1. Introduction.
2. The problems.
3. Kendall and Harvard Squares, in context.
4. Malvina Monteiro and the Robert Healy Police Station.
5. Alewife, Cambridge Common, Charles River.
6. Alewife.
7. Cambridge Common.
8. Charles River.
9. Summary.
1. Introduction.
Tuesday evening, the fake neighborhood association presented the City of Cambridge’s arborist. The presentation was an improvement because the words I heard in the prior meeting was that there would be a discussion of how to pay off this destructive group with the joy of choosing saplings to replace trees they should not have destroyed.
Friends of the White Geese leafleted with reality and the point person in the outrage on the Charles left the meeting before the featured speakers.
This analysis will communicate reality, not the sales pitches. Whether the sales pitches are believed or not is irrelevant. The sales pitches are designed to communicate falsely that Cambridge has a responsible government.
2. The problems.
The presentations totally emphasized plantings and did not mention destruction. In the lie which is environmental protection in Cambridge, the City Arborist is held up as an independent protector of ALL the city’s trees. The reality is very much different.
I pointed out to the arborist the destruction of 3.4 acres at Alewife, the destruction of the magnificent grove at the Cambridge Common, the destruction of hundreds of trees on the Charles River with more coming, the destruction of approximately 50 trees at Kendall, and the destruction, perhaps not done yet, of an entire block of magnificent trees in Harvard Square to please Harvard.
3. Kendall and Harvard Squares, in context.
The answers with regard to Kendall and Harvard fit the party line in Cambridge. And I repeat, I am translating into English, not quoting lovely words.
In the Cambridge establishment, existing magnificent trees have no value because nobody has earned money off them in recent years. Destroyed trees with replacements mean bucks to contractors.
In civilized parts of the world, the approach to mature trees is: “What can I do to save” them? In Cambridge, the approach is: “Do I have an excuse to destroy” them. And that was what we got.
4. Malvina Monteiro and the Robert Healy Police Station.
This one person, by no means should not be held out as a terrible individual. This one person could very easily have been hired as an employee thinking he would be working for a government which clearly communicates, and lies, that it is holier than thou. He could have learned the hard truth too late.
That is where the Monteiro case comes in. A columnist for the Boston Globe commented that Cambridge fought the Monteiro case way beyond reason. But that analysis assumes a responsible city government. Cambridge’s fighting the Monteiro case way beyond reason sent a message to those who would stand up to the Cambridge city government. That message could very easily have been communicated to the City Arborist when it was too late.
Malvina Monteiro was a black, Cape Verdean, female Department Head. She made the mistake of listening to Cambridge’s lovely words about civil rights and women’s rights. She filed a complaint alleging bias in employment practices because she is a woman.
City Manager Robert Healy fired her in retaliation. His actions were roundly condemned by jury, judge and appeals court panel. The language was such that the Cambridge City Council had ample grounds and ability to fire him for malfeasance in office without fear of a meaningful law suit. The only real question would have been whether the Cambridge City Council could have stripped him of his pension. Five of that nine are still sitting.
The Cambridge City Council named the police station after Robert Healy.
5. Alewife, Cambridge Common, Charles River.
On the destruction at Alewife, the Cambridge Common, and the Charles River, the city arborist used another standard con. Blame the other guy. Don’t look at me. The words were very carefully presented. They did not go into the reality of the situation. They strictly spoke to his individual blame.
He blamed the state in all cases.
6. Alewife.
The fact that the current City Manager, Rossi, took personal credit for managing the Alewife outrage was not mentioned. The fact that Cambridge has publicly bragged of the destruction at Alewife about the destruction through a puff piece press release bragging of the destruction was not mentioned.
Here is a picture the Cambridge government used in its puff piece. See the massive trees on the outside? They were everywhere before the 3.4 acres were destroyed. Interestingly, the Cambridge Chronicle suppressed the puff piece, to protect the guilty. It was published by Mr. Winters, a well established member of the cheerleaders. The Cambridge Chronicle does a better job of hiding reality in the City of Cambridge than do the cheerleaders.
7. Cambridge Common.
On the Cambridge Common, not mentioned was the fact that the Development Department worked on these plans for years, made the presentations, and then fought to get state money.
All that was mentioned in the response by the City Arborist at that meeting was the state money. None of his business. State money.
Before and after pictures follow.
8. Charles River.
On the Charles River, we are dealing with a situation in which Cambridge started the ball rolling with the destruction plans at Magazine Beach. Before that, the state was bragging of the Charles River White Geese, their most visible victims.
When I got a copy of the key plan for Magazine Beach and the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese from the lead state “planner” in 1999, she pointed out to me the difference between the city’s plan and what she was going with. It was very clear where the project started.
The hundreds of trees which were just destroyed on the Charles River, with much more coming, were extensively discussed with and blessed by the City of Cambridge.
The Cambridge City Manager, now Rossi, put on a show and tell in 2015 bragging about plans for the Charles River.
The standard pitch in Cambridge is lies of omission. Rossi almost certainly bragged about the Charles River without mentioning the hundreds of trees being destroyed, and, for that matter, he quite certainly kept secret the outrages being accomplished at Magazine Beach.
Here is another before and after pair from January 2015. This is only one pair of very many.
Here are photos of trees still under threat by those plans.
9. Summary.
Yes, the City Arborist gave the usual skilled presentation. Evaluated in reality, he put a forceful lie to the party line that the trees of the City of Cambridge are protected by an independent review by him.
But the Monteiro case forcefully proves that the City Arborist, like all other “independent” appointees of the City of Cambridge had better spout the party line.
The Monteiro case sends a very strong message to people who can be destroyed by the City Manager.
Never forget Malvina Monteiro and the Robert Healy Police Station when you are given a pitch about the protection of the City of Cambridge, MA, by “independent” city appointees.
