Charles River: Why mention a Cambridge, MA, USA City Councilor’s Sexual Orientation?
In my last report or two, I responded to an initiative by a Cambridge City Councilor who is a Black Lesbian Female, repeatedly calling her a Black Lesbian Female.
I did so with great qualms because this sort of term is normally used in a derogatory manner with regard to the nature of the person as a Black Lesbian Female.
The trouble is that, in Cambridge, MA, looks are highly deceiving.
This woman is conducting an initiative looking into the malfeasance of the past Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy with regard to Women’s Rights and Civil Rights, and she is doing so as a Black Lesbian Female.
This is the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge in which three levels of Courts damned the behavior of Cambridge’s honorably retired City Manager, Robert Healy.
The councilor wears her label of Black Lesbian Female with pride.
Trouble is that her behavior on the Monteiro case about which she is yelling was on the wrong side of the side she claims to be on when she proudly declares herself a Black Lesbian Female.
And she is now spouting pious on disclosures which disclose that she is even further on the wrong side.
By being one of a unanimous City Council which simply ignored strong condemnations of three levels of courts aimed at Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy’s destructive behavior on civil rights / women’s right, this city councilor disowned her own status of Black Lesbian Female.
Her status as a Black Lesbian Female continues to exist, but WHEN IT COUNTS, she has demonstrated that she is on the wrong side, and that, yet again, her public appearance on her record on the matters where it counts is the opposite of reality.
I repeatedly called this woman a Black Lesbian Female because she dishonored her status by seeing no problems with Healy’s heartless human abuse on this Civil Rights / Female Rights matter.
If I have offended people by calling this turncoat by her own status which she rejected, if I have offended people who support the status which this turncoat rejected in the Monteiro outrage, I would say very clearly that the person to condemn is the Black Lesbian Female who disowned herself by seeing no problems in the behavior of Robert Healy.
For her now to be playing the Lesbian card, the Female card, the Black card, by exposing even more the vileness of Robert Healy, she is exposing her own serious deficiencies and she is lying that she is on the side one would expect of a Black Lesbian Female.
The stuff she is disclosing now is part of the package which includes what the Courts condemned and with which she found no problem when she should have fired that destructive person.
“Do as I say, not as I do.”
This is the running policy of the Cambridge City Council on environmental and civil rights matters, and there is too much subtle and non subtle lying going on.
For my position on Cambridge’s heartless human abuse when it mattered, please see my YouTube post at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
I stood up against Cambridge’s heartless human abuse then. I stand up against Cambridge heartless animal abuse and belligerent environmental destruction then and now.
I strongly object to my proven enemies lying that they are on my side to get reelected.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Charles River, Cambridge, MA, USA Civil Rights, clarification on Committee Name: Letter from Cambridge’s Human Rights Committee.
Charles River, Cambridge, MA, USA Civil Rights, clarification on Committee Name: Letter from Cambridge’s Human Rights Committee.
1. Introduction.
2. What is an environment blog doing analyzing civil rights?
3. Letter on Monteiro.
1. Introduction.
In my last report, I reported a Black Lesbian Cambridge City Councilor stating in a meeting of the fake neighborhood association that a Civic Unity Committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager has never existed. The purpose of such committees in Cambridge, MA, USA is to discuss “diversity” issues.
This was a follow up on the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge in which a series of court decisions damned the now retired City Manager for destroying the life of Malvina Montero because she filed a civil rights complaint.
My report is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/charles-river-cambridge-ma-usa.html.
I mentioned a very prominent Black leader whom I did not name who was involved in the City Manager Civic Unity Committee. He was named Oliver Farnum. He passed away awhile ago.
In the third section of this report, I reprint the letter in the Cambridge Chronicle that I was thinking came from former members of the City Manager’s Civic Unity Committee. It turns out the name of the committee whose former members sent the letter is the Human Rights Commission. That sounds like a sensible renaming of what was an abstrusely named committee.
Clearly, the name has been changed or some sort of other reorganization has occurred. That change possibly occurred during the past ten years or so, because I was constantly getting confused about having two Civic Unity Committees, the City Council’s and the City Manager’s. And, in fact, it came to be a great surprise to me that the City Council had a committee by that name.
Going through recent reports, I note that the City Council committee has exposed further outrages from the former City Manager. I would be very surprised if anybody associated with the City of Cambridge has commented on the City Council’s failure to fire a City Manager so roundly condemned by the Courts.
2. What is an environment blog doing analyzing civil rights?
The problem on the Charles River in Boston / Cambridge, MA, USA rests squarely on the government of the City of Cambridge.
The great weakness in the destroyers in the City of Cambridge is that the residents of the City of Cambridge demand a progressive government. The government of the City of Cambridge, on the important stuff, is exactly the opposite of progressive. So they lie using all sorts of techniques.
The two points most touchy with the electorate are the environment and civil rights, both issues on which Cambridge is demonstrably vile. The two are a package in Cambridge, MA, USA. The concern of this blog is the environment. The vileness of the City of Cambridge on Civil Rights supports the position that Cambridge has a very bad government. They satisfy the electorate by lying about their records through a whole bunch of tactics. They are not the saints their propaganda puts them out to be.
It is all one vile package. The combination of vileness on environmental and civil rights matters renders a situation where members of the city council are not fit for office, as far as a knowing electorate would be concerned. So the lies and the fake groups and the massive, lying organization.
It is a mistake to say “They would never stoop so low” when talking about the City of Cambridge and its Cambridge City Council.
To beat them, hit them with reality. Reality is that last thing the Cambridge City Government / City Council wants discussed. The electorate might actually realize they are getting massive lies about “saints” who are anything but saints.
To put it succinctly, the record of the City of Cambridge on civil rights is Monteiro, Monteiro, Monteiro. The inability of all nine then sitting City Councilors to even consider firing a City Manager whose behavior was indisputably condemned through multiple sources in the Courts condemns all the then sitting City Councilors.
3. Letter on Monteiro.
This Cambridge Chronicle letter is taken from my files, and it is not edited. The “editor’s note” is from the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle.
*********
Published on line October 17, 2011. In Cambridge Chronicle hard copy October 20, 2011.
Letter: No information on Monteiro case from the start
Cambridge —
[Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to the Cambridge City Council last week by former Cambridge Human Rights Commissioners. Since that time, the remaining cases mentioned in the letter have been settled by the city.]
As sitting commissioners on the Human Rights Commission at the time of the Monteiro versus city of Cambridge trials, we write to strongly urge you to initiate a discussion on the issues of accountability about this specific case and more generally in regard to who is responsible for upholding human rights in the city.
The concern for employees who allege discrimination should be on the city’s agenda, as now a jury, a Superior Court judge and the Appellate Court have vindicated a former employee who charged retaliation for having filed a discrimination suit.
Having found out about the first trial in the case from the local media, human rights commissioners in 2005 considered what our obligations in the case might be given the city ordinance that established the commission, which reads as follows.
· “The commission shall discuss human rights problem areas with the city manager and make recommendations necessary to protect the human rights of all city citizens and employees” (Section 2.76.080, page 89).
· “The commission shall request of the city manager, department heads and superintendent of schools, such information and staff support as is reasonable so that it may be properly informed” (Section 2.76.080, page 89).
· The commission may review and comment on all matters pertaining to the human rights of citizens (Section 2.76.080, page 89).
Our attempt in 2005 to acquire general information about city employee complaints of discrimination, to receive a copy of the Monteiro complaint and to request the city law department to meet with us simply to provide us with the information, which the ordinance clearly mandates that we should have, was met with hostility. We were accused by the law department with interfering, told that our inquiry was out of line and informed that as a city-appointed body our interest and concern should be with city officials, when our mandate is to be concerned with and “protect… the human rights of all city… employees.” Furthermore, our attempt to be “properly informed,” we were told, carried the threat of a conflict of interest.
As a second plaintiff’s charge of discrimination awaits a trial date, we call upon you as our elected officials to be involved in developing a process to deal with alleged discrimination charges that offer city employees other options besides bringing costly lawsuits. The city administration’s placement of limitations on the work of the Human Rights Commission is part of the problem in ruling out such options. It is time for the city council to renew its commitment to “protect the human rights of all city citizens and employees” and to urge and support the Human Rights Commission in doing what it was established to do. --William Donovan, Marla Erlien, Charles Kavanaugh, Daniel Klubock, Susan Ostrander
Read more: Letter: No information on Monteiro case from the start - Cambridge, Massachusetts - Cambridge Chronicle http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x984138967/Letter-No-information-on-Monteiro-case-from-the-start#ixzz1byqf2Hp3
1. Introduction.
2. What is an environment blog doing analyzing civil rights?
3. Letter on Monteiro.
1. Introduction.
In my last report, I reported a Black Lesbian Cambridge City Councilor stating in a meeting of the fake neighborhood association that a Civic Unity Committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager has never existed. The purpose of such committees in Cambridge, MA, USA is to discuss “diversity” issues.
This was a follow up on the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge in which a series of court decisions damned the now retired City Manager for destroying the life of Malvina Montero because she filed a civil rights complaint.
My report is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/charles-river-cambridge-ma-usa.html.
I mentioned a very prominent Black leader whom I did not name who was involved in the City Manager Civic Unity Committee. He was named Oliver Farnum. He passed away awhile ago.
In the third section of this report, I reprint the letter in the Cambridge Chronicle that I was thinking came from former members of the City Manager’s Civic Unity Committee. It turns out the name of the committee whose former members sent the letter is the Human Rights Commission. That sounds like a sensible renaming of what was an abstrusely named committee.
Going through recent reports, I note that the City Council committee has exposed further outrages from the former City Manager. I would be very surprised if anybody associated with the City of Cambridge has commented on the City Council’s failure to fire a City Manager so roundly condemned by the Courts.
The problem on the Charles River in Boston / Cambridge, MA, USA rests squarely on the government of the City of Cambridge.
The great weakness in the destroyers in the City of Cambridge is that the residents of the City of Cambridge demand a progressive government. The government of the City of Cambridge, on the important stuff, is exactly the opposite of progressive. So they lie using all sorts of techniques.
The two points most touchy with the electorate are the environment and civil rights, both issues on which Cambridge is demonstrably vile. The two are a package in Cambridge, MA, USA. The concern of this blog is the environment. The vileness of the City of Cambridge on Civil Rights supports the position that Cambridge has a very bad government. They satisfy the electorate by lying about their records through a whole bunch of tactics. They are not the saints their propaganda puts them out to be.
It is all one vile package. The combination of vileness on environmental and civil rights matters renders a situation where members of the city council are not fit for office, as far as a knowing electorate would be concerned. So the lies and the fake groups and the massive, lying organization.
It is a mistake to say “They would never stoop so low” when talking about the City of Cambridge and its Cambridge City Council.
To beat them, hit them with reality. Reality is that last thing the Cambridge City Government / City Council wants discussed. The electorate might actually realize they are getting massive lies about “saints” who are anything but saints.
To put it succinctly, the record of the City of Cambridge on civil rights is Monteiro, Monteiro, Monteiro. The inability of all nine then sitting City Councilors to even consider firing a City Manager whose behavior was indisputably condemned through multiple sources in the Courts condemns all the then sitting City Councilors.
3. Letter on Monteiro.
*********
Published on line October 17, 2011. In Cambridge Chronicle hard copy October 20, 2011.
Letter: No information on Monteiro case from the start
Cambridge —
[Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to the Cambridge City Council last week by former Cambridge Human Rights Commissioners. Since that time, the remaining cases mentioned in the letter have been settled by the city.]
As sitting commissioners on the Human Rights Commission at the time of the Monteiro versus city of Cambridge trials, we write to strongly urge you to initiate a discussion on the issues of accountability about this specific case and more generally in regard to who is responsible for upholding human rights in the city.
The concern for employees who allege discrimination should be on the city’s agenda, as now a jury, a Superior Court judge and the Appellate Court have vindicated a former employee who charged retaliation for having filed a discrimination suit.
Having found out about the first trial in the case from the local media, human rights commissioners in 2005 considered what our obligations in the case might be given the city ordinance that established the commission, which reads as follows.
· “The commission shall discuss human rights problem areas with the city manager and make recommendations necessary to protect the human rights of all city citizens and employees” (Section 2.76.080, page 89).
· “The commission shall request of the city manager, department heads and superintendent of schools, such information and staff support as is reasonable so that it may be properly informed” (Section 2.76.080, page 89).
· The commission may review and comment on all matters pertaining to the human rights of citizens (Section 2.76.080, page 89).
Our attempt in 2005 to acquire general information about city employee complaints of discrimination, to receive a copy of the Monteiro complaint and to request the city law department to meet with us simply to provide us with the information, which the ordinance clearly mandates that we should have, was met with hostility. We were accused by the law department with interfering, told that our inquiry was out of line and informed that as a city-appointed body our interest and concern should be with city officials, when our mandate is to be concerned with and “protect… the human rights of all city… employees.” Furthermore, our attempt to be “properly informed,” we were told, carried the threat of a conflict of interest.
As a second plaintiff’s charge of discrimination awaits a trial date, we call upon you as our elected officials to be involved in developing a process to deal with alleged discrimination charges that offer city employees other options besides bringing costly lawsuits. The city administration’s placement of limitations on the work of the Human Rights Commission is part of the problem in ruling out such options. It is time for the city council to renew its commitment to “protect the human rights of all city citizens and employees” and to urge and support the Human Rights Commission in doing what it was established to do. --William Donovan, Marla Erlien, Charles Kavanaugh, Daniel Klubock, Susan Ostrander
Read more: Letter: No information on Monteiro case from the start - Cambridge, Massachusetts - Cambridge Chronicle http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x984138967/Letter-No-information-on-Monteiro-case-from-the-start#ixzz1byqf2Hp3
Friday, January 23, 2015
Charles River: Cambridge, MA, USA Reaffirms Contempt for Civil Rights / Women’s Rights? Established City Manager appointed Civic Unity (racial issues) Committee Destroyed?
Charles River: Cambridge, MA, USA Reaffirms Contempt for Civil Rights / Women’s Rights? Established City Manager appointed Civic Unity (racial issues) Committee Destroyed?
1. Cambridge’s Biggest Lie.
2. The Monteiro Outrage.
3. Lesbian, Black Female City Councilor speaks in yet another lie of omission.
a. “Second” Civic Unity Committee?
b. Lying through omission.
4. Summary.
1. Cambridge’s Biggest Lie.
The biggest, most consistent lie in the City of Cambridge, MA, is the lie of omission.
2. The Monteiro Outrage.
A Lesbian Black woman on the Cambridge City Council gave a pitch last night, January 22, 2015 that Cambridge is aggressively working on the lessons of Monteiro v. Cambridge.
Naturally, it being Cambridge, MA, the most important things were the ones she did not mention.
Malvina Monteiro was the Administrator of Cambridge’s Police Review Board. She is a Black Cape Verdian woman.
She thought she was being discriminated against by Cambridge by being a woman paid less than comparable men employed by the City of Cambridge. She filed a civil rights complaint. The Cambridge City Manager retaliated. He fired her and clearly destroyed her life in retaliation for filing that Civil Rights complaint.
The civil rights jury showed their contempt for the City of Cambridge by ordering a payment of $1.1 million to Monteiro as her damages plus PENAL DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES, a percentage above the normal maximum for penal damages.
The civil rights judge reviewed the decision and Cambridge’s motions. Her opinion exceeded 100 pages and can be summed in one word: “ reprehensible.” She included extensive quotes of the Cambridge City Manager in support of “reprehensible.”
Cambridge appealed. The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion. They wrote a scholarly non “opinion” which may be summarized as finding “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”
The Cambridge City Council has a duty to supervise the Cambridge City Manager and has a duty to fire him should he practice malfeasance or misfeasance in office. It is silly to interpret those three rulings as other than affirmations of malfeasance or misfeasance in office.
Exactly zero votes were taken to fire the Cambridge City Manager by the Cambridge City Council.
In exactly zero instances has any member of that sitting City Council acknowledged the well demonstrated contempt for the Cambridge City Manager by three carefully thought out judicial decisions.
In the election after the Appeals Court decision came down, the voters fired one Cambridge City Councilor. This came after he expressed an opinion that destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro was “no big thing.”
A second sitting long time city councilor who was a part of that outrage, a gay black man, was fired in the next election. Was that firing part of the expression of disgust by the electorate?
Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy retired with honor.
3. Lesbian, Black Female City Councilor speaks in yet another lie of omission.
a. “Second” Civic Unity Committee?
The fake neighborhood association had two members of the Cambridge City Council talk to them on Thursday, January 22. The Lesbian, Black Female City Councillor bragged that they are working on the Monteiro case. She is one of the city councilors who were not able to even notice the contempt of the Courts for Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy.
The councillor’s big achievement that she bragged about is the creation of a “second” Civic Unity Committee to discuss government diversity (i.e. racial) matters, in addition to the Civic Unity Committee of the City Council. She says this new subcommittee of the City Council Civic Unity Committee would consist of members of the public and will address the Monteiro matter
Trouble is that the Cambridge City Manager has a long established committee appointed by him, the Civic Unity Committee. It has a long record of work in diversity matters, and I recall a very prominent Black resident who was very visible in the community who was a member of this City Manager created committee.
A letter to the editor was published in the Cambridge Chronicle by, I believe, two former members of the City Manager’s well established Civic Unity Committee.
The former members reported that their committee had attempted to review the Monteiro outrage. They reported that the Cambridge City Solicitor’s Office, when faced with this behavior by the Cambridge City Manager’s well established Civic Unity Committee, had chastised the committee for failing to be team players.
I questioned the Lesbian, Black Female City Councilor whether the new subcommittee amounted to a second Civic Unity Committee or a third, counting the well established Civic Unity Committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager whose departed members complained in the Cambridge Chronicle about their treatment when they looked into the Monteiro case.
The councilor reported that there are only two Civic Unity Committees.
The councilor stated that she is not familiar with the one that complained through its former members of the chastising of the committee by the City Solicitor’s office for failing to be team players when the committee tried to get information on Monteiro.
Interesting that a Black city councilor who has been in office for more than a decade claims to be unaware of the existence of this long time committee defending Blacks which does not seem to exist any more, after it stood up and did its duty on the Monteiro matter.
b. Lying through omission.
The councilor was bragging about this “second” Civic Unity Committee. She did not acknowledge the existence of the long time well established Civic Unity Committee which apparently was destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager. Destruction apparently came after the Civic Unity Committee tried to investigate the Monteiro matter, clearly within their jurisdiction.
She claimed her “second” Civil Unity Committee was a positive response to the Monteiro case.
The reasonable interpretation is that the destruction of the well established Civic Unity Committee would rather reasonably be considered a retaliation for its responsible behavior on the Monteiro matter, and that this “second” committee is yet more smoke and mirrors.
So the responsible, well established Civic Unity Committee was apparently destroyed and the Black, Lesbian, Female City Councilor is bragging about a new Civic Unity Committee as a subcommittee to the City Council’s Civic Unity Committee as a terrific improvement.
And she has been in office how long? And she claims to be a Black activist?
Hard to call that other than lying through omission.
4. Summary.
Never say “They would never stoop so low” when talking about the City of Cambridge and its City Council.
They keep proving such statements wrong.
1. Cambridge’s Biggest Lie.
2. The Monteiro Outrage.
3. Lesbian, Black Female City Councilor speaks in yet another lie of omission.
a. “Second” Civic Unity Committee?
b. Lying through omission.
4. Summary.
1. Cambridge’s Biggest Lie.
The biggest, most consistent lie in the City of Cambridge, MA, is the lie of omission.
2. The Monteiro Outrage.
A Lesbian Black woman on the Cambridge City Council gave a pitch last night, January 22, 2015 that Cambridge is aggressively working on the lessons of Monteiro v. Cambridge.
Naturally, it being Cambridge, MA, the most important things were the ones she did not mention.
Malvina Monteiro was the Administrator of Cambridge’s Police Review Board. She is a Black Cape Verdian woman.
She thought she was being discriminated against by Cambridge by being a woman paid less than comparable men employed by the City of Cambridge. She filed a civil rights complaint. The Cambridge City Manager retaliated. He fired her and clearly destroyed her life in retaliation for filing that Civil Rights complaint.
The civil rights jury showed their contempt for the City of Cambridge by ordering a payment of $1.1 million to Monteiro as her damages plus PENAL DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES, a percentage above the normal maximum for penal damages.
The civil rights judge reviewed the decision and Cambridge’s motions. Her opinion exceeded 100 pages and can be summed in one word: “ reprehensible.” She included extensive quotes of the Cambridge City Manager in support of “reprehensible.”
Cambridge appealed. The Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion. They wrote a scholarly non “opinion” which may be summarized as finding “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”
The Cambridge City Council has a duty to supervise the Cambridge City Manager and has a duty to fire him should he practice malfeasance or misfeasance in office. It is silly to interpret those three rulings as other than affirmations of malfeasance or misfeasance in office.
Exactly zero votes were taken to fire the Cambridge City Manager by the Cambridge City Council.
In exactly zero instances has any member of that sitting City Council acknowledged the well demonstrated contempt for the Cambridge City Manager by three carefully thought out judicial decisions.
In the election after the Appeals Court decision came down, the voters fired one Cambridge City Councilor. This came after he expressed an opinion that destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro was “no big thing.”
A second sitting long time city councilor who was a part of that outrage, a gay black man, was fired in the next election. Was that firing part of the expression of disgust by the electorate?
Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy retired with honor.
3. Lesbian, Black Female City Councilor speaks in yet another lie of omission.
a. “Second” Civic Unity Committee?
The fake neighborhood association had two members of the Cambridge City Council talk to them on Thursday, January 22. The Lesbian, Black Female City Councillor bragged that they are working on the Monteiro case. She is one of the city councilors who were not able to even notice the contempt of the Courts for Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy.
The councillor’s big achievement that she bragged about is the creation of a “second” Civic Unity Committee to discuss government diversity (i.e. racial) matters, in addition to the Civic Unity Committee of the City Council. She says this new subcommittee of the City Council Civic Unity Committee would consist of members of the public and will address the Monteiro matter
Trouble is that the Cambridge City Manager has a long established committee appointed by him, the Civic Unity Committee. It has a long record of work in diversity matters, and I recall a very prominent Black resident who was very visible in the community who was a member of this City Manager created committee.
A letter to the editor was published in the Cambridge Chronicle by, I believe, two former members of the City Manager’s well established Civic Unity Committee.
The former members reported that their committee had attempted to review the Monteiro outrage. They reported that the Cambridge City Solicitor’s Office, when faced with this behavior by the Cambridge City Manager’s well established Civic Unity Committee, had chastised the committee for failing to be team players.
I questioned the Lesbian, Black Female City Councilor whether the new subcommittee amounted to a second Civic Unity Committee or a third, counting the well established Civic Unity Committee appointed by the Cambridge City Manager whose departed members complained in the Cambridge Chronicle about their treatment when they looked into the Monteiro case.
The councilor reported that there are only two Civic Unity Committees.
The councilor stated that she is not familiar with the one that complained through its former members of the chastising of the committee by the City Solicitor’s office for failing to be team players when the committee tried to get information on Monteiro.
Interesting that a Black city councilor who has been in office for more than a decade claims to be unaware of the existence of this long time committee defending Blacks which does not seem to exist any more, after it stood up and did its duty on the Monteiro matter.
b. Lying through omission.
The councilor was bragging about this “second” Civic Unity Committee. She did not acknowledge the existence of the long time well established Civic Unity Committee which apparently was destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager. Destruction apparently came after the Civic Unity Committee tried to investigate the Monteiro matter, clearly within their jurisdiction.
She claimed her “second” Civil Unity Committee was a positive response to the Monteiro case.
The reasonable interpretation is that the destruction of the well established Civic Unity Committee would rather reasonably be considered a retaliation for its responsible behavior on the Monteiro matter, and that this “second” committee is yet more smoke and mirrors.
So the responsible, well established Civic Unity Committee was apparently destroyed and the Black, Lesbian, Female City Councilor is bragging about a new Civic Unity Committee as a subcommittee to the City Council’s Civic Unity Committee as a terrific improvement.
And she has been in office how long? And she claims to be a Black activist?
Hard to call that other than lying through omission.
4. Summary.
Never say “They would never stoop so low” when talking about the City of Cambridge and its City Council.
They keep proving such statements wrong.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Charles River: Boston Olympics 2024 calls for attacking the Magazine Beach playing fields, and, of course, its animals.
Charles River: Boston Olympics 2024 calls for attacking the Magazine Beach playing fields, and, of course, its animals.
Mr. Saul Tannenbaum has posted on the Internet the Boston Olympics 2024 plans for the Magazine Beach playing fields.
They are posted at: https://www.scribd.com/doc/253330684/Olympics-2024-plans-for-Cambridge-s-Magazine-Beach
Downloading is allowed WITH FULL ACCESS TO YOUR FACEBOOK FRIENDS LIST.
Note that this is in addition to the existing vote by the State House to destroy hundreds of trees on the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges with associated animal abuse.
This existing State House authorization is being accomplished with the usual “neutrality” with a wink and a nod by the environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council. There exist, as well, so many other destructive projects by the Cambridge City Council and its friends.
$20 million has been allocated for the tree destruction and related heartless animal abuse in Ch. 286, Acts of 2014 of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, key phrase “Historic Parkways.” Tree destruction / animal abuse plans are posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html
Some photos of the currently planned victims:
And here is a photo of the City of Cambridge's sign at its propaganda piece in the City Hall Annex.
Mr. Saul Tannenbaum has posted on the Internet the Boston Olympics 2024 plans for the Magazine Beach playing fields.
They are posted at: https://www.scribd.com/doc/253330684/Olympics-2024-plans-for-Cambridge-s-Magazine-Beach
Downloading is allowed WITH FULL ACCESS TO YOUR FACEBOOK FRIENDS LIST.
Note that this is in addition to the existing vote by the State House to destroy hundreds of trees on the Charles River between the BU and Longfellow Bridges with associated animal abuse.
This existing State House authorization is being accomplished with the usual “neutrality” with a wink and a nod by the environmentally reprehensible Cambridge City Council. There exist, as well, so many other destructive projects by the Cambridge City Council and its friends.
Some photos of the currently planned victims:
And here is a photo of the City of Cambridge's sign at its propaganda piece in the City Hall Annex.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Charles River: Caring for White Geese, Communication on Feeding, response and context.
Charles River: Caring for White Geese, Communication on Feeding, response and context.
1. Good Person, Derry, NH.
2. Feeding advice in context.
a. MWRA.
b. LittleBrook.
c. Friends of the White Geese.
d. The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.
1. Good Person, Derry, NH.
Elena asks the following:
Hi! I just discovered that I have three white geese living on my property in Derry NH. This is the first time in the 8 years I've lived here that I've had white geese. I love having them here-is there anything that I should/should not do to ensure their safety?
Thanks for your time!
***********
Response:
Go to your local farm supply store.
They are best off with a particular blend of food.
The staff should be able to help you.
I am pleased of your concern for your feathered friends, and with their visiting you.
Do not worry about the cold weather. Their down jackets will keep them warm.
They are well adapted to the environment.
The food supply is important. Diet deficiencies can result in physical problems, particularly visible in walking oddly.
PS: If you get a chance, please friend us on facebook, Charles River White Geese, and invite your friends. Thanks.
2. Feeding advice in context.
a. MWRA.
Folks at the pollution plant operated by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority between the playing fields and the BU Bridge brought the ancestors of the Charles River White Geese to the Charles River after their watch dog passed away. They used the geese as watch geese with the idea that the geese would put up an alarm if their territory were invaded.
They continued feeding them until the early 2000s. That was shortly after the vote of the Cambridge City Council to fund changes at the Magazine Beach playing fields which commenced, later, to starve them. After this vote, various oddities “suddenly” happened. One of the oddities was a change in staffing which removed the folks who had been feeding them.
b. LittleBrook.
Here are photos of LittleBrook visiting the Charles River White Geese long after he could no longer be with them every day.
LittleBrook is a Native American who was their best friend from 1996 until several months before Cambridge and its accomplices started deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese. Cambridge and the accomplices lied all the way, of course.
LittleBrook knew the Charles River White Geese quite well. He knew their family structure, their leadership and their leaders in training.
In addition to feeding them, he ministered to their ills with NativeAmerican medicines.
Shortly before the outrages started from Cambridge and its accomplices took full hold, LittleBrook got a bicycle. Two days after he got the bicycle, he went into the hospital as a result of his use of the bicycle. From there, he went into a nursing home putting his body back together as well as possible.
He has been out of the residential care he received for a number of years now.
He still loves the Charles River White Geese, but he physically is not able to provide the care he was providing.
c. Friends of the White Geese.
My cochair took over the feeding duties. Only after the heartlessness abuse of Cambridge and company started did we realize just how important the grasses at the Magazine Beach playing fields were to them.
The breads and other goodies were luxuries which they loved, but were only supplements in their diet.
My cochair realized the problem when their real food was stolen from them by massive machines, and then by a bizarre wall of introduced bushes. Some photos:
Before:
After:
This wall of introduced vegetation is unique on the Charles River Basin to the home and the food of the Charles River White Geese blocking their access to their home and food where they lived and fed for most of the last 34 years. Everywhere else, the DCR and its agents destroy bordering vegetation twice a year, but bordering vegetation has a purpose. The DCR has a goal of killing off or driving away all resident animals. This wall's starving of the Charles River White Geese does exactly that.
The DCR's "explanation"? They said they were creating a lawn to the river. That is an obvious lie.
For years they flat out lied that they had no intention to do harm to the Charles River White Geese.
My cochair started visiting feed stores and learned of the diet they needed. She then proceeded to provide that diet as well as possible.
The situation forced us by the heartless hypocrites made it appropriate to formalize things. Our activities as Friends of the White Geese started in March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to their nesting area which had been mildly destroyed by Boston University as agent for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
In 2001, we formally obtained recognition by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Public Charities people as Friends of the White Geese, a non profit, but not a tax exempt non profit.
When the deliberate, heartless starvation started, it made sense to create an organization which could accept tax exempt contributions. This was The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.
d. The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.
CRUWI has done a yoeman’s task of serving to the Charles River White Geese the food heartlessly taken from them by Cambridge, its friends, and the massive organization in Cambridge lying through claims of sainthood directed at the reprehensible government of the City of Cambridge.
About a month ago, I reported on Kristen Sunter’s Bird Listening show on WMBR Radio, Mondays at 5 pm.
She did a show on the Charles River White Geese. She led with me in a live / taped presentation. After that, she read off segments of an email exchange with the CRUWI folks.
That presentation was so good. I have not been able to upload it to the Blog, but I will try to find other ways to pass it on to you. You Tube, unfortunately, will not work because of its time limits. Perhaps I can edit it down to the appropriate length.
One big difference between CRUWI and me is that CRUWI sees the Charles River White Geese every day to feed them. They have replaced LittleBrook and they know the Charles River White Geese like LittleBrook did.
I am overloaded by the political part of the situation, including the true rottenness stemming from Cambridge’s fake groups and their reprehensible, falsely deified City Council.
It was so nice to see CRUWI’s positive comments.
1. Good Person, Derry, NH.
2. Feeding advice in context.
a. MWRA.
b. LittleBrook.
c. Friends of the White Geese.
d. The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.
1. Good Person, Derry, NH.
Elena asks the following:
Hi! I just discovered that I have three white geese living on my property in Derry NH. This is the first time in the 8 years I've lived here that I've had white geese. I love having them here-is there anything that I should/should not do to ensure their safety?
Thanks for your time!
***********
Response:
Go to your local farm supply store.
They are best off with a particular blend of food.
The staff should be able to help you.
I am pleased of your concern for your feathered friends, and with their visiting you.
Do not worry about the cold weather. Their down jackets will keep them warm.
They are well adapted to the environment.
The food supply is important. Diet deficiencies can result in physical problems, particularly visible in walking oddly.
PS: If you get a chance, please friend us on facebook, Charles River White Geese, and invite your friends. Thanks.
2. Feeding advice in context.
a. MWRA.
Folks at the pollution plant operated by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority between the playing fields and the BU Bridge brought the ancestors of the Charles River White Geese to the Charles River after their watch dog passed away. They used the geese as watch geese with the idea that the geese would put up an alarm if their territory were invaded.
They continued feeding them until the early 2000s. That was shortly after the vote of the Cambridge City Council to fund changes at the Magazine Beach playing fields which commenced, later, to starve them. After this vote, various oddities “suddenly” happened. One of the oddities was a change in staffing which removed the folks who had been feeding them.
b. LittleBrook.
Here are photos of LittleBrook visiting the Charles River White Geese long after he could no longer be with them every day.
LittleBrook is a Native American who was their best friend from 1996 until several months before Cambridge and its accomplices started deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese. Cambridge and the accomplices lied all the way, of course.
LittleBrook knew the Charles River White Geese quite well. He knew their family structure, their leadership and their leaders in training.
In addition to feeding them, he ministered to their ills with NativeAmerican medicines.
Shortly before the outrages started from Cambridge and its accomplices took full hold, LittleBrook got a bicycle. Two days after he got the bicycle, he went into the hospital as a result of his use of the bicycle. From there, he went into a nursing home putting his body back together as well as possible.
He has been out of the residential care he received for a number of years now.
He still loves the Charles River White Geese, but he physically is not able to provide the care he was providing.
c. Friends of the White Geese.
My cochair took over the feeding duties. Only after the heartlessness abuse of Cambridge and company started did we realize just how important the grasses at the Magazine Beach playing fields were to them.
The breads and other goodies were luxuries which they loved, but were only supplements in their diet.
My cochair realized the problem when their real food was stolen from them by massive machines, and then by a bizarre wall of introduced bushes. Some photos:
Before:
After:
This wall of introduced vegetation is unique on the Charles River Basin to the home and the food of the Charles River White Geese blocking their access to their home and food where they lived and fed for most of the last 34 years. Everywhere else, the DCR and its agents destroy bordering vegetation twice a year, but bordering vegetation has a purpose. The DCR has a goal of killing off or driving away all resident animals. This wall's starving of the Charles River White Geese does exactly that.
The DCR's "explanation"? They said they were creating a lawn to the river. That is an obvious lie.
For years they flat out lied that they had no intention to do harm to the Charles River White Geese.
My cochair started visiting feed stores and learned of the diet they needed. She then proceeded to provide that diet as well as possible.
The situation forced us by the heartless hypocrites made it appropriate to formalize things. Our activities as Friends of the White Geese started in March 2000 when the Charles River White Geese returned to their nesting area which had been mildly destroyed by Boston University as agent for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
In 2001, we formally obtained recognition by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Public Charities people as Friends of the White Geese, a non profit, but not a tax exempt non profit.
When the deliberate, heartless starvation started, it made sense to create an organization which could accept tax exempt contributions. This was The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.
d. The Charles River Urban Wilds Initiative.
CRUWI has done a yoeman’s task of serving to the Charles River White Geese the food heartlessly taken from them by Cambridge, its friends, and the massive organization in Cambridge lying through claims of sainthood directed at the reprehensible government of the City of Cambridge.
About a month ago, I reported on Kristen Sunter’s Bird Listening show on WMBR Radio, Mondays at 5 pm.
She did a show on the Charles River White Geese. She led with me in a live / taped presentation. After that, she read off segments of an email exchange with the CRUWI folks.
That presentation was so good. I have not been able to upload it to the Blog, but I will try to find other ways to pass it on to you. You Tube, unfortunately, will not work because of its time limits. Perhaps I can edit it down to the appropriate length.
One big difference between CRUWI and me is that CRUWI sees the Charles River White Geese every day to feed them. They have replaced LittleBrook and they know the Charles River White Geese like LittleBrook did.
It was so nice to see CRUWI’s positive comments.
Friday, January 09, 2015
Cambridge/Boston, MA — Olympic City? State House destruction of hundreds of excellent trees in the middle of the Olympics?
Cambridge/Boston, MA — Olympic City? State House destruction of hundreds of excellent trees in the middle of the Olympics?
The independence of Cambridge from Boston, MA is a historical anomaly. Geography wise, Cambridge and Somerville to its north belong as part of Boston. But we are not and we have our own identities.
The one important visible separation between Cambridge and Boston is the Charles River.
It has been reported that Boston is the United States candidate to host the Olympics in 2024. I see reports that Massachusetts Institute of Technology is being considered for some of the games.
MIT is in Cambridge. The most important separation of MIT from the Charles River is Memorial Drive.
Memorial Drive is the area where the State House has voted to destroy hundreds of trees. MIT supports the destruction.
The destruction will ramp up the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese and other free animals. The bureaucrats always ramp up the heartless abuse when they get a project anyway near beautiful free animals.
Here are some of these excellent trees slated for destruction.
Here are the Charles River White Geese, first with their longtime, but now injured, best friend, Little Brook, and secondly, admiring the Charles River.
The Charles River White Geese are one of the most valuable possessions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the Charles River.
But Cambridge, MA, has an environmentally reprehensible government which brags of its heartless animal abuse, and they coordinate their heartlessness with a whole bunch of rotters including the equally reprehensible bureaucrats who control the land where the Charles River White Geese live. Here is a copy of Cambridge’s bragging of its contempt for beautiful, valuable animals.
Cambridge and its accomplices can get away with these outrages because Cambridge has a massive organization running around lying about the Cambridge government.
This particular outrage may be found in Ch. 286 of the Massachusetts Acts of 2014, search for “Historic Parkways.”
$20 million.
These particular plans are on the Internet at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html. This post includes my transmittal of the plans to the Cambridge City Council. Poor dears, they are very happy with the lies that they are holier than thou.
So now we have the outrage of massive destruction of hundreds of excellent trees right in the middle of the Olympics.
FUNDED BY THE STATE HOUSE.
To quote that civil rights judge’s opinion of heartless human abuse by retired Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy, “Reprehensible.”
To quote the Appeals Court panel: “Ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”
To quote the Jury, $3.5 million PENAL damages, more than three times real damages.
To quote the Cambridge City Council, metaphorically: "What me worry?"
The poor dears.
The independence of Cambridge from Boston, MA is a historical anomaly. Geography wise, Cambridge and Somerville to its north belong as part of Boston. But we are not and we have our own identities.
The one important visible separation between Cambridge and Boston is the Charles River.
It has been reported that Boston is the United States candidate to host the Olympics in 2024. I see reports that Massachusetts Institute of Technology is being considered for some of the games.
MIT is in Cambridge. The most important separation of MIT from the Charles River is Memorial Drive.
Memorial Drive is the area where the State House has voted to destroy hundreds of trees. MIT supports the destruction.
The destruction will ramp up the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese and other free animals. The bureaucrats always ramp up the heartless abuse when they get a project anyway near beautiful free animals.
Here are some of these excellent trees slated for destruction.
Here are the Charles River White Geese, first with their longtime, but now injured, best friend, Little Brook, and secondly, admiring the Charles River.
The Charles River White Geese are one of the most valuable possessions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the Charles River.
But Cambridge, MA, has an environmentally reprehensible government which brags of its heartless animal abuse, and they coordinate their heartlessness with a whole bunch of rotters including the equally reprehensible bureaucrats who control the land where the Charles River White Geese live. Here is a copy of Cambridge’s bragging of its contempt for beautiful, valuable animals.
Cambridge and its accomplices can get away with these outrages because Cambridge has a massive organization running around lying about the Cambridge government.
This particular outrage may be found in Ch. 286 of the Massachusetts Acts of 2014, search for “Historic Parkways.”
$20 million.
These particular plans are on the Internet at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/tree-destruction-plans-charles-river.html. This post includes my transmittal of the plans to the Cambridge City Council. Poor dears, they are very happy with the lies that they are holier than thou.
So now we have the outrage of massive destruction of hundreds of excellent trees right in the middle of the Olympics.
To quote that civil rights judge’s opinion of heartless human abuse by retired Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy, “Reprehensible.”
To quote the Appeals Court panel: “Ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”
To quote the Jury, $3.5 million PENAL damages, more than three times real damages.
To quote the Cambridge City Council, metaphorically: "What me worry?"
The poor dears.
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
Charles River: Special Permits - More bizarre yelling out of the fake protectors of the City of Cambridge, MA.
Charles River: Special Permits - More bizarre yelling out of the fake protectors of the City of Cambridge, MA.
0. Introduction.
1. Caveat.
2. “Special Permits” — Yet another non stop lie.
3. Poor dears want to know if Special Permit “Protections” are real.
4. The real game?
5. Summary.
0. Introduction.
Zoning is major in Cambridge politics, and the corruption in that process is the same corruption which is the basis for the outrages on the Charles River, at Alewife, on the Cambridge Common, and in so many other attacks on the environment and on resident animals.
1. Caveat.
The rot in the government of the City of Cambridge and the fake groups which keep it in power is such that it is impossible to tell the knaves from the fools.
The reality is that a tiny minority dominates politics in the City of Cambridge, and key in their domination is the non stop lying that the Cambridge government is holier than thou.
A tiny subminority controls the minority through, of course, lies.
The trouble is that the rest of the members of the controlling group are fully sold and committed to the lies upon which this entire House of Cards rest.
The commitment of the fools to the cause of the knaves is unswerving. It is impossible to tell the difference and it is thus silly to try to distinguish between the knaves and their totally committed fools.
2. “Special Permits” — Yet another non stop lie.
I have more zoning victories in Cambridge than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge. A major difference between my zoning changes and so many of those of the City of Cambridge’s staff is that my zoning changes do what I say they do.
A key part of the repeated lies out of Cambridge employees and their fake groups is the “Special Permit” concept.
The concept behind special permits is the difference between “base zoning” and the zoning the drafters want obeyed.
The difference between the two is that the drafters do not want developers to obey “base zoning”. They want the developers to provide development which complies with terms needed to obtain the Special Permits.
Then the Development Department and its fake groups run around yelling about how great the Base Zoning is for people concerned about overdevelopment.
Lies of omission control so much of the development activities of the City of Cambridge and its fake groups. The lie of omission on Special Permits is exactly that the writers do not want the Base Zoning to be obeyed.
3. Poor dears want to know if Special Permit “Protections” are real.
Activists in the local fake group are asking the City Council to find out whether base zonings are real.
This is a common sort of question coming out of fake group activists in various parts of the city after destructive zoning changes they have fought for are found to be destructive. They get oh so distressed, and frequently file further zoning changes to undo their supposedly inadvertent errors. The errors the have fought for come into reality because they do not care what is reality. They care to fight for what they have been told to fight for.
Then comes the common follow up. The scoundrels lie of their sainthood by trying to undo the terrible thing they have done. The key is that the vote on zoning matters requires 6 for a change (or more) in both directions.
So when they are doing their dirty tricks, all that is needed to kill the dirty tricks is 4 votes, but the fake correction requires the standard 6 (or more) votes to pass. There is a big difference between getting 4 votes for a position and getting 6 votes for the same position.
4. The real game?
The fake groups are fighting to destroy the zoning ordinance through creating a Master Plan which will then be introduced into the zoning ordinance as a basis for variances and special permits (never said of course).
Da, da, the next sale pitch for the Master Plan destruction will be the lie that the Master Plan will protect against Special Permit abuses.
Exactly the opposite, the Master Plan will be that much more fraud in place of real protections.
5. Summary.
I have attempted to pass on the following in response to the distress of the guilty on Special Permits. Naturally, it would have been censored. Reality is so distressing.
*************
The reality is that the Special Permit process is yet another con game out of the City of Cambridge and its Development Department.
These fake protections turn out to be meaningless if the developer satisfies the conditions required for the Special Permit. To the extent there is any discretion involved, people who will step on the City Manager's toes have only have to look at Healy's destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro when she stood up to him, followed by universal condemnation by relevant courts followed by the total indifference of the City Council to having the power to fire Healy without all those protections Healy had. The City Council was totally not concerned about "reprehensible" from the judge, "ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior" from the appeals court panel, and more than triple penal damages from the jury.
An excellent example of the con game was the destruction of zoning protections on the north side of Memorial Drive in exchange for fake protections which were clearly fake. The fake group which kept the neighborhood silent about that outrage has graduated to the State House voted destruction of hundreds of trees and a whole bunch of other stuff they tell people to ignore while yelling of supposed concern for the Charles River / the neighborhood.
But their leader is resigning before the victims see the destruction.
0. Introduction.
1. Caveat.
2. “Special Permits” — Yet another non stop lie.
3. Poor dears want to know if Special Permit “Protections” are real.
4. The real game?
5. Summary.
0. Introduction.
Zoning is major in Cambridge politics, and the corruption in that process is the same corruption which is the basis for the outrages on the Charles River, at Alewife, on the Cambridge Common, and in so many other attacks on the environment and on resident animals.
1. Caveat.
The rot in the government of the City of Cambridge and the fake groups which keep it in power is such that it is impossible to tell the knaves from the fools.
The reality is that a tiny minority dominates politics in the City of Cambridge, and key in their domination is the non stop lying that the Cambridge government is holier than thou.
A tiny subminority controls the minority through, of course, lies.
The trouble is that the rest of the members of the controlling group are fully sold and committed to the lies upon which this entire House of Cards rest.
The commitment of the fools to the cause of the knaves is unswerving. It is impossible to tell the difference and it is thus silly to try to distinguish between the knaves and their totally committed fools.
2. “Special Permits” — Yet another non stop lie.
I have more zoning victories in Cambridge than anybody else not employed by the City of Cambridge. A major difference between my zoning changes and so many of those of the City of Cambridge’s staff is that my zoning changes do what I say they do.
A key part of the repeated lies out of Cambridge employees and their fake groups is the “Special Permit” concept.
The concept behind special permits is the difference between “base zoning” and the zoning the drafters want obeyed.
The difference between the two is that the drafters do not want developers to obey “base zoning”. They want the developers to provide development which complies with terms needed to obtain the Special Permits.
Then the Development Department and its fake groups run around yelling about how great the Base Zoning is for people concerned about overdevelopment.
Lies of omission control so much of the development activities of the City of Cambridge and its fake groups. The lie of omission on Special Permits is exactly that the writers do not want the Base Zoning to be obeyed.
3. Poor dears want to know if Special Permit “Protections” are real.
Activists in the local fake group are asking the City Council to find out whether base zonings are real.
This is a common sort of question coming out of fake group activists in various parts of the city after destructive zoning changes they have fought for are found to be destructive. They get oh so distressed, and frequently file further zoning changes to undo their supposedly inadvertent errors. The errors the have fought for come into reality because they do not care what is reality. They care to fight for what they have been told to fight for.
Then comes the common follow up. The scoundrels lie of their sainthood by trying to undo the terrible thing they have done. The key is that the vote on zoning matters requires 6 for a change (or more) in both directions.
So when they are doing their dirty tricks, all that is needed to kill the dirty tricks is 4 votes, but the fake correction requires the standard 6 (or more) votes to pass. There is a big difference between getting 4 votes for a position and getting 6 votes for the same position.
4. The real game?
The fake groups are fighting to destroy the zoning ordinance through creating a Master Plan which will then be introduced into the zoning ordinance as a basis for variances and special permits (never said of course).
Da, da, the next sale pitch for the Master Plan destruction will be the lie that the Master Plan will protect against Special Permit abuses.
Exactly the opposite, the Master Plan will be that much more fraud in place of real protections.
5. Summary.
I have attempted to pass on the following in response to the distress of the guilty on Special Permits. Naturally, it would have been censored. Reality is so distressing.
*************
The reality is that the Special Permit process is yet another con game out of the City of Cambridge and its Development Department.
These fake protections turn out to be meaningless if the developer satisfies the conditions required for the Special Permit. To the extent there is any discretion involved, people who will step on the City Manager's toes have only have to look at Healy's destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro when she stood up to him, followed by universal condemnation by relevant courts followed by the total indifference of the City Council to having the power to fire Healy without all those protections Healy had. The City Council was totally not concerned about "reprehensible" from the judge, "ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior" from the appeals court panel, and more than triple penal damages from the jury.
An excellent example of the con game was the destruction of zoning protections on the north side of Memorial Drive in exchange for fake protections which were clearly fake. The fake group which kept the neighborhood silent about that outrage has graduated to the State House voted destruction of hundreds of trees and a whole bunch of other stuff they tell people to ignore while yelling of supposed concern for the Charles River / the neighborhood.
But their leader is resigning before the victims see the destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)