Thursday, August 12, 2021

Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge. IV. A nightmare begins.

 Cambridge, MA, USA, City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   IV.  A nightmare begins.

1. The purpose of this series, a Change From the Cambridge City Council.

2. The nightmare gets created.

A. Outline of an outrage.

(1) James Leo Sullivan

(2) Environmental Outrage.

(3) Women’s “Activists” Condemn a Woman for getting a Court Award Against the City Manager because he destroyed her life for working for Equal Pay for Equal Work.

B. City Manager Succession.

C. The low point.

D. The Radicals.

(1) Victory succeeded by defeat.

(2). The Inner Belt and Related, “Simplex.”

E. The 70's, the destruction of Library Park.

F. Later victories in front of that fake protective group.

3. Prior reports.

1. The purpose of this series, a Change From the Cambridge City Council.

This series responds to an announcement from the Cambridge City Council that they are going to seek to change the “City Charter,” the legal foundation for City Government at the state level.  Prior reports are listed at the end.

I assumed the City Council would do the responsible thing and change the way they get voted in.  Instead, I once again have had the Cambridge City Council communicate that the last thing you should do when dealing with the City of Cambridge is assume responsible behavior.  

If the Cambridge City Council were working to responsibly change the way Cambridge government is elected, the voters might possibly get a responsible city government.  That is not what the Cambridge City Council is doing.

Instead of giving the voters some meaningful control over the government, the City Council wants to increase the powers of the City Council in their control of the government.

I am not going to go into general details about this latest item, especially since there are a lot of parts of the government with which I am quite pleased.  What really bothers me is the environmental destructiveness from a government which lies about its environmental sainthood.  The lies are obviously pandering to well intentioned voters who expect environmental responsibility.

The problems very clearly are in the City Council’s continued support of the horribly irresponsible Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and of the Cambridge Development Department. 

In the area which is most to my concern, environmental matters, the City Council very clearly has been reaffirming a bureaucracy way out of whack with the voters and with basic levels of responsibility.  

The trouble at least in part is that the Cambridge City Council constantly rubber stamp outrages coming out of the Cambridge Development Department and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.  Given the very terrible synchronization of the City Council with these entities, irresponsible entities are almost certainly not targeted for change.

Instead of bothering with whatever increase in their power they are fighting for, I have started my history of the governmental nightmare with regard to the environment in the City of Cambridge.  I will proceed with my history.  This will involve the very terrible things I have been fighting for so many years.  Those things are related to a bureaucracy out of voter control, but a bureaucracy apparently in lockstep with a very bad city council.

2. The nightmare gets created.

A. Outline of an outrage.

(1) James Leo Sullivan

The City Council fired City Manager James Leo Sullivan and his Assistant City Manager Robert Healy in the mid 60's.  I have no particular knowledge of exactly how James Leo was fired.  The circumstances of his rehiring and comments by him associated with his rehiring were telling.  

James Leo’s comments communicate to me that Cambridge’s apparently well organized radicals in the 60's were highly involved in James Leo’s firing.  James Leo very clearly wanted to create a Company Union situation in “protective” groups.  The company union fraud is based on fake protective groups blessed by the Development Department, with the rather clear odor that responsible entities need not waste their time seeking blessing.

James Leo announced when he returned that he wanted to encourage the creation of “Neighborhood Associations.”  I have very high level experience in negotiations.  Although I certainly am not familiar with all entities claiming to be working to protect Cambridge from harm, there are too many apparently fake protective groups in the City of Cambridge.  

Fake protective groups have had a lovely tendency to appear when the City bureaucrats have destructive goals.  The pitch from the fake groups is that they represent something or other whether or not they have any meaningful record behind the predictable absolutist claims.  Responsible groups look at their real status and describe themselves accordingly.  Most people do not have the time to live their lives fighting for a cause.  They have particular interests RIGHT NOW.  They want to correct those problems and go back to their lives.

The fake groups in Cambridge are interrelated at the top levels.  Those “leaders” have a very strong tendency to loudly praise each other, commonly without meaningful justification.  Fake protective groups have had a distressing tendency to achieve the opposite of what they claim to stand for while working in lockstep with the goals of the Cambridge Development Department on the stuff which counts.

Whether the fake groups are controlled by the Development Department or the Development Department adapts to the wishes of other entities in the City of Cambridge is not a matter subject to meaningful absolutes.  The reality is that a lot of fake groups look like they are controlled by the Development Department, in particular by mimicking blatant stupidities being put out by the development department.

(2) Environmental Outrage.

An excellent example of the problem lies in the “Urban Ring” subway planning.  I went into great detail on this nonsense in part III of this series posted at  Subway planners were working on subway plans crossing the Charles River.  Cambridge loved the very destructive plans which first were proposed.  I proposed a responsible alternative which not only is going forward, but is the basis for major construction in the Fenway Park - Kenmore Square area.

Nevertheless, for a minimum of 20 years, the bureaucracy lied that the responsible alternative did not exist.  No one outside the city of Cambridge with relevant knowledge would even dream of such a stupid statement, but this stupid statement continued to be said for a minimum of 20 years.  Somebody was controlling something.  It definitely looked like the Development Department.  It is reasonable to say that these fools were repeating the stupidity being put out by the Development Department, and, at minimum, a responsible cleaning up of the Development Department could have nicked this nonsense in the bud.

(3) Women’s “Activists” Condemn a Woman for getting a Court Award Against the City Manager because he destroyed her life for working for Equal Pay for Equal Work.

Another excellent example of fake “protective” groups was the destruction of the life of Department Head Malverna Monteiro by City Manager Robert Healy.  Healy was roundly condemned by three levels of Court because she wanted equal pay for equal work.  The Cambridge City Council spent a minimum of $10 million dollars as a result of orders of Court and Court Costs.

Organized Cambridge “women’s rights activists” clearly condemned Montero in a whispered campaign.  In direct contrast to NORMAL WOMEN’S RIGHTS POSITIONS, they blamed Monteiro because she got paid so much money as a result of the court decisions in response to Healy’s “reprehensible” (judge’s word) behavior toward her.  

This is the sort of outrage done in Cambridge Fake “Protective” Groups.  DEFINITELY NOT DONE IN RESPONSIBLE WOMEN’S RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS.

B. City Manager Succession.

James Leo was promoted to head of the Boston area Chamber of Commerce after about a ten year tenure.  His replacement was his Assistant City Manager Robert Healy.  Robert Healy served for decades and was then replace by his Assistant City Manager Richard Rossi for a few years.  The replacement had a strikingly bad environmental record as Healy’s assistant.  He personally and very visibly  managed major destruction of the environment on the Charles River and at Alewife during the latter years of his tenure as Assistant.  He did not improve as City Manager, to put it nicely.

From a development point of view there was no change during the three tenures except that things got worse.  My activities varied with the situation in the City Council.  I emphasized initiatives when I saw openings.  In this Millennium, the City Council has gotten increasingly bad.  

The Monteiro outrage is an excellent, very visible example of how low “protective groups” can stoop in the City of Cambridge, not just on environmental matters.

The current City Manager, Louis A. DePasquale, appears clean of the aggressive and destructive “leadership” of his three interlocked predecessors.  The hiring this time was not that of the number one Assistant City Manager, but rather the hiring of the person who spent decades creating a truly spectacular credit rating in the City by his management of the budget.

It certainly is impossible to say what, if anything, the Development Department has not been able to get past Mr. DePasquale, but at least, he does not look like the guy giving direct and nasty orders.

C. The low point.

The most visible low light of the City Manager monarchy was Healy’s condemnation by a Judge, Jury and Appeals Court for his destruction of the life of a female department head because she had the nerve to expect to be treated equally with male employees.  

The key word used by the Trial Judge in her 100 plus page written opinion was “reprehensible” with regard to his behavior.  The Appeals Court panel reviewing the decision was not so kind.  In their written opinion the Appeals Court panel refused to dignify Healy and Cambridge’s appeal by calling its written opinion an opinion.

All levels of Court agreed in their contempt for the behavior of the City of Cambridge.  The purpose of penalty payments is as a tool to communicate disgust / contempt for behavior with the intention of creating responsible behavior in the future.  The situation in Cambridge government was one of total refusal to listen.

The low point of the City Manager monarchy was mirrored by the low point of every incumbent City Councilor.  They were all very loudly silent about this outrage while spending more than 10 Million Dollars in payments in court and in response to court orders.  

The bankruptcy of CONTROLLED “activists” in Cambridge was demonstrated by “WOMEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS” attacking the massive payments made, after a ten year fight to a victim put into penury for which actions, Healy was roundly condemned with massive punitive payments.  

The bizarre behavior of Cambridge “women’s activists” was that “women’s activists” condemned THE VICTIM for the payments.  They in no way joined the courts in condemning the very cruel oppressor.  This filthy behavior strongly communicated the level to which Cambridge based “protective organizations” sank.

One GUILTY councilor stooped so low as to run for State Representative as a women’s rights activist.

Another GUILTY councilor almost certainly lost reelection over this outrage.  A second lost in the following election for, at least in part, the same reason.

The trial judge’s opinion is posted at  

The Appeals Court panel's NON OPINION opinion is posted at  

D. The Radicals.

(1) Victory succeeded by defeat.

The radical movement was active in the City of Cambridge from the 1960's through the 2000's.  It very clearly had a hand in the defeat of the “Inner Belt” superhighway which was put to a final death by Governor Sargent in the early 1970's while I was an intern in his office.  I had nothing to do with the death of the inner belt.

I wanted to be active in the community.  There were a lot of folks doing a lot of good work in the tenant movement.  At the same time, there clearly was need for meaningful work for environmental responsibility.  I emphasized environmentalism while supporting tenant protections because environmentalism was where workers were needed and where I could do good.

The Radicals defense of tenants was consistent and commendable until the final days of Rent Control.  Until and beyond the death of Rent Control, I supported, assisted and participated in tenant activism.  In one or two instances my behavior was spectacular in support of the cause.

During the final days of Rent Control, the Radicals pulling the strings in the tenant movement prevented tenant action in such a way as to make Cambridge tenants look self serving and nothing better.  This was a striking change from the lofty goals of the movement.  I think that that negative behavior probably was contributory to the loss of Rent Control AND IT WAS AN EXTREMELY CLOSE VOTE.  

(2). The Inner Belt and Related, “Simplex.”

The inner belt did a lot of destruction in the City of Boston.  That destruction was put to good use in Boston by using the area destroyed by the Inner Belt project to move the Orange Line subway line underground.

Over  30 years, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology created a multi acre wasteland southeast of Central Square  Cambridge that included part of the Inner Belt target area.  I am not familiar with whether its activities were part of the Inner Belt problem itself.  

MIT expanded its ownership and simply did not replace industrial uses as they left.  The “Simplex” wasteland created by MIT did very severe harm to Cambridge in general and to Central Square in particular.  This business district lost workers and other people associated with the industries which left and were not replaced.

The Radicals submitted a number of zoning proposals for this wasteland.  I did the legal drafting for the first three.

Current activities of the government are such that they are working for an updated version of the Inner Belt outrage.

The Inner Belt was slated to be built just east of the BU Bridge and to run parallel to the east of the Grand Junction.  That has become a private off ramp from I90 to Massachusetts Institute of Technology under a whole lot of fake excuses.  My recent analysis to the Cambridge City Council is posted in their records at, March 15, 2021, pages 131 to 161.  The latest claim is a “bike path” but the bureaucrats keep the plans south of Memorial Drive secret from their supposed review committee.

This photo is a still from minute 9:28 of  “Flying Along the Charles River, From BU and MIT to Harvard, DJI Inspire 1 Pro Drone Footage,”  The brownish area on the far left is the Grand Junction Railroad, the target of the latest incarnation of the “Inner Belt.”  Area to its right were targeted for the Inner Belt.

Part 3 of this series goes into a whole bunch of fraud from the Cambridge bureaucrats and CONTROLLED ACTIVISTS.  They claimed they have a subway line going down the Grand Junction and destroying the Wild Area.  It is known as the Urban Ring.  Their trouble is that I proposed an alternative Urban Ring Charles River crossing to Kenmore Square which was adopted as an alternative by the state transportation people in the early 90's.  

A key difference has turned out to be that the Kenmore Crossing includes the Landsdowne (formerly Yawkey) commuter rail station located near Kenmore Square and the Red Sox’ Fenway Park, whereas the Cambridge bureaucrats / CONTROLLED ACTIVIST insisted only option would move that station about half a mile toward the BU Bridge.

After I communicated the situation to the developer, Landsdowne Station was greatly upgraded by the legislature.  The local developer has since built two buildings of a four building project using Landsdowne Station as a key part of the project.  I do not know if the bureaucrats and the CONTROLLED ACTIVISTS are still claiming that the Urban Ring ONLY has one option, destroying the Wild Area, AND MOVING THIS STATION about half a mile or so.  They definitely did so for twenty years at minimum.

Here is a recent shot of the larger of the buildings at Landsdowne Station above the station platform and I90.

E. The 70's, the destruction of Library Park.

In 1974, the Cambridge City Council rehired James Leo Sullivan as City Manager.

One of James Leo’s key goals in his return was the creation of a system of “neighborhood associations.”

I chose my Cambridge residence while post grad at Boston University  in part because of an excellent park, Library Park, down the street.

The first such “neighborhood association” which “appeared” after the return of James Leo made a lot of concerned noises but, in reality was controlled by a core group to assist in the destruction of Library Park.  The details of the fight are beyond the scope of this report, but destruction of the park was very much not necessary to do the major changes James Leo wanted in the city’s High School which was both to the east and the west of the park.

As a recently graduated and admitted lawyer, I obtained a Preliminary Injunction ON APPEAL against the destruction of that park.  Obtaining an injunction ON APPEAL was next to impossible, but I did it with the City Manager’s fake protective group on the other side.

The judge who was overruled on the granting of the Preliminary Injunction ultimately found that that beautiful park was not a park, and it was needlessly destroyed.

F. Later victories in front of that fake protective group.

Over the years I have been familiar with it, that fake protective group very consistently assisted the goals of city employees and worked closely with the Cambridge Development Department.  The Development Department has the duty of approving “neighborhood associations” to ensure they SUPPOSEDLY are meaningful groups.

During the years after finally losing that park, I had a number of successful fights for the environment in which I defeated the goals of the City Manager and friends by getting concerned people to show up for meetings of that fake protective group and winning.  The first such proposal was written by a committee of the fake group chaired by me.  The coordinating body refused to present the committee’s proposals to the “neighborhood association” and ran around proposing a very destructive alternative, UNTIL MY PEOPLE FORCED A MEETING OF THE “NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION” which rejected the actions of the rogue steering committee.

It was too late, however, and the rogue steering committee got two major projects built which were so detested in the rest of Cambridge that they assisted my future activities between Harvard and Central Square.  

We salvaged what we could after we got the rogues steering committee’s actions rejected and achieved a downzoning of Green Street near City Hall to neighborhood zoning rather than Massachusetts Avenue zoning.

Key changes in the group’s charter allowed the core group more and more control.

Nevertheless, in spite of increasing dirty tricks, responsible zoning for Massachusetts Avenue got the votes of the fake protective group because my people called out responsible residents for the appropriate meetings.  

A lot of these fake protective groups suddenly appeared when projects came into play in the “neighborhood” and, to no surprise, while sounding great, those fake protective groups had a strong tendency to assist the Cambridge government and James Leo / the Development Department in their goals.  These fake protective groups did a lot of scratching each other’s backs and vouching for the saintliness of each other.

Not all such groups were fake, but, over the years, domination has gotten more and more extreme, with a lot of lovely sounding entities fighting for destructive development while having beautiful names.

3. Prior reports.

This is the fourth report in a series   

(1). The first segment was: “Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   I.  A personal prequil,” at  

(2). The second segment was: “Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   2.  Very early history. PARTIAL transportation analysis” at:

(3). The third segment was:  Cambridge City Council considers rewriting the functioning of the City of Cambridge.   III.  Major  transportation “planning” problems at