, as with the proposal for geese or dogs or cats, there may be objections to the slaughter of children. Still, people are hungry. What to do?

Rats are grilled and served outside bars in other parts of the world. In metro Boston there are even more rats than children or unwanted companion animals. Given Cambridge’s own plentiful supply of rats, this is perhaps a better solution. The city already has the services of a rat consultant who could ensure the supply of locally sourced animals to our food pantries.

As your writer says, times are indeed dismal. There’s a chance restaurants and supermarkets might take up the rat fashion, with the bonus of an overall improvement in the city’s carbon footprint. With chimichurri or béarnaise, who knows how good a rat can be?

South Coast Rail passes Environmental Review. Grand Junction passenger service loses more ground to reality.

One of the key games being played by key Cambridge activists lost another point.

The Cambridge Pols in their fight for environmental destruction for the benefit of the institutions are fighting for commuter rail on the Grand Junction railroad. They are loudly yelling that everybody else is the bad guy, and have they got a deal for you.

The pols claim this route is needed for Worcester to Boston transportation.

Trouble for the bad guys is Worcester to Boston transportation currently goes to South Station and the South Coast Rail project includes a proposal to expand tracks at South Station.

The proposal for expanding tracks at South Station restores a lot more trackage than is needed for the South Coast Rail. Excess trackage can be used for expansion of Worcester to Boston.

So the Cambridge Con Artists are yelling that commuter rail on the Grand Junction is needed for Worcester while really fighting for the institutions / developers and to heck with the environment or rational transportation planning.

This week’s Environmental Monitor has been published by the State. The reviewers find that the Draft Environmental Impact Review for South Coast Rail “adequately and completely complies with MEPA.” The Environmental Monitor is posted at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/emonitor.aspx.

The poor dears, the poor Cambridge Pols.

Reality has once again trumped their scare tactics.

But the Cambridge Pols regularly do not recognize reality. How much longer will nonsense come from these people that Worcester needs the Grand Junction? And you can’t win, you can’t win, you can’t win, BUT HAVE WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU.

And their con games for this part of Cambridge already include at least one other very crucial flat out lie.

Monteiro Case: Argument over Supreme Judicial Court decision

1. Introductory.
2. The Cited Case.
3. Key language in the cited case.


1. Introductory.

I have earlier reported on the appearance of three papers in the Appeals Court case on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. This blog report is the latest in a pretty rapid series of reports coming from those papers. Based on the recent nature of those reports, I will not go into detail here on Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

Cambridge filed a paper. Monteiro filed a response. The Court said both papers were out of order and not properly filed.

A knowledgeable attorney then provided more detail on the papers and commented that he considered the Appeals Court action indication that the Appeals Court panel had made up its mind.

2. The Cited Case.

The correct citation of the case, taken from the docket is: PSY-ED CORPORATION & another vs. STANLEY KLEIN & another; DAVID HIRSCH & others, third-party defendants (and a companion case), SJC-10722, 459 Mass. 697
Rescript 5/12/2011 (#24) Lower Court: Middlesex Superior Court, sua sponte transfer from Appeals Court.

The rescript date is the date of publication of the report. 459 Mass. 697 is the place to look in the filing system of the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court to find the full case. 459 is the volume number. 697 is the page number.

I have reviewed the case and I have to agree with the knowledgeable attorney on his evaluation of the filings by Cambridge and Monteiro, without even being able to read those filings.

It strikes me as surprising that Cambridge would bother the court with filing a paper saying that this case could be considered supportive of Cambridge’s case in Monteiro v. Cambridge.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged retaliation by the filing of a civil action by the employer against the plaintiff after the plaintiff’s employment was terminated.

The decision supports Monteiro. It says that a retaliation complaint can properly be filed.

3. Key language in the cited case.

I am not going to bother you with who said what and who did what. There are more than one plaintiff and the Court for good reason distinguishes between the two.

I think the key language in the decision is quite adequate. My quote starts on page 710 of the opinion. I have also made all the comments I intend to.

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

b. Schive's claim of retaliation.

In reviewing a judge's decision after a jury-waived trial, "we accept the judge's findings of fact as true unless they are clearly erroneous" but "scrutinize without deference the legal standard which the judge applied to the facts." Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 620, 621 (1992). With respect to Schive's claim of retaliation, we conclude that the trial judge applied the proper legal standards to the facts, and that his factual findings were not clearly erroneous.

The judge properly outlined the elements of unlawful conduct under § 4(4). Relying on Sahli, 437 Mass. at 702-704, he identified the dividing line between "[b]aseless" or "sham" litigation, which is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and those "reasonably based but unsuccessful lawsuits" that are constitutionally protected and so cannot constitute a violation of § 4(4) or (4A). He correctly pointed out that, while a causal connection must be established between protected conduct and adverse action, that connection may be shown either directly or by inference. Where the link is inferentially shown by closeness in time between an adverse action and the conduct that apparently triggered it, he stated, the triggering conduct need not be the initial filing of the complaint.

The judge ruled that Schive engaged in legally protected conduct by bringing her discrimination claim with the MCAD. He further ruled that the 1999 action [28] was an "adverse employment action" and that it was "baseless, " see Sahli, supra at 702-704, in that all claims against Schive were dismissed "on

Page 711

the grounds that admissible evidence of damages and actionable defamation was lacking." [29] He found Schive demonstrated the necessary causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse action where, in the judge's view, Valenzano testified at trial that he brought the case to "retry" Schive's MCAD claims, [30] and where the "rapid succession" of events in the fall and winter of 1999 also supported an inference of a causal connection between Schive's MCAD case and the complaint her former employer filed. [31] The trial judge concluded by ruling that "Schive

Page 712

has acted reasonably and in good faith in believing she had suffered discrimination, and reasonably responded to that belief by filing a complaint at MCAD." [32] The judge found, "[b]ased on direct and indirect evidence, " that Psy-Ed and Valenzano brought suit "because of her reasonable efforts at MCAD." [33]

c. Klein's claim of retaliation.

As noted in Part 1(c), supra, the motion judge entered summary judgment on Klein's claim for retaliation on the ground that the retaliatory acts he alleged "occurred over two years after the employment relationship between the parties terminated." Because, as we have concluded,

Page 713

a person need not be a current employee to enjoy the protection of § 4(4) and (4A), the entry of summary judgment on Klein's claim must be vacated. [34]

A trophy for the Charles

1. Archie’s Post.
2. Archie Comments further.


1. Archie’s Post.

Archie Mazmanian has provided the following. I have added paragraphing.

*********


Derrick Z. Jackson's column in the Boston Globe on 7/2/11, available here:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2011/07/02/a_trophy_for_the_charles/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z
titled "A trophy for the Charles - River once again hosts a native fish" was really positive news.

But contrast this wonderful effort to reestablish shad in our beloved Charles that may serve much of the long winding river (subject to working fish ladders) with the plight of the Charles River White Geese, a small gaggle, whose eggs had been sprayed in recent years to prevent hatching and their perpetuation. Cole Porter's "Let's Fall in Love" is a reminder that even shad do it: "think of shad roe."

But Commonwealth and Cambridge officials are hell bent on annihilating the Charles River White Geese in devious ways in their tiny habitat, demonstrating an utter lack of love.


2. Archie Comments further.

The whole point is the contrast regarding nature. Perhaps the shad are welcomed because they are silent although potentially millions in numbers, whereas the CRWG, much, much fewer in number, can still honk. It has been the visibility of the CRWG that attracted us and our children to them in nature. They should not be silenced, nor should we.
Archie Mazmanian

Monteiro: Papers explained by knowledgeable lawyer

On June 29, 2011, I reported on papers (29, 30 and 31) filed in the Appeals Court in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The posting may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/monteiro-machinations-in-superior-court.html.

This is the case in which judge and jury have found the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” (judge’s word, jury’s money) for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for this black female department head filing a civil rights complaint.

My report indicated that I saw the papers, that I did not know what was in them, and that it looked to me like the Appeals Court panel was chastising both sides.

An attorney who has been familiar with the Monteiro case provides the following analysis. Lukey is the attorney for Cambridge. Zucker is Monteiro’s attorney.

I know no more than the below, but I certainly intend to research the case he has cited.

**********

No 29 is Lukey's letter calling the Court's attention to the SJC case of Psy Ed Corp v Klein, decided one week after the oral argument.

No 30 is Zucker's response, demolishing Lukey, pointing out how the Psy Ed case supports Monteiro on all the points of the Appeal, including the Judge's instructions and the propriety of the handling of the retaliation claim.

No 31 tells me the Court has its mind made up.

Photos of Goose Ghetto, Pedestrian Overpass

Update: The link to Roy Bercaw's 2000 video of the goose meadow is: http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html.

1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.
2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.
3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.


1. Thank you Roy Bercaw.

Roy Bercaw has been kind enough to provide links to two very valuable reports on his blog. His email reads:

**********

Here are links to images of

1. construction of the new pedestrian bridge over Memorial Drive at Magazine Street., and

http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-memorial-drive-pedestrian-bridge-at.html

2. the stubborn geese who demand a court ordered eviction before they leave their historical God-given nesting grounds alongside of the BU Bridge.

http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/07/state-does-not-have-court-order-for.html--
Roy Bercaw - Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
enoughroom.blogspot.com

2. Goose photos. Goose ghetto.

I strongly appreciate Roy’s input. I previously provided photos of the destruction and devastation which are available on facebook. The update, taken July 2, is strongly appreciated.

He very early on provided a video report to which we have posted a link on this blog. That was during the first few months of this outrage. It concludes with a photo of a White Goose flying very high. I will amend this report later to add a direct link.

3. Pedestrian bridge to Magazine Beach.

Phil Barber previously provided photos of the trees which were destroyed for this project. It is another Department of Conservation and Recreation project taken over by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

As part of the corrupt way of doing business we have become accustomed to from the DCR, this destruction and total rebuilding was publicized by the flat out lie, “repair.” Thus the people we are forced to deal with prevented objections.

I have heard no exact numbers. My educated guess is that the bridge is being raised to accommodate trucks from the Massachusetts Turnpike which will allow the Grand Junction Bridge under the BU Bridge and through the goose meadow to be converted to an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike.

“Opposition” on the Grand Junction passenger service. — “Lie” versus “nonsense.”

1. Report on Alewife.
2. Claims of independence.
3. The Grand Junction plans.


1. Report on Alewife.

In my latest report on Alewife, I used the word “lies” about Cambridge activists repeating communications on development issues. I have distress using the term and I changed it from “lies” to “nonsense” in my facebook page passing on the report.

The trouble is that “lies” is extremely accurate concerning too high a percentage of communications on zoning and other environmental issues. Sophisticated versions of lies are too often normal on development issues in Cambridge, MA.

2. Claims of independence.

Similarly, what is an organization which claims to be one thing but which functions to fulfill the goals of the powers that be?

Is it a “neighborhood association” or an “environmental group” or is it really a front organization through which the city manager / city council fool people into doing things they would not otherwise do? Or keep well intended people from opposing matters they normally would oppose?

And is the use of the term “neighborhood association” or “environmental group” by these groups a lie?

And is this well established pattern in Cambridge simply corruption?

3. The Grand Junction plans.

What brings this up is a communication received by the City Manager’s front organization in Cambridgeport. The communication concerned the Grand Junction railroad and possible use of it in Cambridge for passenger service. A city councilor sent the following email to the group’s listserve:

*********

I just wanted to quickly weigh in – I was at the meeting at the Morse school and am very concerned about the plan. I think [ed: name omitted] said it very well below so I’ll just echo sentiments. I wasn’t here a few years ago, this term the Council did vote on a resolution expressing our serious concern about the impact this would have on the neighborhood, traffic, etc.

********

I also was at that vote. My interpretation was that the only member of the city council for whom I have some possible respect on that vote is Toomey.

The reality is that a lot of councillors looked like they were lying through false definition [another sophisticated technique of lying].

The reality is that a lot of councilors look like they support the proposal WITH CHANGES DETRIMENTAL to Cambridge. That is not opposition. That is support with changes, and claims of opposition are, in reality, lying.

The reality is that the Cambridge machine looks like it is taking orders and working for support with changes while lying to the victims that the victims are standing up to an external but powerful enemy.

The enemy on the Grand Junction looks very strongly like the City of Cambridge / the Cambridge City Council, and the Cambridge pol campaign “against” looks like the usual lie.