1. General.
2. Selection of Louis A. DePasquale.
3. A key “Defect” of Robert “Jay” Ash, Jr.
4. Factors in the Environmental Outrage which is the Government of the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.
A. Appointments.
B. Fake “Protective” Groups.
C. “Green Ribbon Committee” Report on Open Space.
5. The Deal on Magazine Beach, December 1999.
6. Possible hope in City Manager designate DePasquale.
7. Defects in the others from the Point of View of a Bad City Council.
8. Summary.
9. Suggested Sources.
1. General.
A copy of this report is being provided to the Cambridge City Manager designate with hopes that he will be consistent with his promises and will not be consistent on environmental issues with the record of the three City Managers he is succeeding.
According to Cambridge Day, the day before last night’s City Manager vote by the Cambridge City Council, Robert “Jay” Ash, Jr., the Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with 14 years experience as City Manager of nearby Chelsea, MA, and other experience in Chelsea and the state house withdrew his candidacy for City Manager of the City of Cambridge. Good write up at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2016/09/28/one-of-three-city-manager-candidate-out-ash-opts-to-stay-with-baker-administration/.
2. Selection of Louis A. DePasquale.
Last night, September 29, 2016, the Cambridge City Council unanimously elected Louis A. DePasquale City Manager, with at most three city councilors communicating that they possibly might have chosen another candidate on the first round of votes.
DePasquale, in sharp contrast to the other two finalists, does not have top level experience as a general level City Manager subtype. That lack of top level experience may be the best hope for the environment in the City of Cambridge.
One Councilor commented that email and other communications received were something like two thirds in favor of Ash. Cambridge Day reports that Fetherston got the highest evaluation team grade.
3. A key “Defect” of Robert “Jay” Ash, Jr.
Ash, in retrospect and in listening to City Councilors, had a key “defect” which I consider exactly the opposite of a defect. Ash spoke of the small parks he created around Chelsea.
4. Factors in the Environmental Outrage which is the Government of the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.
There are three factors key to the environmental outrage which is the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
A. Appointments.
Over the years, the Cambridge City Manager Machine developed a corporate memory of appointees, a memory which probably will be passed on to Mr. DePasquale, especially from the Development Department.
The City government learned, by appointments of new people to a MINORITY of seats on boards, who could be controlled and who could not. In my observation the new appointments always have been a minority on a particular board. This created a situation that untried members could not sway a board which the City Manager wanted to be controlled. If an appointee could be controlled, that appointee stood a chance of further appointment to office. If an appointee could not be controlled, don’t be silly about future good appointments.
A major factor demonstrating the control demanded of the appointees was the City Manager’s destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro, a black, Cape Verdean female department head. Monteiro had the nerve to file a civil rights complaint alleging disparate treatment of women, and its impact on her.
That City Manager was condemned by three level of Court for his “reprehensible” behavior in destroying her life in retaliation.
The City Council spent millions and more than a decade defending that City Manager outrage. The “reprehensible” quote is from the Trial Judge’s opinion. The jury awarded more than triple PENAL damages in addition to its more than a million dollars actual damage determination. The Appeals Court refused to dignify Cambridge’s appeal with a formal opinion.
The Cambridge City Council named the Cambridge Police Station after the City Manager with the “reprehensible” behavior.
Links to the judicial opinions are at the end of this report.
B. Fake “Protective” Groups.
In 1974, the newly hired City Manager (actually returned, he was fired in the 60s) stated he wanted to create a system of “neighborhood associations.” “Protective” groups have suddenly announced their existence very often when there is a city associated fight for destructive behavior. These “protective” groups all sound great, constantly praising the government City of Cambridge. And they, pretty much without exception, have members who are friendly with members of other such groups.
The “protective” group which currently most visibly fights for destruction on the Charles River openly brags that it has a DUTY to censor ALL comments on its Listserv if those comments are negative to the City of Cambridge or Cambridge’s governmental friends, no matter how true the allegation might be or how damaging censorship is to the supposed cause of the group. But the destructive “protective” group insists that it, in the bizarre world which is Cambridge, MA, is a “neighborhood association” and that it is “defending” the Charles River.
Since its TIMELY creation of this entity, its behavior has had multiple instances highly consistent with that of a Company Union. One excellent example is the very belligerent lack of ethics creating the “vote” on which its claim rests that it has “neighborhood” support in its fight for destruction on Magazine Beach.
This “protective”group went public with its fight for destruction of those hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive at the end of 2015 after three or four years fighting for the destruction in the established company union manner, by lying of “concern” and suppressing discussion of the destruction its friends were working for. The company union fraud persists.
C. “Green Ribbon Committee” Report on Open Space.
The “Green Ribbon Committee” was appointed in 1999 and came out with a report in 2000. At least one member of the “committee” communicated very real pressure applied by Development Department staff of the committee to rubber stamp the demands of the Development Department.
It is silly to consider this “report” other than dictated by the City Manager through his employees.
The “Green Ribbon Committee” report, as communicated to the public, supported new open space in development areas, with “new” open space elsewhere by turning existing open space into “new” open space without adding to the square footage of the open space.
The inventory of city open space shown in the entity’s map included open space controlled by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (under a different name then). The Development Department worked closely with the DCR and blessed the outrages planned and achieved by that vile department.
After the legislature destroyed the predecessor to the DCR because of its destructiveness, the “planners” and “managers” simply changed titles, at most, in the new entity, the DCR. Somehow, approvals received by the predecessor were allowed by the legislature to go forward years after the approvals would have been required to be newly obtained because they were so old and outdated.
So existing open space on the Charles River was massively and ruthlessly destroyed, including hundreds of trees, to create “new” open space for the benefit of contractors and pretty much nobody else, except for the benefit of a city government which protected a maximum amount of property for the tax rolls.
Key in this nuttiness is a governing principal which was reaffirmed by the City Council very strongly on September 29: the tax rate is everything.
Creation of parks throughout the city for municipal benefit, which Mr. Ash bragged about, is anathema to Cambridge pols.
CREATION OF NEW PARKS TAKES PROPERTIES OFF THE TAX ROLLS, AND TAXES ARE EVERYTHING.
In Cambridge, almost entirely, new parks benefit development, as was specifically called for by the “Green Ribbon Committee” report as communicated by the City Manager’s people.
Creating “new” open space by destroying perfectly good existing open space is obviously why the Cambridge City Council funded and destroyed the excellent grove at the entrance to the Cambridge Common.
Creating “new” open space by destroying existing open space is obviously why the Cambridge City Council funded and destroyed 3.4 or more acres of virgin and irreplaceable woodlands in the Alewife woodlands.
This destruction came at the same time as the City Council yelling at NEARBY private developers obeying MUNICIPALLY CREATED ZONING in other parts of the same irreplaceable woodlands.
Reality in Cambridge is blatant lies of omission, blatant hypocrisy, and all those friendly “protective” groups which can be relied on to turn a blind eye to reality, including the most recent, the most destructive such group, which brags of a DUTY to censor.
Creating “new” open space by destroying existing open space is the reason obviously why the Cambridge City Council funded millions of dollars for destruction of Magazine Beach in the 2000s. This has now been expanded by the DCR with Cambridge support into destruction of hundreds of trees to the east of Magazine Beach, and the DCR along with Cambridge Cheerleaders is working to make Magazine Beach even worse.
Creating “new” open space by destroying existing open space is the reason why NINE City Councilors yelled at Circuses passing through town instead of yelling at the DCR and the City Manager when those hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive were being destroyed. The City Council was deafeningly silent during the months of 3 times a week reports with photos sent to them by me before and during destruction. The City Councilor was added to the mailing list for the condensed version of these blog reports. The then non incumbent who was elected missed perhaps the first month. She got the rest.
5. The Deal on Magazine Beach, December 1999.
There were two important parts of the deal by which the Cambridge City Council provided millions toward first stage destruction (2000s) at Magazine Beach:
● The most visible part was that it provided SEED MONEY FOR FURTHER DESTRUCTION (accurate descriptive word never used). The SEED MONEY concept was clearly stated, with euphemisms, as part of the deal, and the Development Department clearly was involved in the planning for subsequent destruction. The now departing City Manager personally managed the 2000s destruction. With the destruction of these hundreds of trees, we just got a major part of what the City Council bought. Additional destruction is coming at Magazine Beach.
● A part of the deal for millions of Cambridge dollars for destruction at Magazine Beach which has been studiously ignored by Cambridge was an agreement that Cambridge would then control the use of Magazine Beach. That part of the deal has been reaffirmed by the most irresponsible, but visible member of the DCR’s team.
The deal for Cambridge control of Magazine Beach has never been exercised by Cambridge for a key reason.
The Cambridge City Council lies that it is pro environment. The control of Magazine Beach would remove a key and very blatant part of their lies, that they have nothing to do with Charles River destruction.
6. Possible hope in City Manager designate DePasquale.
The strongest REAL hope for the environment is DePasquale’s lack of general city management experience. He has not been part of the central rottenness which his predecessors created. He has been part of FINANCE, FINANCE, FINANCE which is all that really drives Cambridge.
DePasquale’s pitch during his public questioning was that of openness to ideas other than finance, finance, finance, coming from the public.
There is hope there.
7. Defects in the others from the Point of View of a Bad City Council.
Cambridge, with the DePasquale appointment, does not get a City Manager with the record of creating open space IN SPITE OF PROPERTY COMING OFF THE TAX ROLES, as Mr. Ash has done in the past.
Cambridge does not have a City Manager who would require nine City Councilors to share the blame for terrible decisions, as translates the strong point repeatedly pitched by Mr. Featherston, worded bluntly from our perspective. Fetherston gave his pitch in a very positive manner, not realizing the House of Cards which is destruction of the environment in Cambridge.
Years of observation lead to my conclusion that the Cambridge City Council does not want to share responsibility for terrible decisions. They look like they like being lied to through lies of omission and BURIED fine print. The City Councillors clearly want to lie that they are environmentally responsible in spite of reality.
The House of Cards on which the lies of environmental responsibility in Cambridge are based is the big danger to destructive City Councilors.
8. Summary.
Can a financial expert appointed City Manager who says he wants to be responsible to the public tumble the House of Cards? There is a much longer chance of that happening than the chance which would have come from appointing either of the other candidates. We will see.
In the meantime, Cambridge has a vile record and a vile state agency with which it is in bed.
9. Suggested Sources.
● My video summarizing the latest outrage and giving only a tiny glimpse at the next one may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTplCCEJP7o.
● The plans for the coming destruction at Magazine Beach are reported at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/charles-river-latest-magazine-beach.html.
● Trial judge opinion in Monteiro, “Reprehensible”: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
● Appeals Court non opinion opinion, Evidence of “outrageous conduct”: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.
● I have been looking at a lot more of Cambridge Day than I have in the past, and I have very strong differences on their policy attitudes. However, their editorial / evaluation on the selection process is excellent. It can be read at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2016/09/29/depasquale-sure-to-be-voted-city-manager-policy-admitting-no-mistakes-likely-to-go-on/.
The editor’s negative reference in this article to the City Council “admitting no mistakes” is astute. It is a much nicer, and less pointed, way to put my condemnation of the behavior of the Cambridge City Council as claiming sainthood.
