Hi Bob,
I just read your letter to the man who provided that wonderfully interesting information, Jeff. I certainly hope that we can get more of this posted for all to see. For those who do not think that the reason you are doing this is or rather are, sufficient to win them over, than perhaps their reading a historical narrative may vastly change their opinion on the matter. Different strokes for different folks is all I am saying, and whatever it takes, is all that matters.
Reading about just that little bit of historical trivia places an even more important reason to save the land and geese and to keep the waterways pristine. Did Jeff write an article for the newspapers or did you or someone else?
I’ve not been able to keep abreast of things. I would love to see such an article if it hasn’t been done and maybe even a series, or even on the blog, maybe you could do trivia questions etc. to engage people. It may generate interest of many who are not currently involved. I hope that if you are doing this already youwil just ignore me but since I am so far behind on what is going on had to just state this as it seems such a wonderful idea. I will take the risk of thinking you haven’t thought of it alreasdy since you are writing about it. LOL regardless, its brilliant of you to start posting about the history of the area, just brilliant.
Keep up the good work.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
The Charles River, the Harvard Bridge, Paul Revere and our History
1. Introduction.
2. Bridge and Charles River Ferry / Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:30:53 pm, EDT.
3. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:47:16 pm, EDT
4. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011 10:07:49 PM EDT
5. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 29, 2011, 6:59 am.
1. Introduction.
On September 28, 2011, I posted a response by Jeff purporting to correct history put on this Blog by Archie Mazmanian, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/correction-on-charles-river-bridges.html.
Archie has responded in detail.
2. Bridge and Charles River Ferry / Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:30:53 pm, EDT.
Here is a link to Wikipedia on the Harvard Bridge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge
that indicates it was built in 1891.
See also "List of crossings of the Charles River" at:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/List_of_crossings_of_the_Charles_River
at page 2 for details on the Harvard Bridge. Also note on the same page "Anderson Memorial Bridge (Great Bridge (Cambridge)>Great Bridge)". A review of this List fails to disclose a 1775 bridge crossing the Charles River. Perhaps Jeff can provide more details for his claim.
Regarding Paul Revere, it is possible that he did not use the ferry operated by Harvard. I shall follow up with more research. But perhaps Jeff can provide a cite for his claim.
3. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:47:16 pm, EDT
Here's a link that provides the "true story" of Paul Revere's ride in Revere's words:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/revere/chapt3/
It is necessary to scroll down to get to Revere's words. It appears he crossed from Boston to Charlestown in his own boat, rowed by friends, but without his horse. Rather, he obtained a horse in Charlestown. So technically, while Revere's "trip" to Concord began in Boston, his "ride" began in Charlestown.
I trust this helps to clarify the matter.
4. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011 10:07:49 PM EDT
Further on Revere, here's a link to "The Real Story of Revere's Ride" at:
http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html
This link includes a map/sketch depicting the routes of Revere, Dawes and the British. It is not clear from this map/sketch whether the British crossed a bridge over the Charles. As noted in an earlier Email, it is not clear that a bridge then existed where the Harvard Bridge is now located.
In any event, it should be kept in mind that Part VII of my series was primarily focused on Harvard University and its profitable ferry and the much later Charles River Bridge case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and raising the question of future crossings of the Charles River if the Commonwealth's chartering of the Warren Bridge were determined to have violated claimed exclusive rights of the Charles River Bridge (from which Harvard University was receiving annuities).
5. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 29, 2011, 6:59 am.
Further on the British, here is a link to the New World Encyclopedia "Battles of Lexington and Concord":
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord#British_Army_and_Marines_move_out
Scroll down to "1.3 British Army and Marines move out" for how they crossed the Charles by boat to Cambridge:
"The British began to awaken their troops at 9 p.m. on the night of April 18 and assembled them on the water's edge on the western end of Boston common by 10 p.m. The British march to and from Concord was a terribly disorganized experience from start to finish. The boats used were naval barges that were packed so tightly that there was no room to sit down. When they disembarked at Phipps Farm in present day Cambridge, it was into waist-deep water at midnight. After a lengthy halt to unload their gear, the approximately 700 regulars began their 17 mile (27 km) march to Concord at about 2 a.m. During the wait they were provided with extra ammunition, cold salt pork, and hard sea biscuits. They did not carry knapsacks, since they would not be encamped. They carried their haversacks (food bags), canteens, muskets, and accoutrements, and found themselves in wet, muddy shoes and soggy uniforms. As they marched through Menotomy (modern Arlington), sounds of the colonial alarms throughout the countryside caused the few officers who were aware of their mission to realize that they had lost the element of surprise."
Longfellow's "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" was significantly fictionalized. As to the "One if by land, Two if by sea," apparently the "sea" was the Charles River, which at the time was a tidal river, of course quite different in its contours from the present.
2. Bridge and Charles River Ferry / Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:30:53 pm, EDT.
3. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:47:16 pm, EDT
4. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011 10:07:49 PM EDT
5. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 29, 2011, 6:59 am.
1. Introduction.
On September 28, 2011, I posted a response by Jeff purporting to correct history put on this Blog by Archie Mazmanian, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/correction-on-charles-river-bridges.html.
Archie has responded in detail.
2. Bridge and Charles River Ferry / Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:30:53 pm, EDT.
Here is a link to Wikipedia on the Harvard Bridge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge
that indicates it was built in 1891.
See also "List of crossings of the Charles River" at:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/List_of_crossings_of_the_Charles_River
at page 2 for details on the Harvard Bridge. Also note on the same page "Anderson Memorial Bridge (Great Bridge (Cambridge)>Great Bridge)". A review of this List fails to disclose a 1775 bridge crossing the Charles River. Perhaps Jeff can provide more details for his claim.
Regarding Paul Revere, it is possible that he did not use the ferry operated by Harvard. I shall follow up with more research. But perhaps Jeff can provide a cite for his claim.
3. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:47:16 pm, EDT
Here's a link that provides the "true story" of Paul Revere's ride in Revere's words:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/revere/chapt3/
It is necessary to scroll down to get to Revere's words. It appears he crossed from Boston to Charlestown in his own boat, rowed by friends, but without his horse. Rather, he obtained a horse in Charlestown. So technically, while Revere's "trip" to Concord began in Boston, his "ride" began in Charlestown.
I trust this helps to clarify the matter.
4. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011 10:07:49 PM EDT
Further on Revere, here's a link to "The Real Story of Revere's Ride" at:
http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html
This link includes a map/sketch depicting the routes of Revere, Dawes and the British. It is not clear from this map/sketch whether the British crossed a bridge over the Charles. As noted in an earlier Email, it is not clear that a bridge then existed where the Harvard Bridge is now located.
In any event, it should be kept in mind that Part VII of my series was primarily focused on Harvard University and its profitable ferry and the much later Charles River Bridge case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and raising the question of future crossings of the Charles River if the Commonwealth's chartering of the Warren Bridge were determined to have violated claimed exclusive rights of the Charles River Bridge (from which Harvard University was receiving annuities).
5. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 29, 2011, 6:59 am.
Further on the British, here is a link to the New World Encyclopedia "Battles of Lexington and Concord":
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord#British_Army_and_Marines_move_out
Scroll down to "1.3 British Army and Marines move out" for how they crossed the Charles by boat to Cambridge:
"The British began to awaken their troops at 9 p.m. on the night of April 18 and assembled them on the water's edge on the western end of Boston common by 10 p.m. The British march to and from Concord was a terribly disorganized experience from start to finish. The boats used were naval barges that were packed so tightly that there was no room to sit down. When they disembarked at Phipps Farm in present day Cambridge, it was into waist-deep water at midnight. After a lengthy halt to unload their gear, the approximately 700 regulars began their 17 mile (27 km) march to Concord at about 2 a.m. During the wait they were provided with extra ammunition, cold salt pork, and hard sea biscuits. They did not carry knapsacks, since they would not be encamped. They carried their haversacks (food bags), canteens, muskets, and accoutrements, and found themselves in wet, muddy shoes and soggy uniforms. As they marched through Menotomy (modern Arlington), sounds of the colonial alarms throughout the countryside caused the few officers who were aware of their mission to realize that they had lost the element of surprise."
Longfellow's "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" was significantly fictionalized. As to the "One if by land, Two if by sea," apparently the "sea" was the Charles River, which at the time was a tidal river, of course quite different in its contours from the present.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Correction on Charles River Bridges
The following is from Jeff, in response to Archie’s posting:
*********
In 1775 there was the "Great Bridge" that existed where the present day Harvard Bridge is. The Brits crossed it on their march to Lexington - Percy's reinforcements did.
I say this in response to you saying there were no bridges to the north - although of course the Harvard bridge would have been a mile or two upstream from where Revere crossed.
Revere did not use the Charlestown Ferry to cross the Charles River. He had his own boat and 2 friends rowed him across but he did not take the Charlestown Ferry though he crossed in that area.
*********
Ed.: For the non-experts, the Harvard Bridge is the correct name for the Mass. Ave. bridge which connects Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge to Massachusetts Avenue in Boston / Back Bay. This is the first bridge to the east over the Charles from the BU Bridge.
The bridge which connects the main Harvard Campus / Harvard Square, Cambridge to the Harvard Business School / the Allston neighborhood of Boston is the Anderson Bridge.
*********
In 1775 there was the "Great Bridge" that existed where the present day Harvard Bridge is. The Brits crossed it on their march to Lexington - Percy's reinforcements did.
I say this in response to you saying there were no bridges to the north - although of course the Harvard bridge would have been a mile or two upstream from where Revere crossed.
Revere did not use the Charlestown Ferry to cross the Charles River. He had his own boat and 2 friends rowed him across but he did not take the Charlestown Ferry though he crossed in that area.
*********
Ed.: For the non-experts, the Harvard Bridge is the correct name for the Mass. Ave. bridge which connects Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge to Massachusetts Avenue in Boston / Back Bay. This is the first bridge to the east over the Charles from the BU Bridge.
The bridge which connects the main Harvard Campus / Harvard Square, Cambridge to the Harvard Business School / the Allston neighborhood of Boston is the Anderson Bridge.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Cambridge / DCR announce secret “public meeting” on Alewife destruction
1. Secret Location.
2. Announcement.
3. The record.
1. Secret Location.
The City of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation have announced a “public meeting” on the massive destruction schedule for the core Alewife Reservation. They have located the meeting so as to keep it as secret as possible.
The meeting location is 1.9 miles from the destruction site in a strikingly different part of the city of Cambridge at a meeting location which is badly served by public transportation, especially if you are coming from the area most impacted by the destruction.
The location is 680 Huron Avenue, 1.9 miles from the destruction site. It is on the far side of the Fresh Pond Reservation. People concerned about the project who want to make the meeting will be required to take public transportation into Harvard Square (bus or subway) and then take another bus out. The service which goes past the location is an alternate route to a route which does not have particularly good service in the first place.
By contrast, the Peabody Elementary School is less than half the distance, .9 miles. It is on the same road as the proposed destruction and is a short distance from the 77 line which has very frequent service. It is also walking distance from Alewife Station which abuts the planned destruction. It is in the middle of the people most impacted by the destruction and convenient for folks in Arlington who are even closer.
Peabody has a large auditorium which has frequently been used for public meetings.
2. Announcement.
The city’s announcement may be read at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/citycalendar/view.aspx?guid={DAF66B39-7BC0-482E-897B-9AA279D50B79}&start=20110907T183000&end=20110907T200000.
I tried to get a link to the actual announcement, but that seems to have been prevented (surprise?). You need to follow the link and click on the blued “meeting notice.”
There is a map of the planned destruction but no plans of what is being destroyed. The City Manager brags that he only needs to tell people about what he is creating. How dare anybody expect him to tell what he is destroying.
Take Google Maps, satellite view, to 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA to see the target area. I have posted photos of the area with destruction to date at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/destruction-of-alewife-pre-cambridge.html. The Google Maps view precedes the start of destruction, and is thus very useful in order to view the outrage.
The access road on the City Manager’s map appears on Google as a treed area connecting to a round about / rotary to the west (left) of 100 Cambridge Park Drive. Part of the massive destruction which has already occurred is directly above the rotary. The treed area above the rotary is now the access road. The other destruction which has already occurred is at the Alewife Station end.
The massive parking lot which should be used for the flood storage is directly below (south of) Cambridge Park Drive.
The secret “public meeting” is scheduled for 6:30 pm on September 7.
The euphemisms are shocking. Massive and unnecessary destruction of animal habitat is described as “enhance wildlife habitat.”
3. The record.
This is the same tactic used on the BU Bridge reconstruction. Three secret “public meetings” were conducted, two in Boston on the Boston University campus, the third near Kendall Square on the MIT campus.
By contrast, the Department of Transportation meetings have been convenient and sensible.
It is no surprise that Cambridge Pols are very much nonstop in their praise for the DCR and equally nonstop in trying to undermine MassDOT.
Cambridge has kept this destruction as secret as possible by influencing a supposed protective organization to tell people to look at everything but the totally avoidable massive destruction in the core Alewife reservation.
2. Announcement.
3. The record.
1. Secret Location.
The City of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation have announced a “public meeting” on the massive destruction schedule for the core Alewife Reservation. They have located the meeting so as to keep it as secret as possible.
The meeting location is 1.9 miles from the destruction site in a strikingly different part of the city of Cambridge at a meeting location which is badly served by public transportation, especially if you are coming from the area most impacted by the destruction.
The location is 680 Huron Avenue, 1.9 miles from the destruction site. It is on the far side of the Fresh Pond Reservation. People concerned about the project who want to make the meeting will be required to take public transportation into Harvard Square (bus or subway) and then take another bus out. The service which goes past the location is an alternate route to a route which does not have particularly good service in the first place.
By contrast, the Peabody Elementary School is less than half the distance, .9 miles. It is on the same road as the proposed destruction and is a short distance from the 77 line which has very frequent service. It is also walking distance from Alewife Station which abuts the planned destruction. It is in the middle of the people most impacted by the destruction and convenient for folks in Arlington who are even closer.
Peabody has a large auditorium which has frequently been used for public meetings.
2. Announcement.
The city’s announcement may be read at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/citycalendar/view.aspx?guid={DAF66B39-7BC0-482E-897B-9AA279D50B79}&start=20110907T183000&end=20110907T200000.
I tried to get a link to the actual announcement, but that seems to have been prevented (surprise?). You need to follow the link and click on the blued “meeting notice.”
There is a map of the planned destruction but no plans of what is being destroyed. The City Manager brags that he only needs to tell people about what he is creating. How dare anybody expect him to tell what he is destroying.
Take Google Maps, satellite view, to 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA to see the target area. I have posted photos of the area with destruction to date at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/destruction-of-alewife-pre-cambridge.html. The Google Maps view precedes the start of destruction, and is thus very useful in order to view the outrage.
The access road on the City Manager’s map appears on Google as a treed area connecting to a round about / rotary to the west (left) of 100 Cambridge Park Drive. Part of the massive destruction which has already occurred is directly above the rotary. The treed area above the rotary is now the access road. The other destruction which has already occurred is at the Alewife Station end.
The massive parking lot which should be used for the flood storage is directly below (south of) Cambridge Park Drive.
The secret “public meeting” is scheduled for 6:30 pm on September 7.
The euphemisms are shocking. Massive and unnecessary destruction of animal habitat is described as “enhance wildlife habitat.”
3. The record.
This is the same tactic used on the BU Bridge reconstruction. Three secret “public meetings” were conducted, two in Boston on the Boston University campus, the third near Kendall Square on the MIT campus.
By contrast, the Department of Transportation meetings have been convenient and sensible.
It is no surprise that Cambridge Pols are very much nonstop in their praise for the DCR and equally nonstop in trying to undermine MassDOT.
Cambridge has kept this destruction as secret as possible by influencing a supposed protective organization to tell people to look at everything but the totally avoidable massive destruction in the core Alewife reservation.
Boston Globe editorializes on Cambridge City Manager
Archie Mazmanian reports:
************
Here's the link:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/08/24/more_oversight_for_healy/
to today's Boston Globe editorial on Robert Healy's decision not to appeal the Monteiro decision. The editorial suggests that Healy may be serving for too long a period, although the editorial does state that he has done some good things for Cambridge. The editorial closes with:
"Healy may or may not be the best person to run Cambridge, but he can only do it better with a little pressure from above."
Presumably the reference to "from above" is the Council, or is it? It seems that the Council has been reluctant to provide any pressure; perhaps it has to apply a lot of pressure. But what are the chances of that? Or should the pressure come from voters in electing members of the Council? Or is there a suggestion of a miracle needed "from above" in another sense?
************
Here's the link:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/08/24/more_oversight_for_healy/
to today's Boston Globe editorial on Robert Healy's decision not to appeal the Monteiro decision. The editorial suggests that Healy may be serving for too long a period, although the editorial does state that he has done some good things for Cambridge. The editorial closes with:
"Healy may or may not be the best person to run Cambridge, but he can only do it better with a little pressure from above."
Presumably the reference to "from above" is the Council, or is it? It seems that the Council has been reluctant to provide any pressure; perhaps it has to apply a lot of pressure. But what are the chances of that? Or should the pressure come from voters in electing members of the Council? Or is there a suggestion of a miracle needed "from above" in another sense?
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
MassDOT Meeting on Anderson Bridge
1. General.
2. The Crowd.
3. MassDOT was impressive on the general issues.
4. Vegetation.
5. Highway details.
1. General.
Tuesday evening, August 23, 2011, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation conducted a public presentation at the Martin Luther King, Jr. School in Cambridge on Putnam Avenue, about a block from the Callahan Playground. The Callahan Playground, in turn, faces on Memorial Drive and is not far from the footbridge across the Charles connecting Harvard’s dormitory area to the Harvard Business School.
The meeting concerned repairs on the Anderson Bridge, which connects Harvard Square to Allston. This is the third highway bridge west of the BU Bridge over the Charles River. It is just west of the footbridge.
2. The Crowd.
The crowd was reasonable in size, especially for a Tuesday evening at the end of August.
Many members of the crowd did, however, drive home to me the point of just who are the visible people in the Cambridge Pol organization. What happens is that, like most organizations, most people do not have the slightest idea what is happening. They just want to get along, do good, and try to make intelligent decisions. The trouble is that this mentality is ripe for destructive people to abuse.
The reality is that there is a very large developer lobby and development professionals are very much forced to knee jerk support any and all development proposals, no matter how irresponsible, at the threat of being blackballed.
So you have a large group, most of whom do not know what is going on, and a tiny destructive minority who will support anything no matter how irresponsible. They look good because they keep showing up. Their developer group makes money out of showing up.
The destructive minority showed up, as usual.
3. MassDOT was impressive on the general issues.
MassDOT was having nothing of the developer con game.
I spoke, praising MassDOT for standing up to the developer con game.
I objected to one of the con artists spouting safety, safety, safety.
I pointed out that their beloved new highway on and abutting the Charles is not just a minor “underpass” on this bridge and do not look at everything else.
I pointed out that their proposal is a massive highway project trying to duplicate the small vehicle / pedestrian highway on the Boston side. In contrast to the care taken by MassDOT to provide minimal impact on the Charles, these people are determined to destroy, destroy, destroy, the river, its wetlands, its animal habitat, and massive numbers of trees, many hundreds between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge including that excellent grove of 105 trees near the Hyatt Regency Hotel on the banks of the Charles at the point where Memorial Drive changes from an undivided road to a divided highway.
The nonsense about safety is belied by yet another report of a sexual attack on the highway they want to duplicate from the Boston side. The Boston side has signs warning people about muggings and sexual attacks. A portion is even marked as closed at night. And these people want to bring this to the safe Cambridge side, spouting comments about safety?
MassDOT repeated their comments made at the Western Avenue / River Street Bridge.
I cannot be positive on details from MassDOT or members of the audience. The acoustics were not that good.
4. Vegetation.
Marilyn Wellons made some excellent comments on bordering vegetation, using the outrage at Magazine Beach as an example to encourage MassDOT not to follow the lead of the irresponsible and environmentally destructive Department of Conservation and Recreation. DCR’s planning department would be improved by massive firings for incompetence based on their contempt for nature.
Again, the acoustics were such that I could not fully make out Marilyn’s presentation. I encourage her to supplement my comments here with her own presentation.
5. Highway details.
MassDOT intends to prohibit left turns on Memorial Drive at the bridge intersection for traffic going in both directions at all times. Currently the left turns are prohibited only during rush hours.
I have serious misgivings as to the advisability of this regulation. The reality is that prohibitions which make no sense to the general public add to the common feeling that regulators really do not care about what they are doing. This, in turn, builds on the contempt for highway safety which has built up over a century in New England.
No left turns during rush hours clearly make sense. No left turns at all times seems highly questionable.
2. The Crowd.
3. MassDOT was impressive on the general issues.
4. Vegetation.
5. Highway details.
1. General.
Tuesday evening, August 23, 2011, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation conducted a public presentation at the Martin Luther King, Jr. School in Cambridge on Putnam Avenue, about a block from the Callahan Playground. The Callahan Playground, in turn, faces on Memorial Drive and is not far from the footbridge across the Charles connecting Harvard’s dormitory area to the Harvard Business School.
The meeting concerned repairs on the Anderson Bridge, which connects Harvard Square to Allston. This is the third highway bridge west of the BU Bridge over the Charles River. It is just west of the footbridge.
2. The Crowd.
The crowd was reasonable in size, especially for a Tuesday evening at the end of August.
Many members of the crowd did, however, drive home to me the point of just who are the visible people in the Cambridge Pol organization. What happens is that, like most organizations, most people do not have the slightest idea what is happening. They just want to get along, do good, and try to make intelligent decisions. The trouble is that this mentality is ripe for destructive people to abuse.
The reality is that there is a very large developer lobby and development professionals are very much forced to knee jerk support any and all development proposals, no matter how irresponsible, at the threat of being blackballed.
So you have a large group, most of whom do not know what is going on, and a tiny destructive minority who will support anything no matter how irresponsible. They look good because they keep showing up. Their developer group makes money out of showing up.
The destructive minority showed up, as usual.
3. MassDOT was impressive on the general issues.
MassDOT was having nothing of the developer con game.
I spoke, praising MassDOT for standing up to the developer con game.
I objected to one of the con artists spouting safety, safety, safety.
I pointed out that their beloved new highway on and abutting the Charles is not just a minor “underpass” on this bridge and do not look at everything else.
I pointed out that their proposal is a massive highway project trying to duplicate the small vehicle / pedestrian highway on the Boston side. In contrast to the care taken by MassDOT to provide minimal impact on the Charles, these people are determined to destroy, destroy, destroy, the river, its wetlands, its animal habitat, and massive numbers of trees, many hundreds between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge including that excellent grove of 105 trees near the Hyatt Regency Hotel on the banks of the Charles at the point where Memorial Drive changes from an undivided road to a divided highway.
The nonsense about safety is belied by yet another report of a sexual attack on the highway they want to duplicate from the Boston side. The Boston side has signs warning people about muggings and sexual attacks. A portion is even marked as closed at night. And these people want to bring this to the safe Cambridge side, spouting comments about safety?
MassDOT repeated their comments made at the Western Avenue / River Street Bridge.
I cannot be positive on details from MassDOT or members of the audience. The acoustics were not that good.
4. Vegetation.
Marilyn Wellons made some excellent comments on bordering vegetation, using the outrage at Magazine Beach as an example to encourage MassDOT not to follow the lead of the irresponsible and environmentally destructive Department of Conservation and Recreation. DCR’s planning department would be improved by massive firings for incompetence based on their contempt for nature.
Again, the acoustics were such that I could not fully make out Marilyn’s presentation. I encourage her to supplement my comments here with her own presentation.
5. Highway details.
MassDOT intends to prohibit left turns on Memorial Drive at the bridge intersection for traffic going in both directions at all times. Currently the left turns are prohibited only during rush hours.
I have serious misgivings as to the advisability of this regulation. The reality is that prohibitions which make no sense to the general public add to the common feeling that regulators really do not care about what they are doing. This, in turn, builds on the contempt for highway safety which has built up over a century in New England.
No left turns during rush hours clearly make sense. No left turns at all times seems highly questionable.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Monteiro v. Cambridge: Questions and Answers
Archie Mazmanian has questions on the City Manager’s statement concerning Malvina Monteiro. For readability, I have inserted my answers immediately after each question.
The City Manager’s statement as quoted by the Cambridge Chronicle is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1837750487/Cambridge-City-Manager-statement-on-wrongful-termination-verdict#axzz1VVJJ4Gah.
Bob,
I have been rereading this portion of Healy's statement:
"I am very disappointed with this decision and maintain that the City did not retaliate against Ms. Monteiro after having been found by an earlier jury not to have discriminated against her. I have reviewed the Appeals Court decision with legal counsel and informed the City Council this morning that I have decided not to pursue an appeal to the State Supreme Judicial Court in this 13 year old case. It is now time for the City to move forward and bring closure to this matter."
and have a few question:
1. Wasn't the retaliation brought about by City Manager Healy's actions? His actions resulted because of his role as the City Manager for which the City has legal responsibility. But he seems to shift full responsibility to the City of Cambridge as if he is teflon.
Response by editor:
The Cambridge pol organization certainly looks like it was created by the City Manager’s people. One way to identify a lot of these people is the almost reflexive response to their actions and words: You cannot possibly be so stupid.
The finding of judge, jury and appeals court is that Malvina Monteiro's life was heartlessly destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager because she had the nerve to exercise her rights under civil rights law. The $1.1 million reflects the jury's attempts to make her whole insofar as as money can do that.
The $3.5 million is the jury's attempt to try to communicate their opinion of the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager. The most visible entities with whom the jury is trying to communicate are the voters of the City of Cambridge and the City Manager's employers, the Cambridge City Council. Money is a language the jury has power to talk in.
An additional disposition, fully justified by the judge and jury's rulings as strongly supported by the Appeals Court panel, would be for the City Manager's employers, the Cambridge City Council to terminate the City Manager based on the legally binding findings in this case. Such action would communicate the City Council's support for Civil Rights in general and, in particular, support for the civil rights of the employees of the City of Cambridge.
Silence by the Cambridge City Council sends a different but also very clear message. A major part of the message of silence is that the City Council is not persuaded to protect its employees by the penal and real damages even after such a strikingly strong statement by the Appeals Court. That silence also says a lot about the City Council's real opinion on Civil Rights.
Just as the jury is limited to money damages by which it can communicate, the most important way the Cambridge City Council can communicate is by the power to hire and fire. This, of course, would come in the face of such strong and legally binding actions, and strong language both at superior and appeals courts.
2. What are the details on the earlier jury on discrimination put into context with the successful retaliation claim?
Response by editor:
The reality is that the retaliation claim and the original discrimination action are related but strikingly different.
The original discrimination action made the political statement that five plaintiffs were being discriminated against, at minimum, on the basis of their gender.
Two plaintiffs settled, handsomely. Two plaintiffs have yet to be heard. The final superior court hearing preparatory to the case is scheduled for September 14 at 2 pm in the Superior Courthouse.
Monteiro lost the discrimination claim and won the retaliation claim.
The retaliation action is based on bindingly proved really rotten behavior.
The issue for the voters, if the City Manager is not fired, is what do the voters think of a City Council which has no problems with such behavior.
3. Did Healy have the decision making power not to pursue a further appeal? If so, what does that say about the role of the City Council?
Response by editor:
I researched this matter at the time of the Appeals Court appeal. I should think that appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court would be comparable.
The City Manager has the power to further appeal. The City Council has the power to refuse to pay for the appeal. The City Council also has the power to hire and fire. I should think the City Council would be well within their rights to fire the City Manager for improperly further appealing, and to anticipate that his replacement, noting the reasons for the firing, would reverse the appeal.
The silence of the City Council after Friday’s hearing gives the impression that the City Council is waiving their strongest tactic to discipline the City Manager: settlement including firing him based on the case, with consent of the Superior Court judge.
Questions by:
Archie Mazmanian
The City Manager’s statement as quoted by the Cambridge Chronicle is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1837750487/Cambridge-City-Manager-statement-on-wrongful-termination-verdict#axzz1VVJJ4Gah.
Bob,
I have been rereading this portion of Healy's statement:
"I am very disappointed with this decision and maintain that the City did not retaliate against Ms. Monteiro after having been found by an earlier jury not to have discriminated against her. I have reviewed the Appeals Court decision with legal counsel and informed the City Council this morning that I have decided not to pursue an appeal to the State Supreme Judicial Court in this 13 year old case. It is now time for the City to move forward and bring closure to this matter."
and have a few question:
1. Wasn't the retaliation brought about by City Manager Healy's actions? His actions resulted because of his role as the City Manager for which the City has legal responsibility. But he seems to shift full responsibility to the City of Cambridge as if he is teflon.
Response by editor:
The Cambridge pol organization certainly looks like it was created by the City Manager’s people. One way to identify a lot of these people is the almost reflexive response to their actions and words: You cannot possibly be so stupid.
The finding of judge, jury and appeals court is that Malvina Monteiro's life was heartlessly destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager because she had the nerve to exercise her rights under civil rights law. The $1.1 million reflects the jury's attempts to make her whole insofar as as money can do that.
The $3.5 million is the jury's attempt to try to communicate their opinion of the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager. The most visible entities with whom the jury is trying to communicate are the voters of the City of Cambridge and the City Manager's employers, the Cambridge City Council. Money is a language the jury has power to talk in.
An additional disposition, fully justified by the judge and jury's rulings as strongly supported by the Appeals Court panel, would be for the City Manager's employers, the Cambridge City Council to terminate the City Manager based on the legally binding findings in this case. Such action would communicate the City Council's support for Civil Rights in general and, in particular, support for the civil rights of the employees of the City of Cambridge.
Silence by the Cambridge City Council sends a different but also very clear message. A major part of the message of silence is that the City Council is not persuaded to protect its employees by the penal and real damages even after such a strikingly strong statement by the Appeals Court. That silence also says a lot about the City Council's real opinion on Civil Rights.
Just as the jury is limited to money damages by which it can communicate, the most important way the Cambridge City Council can communicate is by the power to hire and fire. This, of course, would come in the face of such strong and legally binding actions, and strong language both at superior and appeals courts.
2. What are the details on the earlier jury on discrimination put into context with the successful retaliation claim?
Response by editor:
The reality is that the retaliation claim and the original discrimination action are related but strikingly different.
The original discrimination action made the political statement that five plaintiffs were being discriminated against, at minimum, on the basis of their gender.
Two plaintiffs settled, handsomely. Two plaintiffs have yet to be heard. The final superior court hearing preparatory to the case is scheduled for September 14 at 2 pm in the Superior Courthouse.
Monteiro lost the discrimination claim and won the retaliation claim.
The retaliation action is based on bindingly proved really rotten behavior.
The issue for the voters, if the City Manager is not fired, is what do the voters think of a City Council which has no problems with such behavior.
3. Did Healy have the decision making power not to pursue a further appeal? If so, what does that say about the role of the City Council?
Response by editor:
I researched this matter at the time of the Appeals Court appeal. I should think that appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court would be comparable.
The City Manager has the power to further appeal. The City Council has the power to refuse to pay for the appeal. The City Council also has the power to hire and fire. I should think the City Council would be well within their rights to fire the City Manager for improperly further appealing, and to anticipate that his replacement, noting the reasons for the firing, would reverse the appeal.
The silence of the City Council after Friday’s hearing gives the impression that the City Council is waiving their strongest tactic to discipline the City Manager: settlement including firing him based on the case, with consent of the Superior Court judge.
Questions by:
Archie Mazmanian
Friday, August 19, 2011
Cambridge will not further fight the Monteiro case
The Cambridge City Council scheduled an emergency meeting on Melvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge for 9 am today, August 19.
Cambridge Day and Cambridge Chronicle have reported a statement from the Cambridge City Manager issued today.
The Chronicle, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1837750487/Cambridge-City-Manager-statement-on-wrongful-termination-verdict#axzz1VVJJ4Gah, provides the text..
Cambridge Day, at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/08/19/city-wont-fight-monteiro-payout-city-manager-says/, provides analysis.
The key part of the Cambridge Day report reads as follows:
************
The council went into a closed-door session at about 9:20 a.m. to hear from Healy; his statement was issued at about 10:50 a.m., and e-mailed shortly after 11 a.m. The meeting followed a stinging appeals court rejection of the city’s case.
Cambridge Day and Cambridge Chronicle have reported a statement from the Cambridge City Manager issued today.
The Chronicle, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1837750487/Cambridge-City-Manager-statement-on-wrongful-termination-verdict#axzz1VVJJ4Gah, provides the text..
Cambridge Day, at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/08/19/city-wont-fight-monteiro-payout-city-manager-says/, provides analysis.
The key part of the Cambridge Day report reads as follows:
************
The council went into a closed-door session at about 9:20 a.m. to hear from Healy; his statement was issued at about 10:50 a.m., and e-mailed shortly after 11 a.m. The meeting followed a stinging appeals court rejection of the city’s case.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Cambridge Chronicle on both sides with regard to City Manager termination?
Today’s Cambridge Chronicle had coverage on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge which reads like a highly qualified editor put it together.
They first page headlined the Appeals Court decision with an extremely well written article.
The editorial page featured an editorial, which may be read at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1852620823/Editorial-A-multimillion-dollar-gamble#axzz1VBaL41vk. It is a judicious and very moderate comment, including some very nice words about Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy. It tells the City Council to pay the plaintiff.
What stands out in my mind is the first sentence of the last paragraph, “Healy has helped our city greatly, but everybody’s grip on power must come to an end eventually.”
I was going to refer you to the editorial without any comment, but that sentence stands out. Please follow the link and decide for yourself.
The letters column was organized in a decidedly unusual manner.
The editor printed three letters.
The first was that of Charles Marquardt, a good writing to which I have previously provided a link.
The second was mine, calling for the city manager’s firing. I am not specifically printing this letter in this forum because, for all practical purposes, it is the comment I very quickly posted after reading the decision of the Appeals Court panel. To my great amazement, for the first time I can remember, he printed my full word capitalizations.
The unusual thing about the letters column is the location. It starts immediately below the editorial in the upper left corner of the editorial page, but only a headline and six lines of content appear there. The rest of the column is on the op-ed page.
In any case, please check the editorial link, Charles Marquardt’s letter, and my past statement of position on this matter. I hesitate to spell everything out again.
For your convenience, the respective links to the latter two are: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x919534627/Letter-Cambridge-City-Council-oversight-failure#axzz1VBaL41vk, and http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-on-monteiro-fire.html, section 2.
They first page headlined the Appeals Court decision with an extremely well written article.
The editorial page featured an editorial, which may be read at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1852620823/Editorial-A-multimillion-dollar-gamble#axzz1VBaL41vk. It is a judicious and very moderate comment, including some very nice words about Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy. It tells the City Council to pay the plaintiff.
What stands out in my mind is the first sentence of the last paragraph, “Healy has helped our city greatly, but everybody’s grip on power must come to an end eventually.”
I was going to refer you to the editorial without any comment, but that sentence stands out. Please follow the link and decide for yourself.
The letters column was organized in a decidedly unusual manner.
The editor printed three letters.
The first was that of Charles Marquardt, a good writing to which I have previously provided a link.
The second was mine, calling for the city manager’s firing. I am not specifically printing this letter in this forum because, for all practical purposes, it is the comment I very quickly posted after reading the decision of the Appeals Court panel. To my great amazement, for the first time I can remember, he printed my full word capitalizations.
The unusual thing about the letters column is the location. It starts immediately below the editorial in the upper left corner of the editorial page, but only a headline and six lines of content appear there. The rest of the column is on the op-ed page.
In any case, please check the editorial link, Charles Marquardt’s letter, and my past statement of position on this matter. I hesitate to spell everything out again.
For your convenience, the respective links to the latter two are: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x919534627/Letter-Cambridge-City-Council-oversight-failure#axzz1VBaL41vk, and http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-on-monteiro-fire.html, section 2.
Cambridge City Council Emergency Session on Monteiro; Why Civil Rights on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
1. Cambridge City Council meets in emergency session — Monteiro.
2. Why Civil Rights on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
1. Cambridge City Council meets in emergency session — Monteiro.
The Cambridge City Council will meet in emergency session tomorrow, Friday, August 19, 2011 on the second floor of Cambridge City Hall at 9 am.
They are expected to immediately vote to go into executive session to discuss the Monteiro decision from the Appeals Court panel.
No public comment will be allowed. The meeting will not be televised.
The decision of the Appeals Court panel in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge may be reviewed at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.
2. Why Civil Rights on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
I am reporting the Monteiro case because Cambridge and the situation in Cambridge is a dominant factor in the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles River.
Judge, jury, and now appeals court are legally significant matters reflecting very badly on the ethical situation in the City of Cambridge.
Cambridge’s pols brag of being saints on civil rights and the environment. They are lying on both points, and a massive organization passes on the falsehoods. The corruption is interrelated.
A very bad city government stays in power destroying the environment by riding false claims in a city which expects responsible behavior from its government.
We have judge, jury, and appeals court panel condemning Cambridge on civil rights. Their environmental destructiveness is even worse.
2. Why Civil Rights on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
1. Cambridge City Council meets in emergency session — Monteiro.
The Cambridge City Council will meet in emergency session tomorrow, Friday, August 19, 2011 on the second floor of Cambridge City Hall at 9 am.
They are expected to immediately vote to go into executive session to discuss the Monteiro decision from the Appeals Court panel.
No public comment will be allowed. The meeting will not be televised.
The decision of the Appeals Court panel in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge may be reviewed at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.
2. Why Civil Rights on the Charles River White Geese Blog?
I am reporting the Monteiro case because Cambridge and the situation in Cambridge is a dominant factor in the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles River.
Judge, jury, and now appeals court are legally significant matters reflecting very badly on the ethical situation in the City of Cambridge.
Cambridge’s pols brag of being saints on civil rights and the environment. They are lying on both points, and a massive organization passes on the falsehoods. The corruption is interrelated.
A very bad city government stays in power destroying the environment by riding false claims in a city which expects responsible behavior from its government.
We have judge, jury, and appeals court panel condemning Cambridge on civil rights. Their environmental destructiveness is even worse.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Letter: City Council Oversight Failure
Very nice letter on Monteiro from Charles Marquant in the Cambridge Chronicle on line on August 16, 2011, and presumably coming up in hard copy.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x919534627/Letter-Cambridge-City-Council-oversight-failure#axzz1VBaL41vk
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x919534627/Letter-Cambridge-City-Council-oversight-failure#axzz1VBaL41vk
Appeals Court on Monteiro; Fire the Cambridge City Manager; responses
1. Appeals Court decision.
2. Analysis.
3. Marilyn Wellons.
4. Archie Mazmanian.
1. Appeals Court decision.
The Appeals Court three judge panel has clearly communicated that Cambridge’s case in Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is so lacking in merit that the panel would not dignify it with a full scale decision. I have posted a copy of the decision at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of the Cambridge Police Review Board. She filed a civil rights complaint. Judge, jury and appeals court panel have now found that her life was improperly destroyed by the City of Cambridge in retaliation for her filing the complaint.
The Superior Court judge summarized the facts including, very visibly, testimony of the Cambridge City Manager, and called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible.”
One section of the Appeals Court’s abbreviated decision is of particular value, omitting introductory language, citations and footnotes. This section analyzes the award by the jury of $3.5 million penal damages on top of about $1.1 million real damages. The section, section 5.b of the abbreviated opinion, reads:
***********
b. Punitive damages.
'Under the existing standard, '[p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." . . . 'An award of punitive damages requires a determination of the defendant's intent or state of mind, determinations properly left to the jury, whose verdict should be sustained if it could ' reasonably have [been] arrived at . . . from any . . . evidence . . . presented."
We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct. . . . She therefore appropriately allowed the question to go to the jury. . . . Because the jury's award could reasonably have been arrived at from the evidence presented, the judge appropriately denied the city's new trial motion and affirmed the damages award. There was no error. . . .
2. Analysis.
“Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct.”
The Cambridge City Council is not in a forum with a massive organization running around making false statements that the City of Cambridge is worthy of respect.
The Cambridge City Council is dealing with the big boys.
The Appeals Court panel gave Cambridge MORE time in oral argument than is normally allowed under its rules. The Appeals Court panel has joined with the Superior Court judge and jury in communicating its disgust at the rotten situation in Cambridge by refusing to dignify Cambridge with a full blown opinion.
If the City Council meaningfully resembles the City Council that its massive organization keeps talking about, the decision is clear:
FIRE THE CAMBRIDGE CITY MANAGER WITHOUT GOLDEN PARACHUTE by settlement with permission of the Superior Court judge. Seriously consider firing him without pension. The facts of this matter constitute a very strong situation for expanding the law this far.
The worst thing is that the City Council does not meaningfully resemble the City Council its apologists keep FALSELY bragging about.
3. Marilyn Wellons.
8/16/11, 10:58 am
The estimated $10M (including legal fees) Cambridge now owes to Ms. Monteiro is 3% of the city's estimated revenue from taxes in FY2012. Ten million dollars is more than the estimated revenue from all Licenses and Permits or from Fines and... Forfeits.
It is more than three times the proposed expenditure for education in the city's capital budget.
See the Budget Summary, http://www.cambridgema.gov?/budget.aspx, pp. I-5--I-6.
4. Archie Mazmanian.
8/16/11, 11:13 am:
Archie Mazmanian comments:
Bob,
Your posts on this make quite an impact. I wonder if you might consider a post on next steps that Cambridge might take (although not sensibly), including an appeal to the SJC, in the context of potential additional expense to Cambridge (which may need a prop. 2.5 override to cover all the expenses).
Archie Mazmanian
2. Analysis.
3. Marilyn Wellons.
4. Archie Mazmanian.
1. Appeals Court decision.
The Appeals Court three judge panel has clearly communicated that Cambridge’s case in Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is so lacking in merit that the panel would not dignify it with a full scale decision. I have posted a copy of the decision at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of the Cambridge Police Review Board. She filed a civil rights complaint. Judge, jury and appeals court panel have now found that her life was improperly destroyed by the City of Cambridge in retaliation for her filing the complaint.
The Superior Court judge summarized the facts including, very visibly, testimony of the Cambridge City Manager, and called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible.”
One section of the Appeals Court’s abbreviated decision is of particular value, omitting introductory language, citations and footnotes. This section analyzes the award by the jury of $3.5 million penal damages on top of about $1.1 million real damages. The section, section 5.b of the abbreviated opinion, reads:
***********
b. Punitive damages.
'Under the existing standard, '[p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." . . . 'An award of punitive damages requires a determination of the defendant's intent or state of mind, determinations properly left to the jury, whose verdict should be sustained if it could ' reasonably have [been] arrived at . . . from any . . . evidence . . . presented."
We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct. . . . She therefore appropriately allowed the question to go to the jury. . . . Because the jury's award could reasonably have been arrived at from the evidence presented, the judge appropriately denied the city's new trial motion and affirmed the damages award. There was no error. . . .
2. Analysis.
“Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct.”
The Cambridge City Council is not in a forum with a massive organization running around making false statements that the City of Cambridge is worthy of respect.
The Cambridge City Council is dealing with the big boys.
The Appeals Court panel gave Cambridge MORE time in oral argument than is normally allowed under its rules. The Appeals Court panel has joined with the Superior Court judge and jury in communicating its disgust at the rotten situation in Cambridge by refusing to dignify Cambridge with a full blown opinion.
If the City Council meaningfully resembles the City Council that its massive organization keeps talking about, the decision is clear:
FIRE THE CAMBRIDGE CITY MANAGER WITHOUT GOLDEN PARACHUTE by settlement with permission of the Superior Court judge. Seriously consider firing him without pension. The facts of this matter constitute a very strong situation for expanding the law this far.
The worst thing is that the City Council does not meaningfully resemble the City Council its apologists keep FALSELY bragging about.
3. Marilyn Wellons.
8/16/11, 10:58 am
The estimated $10M (including legal fees) Cambridge now owes to Ms. Monteiro is 3% of the city's estimated revenue from taxes in FY2012. Ten million dollars is more than the estimated revenue from all Licenses and Permits or from Fines and... Forfeits.
It is more than three times the proposed expenditure for education in the city's capital budget.
See the Budget Summary, http://www.cambridgema.gov?/budget.aspx, pp. I-5--I-6.
4. Archie Mazmanian.
8/16/11, 11:13 am:
Archie Mazmanian comments:
Bob,
Your posts on this make quite an impact. I wonder if you might consider a post on next steps that Cambridge might take (although not sensibly), including an appeal to the SJC, in the context of potential additional expense to Cambridge (which may need a prop. 2.5 override to cover all the expenses).
Archie Mazmanian
Monday, August 15, 2011
Appeals Court Decision in Monteiro. Published under a special rule communicating panel’s lack of respect for Cambridge’s appeal of the matter.
Monteiro decision: The following is taken verbatim from the Appeals Court posting.
This is a “rule 1:28" posting. I understand from the Cambridge Day report that this method of posting was used because the Appeals Court panel did not find the case worthy of a formal opinion. It was that one sided.
***********
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
1. MALVINA MONTEIRO vs. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
10-P-1240
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Malvina Monteiro, brought a G. L. c. 151B action in Superior Court against her employer, the city of Cambridge (city), alleging discrimination based on race and national origin, as well as retaliation. A jury found in her favor on her retaliation claim and awarded over $4.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. In addition, she was awarded pre- and postjudgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs, for a total award of roughly $6.7 million. The city appeals, arguing (1) the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) erroneous jury instructions, (3) erroneous admission of comparator evidence, (4) improper closing argument, (5) a variety of errors related to the jury's damages awards, and (6) erroneous computation of postjudgment interest. We affirm.
We forego a complete recitation of the facts as they developed over the course of more than ten years of litigation, including two jury trials. We recite the facts as necessary to explain our decision.
1. Jurisdiction. The city, citing, inter alia, Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585 (2009), claims that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of Monteiro's retaliatory termination claim because the claim did not 'relate back' to Monteiro's original complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and Monteiro never filed a separate MCAD retaliation complaint. We disagree.
The Superior Court has no jurisdiction to entertain G. L. c. 151B claims without a predicate MCAD complaint. Id. at 600. A retaliation claim does not require an additional MCAD complaint when it is ''reasonably related to and grows out of' [the] discrimination [originally] complained of to [the] agency.' Id. at 603, quoting from Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 245 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 2001).
Monteiro filed an MCAD complaint in September, 1998, alleging, inter alia, retaliation for raising concerns about discrimination. When Monteiro filed her original complaint in Superior Court in 2000, she alleged ongoing retaliation against her because she engaged in activities protected by G. L. c. 151B, § 4, the statute which classifies, inter alia, the filing of an MCAD complaint as a protected activity. 'In these circumstances, she was not required to return to the MCAD to file a second complaint.' Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 443 Mass. 367, 388 n.19 (2005). Accordingly, the 2004 amended Superior Court complaint alleged only that the ongoing retaliation alleged in the original complaint also included her 2003 termination. [FN1] Because Monteiro alleged retaliatory termination reasonably related to and growing out of her original MCAD complaint and allegations of ongoing retaliation, she alleged no new retaliation claim requiring that she return to the MCAD. [FN2] The Superior Court had jurisdiction over Monteiro's retaliatory termination claim. [FN3]
2. Jury instructions. The city makes two interrelated arguments about the judge's instructions on the definition of 'adverse employment action': (1) the judge erroneously and prejudicially instructed along the lines of Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), instead of MacCormack v. Boston Edison Co., 423 Mass. 652 (1996); and (2) the judge's application of the more lenient Burlington standard erroneously permitted the jury to infer a causal link between Monteiro's 1998 MCAD complaint and her termination in 2003 based on insufficiently serious ongoing retaliation between 1998 and 2003. We are not persuaded.
First, assuming without deciding that the judge erroneously instructed, there was no prejudice. The city concedes, as it must, that Monteiro's termination constituted an 'adverse employment action' under the stricter MacCormack standard. And, in any event, irrespective of whether the Burlington standard or the MacCormack standard was applied, the jury did not award any damages based on the intervening retaliatory actions. The judge's instructions therefore caused the city no prejudice and present no basis for disturbing the judgment. See Dahms v. Cognex Corp., 455 Mass. 190, 207 (2009).
Second, the city essentially claims that, in order to demonstrate the requisite causal link between a termination long postdating protected activity and the protected activity based on an intervening 'series of retaliatory measures,' Mole v. University of Mass., 442 Mass. 582, 596 (2004), each such retaliatory measure must itself constitute an individually actionable 'adverse employment action.' The city has cited no authority imposing such a restriction, and we decline to create a new rule of law imposing one here. [FN4] Moreover, the city neither requested the judge to instruct that only a series of independently actionable adverse employment actions could constitute a 'series of retaliatory measures' nor objected to the instruction as given. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Monteiro, enabled a reasonable juror to conclude, based on a series of intervening retaliatory measures not necessarily individually actionable, that a causal relationship existed between Monteiro's MCAD complaint and her termination. There was no error.
3. Comparator evidence. The city, citing Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 426 Mass. 122 (1997), argues that the judge abused her discretion in admitting circumstantial evidence of the city's treatment of similarly situated individuals. The city also asserts that it was clear error for the judge to deny its motion for a mistrial based on the admission of this evidence. There was no error. [FN5]
'[T]he great deference appellate courts accord the rulings of trial judges in [the admission of evidence is] too well established to require citation.' Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Assocs., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 480, 485 (2000). The judge, acting well within her discretion, could conclude that Monteiro's comparator evidence was 'roughly equivalent' and presented, if not '[e]xact correla[ries],' 'fair congeners.' [FN6] See Trustees of Health & Hosps. of Boston, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 449 Mass. 675, 682 (2007), quoting from Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1989). The decision to admit the complained-of testimony was not an abuse of discretion. [FN7] Because the decision to admit this evidence was not an abuse of discretion, it follows that the judge did not commit clear error in denying the city's motion for a mistrial.
4. Closing argument. The city argues that the judge abused her discretion in denying its motion for a new trial based, inter alia, on Monteiro's counsel's closing argument. We agree with the judge that the references to the existence of the term 'flex-time' prior to March, 1998, and to a flex-time committee were based on fair inferences from the city manager's testimony and exhibits introduced during his testimony. Notwithstanding the propriety of this comment, the city objected during the closing argument. The judge immediately responded to the objection with a thorough, appropriate curative instruction. Accordingly, the argument that this comment unfairly prejudiced the city is wholly without merit. The judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the city's motion for a new trial on this basis. [FN8]
5. Damages. a. Compensatory damages. 'An excessive award of damages is grounds for a new trial. . . . The allowance of a new trial is within the judge's discretion, and an appellate court will not find an abuse of discretion . . . unless the damages awarded were greatly disproportionate to the injury proved or represent a miscarriage of justice.' Commonwealth v. Johnson Insulation, 425 Mass. 650, 667-668 (1997). On this record, we cannot conclude that the damages awarded were so disproportionate to the injury caused as to make denial of the city's new trial motion an abuse of the judge's discretion, let alone a miscarriage of justice. There was no error.
b. Punitive damages. The city argues that (1) the judge erroneously permitted the jury to consider awarding punitive damages, and (2) the judge abused her discretion in denying the city's motion for new trial or remittitur on the basis of improper and excessive punitive damages. We are not persuaded.
'Under the existing standard, '[p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (No. 1), 455 Mass. 91, 107 (2009), quoting from Dartt v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. (Mass.), 427 Mass. 1, 17a (1998). 'An award of punitive damages requires a determination of the defendant's intent or state of mind, determinations properly left to the jury, whose verdict should be sustained if it could ' reasonably have [been] arrived at . . . from any . . . evidence . . . presented." Ibid., quoting from Dartt, supra at 16.
We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct. [FN9] She therefore appropriately allowed the question to go to the jury. [FN10] Because the jury's award could reasonably have been arrived at from the evidence presented, the judge appropriately denied the city's new trial motion and affirmed the damages award. There was no error. [FN11]
6. Postjudgment interest. The city argues that the judge erroneously permitted postjudgment interest to run beginning June 12, 2008, when Monteiro requested separate and final judgment pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 820 (1974). The city argues that postjudgment interest should run starting June 2, 2009. We agree with the judge.
The June 4, 2010, corrected amended final judgment on jury verdict, which, pursuant to G. L. c. 235, § 4, properly entered separate and final judgment nunc pro tunc to June 12, 2008, forecloses the city's argument. The city has not challenged the propriety of the entry of separate and final judgment nunc pro tunc to June 12, 2008, and we discern no abuse of the judge's discretion in entering that nunc pro tunc judgment. [FN12] See Santos v. Chrysler Corp., 430 Mass. 198, 216-217 (1999). The city's chosen date for the commencement of postjudgment interest therefore lacks legal and factual bases. [FN13] There was no error.
7. Conclusion. We have no occasion to disturb the judgment. Monteiro has requested, and is entitled to appellate attorney's fees and costs. She may submit a petition for fees and costs, together with supporting materials, within fourteen days of the date of the rescript of this decision. The city shall have fourteen days thereafter to respond. See Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004).
Corrected amended final judgment entered June 4, 2010, affirmed.
By the Court (Mills, Sikora & Rubin, JJ.),
Entered: August 15, 2011.
FN1. Everett is readily distinguishable because the plaintiff there made no retaliation claim. Everett, 453 Mass. at 605 n.28.
FN2. The city argues that decisions on various pretrial motions, which decisions did not reference Monteiro's retaliation claim, prove that it was inoperative prior to the 2004 amendment. Allegations and claims in a complaint remain operative, even after amendment, until waived or abandoned. See National Constr. Co. v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 38, 40 (1980), and cases cited. Because the city does not argue that Monteiro waived or abandoned this claim, and because the record contains no evidence that she did so, we are not persuaded.
In addition, the judge's decision awarding prejudgment interest from January 5, 2005 (the date of the amended complaint), rather than from September, 2000 (the date of the original complaint filed in Superior Court), as requested in Monteiro's posttrial motion, is not to the contrary. In its answers to special verdict questions, the jury determined that the city retaliated against Monteiro both by terminating her employment and through other adverse employment actions, but that she suffered financial damages only as a result of the termination decision. Compare DeRoche v. Massachusetts Commn.
Against Discrimination, 447 Mass. 1, 16 (2006) (in MCAD action, where damages awarded on retaliation claim only, prejudgment interest appropriately awarded from date retaliation commenced, rather than from earlier date when complaint was first filed with MCAD).
FN3. To the extent the city argues that the judge should not have allowed Monteiro's 2004 motion to amend her complaint, as suggested at various points in the city's brief and reply brief, we discern no abuse of the judge's discretion to permit the amendment. See Murphy v. I.S.K.Con. of New England, Inc., 409 Mass. 842, 864 (1991).
FN4. We note that, in the context of sexual harassment claims under G. L. c. 151B, the Supreme Judicial Court has expressly rejected such a restriction. See Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermkt. Co., 434 Mass. 521, 532-533 (2001) ( 'Incidents of sexual harassment serious enough to create a work environment permeated by abuse typically accumulate over time, and many incidents in isolation may not be serious enough for complaint').
FN5. Because there was no error, we do not address the city's argument that, in the absence of this evidence, the jury could not infer retaliatory animus in the city's 2003 decision to terminate Monteiro. Even were there error, this claim would fail because we have already concluded that the jury could have inferred retaliatory animus based on the series of retaliatory measures which took place between Monteiro's 1998 MCAD complaint and 2003 termination.
FN6. We note that the city has not pointed to any discrimination or retaliation case in which an appellate court
reversed a judge's decision to admit comparator evidence at trial because the comparators lacked sufficient similarity.
FN7. Moreover, the judge's instructions, drawn nearly verbatim from Matthews, mitigated any claimed prejudice occasioned by the admission of this testimony.
FN8. We have reviewed the balance of the closing argument and conclude that it presents no basis for questioning the judge's exercise of her discretion to deny the new trial motion.
Specifically, to the extent the city argues that it was entitled to a new trial based on the judge's stray comment that one of Monteiro's attorneys had been her ethics student, we are not persuaded. To the extent the city argues that it was also entitled to a new trial based on Monteiro's counsel's statement that Monteiro 'lost' her pension, we read the statement in context as referring to Monteiro not accruing pension benefits in her current employment and losing the opportunity to reach twenty years of payment into the city's pension system. These assertions have ample record support.
FN9. The city argues that we should use the Haddad court's reformulation of this standard. See 455 Mass. at 110-111. Because our result would be the same under both standards, we need not address the issue.
FN10. As the judge aptly noted in her thoughtful consolidated memorandum on several of the city's posttrial motions, the ambiguous result of the first jury trial presents no basis for questioning the basis of the subsequent jury verdict.
FN11. To the extent the city argues that the judge should have allowed the motion for new trial in order to instruct a different jury on the new standard enunciated in Haddad because, by reason of Monteiro's pending motion pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 59, 365 Mass. 827 (1974), this case had not 'gone to judgment,' 455 Mass. at 110, by the date of the Haddad decision, we are not persuaded. The instructions here substantially conformed to those which the Haddad court determined were without error. See id. at 109-110. Moreover, the city claims no error in the instructions.
FN12. To the extent the city argues that the judge improperly entered separate and final judgment without making the requisite findings, as suggested by footnotes 51 and 53 of its brief, we do not address the argument. 'Arguments relegated to a footnote do not rise to the level of appellate argument.' Commonwealth v. Lydon, 413 Mass. 309, 317-318 (1992), citing Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).
FN13. To the extent the city argues that the commencement of postjudgment interest on June 12, 2008, is improper because of the delay incurred following Monteiro's rule 59 motion to clarify, alter, or amend the judgment, the city has cited no authority in support of its claim of error. Accordingly, we do not address it. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). We note that the city had the opportunity to take steps to obviate the running of postjudgment interest during the pendency of posttrial motions, such as payment into an escrow account or other alternative arrangements. The city thus acted at its own peril by neglecting to pursue alternatives.
END OF DOCUMENT
This is a “rule 1:28" posting. I understand from the Cambridge Day report that this method of posting was used because the Appeals Court panel did not find the case worthy of a formal opinion. It was that one sided.
***********
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
1. MALVINA MONTEIRO vs. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
10-P-1240
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Malvina Monteiro, brought a G. L. c. 151B action in Superior Court against her employer, the city of Cambridge (city), alleging discrimination based on race and national origin, as well as retaliation. A jury found in her favor on her retaliation claim and awarded over $4.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. In addition, she was awarded pre- and postjudgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs, for a total award of roughly $6.7 million. The city appeals, arguing (1) the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) erroneous jury instructions, (3) erroneous admission of comparator evidence, (4) improper closing argument, (5) a variety of errors related to the jury's damages awards, and (6) erroneous computation of postjudgment interest. We affirm.
We forego a complete recitation of the facts as they developed over the course of more than ten years of litigation, including two jury trials. We recite the facts as necessary to explain our decision.
1. Jurisdiction. The city, citing, inter alia, Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585 (2009), claims that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of Monteiro's retaliatory termination claim because the claim did not 'relate back' to Monteiro's original complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and Monteiro never filed a separate MCAD retaliation complaint. We disagree.
The Superior Court has no jurisdiction to entertain G. L. c. 151B claims without a predicate MCAD complaint. Id. at 600. A retaliation claim does not require an additional MCAD complaint when it is ''reasonably related to and grows out of' [the] discrimination [originally] complained of to [the] agency.' Id. at 603, quoting from Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 245 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 2001).
Monteiro filed an MCAD complaint in September, 1998, alleging, inter alia, retaliation for raising concerns about discrimination. When Monteiro filed her original complaint in Superior Court in 2000, she alleged ongoing retaliation against her because she engaged in activities protected by G. L. c. 151B, § 4, the statute which classifies, inter alia, the filing of an MCAD complaint as a protected activity. 'In these circumstances, she was not required to return to the MCAD to file a second complaint.' Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 443 Mass. 367, 388 n.19 (2005). Accordingly, the 2004 amended Superior Court complaint alleged only that the ongoing retaliation alleged in the original complaint also included her 2003 termination. [FN1] Because Monteiro alleged retaliatory termination reasonably related to and growing out of her original MCAD complaint and allegations of ongoing retaliation, she alleged no new retaliation claim requiring that she return to the MCAD. [FN2] The Superior Court had jurisdiction over Monteiro's retaliatory termination claim. [FN3]
2. Jury instructions. The city makes two interrelated arguments about the judge's instructions on the definition of 'adverse employment action': (1) the judge erroneously and prejudicially instructed along the lines of Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), instead of MacCormack v. Boston Edison Co., 423 Mass. 652 (1996); and (2) the judge's application of the more lenient Burlington standard erroneously permitted the jury to infer a causal link between Monteiro's 1998 MCAD complaint and her termination in 2003 based on insufficiently serious ongoing retaliation between 1998 and 2003. We are not persuaded.
First, assuming without deciding that the judge erroneously instructed, there was no prejudice. The city concedes, as it must, that Monteiro's termination constituted an 'adverse employment action' under the stricter MacCormack standard. And, in any event, irrespective of whether the Burlington standard or the MacCormack standard was applied, the jury did not award any damages based on the intervening retaliatory actions. The judge's instructions therefore caused the city no prejudice and present no basis for disturbing the judgment. See Dahms v. Cognex Corp., 455 Mass. 190, 207 (2009).
Second, the city essentially claims that, in order to demonstrate the requisite causal link between a termination long postdating protected activity and the protected activity based on an intervening 'series of retaliatory measures,' Mole v. University of Mass., 442 Mass. 582, 596 (2004), each such retaliatory measure must itself constitute an individually actionable 'adverse employment action.' The city has cited no authority imposing such a restriction, and we decline to create a new rule of law imposing one here. [FN4] Moreover, the city neither requested the judge to instruct that only a series of independently actionable adverse employment actions could constitute a 'series of retaliatory measures' nor objected to the instruction as given. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Monteiro, enabled a reasonable juror to conclude, based on a series of intervening retaliatory measures not necessarily individually actionable, that a causal relationship existed between Monteiro's MCAD complaint and her termination. There was no error.
3. Comparator evidence. The city, citing Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 426 Mass. 122 (1997), argues that the judge abused her discretion in admitting circumstantial evidence of the city's treatment of similarly situated individuals. The city also asserts that it was clear error for the judge to deny its motion for a mistrial based on the admission of this evidence. There was no error. [FN5]
'[T]he great deference appellate courts accord the rulings of trial judges in [the admission of evidence is] too well established to require citation.' Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Assocs., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 480, 485 (2000). The judge, acting well within her discretion, could conclude that Monteiro's comparator evidence was 'roughly equivalent' and presented, if not '[e]xact correla[ries],' 'fair congeners.' [FN6] See Trustees of Health & Hosps. of Boston, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 449 Mass. 675, 682 (2007), quoting from Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1989). The decision to admit the complained-of testimony was not an abuse of discretion. [FN7] Because the decision to admit this evidence was not an abuse of discretion, it follows that the judge did not commit clear error in denying the city's motion for a mistrial.
4. Closing argument. The city argues that the judge abused her discretion in denying its motion for a new trial based, inter alia, on Monteiro's counsel's closing argument. We agree with the judge that the references to the existence of the term 'flex-time' prior to March, 1998, and to a flex-time committee were based on fair inferences from the city manager's testimony and exhibits introduced during his testimony. Notwithstanding the propriety of this comment, the city objected during the closing argument. The judge immediately responded to the objection with a thorough, appropriate curative instruction. Accordingly, the argument that this comment unfairly prejudiced the city is wholly without merit. The judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the city's motion for a new trial on this basis. [FN8]
5. Damages. a. Compensatory damages. 'An excessive award of damages is grounds for a new trial. . . . The allowance of a new trial is within the judge's discretion, and an appellate court will not find an abuse of discretion . . . unless the damages awarded were greatly disproportionate to the injury proved or represent a miscarriage of justice.' Commonwealth v. Johnson Insulation, 425 Mass. 650, 667-668 (1997). On this record, we cannot conclude that the damages awarded were so disproportionate to the injury caused as to make denial of the city's new trial motion an abuse of the judge's discretion, let alone a miscarriage of justice. There was no error.
b. Punitive damages. The city argues that (1) the judge erroneously permitted the jury to consider awarding punitive damages, and (2) the judge abused her discretion in denying the city's motion for new trial or remittitur on the basis of improper and excessive punitive damages. We are not persuaded.
'Under the existing standard, '[p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (No. 1), 455 Mass. 91, 107 (2009), quoting from Dartt v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. (Mass.), 427 Mass. 1, 17a (1998). 'An award of punitive damages requires a determination of the defendant's intent or state of mind, determinations properly left to the jury, whose verdict should be sustained if it could ' reasonably have [been] arrived at . . . from any . . . evidence . . . presented." Ibid., quoting from Dartt, supra at 16.
We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct. [FN9] She therefore appropriately allowed the question to go to the jury. [FN10] Because the jury's award could reasonably have been arrived at from the evidence presented, the judge appropriately denied the city's new trial motion and affirmed the damages award. There was no error. [FN11]
6. Postjudgment interest. The city argues that the judge erroneously permitted postjudgment interest to run beginning June 12, 2008, when Monteiro requested separate and final judgment pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 820 (1974). The city argues that postjudgment interest should run starting June 2, 2009. We agree with the judge.
The June 4, 2010, corrected amended final judgment on jury verdict, which, pursuant to G. L. c. 235, § 4, properly entered separate and final judgment nunc pro tunc to June 12, 2008, forecloses the city's argument. The city has not challenged the propriety of the entry of separate and final judgment nunc pro tunc to June 12, 2008, and we discern no abuse of the judge's discretion in entering that nunc pro tunc judgment. [FN12] See Santos v. Chrysler Corp., 430 Mass. 198, 216-217 (1999). The city's chosen date for the commencement of postjudgment interest therefore lacks legal and factual bases. [FN13] There was no error.
7. Conclusion. We have no occasion to disturb the judgment. Monteiro has requested, and is entitled to appellate attorney's fees and costs. She may submit a petition for fees and costs, together with supporting materials, within fourteen days of the date of the rescript of this decision. The city shall have fourteen days thereafter to respond. See Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004).
Corrected amended final judgment entered June 4, 2010, affirmed.
By the Court (Mills, Sikora & Rubin, JJ.),
Entered: August 15, 2011.
FN1. Everett is readily distinguishable because the plaintiff there made no retaliation claim. Everett, 453 Mass. at 605 n.28.
FN2. The city argues that decisions on various pretrial motions, which decisions did not reference Monteiro's retaliation claim, prove that it was inoperative prior to the 2004 amendment. Allegations and claims in a complaint remain operative, even after amendment, until waived or abandoned. See National Constr. Co. v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 38, 40 (1980), and cases cited. Because the city does not argue that Monteiro waived or abandoned this claim, and because the record contains no evidence that she did so, we are not persuaded.
In addition, the judge's decision awarding prejudgment interest from January 5, 2005 (the date of the amended complaint), rather than from September, 2000 (the date of the original complaint filed in Superior Court), as requested in Monteiro's posttrial motion, is not to the contrary. In its answers to special verdict questions, the jury determined that the city retaliated against Monteiro both by terminating her employment and through other adverse employment actions, but that she suffered financial damages only as a result of the termination decision. Compare DeRoche v. Massachusetts Commn.
Against Discrimination, 447 Mass. 1, 16 (2006) (in MCAD action, where damages awarded on retaliation claim only, prejudgment interest appropriately awarded from date retaliation commenced, rather than from earlier date when complaint was first filed with MCAD).
FN3. To the extent the city argues that the judge should not have allowed Monteiro's 2004 motion to amend her complaint, as suggested at various points in the city's brief and reply brief, we discern no abuse of the judge's discretion to permit the amendment. See Murphy v. I.S.K.Con. of New England, Inc., 409 Mass. 842, 864 (1991).
FN4. We note that, in the context of sexual harassment claims under G. L. c. 151B, the Supreme Judicial Court has expressly rejected such a restriction. See Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermkt. Co., 434 Mass. 521, 532-533 (2001) ( 'Incidents of sexual harassment serious enough to create a work environment permeated by abuse typically accumulate over time, and many incidents in isolation may not be serious enough for complaint').
FN5. Because there was no error, we do not address the city's argument that, in the absence of this evidence, the jury could not infer retaliatory animus in the city's 2003 decision to terminate Monteiro. Even were there error, this claim would fail because we have already concluded that the jury could have inferred retaliatory animus based on the series of retaliatory measures which took place between Monteiro's 1998 MCAD complaint and 2003 termination.
FN6. We note that the city has not pointed to any discrimination or retaliation case in which an appellate court
reversed a judge's decision to admit comparator evidence at trial because the comparators lacked sufficient similarity.
FN7. Moreover, the judge's instructions, drawn nearly verbatim from Matthews, mitigated any claimed prejudice occasioned by the admission of this testimony.
FN8. We have reviewed the balance of the closing argument and conclude that it presents no basis for questioning the judge's exercise of her discretion to deny the new trial motion.
Specifically, to the extent the city argues that it was entitled to a new trial based on the judge's stray comment that one of Monteiro's attorneys had been her ethics student, we are not persuaded. To the extent the city argues that it was also entitled to a new trial based on Monteiro's counsel's statement that Monteiro 'lost' her pension, we read the statement in context as referring to Monteiro not accruing pension benefits in her current employment and losing the opportunity to reach twenty years of payment into the city's pension system. These assertions have ample record support.
FN9. The city argues that we should use the Haddad court's reformulation of this standard. See 455 Mass. at 110-111. Because our result would be the same under both standards, we need not address the issue.
FN10. As the judge aptly noted in her thoughtful consolidated memorandum on several of the city's posttrial motions, the ambiguous result of the first jury trial presents no basis for questioning the basis of the subsequent jury verdict.
FN11. To the extent the city argues that the judge should have allowed the motion for new trial in order to instruct a different jury on the new standard enunciated in Haddad because, by reason of Monteiro's pending motion pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 59, 365 Mass. 827 (1974), this case had not 'gone to judgment,' 455 Mass. at 110, by the date of the Haddad decision, we are not persuaded. The instructions here substantially conformed to those which the Haddad court determined were without error. See id. at 109-110. Moreover, the city claims no error in the instructions.
FN12. To the extent the city argues that the judge improperly entered separate and final judgment without making the requisite findings, as suggested by footnotes 51 and 53 of its brief, we do not address the argument. 'Arguments relegated to a footnote do not rise to the level of appellate argument.' Commonwealth v. Lydon, 413 Mass. 309, 317-318 (1992), citing Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).
FN13. To the extent the city argues that the commencement of postjudgment interest on June 12, 2008, is improper because of the delay incurred following Monteiro's rule 59 motion to clarify, alter, or amend the judgment, the city has cited no authority in support of its claim of error. Accordingly, we do not address it. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). We note that the city had the opportunity to take steps to obviate the running of postjudgment interest during the pendency of posttrial motions, such as payment into an escrow account or other alternative arrangements. The city thus acted at its own peril by neglecting to pursue alternatives.
END OF DOCUMENT
FLASH “Cambridge loses $7.7 million-plus appeal in Monteiro case”
The Cambridge Day reports that the City of Cambridge has lost its appeal in the Monteiro case.
“We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct,” the finding says, as quoted by Cambridge Day.
I have checked the docket. It is not posted yet.
I will keep on top of this matter. I will post the Appeals Court decision when available.
For my information, please see: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/08/15/city-loses-6-7-million-plus-appeal-in-monteiro-case/.
“We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct,” the finding says, as quoted by Cambridge Day.
I have checked the docket. It is not posted yet.
I will keep on top of this matter. I will post the Appeals Court decision when available.
For my information, please see: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/08/15/city-loses-6-7-million-plus-appeal-in-monteiro-case/.
Sexual assault on the Charles River
WBZ radio is reporting a sexual assault on the Esplanade, the more heavily developed park on the Boston / south side of the Charles River. It apparently occurred at about 3 am on Sunday, August 14.
The report is that the victim is a 20 year old college student who stated she had been assaulted and thrown in the Charles River.
Details may be obtained at: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/08/14/student-sexually-assaulted-on-esplanade-thrown-in-charles-river/.
This is only the most recent attack on the Boston side of the Charles. The river bank in the area of the BU Bridge has signs warning of danger at night from rapes and muggings.
The violence on the south side of the Charles is yet another indication of problems with the individuals working for environmental destruction and animal abuse on the Charles River.
These destructive individuals are fighting to duplicate the mugging area and put it on the north side of the Charles River. They want to continue their heartless animal abuse, and they clearly support state and Cambridge’s goals to kill off all resident animals.
Plans, in addition to heartless animal abuse and encouraging muggings, would destroy hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, attack historical bridges with this new highway, destroy wetlands, destroy animal habitat, and destroy portions of the Charles River itself.
But then again, the people fighting for this outrage recently conducted a “celebration” party of the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach. They did this after censoring any comments about the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse in a supposed public meeting presenting state / Cambridge plans for further destruction at Magazine Beach. They then neglected to tell people that they were celebrating environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.
The censorship and flat out lying that the outrage at Magazine Beach deserves “celebration” combines with the violence and so many other outrages involved in the ongoing behavior of very destructive people on the Charles River.
They cannot get what they want honestly. So they lie through falsely named organizations, through censorship, and through key omissions and false claims. They declare that a destructive state bureaucracy and a destructive Cambridge City Council are something other than what they are. And that their plans are worthy of respect.
The report is that the victim is a 20 year old college student who stated she had been assaulted and thrown in the Charles River.
Details may be obtained at: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/08/14/student-sexually-assaulted-on-esplanade-thrown-in-charles-river/.
This is only the most recent attack on the Boston side of the Charles. The river bank in the area of the BU Bridge has signs warning of danger at night from rapes and muggings.
The violence on the south side of the Charles is yet another indication of problems with the individuals working for environmental destruction and animal abuse on the Charles River.
These destructive individuals are fighting to duplicate the mugging area and put it on the north side of the Charles River. They want to continue their heartless animal abuse, and they clearly support state and Cambridge’s goals to kill off all resident animals.
Plans, in addition to heartless animal abuse and encouraging muggings, would destroy hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, attack historical bridges with this new highway, destroy wetlands, destroy animal habitat, and destroy portions of the Charles River itself.
But then again, the people fighting for this outrage recently conducted a “celebration” party of the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach. They did this after censoring any comments about the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse in a supposed public meeting presenting state / Cambridge plans for further destruction at Magazine Beach. They then neglected to tell people that they were celebrating environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.
The censorship and flat out lying that the outrage at Magazine Beach deserves “celebration” combines with the violence and so many other outrages involved in the ongoing behavior of very destructive people on the Charles River.
They cannot get what they want honestly. So they lie through falsely named organizations, through censorship, and through key omissions and false claims. They declare that a destructive state bureaucracy and a destructive Cambridge City Council are something other than what they are. And that their plans are worthy of respect.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Cambridge City Council opposes Grand Junction “plans” not Grand Junction passenger service
It is very distressing to be faced with the pretty much non stop con games in Cambridge, MA, on environmental issues.
Whenever I see the Cambridge Machine “opposing” something, I get very scared if I oppose what the Machine claims to oppose. The very much non stop game is “I am your friend, I am your friend. You cannot win. Have I got a deal for you.”
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation is studying passenger use of the Grand Junction railroad through Cambridge for passenger service from Worcester to Boston, going to North Station rather than to South Station.
The North Station route is far inferior to the South Station route and it would be of particular benefit to at most a tiny percentage of commuters. To the extent Worcester needs an expansion of service, plans to expand South Station into the adjacent South Postal Annex property are fully capable of covering Worcester.
The North Station route, with its passage under the BU Bridge and through the irresponsibly destroyed goose habitat would add to the devastation in the Charles River and on its banks. This is exactly comporting with the wishes of Cambridge and certain state bureaucrats to destroy all animal life on the Charles River basin.
Further, by adding passenger at a number grade crossings on major Cambridge streets, passenger service will generate pollution from a very large number of idling cars.
The game of the Cambridge Pols has an artificially created villain in MassDOT. Cambridge city councilors have been spouting the usual game. Since MassDOT is not their accomplice in environmental destruction, MassDOT is ripe for attacks. By contrast, the environmentally destructive bureaucrats are uniformly declared “environmentalists” by the Cambridge pols.
The press recently headlined a vote by the Cambridge City Council on Grand Junction railroad passenger railroad service. The headlines said the Cambridge City Council opposes passenger service. The fine print says the Cambridge City Council opposes the MassDOT PLANS for passenger service.
I have seen the official report of the vote. It opposes the PLANS, not passenger service.
The difference: my impression when I saw the Cambridge City Council discussing this matter in an earlier meeting was that too many Cambridge City Councillors were standing up to MassDOT because MassDOT was behaving in an responsible manner.
Since MassDOT was not supporting an irresponsible passenger service plan, and, in fact, does not support any plan, the City Councilors were unhappy with MassDOT’s “plans”. Cambridge City Councilors wanted non existent plans changed to a destructive alternative which the Cambridge Pols are trying to sell as a “compromise.” Not mentioned is the fact that the “compromise” has the same Cambridge City Councillors on both sides of the “compromise.”
The latest “vote” does not change things.
Con game, con game, con game. This is the City of Cambridge, MA.
The vote may be reviewed at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=32702.
Whenever I see the Cambridge Machine “opposing” something, I get very scared if I oppose what the Machine claims to oppose. The very much non stop game is “I am your friend, I am your friend. You cannot win. Have I got a deal for you.”
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation is studying passenger use of the Grand Junction railroad through Cambridge for passenger service from Worcester to Boston, going to North Station rather than to South Station.
The North Station route is far inferior to the South Station route and it would be of particular benefit to at most a tiny percentage of commuters. To the extent Worcester needs an expansion of service, plans to expand South Station into the adjacent South Postal Annex property are fully capable of covering Worcester.
The North Station route, with its passage under the BU Bridge and through the irresponsibly destroyed goose habitat would add to the devastation in the Charles River and on its banks. This is exactly comporting with the wishes of Cambridge and certain state bureaucrats to destroy all animal life on the Charles River basin.
Further, by adding passenger at a number grade crossings on major Cambridge streets, passenger service will generate pollution from a very large number of idling cars.
The game of the Cambridge Pols has an artificially created villain in MassDOT. Cambridge city councilors have been spouting the usual game. Since MassDOT is not their accomplice in environmental destruction, MassDOT is ripe for attacks. By contrast, the environmentally destructive bureaucrats are uniformly declared “environmentalists” by the Cambridge pols.
The press recently headlined a vote by the Cambridge City Council on Grand Junction railroad passenger railroad service. The headlines said the Cambridge City Council opposes passenger service. The fine print says the Cambridge City Council opposes the MassDOT PLANS for passenger service.
I have seen the official report of the vote. It opposes the PLANS, not passenger service.
The difference: my impression when I saw the Cambridge City Council discussing this matter in an earlier meeting was that too many Cambridge City Councillors were standing up to MassDOT because MassDOT was behaving in an responsible manner.
Since MassDOT was not supporting an irresponsible passenger service plan, and, in fact, does not support any plan, the City Councilors were unhappy with MassDOT’s “plans”. Cambridge City Councilors wanted non existent plans changed to a destructive alternative which the Cambridge Pols are trying to sell as a “compromise.” Not mentioned is the fact that the “compromise” has the same Cambridge City Councillors on both sides of the “compromise.”
The latest “vote” does not change things.
Con game, con game, con game. This is the City of Cambridge, MA.
The vote may be reviewed at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=32702.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Response to the Globe Article
Cher responds to our report on the Boston Globe Article, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/environmental-destroyer-praised-in.html.
***********
I read the latest post and it seems to me that while what is said in the article by the man who paddled down the Charles is very meaningful. he is living in an idealistic place. We all know all too well how you have been fighting this as a political battle for how many years now?
It is anything but what he says but ought to be exactly what he says.
Its very unfortunate that this is still going on. I've been out of contact for several months and probably will be for awhile, but remain very interested in what is happening there. I only wish I had more time myself to help.
***********
I read the latest post and it seems to me that while what is said in the article by the man who paddled down the Charles is very meaningful. he is living in an idealistic place. We all know all too well how you have been fighting this as a political battle for how many years now?
It is anything but what he says but ought to be exactly what he says.
Its very unfortunate that this is still going on. I've been out of contact for several months and probably will be for awhile, but remain very interested in what is happening there. I only wish I had more time myself to help.
Monday, August 08, 2011
DCR Manager praised in Boston Sunday Globe Article
1. DCR Manager praised in Boston Sunday Globe article.
2. Editor’s analysis.
1. DCR Manager praised in Boston Sunday Globe article.
Archie Mazmanian reports:
[Sunday, 8/7/11]’s Globe Magazine has an excerpt from David Gessner's book "My Green Manifesto" about his trip with Dan Driscoll down the Charles River four summers ago. Here's a paragraph that caught my eye:
"As [Driscoll] paddles, he describes what he calls his 'radical idea' that being environmental isn't about education or politics. It's about what Thoreau called 'contact.' Falling in love with something - a place, an animal - and then fighting for it."
The Boston Public Library did not have this book when I last checked. But it does have about eight (8) of Gessner's books on the environment. So I think he's for real.
As for Dan Driscoll, described as a director at the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation, I recall dealing with him several years ago regarding encroachments on the Charles River by property owners. On behalf of a client who owned property along the Charles River in Watertown that Dan's Department claimed was encroaching, my research indicated that he was correct and a settlement was reached that was fair and reasonable. Such settlements were made along extensive portions of the Charles in Watertown and across the river in Newton and public pathways were installed.
I'm looking forward to reading the book. My series has focused mostly on the portion of the Charles downstream from Watertown Square. But there is much more to the river upstream and the health of the rive r in its entirety is important to all of us. I don't know if Gessner makes specific reference to the plight of the Charles River White Geese; but the short quote above sounds like what your Blog has been doing.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Editor’s analysis.
I separately, and essentially at the same time as Archie’s comments, received an email link to a Cambridge Community Television (CCTV) blog article on the most recent fake public meeting concerning Magazine Beach.
The key presenter of the state’s plans at the fake public meeting was Dan Driscoll.
I have a mental blockage as to Mr. Driscoll’s record outside that bizarre presentation. I do have a very strong negative evaluation of the environmental destruction which he called "improvements," and thus of the qualifications of the person making the claims of “improvements.”
Mr. Driscoll, subject to censorship of negative responses by the falsely named Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, presented the plans of the bureaucracy to continue their “improvements” at Magazine Beach.
The existing “improvements” include heartless animal abuse of the Charles River White Geese by barring them from their 30 year habitat and correspondingly deliberately starving them.
The existing “improvements” include destruction of viable, environmentally responsible, grass which occupied Magazine Beach for the better part of a century.
The existing “improvements” include replacement of the environmentally responsible grass with sickly stuff that cannot survive without poisons, poisons being dumped on the banks of the Charles to keep alive that sickly stuff which should never have been introduced in the first place.
The existing “improvements” include reduction of the size of the playing fields to make room for complicated drainage systems to drain off poisons which should not be dumped in the first place.
The existing “improvements” include walling off of Magazine Beach with bizarre introduced vegetation that prevents access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach. This bizarre stuff replaces native vegetation needed for protection of migratory waterfowl. I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission horrified by the destruction of the same vegetation by the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. Cambridge and Driscoll consider this bizarre wall an “improvement.”
That bizarre wall is the only bordering vegetation on the Charles River Basis which is not chopped down twice a year. It just grows and gets more destructive.
The existing “improvements” include apparent blocking off of the boat ramp which has been there for the better part of a century.
The existing “improvements” put to lie the claims of the bureaucrats that they are restricting the use of the banks of the Charles River to water related uses.
The plans announced by Driscoll to further “improve” their environmental destruction include destruction of a picnic area across from Magazine Street by destroying its vehicular access. This picnic area is used by the little guy, the lower classes which are not dignified for recognition by Cambridge and the planners.
It is my very strong opinion that the planners at the DCR are unfit for their jobs. What is being done at Magazine Beach and on the Charles River are very strong indicators of that.
Our world is being destroyed by people who have contempt our world. The most environmentally valuable parts of our world are casually destroyed because they would not fit in somebody’s garden. So the gardeners destroy the animals who need the ugly vegetation.
As for the animals whose lives are destroyed at the same time, and who need that stuff?
The people who are destroying those animals are the people who are destroying our world.
They do not give a damn.
But the destroyers very aggressively praise each other.
Oh, as previously reported, a few weeks later, after censoring negative comments on Magazine Beach destruction with loud proclamation of “neutrality,” the falsely named Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association joined with the falsely named Charles River Conservancy in conducting a party on the Charles River. This party was described as a “celebration.” They neglected to mention that the “celebration” was of the environmental destruction at Magazine Beach.
The destroyers very aggressively praise each other.
And they love fake names.
2. Editor’s analysis.
1. DCR Manager praised in Boston Sunday Globe article.
Archie Mazmanian reports:
[Sunday, 8/7/11]’s Globe Magazine has an excerpt from David Gessner's book "My Green Manifesto" about his trip with Dan Driscoll down the Charles River four summers ago. Here's a paragraph that caught my eye:
"As [Driscoll] paddles, he describes what he calls his 'radical idea' that being environmental isn't about education or politics. It's about what Thoreau called 'contact.' Falling in love with something - a place, an animal - and then fighting for it."
The Boston Public Library did not have this book when I last checked. But it does have about eight (8) of Gessner's books on the environment. So I think he's for real.
As for Dan Driscoll, described as a director at the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation, I recall dealing with him several years ago regarding encroachments on the Charles River by property owners. On behalf of a client who owned property along the Charles River in Watertown that Dan's Department claimed was encroaching, my research indicated that he was correct and a settlement was reached that was fair and reasonable. Such settlements were made along extensive portions of the Charles in Watertown and across the river in Newton and public pathways were installed.
I'm looking forward to reading the book. My series has focused mostly on the portion of the Charles downstream from Watertown Square. But there is much more to the river upstream and the health of the rive r in its entirety is important to all of us. I don't know if Gessner makes specific reference to the plight of the Charles River White Geese; but the short quote above sounds like what your Blog has been doing.
Archie Mazmanian
2. Editor’s analysis.
I separately, and essentially at the same time as Archie’s comments, received an email link to a Cambridge Community Television (CCTV) blog article on the most recent fake public meeting concerning Magazine Beach.
The key presenter of the state’s plans at the fake public meeting was Dan Driscoll.
I have a mental blockage as to Mr. Driscoll’s record outside that bizarre presentation. I do have a very strong negative evaluation of the environmental destruction which he called "improvements," and thus of the qualifications of the person making the claims of “improvements.”
Mr. Driscoll, subject to censorship of negative responses by the falsely named Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, presented the plans of the bureaucracy to continue their “improvements” at Magazine Beach.
The existing “improvements” include heartless animal abuse of the Charles River White Geese by barring them from their 30 year habitat and correspondingly deliberately starving them.
The existing “improvements” include destruction of viable, environmentally responsible, grass which occupied Magazine Beach for the better part of a century.
The existing “improvements” include replacement of the environmentally responsible grass with sickly stuff that cannot survive without poisons, poisons being dumped on the banks of the Charles to keep alive that sickly stuff which should never have been introduced in the first place.
The existing “improvements” include reduction of the size of the playing fields to make room for complicated drainage systems to drain off poisons which should not be dumped in the first place.
The existing “improvements” include walling off of Magazine Beach with bizarre introduced vegetation that prevents access between the Charles River and Magazine Beach. This bizarre stuff replaces native vegetation needed for protection of migratory waterfowl. I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission horrified by the destruction of the same vegetation by the falsely named Charles River Conservancy. Cambridge and Driscoll consider this bizarre wall an “improvement.”
That bizarre wall is the only bordering vegetation on the Charles River Basis which is not chopped down twice a year. It just grows and gets more destructive.
The existing “improvements” include apparent blocking off of the boat ramp which has been there for the better part of a century.
The existing “improvements” put to lie the claims of the bureaucrats that they are restricting the use of the banks of the Charles River to water related uses.
The plans announced by Driscoll to further “improve” their environmental destruction include destruction of a picnic area across from Magazine Street by destroying its vehicular access. This picnic area is used by the little guy, the lower classes which are not dignified for recognition by Cambridge and the planners.
It is my very strong opinion that the planners at the DCR are unfit for their jobs. What is being done at Magazine Beach and on the Charles River are very strong indicators of that.
Our world is being destroyed by people who have contempt our world. The most environmentally valuable parts of our world are casually destroyed because they would not fit in somebody’s garden. So the gardeners destroy the animals who need the ugly vegetation.
As for the animals whose lives are destroyed at the same time, and who need that stuff?
The people who are destroying those animals are the people who are destroying our world.
They do not give a damn.
But the destroyers very aggressively praise each other.
Oh, as previously reported, a few weeks later, after censoring negative comments on Magazine Beach destruction with loud proclamation of “neutrality,” the falsely named Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association joined with the falsely named Charles River Conservancy in conducting a party on the Charles River. This party was described as a “celebration.” They neglected to mention that the “celebration” was of the environmental destruction at Magazine Beach.
The destroyers very aggressively praise each other.
And they love fake names.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
New office construction in a key Cambridge, MA location to be converted to housing
The Cambridge City Manager and his organization are constantly fighting to destroy open space and first floor housing for the most environmentally offensive development they can get away with.
Retail generates 9 times the traffic as residential uses and office generates 3 times the traffic.
Cambridge, MA has twice the jobs it should have for its population. And Cambridge has way too much traffic because of this situation. Housing, housing, housing, and meaningful open space are the needs.
It is thus bizarre to see the repeated housing and open space destructive initiatives sneaked into zoning changes by these people. And I have repeatedly publicized the environmental destructiveness of this very dishonest government and its organization.
On the other hand, Cambridge developers are not as irresponsible as the Cambridge government and its massive machine.
The City Council has repeatedly voted to destroy housing and ground floor open space for retail. Developers just keep developing housing, even as conversions from irresponsibly located existing retail.
It is thus a pleasant surprise to see a massive, rather new building in the core of Cambridge’s Central Square, proposing to kill off their entire (one floor) office component to put in retail.
The reality of the developers is yet another reason why this extremely bad city government, and massive organization, runs around lying about itself.
The report may be read at: http://centralsquare.com/blog/?p=1160.
Thank you to boston.com for the link.
Retail generates 9 times the traffic as residential uses and office generates 3 times the traffic.
Cambridge, MA has twice the jobs it should have for its population. And Cambridge has way too much traffic because of this situation. Housing, housing, housing, and meaningful open space are the needs.
It is thus bizarre to see the repeated housing and open space destructive initiatives sneaked into zoning changes by these people. And I have repeatedly publicized the environmental destructiveness of this very dishonest government and its organization.
On the other hand, Cambridge developers are not as irresponsible as the Cambridge government and its massive machine.
The City Council has repeatedly voted to destroy housing and ground floor open space for retail. Developers just keep developing housing, even as conversions from irresponsibly located existing retail.
It is thus a pleasant surprise to see a massive, rather new building in the core of Cambridge’s Central Square, proposing to kill off their entire (one floor) office component to put in retail.
The reality of the developers is yet another reason why this extremely bad city government, and massive organization, runs around lying about itself.
The report may be read at: http://centralsquare.com/blog/?p=1160.
Thank you to boston.com for the link.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Forest Hills overpass connected to Jamaicaway / Riverway to be replaced
As part of its weekly newsletter, MassDOT announces intended replacement of the overpass high above Forest Hills near the Arboretum.
They have not decided what they will replace it with.
This is a very major and highly intrusive structure. It looms many stories high above the neighborhood business district and Orange Line station below. The business district, even with the overpass diverting a lot of traffic, is nevertheless quite badly loaded during rush hours.
So the question is what to do with this very intrusive structure in light of the fact that it is needed.
Details in their weekly newsletter, at http://www.eot.state.ma.us/massdotnewsletter/vol89.htm.
They have not decided what they will replace it with.
This is a very major and highly intrusive structure. It looms many stories high above the neighborhood business district and Orange Line station below. The business district, even with the overpass diverting a lot of traffic, is nevertheless quite badly loaded during rush hours.
So the question is what to do with this very intrusive structure in light of the fact that it is needed.
Details in their weekly newsletter, at http://www.eot.state.ma.us/massdotnewsletter/vol89.htm.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Monteiro Final Pre Trial Conference Rescheduled
Today, August 3, The Middlesex Superior Court has deferred, yet again, the final pre-trial conference on the last two plaintiffs in Monteiro v. Cambridge.
Action was taken in response to Cambridge’s motion which in turn was assented to by the plaintiffs.
New date is September 14, 2011 at 2 pm, session F in the Woburn Superior Courthouse. Order of Dennis J. Curran, J.
The case originally had 5 plaintiffs. Two settled handsomely. Malvina Monteiro is in Appeals Court awaiting decision of a three judge panel on a jury/judge finding that the Cambridge City Manager was “reprehensible” for destroying the life of this black, Cape Verdean woman who was head of the Cambridge Police Review Board. Judge and Jury say that she was fired in retaliation for the civil rights claim.
The key superior court opinion may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
I have done many postings on this matter.
Action was taken in response to Cambridge’s motion which in turn was assented to by the plaintiffs.
New date is September 14, 2011 at 2 pm, session F in the Woburn Superior Courthouse. Order of Dennis J. Curran, J.
The case originally had 5 plaintiffs. Two settled handsomely. Malvina Monteiro is in Appeals Court awaiting decision of a three judge panel on a jury/judge finding that the Cambridge City Manager was “reprehensible” for destroying the life of this black, Cape Verdean woman who was head of the Cambridge Police Review Board. Judge and Jury say that she was fired in retaliation for the civil rights claim.
The key superior court opinion may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
I have done many postings on this matter.
Baby Geese Video
A nice video of baby geese from last season.
I think this post is from Kathy Podgers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDAdqpKqzv8
I think this post is from Kathy Podgers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDAdqpKqzv8
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
More specifics on ongoing Alewife destruction
On July 28, 2011, I posted several photos with explanation of the first phase of the destruction of the core Alewife reservation at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/destruction-of-alewife-pre-cambridge.html.
The second photo shows the worst of the preliminary destruction.
Note that you can now see through the trees straight ahead.
I played these pictures live on my cable show Sunday night, together with the Google satellite view. The satellite view is dated. The satellite view SHOWS THE TREES WHICH WERE DESTROYED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION. Those trees which were destroyed were the size of the remaining trees and they were everywhere in the now construction zone.
The now access road, shown in the third photo, was fully treed before destruction.
And this destruction is highly preliminary and totally unnecessary. This destruction is just to move the utilities in preparation for totally unnecessary clear cut logging of the core, essentially virgin Alewife reservation.
If you would like to compare search “100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA” on Google Maps. That will put you right in the middle of this dead end road.
The contrast with the photos is striking.
The area where these photos were taken is to the left (west) of #100 at what is shown as a round about / rotary.
The destroyed trees / now access road is above (north of) the round about. Above that is the soon to be destroyed core Alewife reservation.
Below the access road is the parking lot shown in the fourth photo. Look on Google Maps at how far that parking lot extends to the right (east) beyond the area shown in my photo. Really a lot of room for flood storage.
If Cambridge, MA and the state in any way resembled the environmental saints that the Cambridge Pols lie that they are, this would be no problem.
Schedule for the worst destruction: probably promptly after the Cambridge City Council elections in November.
Cambridge has a tradition. Very frequently the really rotten stuff is done right after the election. That allows the fake environmentalists to get reelected lying of their environmental sainthood.
The second photo shows the worst of the preliminary destruction.
Note that you can now see through the trees straight ahead.
I played these pictures live on my cable show Sunday night, together with the Google satellite view. The satellite view is dated. The satellite view SHOWS THE TREES WHICH WERE DESTROYED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION. Those trees which were destroyed were the size of the remaining trees and they were everywhere in the now construction zone.
The now access road, shown in the third photo, was fully treed before destruction.
And this destruction is highly preliminary and totally unnecessary. This destruction is just to move the utilities in preparation for totally unnecessary clear cut logging of the core, essentially virgin Alewife reservation.
If you would like to compare search “100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA” on Google Maps. That will put you right in the middle of this dead end road.
The contrast with the photos is striking.
The area where these photos were taken is to the left (west) of #100 at what is shown as a round about / rotary.
The destroyed trees / now access road is above (north of) the round about. Above that is the soon to be destroyed core Alewife reservation.
Below the access road is the parking lot shown in the fourth photo. Look on Google Maps at how far that parking lot extends to the right (east) beyond the area shown in my photo. Really a lot of room for flood storage.
If Cambridge, MA and the state in any way resembled the environmental saints that the Cambridge Pols lie that they are, this would be no problem.
Schedule for the worst destruction: probably promptly after the Cambridge City Council elections in November.
Cambridge has a tradition. Very frequently the really rotten stuff is done right after the election. That allows the fake environmentalists to get reelected lying of their environmental sainthood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)