Charles River: Thought Control and the City of Cambridge, MA, USA
1. General.
2. Some personal experiences.
A. General.
B. Central Cambridge.
C. Alewife.
D. Charles River.
E. Blatant Nadir.
3. Current Situation.
1. General.
The big problem with the environment on the Charles River is the outrageous situation in the City of Cambridge, MA, USA. This is a city which includes a lot of believers subtly controlled in many ways by the city government.
The control situation goes back to the first of the current regency of city managers. The first one was James Leo Sullivan who returned to office in 1974 along with his faithful number two person, Robert Healy.
Sullivan had been fired by the Cambridge City Council in the 1960's. Upon his return, he declared his intent to create a system of neighborhood associations. That system has been created and has flourished under other “protective” groups as well.
The key in the system of groups has been the reality that these groups first and foremost are cheerleaders for the City government. Many “activists” in the groups openly go to the Cambridge Development Department for advice.
The City Council has stated it would not recognize “neighborhood associations” which were not blessed by the city manager. Frequently, the “neighborhood associations” were blatantly silly as far as their real existence goes, but the reality is that the city’s government expects the people it deals with to be unabashed praisers of the city government, and the techniques of the “activists” have included corrupt tactics.
The first of these supposed groups suddenly appeared when the City Manager wanted to destroy the best park in the Mid Cambridge neighborhood. A “neighborhood association” suddenly appeared, claimed neutrality, and aggressively fought to destroy the best park in the neighborhood.
Most recently there have been fake groups “protecting” Alewife and fighting for destruction there, and on the Charles, a supposed neighborhood association which gave orders that people should ignore the Charles River UNTIL the powers that be apparently found ways to use the fake group for destructive purposes.
2. Some personal experiences.
A. General.
I have been active in Cambridge pretty much since James Leo Sullivan was rehired.
I obtained a preliminary injunction on appeal to save that first destroyed park. Obtaining a preliminary injunction on appeal was next to impossible, but I did it.
We then lost after working in three levels of court simultaneously. The trial judge ruled that the park being destroyed was not a park and thus did not have statutory protections applicable to parks.
About ten years later, the legislature amended procedural laws to prevent the procedural techniques which put my case in Court in the first place.
It became very clear that there was a lot of lying going on. “Protections” fought for by the fake groups in zoning petitions were turned into lies by undisclosed fine print. This came after real protections were destroyed in exchange for the fake protections.
The fake groups routinely fronted for zoning changes written by the Cambridge Development Department which, altogether too often, were frauds. That secret fine print, of course.
The zoning changes fought for by the fake groups routinely were environmentally destructive.
And while the “groups” loudly proclaimed their independence, they routinely scratched each other’s backs and vouched for each other as sainthood on earth.
The “activists” proved highly skillful at controlling well meaning people and getting well meaning people to achieve the opposite of what the well meaning people wanted to achieve.
B. Central Cambridge.
I regularly wrote zoning petitions as advisor to various neighborhood groups. The one thing that was certain was that, the further I got them away from activists in the fake groups, the more likely my clients were to succeed.
I wrote more successful zoning petitions than any other person not employed by the City of Cambridge, and my petitions did what I said they did.
My most spectacular victories concerned a very politically part of Cambridge. This was the main street in Cambridge, Massachusetts Avenue. I had one major victory just north of Harvard Square, but the most important ones were between and including parts of, the two main squares, Central and Harvard Squares.
My zoning changes emphasized environmental responsibility using zoning techniques, not lovely sounding words, but meaningful techniques. I emphasized housing and first floor open space while allowing, as appropriate, pretty big buildings.
My biggest problems were “activists” in the fake groups. Not the groups, the “activists.”
I could maneuver around the “activists” by calling out residents not influenced by the activists. So the “activists” proceeded to change rules to give them (and thus the City of Cambridge) greater control, and to make people not controlled by them have greater difficulty participating in their “neighborhood association.”.
I impacted about 85% of the area from Cambridge City Hall to the eastern part of Harvard Square. My biggest problems were not the property owners, but the “activists.” My biggest shortcomings came from flat out lies and flat out corrupt tactics by the activists.
C. Alewife.
I first got concerned about Alewife when I was living in the adjoining North Cambridge neighborhood.
I was not able to organize around Alewife because I got beaten to it by a woman with the blessing of the Cambridge Development Department and thus the blessings of the fake groups.
The only positive thing that has been achieved by citizen activists at Alewife was a zoning change that caused the return of a key parking lot to the environment. The parking lot was owned by the predecessor of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and leased to an abutter.
I wrote that zoning change for a concerned woman who proceeded to be treated like crap by the “activists.” When the abutter formally returned the parking lot to the environment, the fake group conducted a celebration which “neglected” to mention the zoning change, although the head of the key company specifically stated that the zoning was the reason for the return. The guests of honor did not include the zoning leaders.
The fake group, as usual, told people to ignore potential destruction by the City of Cambridge, in the Alewife area.
Cambridge and the DCR destroyed 3.4 acres plus of Alewife.
The leader / creator of the fake group proceeded to run around Cambridge bragging about the destruction. She even did so in the pages of the Cambridge Chronicle.
One reason I got involved in the Charles River was that I saw the fake groups supporting this woman and I knew her sales pitch. Her success in the municipal destruction which has started at Alewife is no surprise.
D. Charles River.
This has been the repeated topic of this blog.
E. Blatant Nadir.
Monteiro v City of Cambridge.
The Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of the head of his police review board. She was a black Cape Verdean woman who made the mistake of believing the pious lies coming out of Cambridge on equal rights for woman.
She filed a complaint that she was being biased against because of her sex.
The then Cambridge City Manager, Robert Healy, fired her in retaliation.
The jury awarded more than a million dollars for his retaliatory destruction of her life. The jury punctuated the award with penal damages in excess of three times actual damages. The size of the penal award was incredible.
The trial judge quoted the city manager’s testimony extensively in her learned opinion in support of the jury. The trial judge called Robert Healy’s behavior reprehensible.
The appeal court panel refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion. The memorandum which constituted an not formal formal opinion cited “ample evidence of . . . outrageous misbehavior.”
Total costs in this and related cases exceeded $14 million.
The combination of decisions gave the Cambridge City Council full power to fire the Cambridge City Manager for malfeasance in office with no meaningful chance of challenge in court by the Cambridge City Manager.
The only real question was whether the City Manager’s pension could be stripped for his judicially found malfeasance in office.
More than a year after the end of the fight, the City Manager retired with honor.
The Cambridge City Council named the police station after the Court condemned City Manager.
3. Current Situation.
The Cambridge City Council is seriously considering trashing the city’s zoning ordinance in favor of a system in which appointees of the Cambridge City Manager would have dictatorial power. “Activists” with predictable connections call the proposal enlightened.
Environmental destruction on the Charles is imminent, and total destruction of Alewife appears equally foretold.
The fake group on the Charles is telling people to look at everything except the destruction.
The fake group on the Charles is going through a great procedure of hearings on relatively minor destruction at Magazine Beach which is a fraction of the outrage pending between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, hundreds of trees and associated animal habitat to be destroyed, almost certainly including the place where the 34 year resident Charles River White Geese have been confined without food.
And the fake group and the DCR are going through lovely procedures for the lesser destruction at Magazine Beach while tell those under their control to ignore the massive destruction being accomplished without the semblance of fair play.
That is the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.
And people controlled by activists controlled by the City of Cambridge loudly proclaim that they have an enlightened city government.
