Charles River White Geese Blog

Action on Cambridge (MA) City Manager Deferred; Action taken on City Clerk Retirement

2012-01-31T08:45:00.004-05:00

Last night, January 30, 2012, the Cambridge City Council had in front of it three proposed actions with regard to the Cambridge City Manager, Robert Healy, and with regard to my choice for acting city manager, Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

The three motions were:

1. Councilor Kelley’s motion to set up a committee to start looking for a new city clerk in light of her impending retirement, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33957.

2. Councilor Kelley’s motion to set up a committee to set up review of the Cambridge City Manager’s status and to discuss his intentions with regard to another contract with him, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33958.

3. Councilor Maher’s motion to appoint Donna Lopez as Interim City Clerk in light of Ms. Drury’s anticipated retirement on February 29, 2012, and to authorize Drury and Lopez to plan the transition, posted at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33977.

Councilor Kelley’s motions were deferred to the next meeting by Councilor Davis’s exercise of her rights under the Cambridge Charter.

Councilor Kelley informed the City Council that he would not be attending next Monday’s meeting but would be amenable to a special meeting earlier than that with regard to the election of the mayor (that city councilor who functions as the chair of the city council and school committee).

Councilor Maher’s motion seemed to pass without negative comment although there were comments from the the councilor sitting as the chair (Councilor Reeves) that confused me.

Donna Lopez is highly qualified to succeed Margaret Drury as Cambridge City Clerk.

Alternates to Cambridge City Manager

2012-01-28T20:22:00.001-05:00

1. Introduction.
2. Ellen’s suggestion.
3. Editor’s response.
4. Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

1. Introduction.

Earlier today, I reported that the Cambridge, MA, City Council seems to be in the process of starting the process of determining whether they will rehire the Cambridge City Manager.

My evaluation is that they should, long ago, have obeyed the directions of the courts and fired him. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-cambridge-ma-usa-city-council.html.

This should link to my YouTube posting on this matter dating back to August 15, 2010, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

2. Ellen’s suggestion.

Ellen responded on facebook:

bob you would make a super city manager - have you thought about it?

3. Editor’s response.

Thank you very much.

Regrettably, we are talking about employment by the Cambridge City Council whose record is strikingly antithetical to the pious claims of sainthood which are very much non stop from the members and their massive machine.

I believe very strongly in what they claim to stand for.

That is a very major point of disqualification.

4. Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

My choice for acting city manager is Cambridge City Clerk D. Margaret Drury.

Margaret Drury is highly respected in the City of Cambridge for good reason. She runs her office well and efficiently. She would be a breath of fresh air.

It is rumored that she is considering retirement at the end of January 2012.

My posting on firing the Cambridge City Manager is dated August 2010. If Cambridge had a responsible city council, a very clean replacement of Healy could have occurred with permission of Court, before the Appeals Court decision.

I do not know just how badly the extreme irresponsibility of the Cambridge City Council has messed things up by failing to act.

I am of the strong opinion, not having discussed anything with Margaret, that finishing off her career as Acting City Manager while the City Council conducts the usual international search would be a major coup by which she could top off her career and probably increase her pension.

I would hope that it can still be maneuvered.

Will the Cambridge, MA, USA City Council rehire the Cambridge City Manager?

2012-01-28T10:37:00.001-05:00

Order number O-5 from the Cambridge City Council’s agenda for this coming Monday evening, January 30, 2012 may be read at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33958.

City Councilor Craig Kelley is starting the process of considering whether or not the Cambridge City Manager should be reappointed.

Exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council have expressed interest in implementing the decisions of the Appeals Court panel (“ample evidence [of] outrageous actions”) and the Trial Court Judge (“reprehensible”) and Jury ($3.5 million PENAL damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages) in Monteiro v. Cambridge.

Exactly ZERO members of the Cambridge City Council have suggested the Cambridge City Manager should be fired without golden parachute and possibly without pension in implementation of these very strong judicial communications with regard to City Manager’s Healy’s destruction of the life of department head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Report on Conditions at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese

2012-01-24T21:19:00.001-05:00

I was at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese at dusk today, January 24.

All of the staging was gone from under Memorial Drive. No offices, no vehicles, nothing was left THERE.

There were three vehicles left in the Destroyed Nesting Area east of the BU Bridge in Cambridge. One small truck was left next to the BU Bridge in the northern portion of the cleared land. There were two other small vehicles all the way in at the eastern end of the northern area, the area which was quite simply not needed and which did great environmental damage. There were some smaller items in the area around the two vehicles.

Many members of the gaggle of the Charles River White Geese were grouped between the two vehicles and the big tree they usually huddle under. There were geese resting in the staging / construction zone south of the two vehicles.

I also saw some White Geese in the Charles River and in that portion of the Goose Meadow next to the Charles River but also next to the 50 foot wasteland created for the BU Bridge work. That wasteland was empty south of the parked small truck.

The western side of the BU Bridge still had two large machines on the sidewalk but, while I watched, a bicycle was operated on the sidewalk between the two machines and the Charles River.

The fencing along the BU Bridge side of the Destroyed Nesting Area has been replaced, as has the fencing on the western side of the bridge. The new fencing was identical on both sides, vaguely historical in nature. The new fencing on the western side was extremely close in construction to fencing on that side which connected to it and which was next to the pollution plant. This older fencing had been there, perhaps, since the 80’s or so.

A very nice woman chatted with me while I was watching the White Geese. She strongly condemned the people who have been so heartlessly abusing the Charles River White Geese. We chatted about what kind of person would stoop to such behavior.

This is a normal human being. She is strikingly different from the tiny minority who are the Cambridge Pols. But my times at the Destroyed Nesting Area indicate that she is a normal human. It has always been refreshing to get away from the rotten situation which passes for the norm when you are dealing with the Cambridge Pols.

There are signs (perhaps my imagination) that nature is healing itself in the construction area. Clearly the rest of the area between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has seen its ground vegetation destroyed and it did not regrow. That indicates poisons, by, very clearly, the Charles River Conservancy.

My gut feel is that the work area will regrow if humans will remove their intrusions. Run the new fence in front of the entries illegally created by Boston University in 1999 and you might give nature a change to heal itself. The poisoned area might need more work although the tiny, very vital growth areas by the construction zone have seemed to expand on their own.

The Charles River Conservancy missed destroying these vibrant areas figuring the construction zone would kill them, and they survived.

Perhaps all that is needed is to leave nature alone and let nature heal the ravages of truly irresponsible government entities.

Further information on Highway Proposal in the Charles River and on its banks. Telling source of information.

2012-01-23T09:10:00.004-05:00

1. Update on report.
2. Telling source.

1. Update on report.

I missed part of the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy”’s January newsletter.

My quote was based on introductory material only.

The following is quoted from later in the newsletter:

***********

The exchange of the 35 stakeholders at the Issue Forum held on December 15th and moderated by former Governor [ed: omitted to protect a possible victim] was very productive. State Rep. Marty Walz made a strong start by saying that the 2016 deadline that MassDOT claims exists, is a self-imposed policy and NOT a legislative mandate. That means there IS more time to carefully plan these bridges AND add underpasses where needed as this is a chance that will not come back for several generations.

***********

“Carefully plan” is more euphemistic garbage. Buried in the euphemism is the flat out lie that MassDOT and the DCR do not know what they are talking about.

The CRC/Cambridge highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks was clearly reviewed and rejected by MassDOT and the DCR in a separate report as environmentally destructive.

These destructive people want to lie to bystanders and get fooled bystanders to object and reverse a very responsible decision.

My prior report may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/former-governors-name-misused-by.html.

Representative Walz fits the Cambridge pol mode brilliantly although she lives in Boston.

Lots of lovely words come out of Walz. Lots of destruction is implemented by Walz.

2. Telling source.

This paragraph was pointed out by a person on the Cambridgeport list.

She previously put out severe misinformation on the same list on the Alewife destruction after I reported the initial part of the destruction.

The misinformation flatly and simply said that the initial destruction, although shockingly destructive on its own, was minor. She further communicated that no further destruction is coming.

This is the way the Cambridge Machine works.

The machine scratches each others backs and delays or misdirects the good guys by any tactic possible, anything to get their beloved destruction accomplished.

Former Governor’s name misused by Environmental Destroyers?

2012-01-19T16:42:00.000-05:00

It is very difficult for well meaning people to do business with the environmental destroyers floating around the Charles River and related target areas.

I have just gotten yet another communication from the falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” that a former governor chaired one of their gatherings concerning their highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks.

A number of key questions:

1. Was the former governor informed that the name of the organization, Charles River “Conservancy”, is a blatant lie because their aggressive destructive behavior is anything but the behavior of a “Conservancy”?

2. Was the former government informed that the state Department of Transportation (MassDOT) along with the Department of Conservation and Recreation have condemned their highway proposal for being environmentally destructive?

3. Was the former governors informed of the heartless animal abuse, particularly toward the Charles River White Geese, which is part of the proposal and a continuation of past attacks by the same people?

4. Was the former governor informed that the proposal includes destruction of hundreds of healthy, excellent trees?

5. Was the former governor informed of the decimation of the excellent 104 tree grove of trees at the Memorial Drive split which is part of their highway plan?

6. Was the former governor informed that the highway on the Boston side which their highway proposal duplicates has signs up warning people of muggings and rapes if people use that highway at night?

7. Was the former governor informed that the DCR

A. Has tried to get Obama moneys for the destruction of many of the same trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge;

B. That the DCR lied that all the trees they are destroying are sickly;

C. That the DCR’s filings with the City of Cambridge proved the sickly statements to be a flat out lies;

D. That the Cambridge filings, the proof of the flat out lie, was given to Governor Patrick;

E. And that the DCR does not seem to have gotten the Obama moneys for the tree destruction.

8. There have to be a whole bunch of other concepts relevant, but I think this is enough.

Key in the environmental destruction on the Charles and related areas is gross misbehavior by the people fighting for the destruction because, if they are honest, decent people will not work with them.

Nothing new here. Sounds like a former governor got conned by an entity flying under a false name seeking environmental destruction and working through key omissions.

I consider this pattern lying. I have seen too much of it, and I sympathize with the former governor. I strongly respect him. He should not be abused in this manner.

Boston University on BU Bridge Traffic Rearrangement

2012-01-19T08:43:00.000-05:00

Archie Mazmanian reports:

Here's link to a BU Today feature: "BU Bridge Project Nearly Finished - Two new lane configurations being tested"

http://www.bu.edu/today/2012/bu-bridge-project-nearly-finished/

providing diagrams of such configurations. Let's hope that winter weather does not cover the lane markings.

[Note: This was brought to my attention by a notice from the Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association.]

ED: We have done a series on this rearrangement. The most recent, with a summary of prior links may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/bu-bridge-work-archie-responds-to-globe.html.

Evaluation of minutes of city council executive committee meetings on the Monteiro case

2012-01-18T17:53:00.004-05:00

1. General.
2. Analysis of minutes.
3. Supplement on remaining plaintiffs.

1. General.

The case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is a case in which the jury awarded $3.5 million penal damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages against Cambridge based on its finding that the City Manager destroyed the life of Department Head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The judge’s opinion was scholarly and very effectively destroyed all arguments of the City of Cambridge, including the arguments raised in executive session. The trial judge’s key opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

The key word used by the trial judge which summarizes the situation was “reprehensible.”

On appeal, the Appeals Court panel reacted to the appeal with disgust. It refused to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion, commenting that there was “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The appeals court opinion may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

There has been considerable press on the failure to release the minutes of the city council discussions of the case including administrative action by the Cambridge Chronicle.

In the Cambridge Chronicle's endorsement editorial with regard to the November city election, the Chronicle specifically lamented the inability of the voters to judge the behavior of individual councilors on Monteiro because of the suppression of the minutes of the executive sessions.

The minutes of the executive sessions are posted at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/Monteiro_sessions.pdf.

2. Analysis of minutes.

The minutes, for almost all practical purposes, are useless.

The only meetings for which substantive comments are reported in any real detail are the last two meetings: the August 19, 2011 meeting at which the City Manager reported the Appeals Court decision to the city council and September 26, 2011 meeting at which a vote was taken on suppressing the minutes of the executive sessions.

In general, while, on occasion, there are talking points stated, who said what is not stated, nor is the extent to which there was meaningful support communicated of any of the stated positions.

The August 19, 2011 goes into apparent detail quoting the city manager’s report to the city council.

On September 26, 2011, the last executive session, there is report of the following vote:

*******

The question came on whether to uphold the Mayor’s decision that the Monteiro case is still pending such that disclosure of the executive session minutes may have a detrimental effect on the City’s legal position in the remainder of the case and therefore the reason for nondisclosure still pertains.

The roll was called and the results were as follows:

Yeas: Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Seidel, Councillor Toomey and Mayor Maher

Nays: Councillor Cheung, Councilor Decker, Councillor Reeves and Councillor Simmons

And the motion was passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 4.

*******

The coalition on either side of the vote is striking in particular for the vote of Councillor Kelley. Kelley has run in such a way as to give the impression that he is the only opponent to the Cambridge City Manager. But his vote could be considered the swing vote to keep things secret.

3. Supplement on remaining plaintiffs.

The Cambridge Chronicle has reposted its analysis of the final two actions in the five related cases of which the most visible case was that of Malvina Monteiro. It is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x167854483/Details-exposed-on-Cambridge-discrimination-case#axzz1jr1zSjnr.

Cambridge, MA Releases Monteiro Records from Executive Sessions

2012-01-18T17:11:00.000-05:00

Cambridge Day has posted on line the just release records of the Cambridge City Council’s executive committee meetings on the Monteiro case.

They may be read at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/Monteiro_sessions.pdf.

Fake Environmental Group “Clarifies” Meeting to Sugar Coat Destruction of Core Alewife Reservation

2012-01-16T20:03:00.001-05:00

1. General.
2. Meeting for the key Alewife destroyer to lie to people.
3. Analysis of Call to Meeting.
4. Analysis of organizers.

1. General.

The reality of the very destructive situation in the City of Cambridge is that the tactics used to destroy the Core Alewife Reservation are not at all unusual.

The difference from the norm at Alewife is that the tactics and their result were so blatant.

The Cambridge Pols also aggressively create other “environmental” organizations. The common feature is that the Cambridge Pols keep their “environmental organizations” from meaningful concern for the environment.

Environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse which is so normal and so reprehensible among the government and elected officials of the City of Cambridge is kept out of meaningful discussion except to try to fool good people into fighting for environmental destruction or heartless animals abuse.

2. Meeting for the key Alewife destroyer to lie to people.

One of the fake environmental groups claims to be concerned about Cambridgeport. It has routinely suppressed meaningful discussion of the many outrages on the Charles River.

Tuesday night, January 17, they are giving the mike to the woman who ran around for 15 years loudly proclaiming that she was defending Alewife. She spent 15 years telling people to look at everything except for the totally unnecessary and totally avoidable plans of her friends for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation. Now she is running around praising the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

These people and others helped her in her destruction of the core Alewife reservation exactly the way they are helping her pave over the destructiveness and irresponsibility of her achievement. They praised her as a responsible and progressive activist.

The following is their description of this latest fake presentation.

************

The main focus of this presentation will be the storm water wetlands restoration project. The impact of the proposed removal of the silver maple forest on the storm water project has not yet been scientifically established. The forum may include discussion of the silver maple forest and likely impacts of its removal, but with clarity that there is no scientific claim that removal of the forest will ruin the stormwater project.

*************

This presentation is the usual type of lie out of the Cambridge Machine.

3. Analysis of Call to Meeting.

Notice the euphemism “the removal of the forest” with regard to private property away from the core Alewife reservation. They do not even use this euphemism with regard to the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the “storm water wetlands restoration project” cannot achieve its publicly stated goals, that of protecting North Cambridge from massive storms.

North Cambridge needs protection from flooding as the result of major storms. Alewife has seen two fifty year storms in the past twenty years.

Their destruction of acres of excellent forest and killing of hundreds or thousands of resident animals will protect against two year storms.

There is a very big difference between protecting against the worst possible storm in 50 years and protecting against the worst possible storm in 2 years.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the goals of the “storm water wetlands restoration project” can easily be accomplished without massive destruction of an irreplaceable forest and mass killings of valuable animals. The storm water protection can be provided by building under the massive parking lot across the street, and by coordinating the storm water protection with office building construction there on air rights. But the developer will go forward with or without the storm water protection.

So the fake environmental protectors by sugar coating the current totally unnecessary destruction are working for further, larger destruction because the project will not work without further, larger destruction.

4. Analysis of organizers.

And the organizers will run around lying that they are environmental saints.

And the organizers will run around lying that the Cambridge government and elected officials are environmental saints.

As the civil rights judge said “reprehensible.”

Environmentally destructive “Conservancy” vows to fight on

2012-01-16T11:00:00.000-05:00

1. General.
2. Mass Tree Destruction and Highway Initiatives on the Charles River.
3. Update on attempts at destruction.

1. General.

The destructive parties in Cambridge commonly fight for their ends through fake groups which give people the wrong impression of which side they are on.

The most recent example is the outrageous environmental destruction and mass animal killing in the Alewife reservation as part of supposed flood protection project which, upon close questioning, cannot achieve its stated ends. The project managers and friends do not want to know about the massive parking lot directly across the street, CambridgePark Drive which can achieve the flood control needs of Alewife.

Crucial in this destruction was a fake protective group which calls itself a protector of Alewife, and which spent 15 years telling well meaning people to look at everything except the totally avoidable destruction which has just been accomplished.

The correlative of this fake organization on the Charles River calls itself a Conservancy, and the use of the word “Conservancy” is a blatant lie.

This group, with major developer funding, including from Harvard, has been fighting for more than ten years for environmental destruction and the destruction of resident animals on the Charles River.

2. Mass Tree Destruction and Highway Initiatives on the Charles River.

The Charles River “Conservancy” was the lead in a fight for an outrageously irresponsible highway proposal in the Charles River and on its banks in Cambridge which would be built in the Charles under four historical bridges, the BU Bridge and bridges to its west, the River Street Bridge, and the Anderson Bridge plus under a pedestrian bridge between the last two bridges.

This outrageous proposal would increase the irresponsible environmental destruction at Magazine Beach, under the BU Bridge and in the goose meadow with corresponding increase in the heartless abuse of the valuable 30 year resident Charles River White Geese.

This proposal would be key in the decimation of an excellent 104 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split.

The highway proposal is key in the plans to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge east of the BU Bridge.

This proposal would duplicate a small vehicle highway on the Boston side which sees overnight closings because of rapes and muggings.

Fortunately, responsible people have stepped in to interfere with the outrageously irresponsible City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Governor Patrick was provided with the DCR plans for the tree destruction as part of the DCR’s attempts to get Obama money for the tree destruction. The DCR was lying that all the trees were diseased. Their lie was proven by their own plans, filed with the City of Cambridge.

The irresponsible highway proposal was called “environmentally destructive” in a report by a joint committee of the Department of Transportation and Recreation and the DCR. Their report recommended against the new highway.

3. Update on attempts at destruction.

The fake “Conservancy” has not given up.

They have announced on their facebook page intention to conduct planning meetings to organize for their destructive efforts on the highway proposal in January and February.

They state: “CRC . . . will present the recommendations [of its organizing meetings] to Mass DOT at the 25% design presentation for the River Street and Western Avenue Bridge projects, anticipated for February.”

Their destructiveness is bad enough. The false name is even more outrageous.

Cambridge Chronicle Op Ed: Republican Leader Cynical about Harvard’s Greenness

2012-01-14T12:32:00.007-05:00

1. Op Ed questioning Harvard Environmentalism.
2. Application.
3. Related fake environmental group.
4. Proposed destruction of hundreds of trees lining Memorial Drive.
5. Summary.

1. Op Ed questioning Harvard Environmentalism.

The Cambridge Chronicle regularly publishes a column written by the city’s Republicans. This week’s report is posted at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1015660787/The-Right-View-Harvard-s-deep-green-pockets#axzz1jS50y4oR.

There is a lot to be said about the comments.

Harvard’s excuse for greenness, as quoted and objected to by the author, rings very true.

The ring is that of the lies of environmental sainthood coming from the Cambridge City Council.

2. Application.

At no point does there appear in the Harvard words described by the Republican even the slightest concern for the most basic environmental dangers: the destructiveness of the environment by Cambridge and by one key state agency, the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Cambridge and the DCR are fighting to kill off all resident animals on the Charles River Basin. Bizarre projects during the last ten years have gone a long distance in that direction. Their goal looks very much like they are converting all remaining wilderness into something that looks like a college campus.

Harvard is massively expanding on south side of the Charles River and has presented plans to have the state subsidize its expansion. Killing off all animals certainly sounds like that.

I recall that, when the attacks on the Charles River White Geese were just starting, people were running around Harvard bragging that they would replace them with “better” animals, ones without bodily functions. Since lacking bodily functions is patently impossible, that very clearly stated the goals of the organizers for the Charles River.

3. Related fake environmental group.

A fake environment group receiving funds from Harvard and other developers calls itself the Charles River “Conservancy.” It neglects to mention that its use of the word “conservancy” is a flat out lie since it supports the mass animal abuse and massive proposed destruction of trees, plus it runs around destroying ground vegetation and bordering vegetation, totally indifferent to the impact on resident or visiting animals. It very consistenly supports the destructive stuff being done on the Charles.

The CRC held a “swim in” to celebrate the outrages at Magazine Beach. It somehow seems to think that walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles Rive and dumping poisons on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly introduced grass are environmentally beneficial. The CRC sniffs at the idea of resident animals.

The CRC was the most visible advocate of the highway in and abutting the Charles River which was condemned by the state as environmentally irresponsible. Key in the state opposition is the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, a responsible agency which apparently shamed DCR into behaving responsibly as well.

The CRC is key in the current efforts to “protect” Magazine Beach which has such a striking resemblance to the tactics the Cambridge Machine used to destroy the core Alewife Reservation, and a total lack of notice of the bizarre wall, the heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, the dumping of poisons to keep alive the sickly grass which replaced healthy grass which survived responsibly for the better part of a century. The initiative is pushing the destruction of the lower class picnic area at the foot of Magazine Beach by destroying its tiny, very environmentally integrated parking lot.

I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission flat out shocked by CRC destruction of protective vegetation on their side of the Charles River.

4. Proposed destruction of hundreds of trees lining Memorial Drive.

Cambridge and the DCR are fighting to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge to the east of the BU Bridge. The DCR has even gone so far as to lie that there are no trees to be destroyed except for diseased trees, a lie proven by their filing on the project with the City of Cambridge.

The reality is that this reprehensible project by straightening out Memorial Drive, makes Memorial Drive more fit to accept traffic off I90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) on the off ramp proven possible by the MBTA over the Grand Junction Bridge.

The reality is that the Cambridge Machine very prominently features Harvard types with a very tut tut ness which has supported massive environmental destruction and animal killing in the truly bizarre Alewife project.

Another beneficiary is Massachusetts Institute of Technology in that removal of parking in this area makes access by non MIT people that much more difficult if not nearly impossible, and MIT lines the area of destruction.

Yet another beneficiary is Boston University which started the attacks on the Charles River White Geese by destroying their nesting area in 1999 with violations of law. BU’s Boathouse is directly east of the small wild area. BU regularly uses Magazine Beach for its graduation ceremonies. The highway proposal hopefully killed by MassDOT included a highway connecting Magazine Beach to the goose meadow running in the Charles River.

I have seen official maps which mark the goose meadow as the “BU Triangle.”

Governor Patrick may have stood up to a very visible attempt to destroy hundreds of trees between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge. That is the one is which the DCR lied that they were all diseased, trying to get Obama moneys. Governor Patrick got the proof that they were lying and the money did not come.

But the destroyers are very determine. The plans are not dead.

5. Summary.

So, I am happy to listen to somebody making responsible noises about the environment in Cambridge. It is interesting that the responsible noises are coming from a Republican leader, although Cambridge politics is owned by the democrats, and the Cambridge Machine definitely has major looks resembling the Cambridge Democratic party.

Harvard University attacks affordable tenants, brags it is benefitting them

2012-01-08T11:08:00.002-05:00

1. Harvard empire building - general environmental.
2. Harvard empire building - Allston.
3. Harvard empire building - attack on the needy.
4. Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center today.

1. Harvard empire building - general environmental.

Possibly the biggest environmental problem on the Charles River is the empire building of Harvard University.

In the analysis of traffic in the BU Bridge area, I provided a map showing the interrelationship of Harvard’s expansion with the problem of the Charles River White Geese and other resident animals. See http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/traffic-impact-of-bu-bridge-project.html.

Harvard University plans to move the Harvard Medical School to the current location of the Cambridge / Allston exit from I90, the Massachusetts Turnpike and to the adjacent rail yards, Beacon Yard.

Key to their move is moving the I90 exit to the Grand Junction rail bridge under the BU Bridge.

A whole bunch of bizarre and commonly destructive activities are planned or have been done which can very readily be explained as rearranging the north side of the Charles River to receive the relocated exit. The explanations commonly provided are downright bizarre and Harvard always moves secretly.

2. Harvard empire building - Allston.

Just as the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge is associated with other really rotten behavior, as found in legally binding decisions in Monteiro v. Cambridge, Harvard’s behavior has a very real dark side.

So, naturally, Harvard puts out things praising itself.

The relocated Harvard Medical School appears to be very much a long range plan spinning off Harvard’s creation of a new Harvard campus in Allston, which includes the Med School.

Harvard has long owned and occupied the Harvard Business School and Harvard Stadium. These are located between Western Avenue and the Charles River across the Charles River from the Harvard Houses, Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School, and Harvard Square, Cambridge. The Western Avenue Bridge across the Charles River is the second bridge west of the BU Bridge.

Harvard secretly bought a very significant part of Western Avenue in Allston, which is the extension of Western Avenue in Cambridge. Harvard also secretly bought a very significant part of Watertown on the extension of Western Avenue over the Charles River to the west, in Watertown.

Harvard’s plans include a significant hub at the intersection of Western Avenue and North Harvard Street in Allston. North Harvard Street by another name is one of the streets which come together in Harvard Square, Cambridge. On the Allston side of the Charles River, North Harvard Street adjoins Harvard Stadium (on the west) and Harvard Business School (on the east). On the Cambridge side, by a different name, it adjoins Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School (on the west) and the Harvard Houses (on the east).

The studios of WGBH TV, a hub of educational television for perhaps 50 years, were located on the river side of Western Avenue next to Harvard Business School and in a connected building on the south side of Western Avenue. Harvard now owns both buildings. The building on the south side is in the middle of a massive Harvard construction zone. The future Harvard Medical School will be a bit south / east of this construction.

The main WGBH building is separated by one building from a sprawling affordable housing complex built in the 70's. This complex, the Charlesview affordable housing complex, occupies almost all of the area near Harvard’s planned hub at North Harvard and Western.

Harvard has long owned the property on the northwest corner.

3. Harvard empire building - attack on the needy.

There was a very major problem from Harvard’s point of view in the Charlesview housing.

Rumors were that the owner did not want to sell.

One of Harvard’s secret purchases included the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center, a few blocks west of the key Western Avenue / North Harvard Street intersection on the south side of Western Avenue.

Harvard did not rent out stores in the main part of the shopping center as the tenants moved out. Harvard turned the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center into a ghost town by failing to replace departed tenants. Harvard created a situation where the main part of the shopping center, a block long strip shopping area building, was decrepit.

All Harvard did not destroy in the Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center through its landbanking were (1) a free standing McDonald’s building facing on Western Avenue, (2) a large super market, Shaw’s / Star Market, set way back from Western Avenue at the far end of but not connected to the destroyed shopping building, and (3) a free standing building at Western Avenue and Everett Street containing a pet store.

This was the shopping center for the needs of the needy folk living in Charlesview. The only other shopping center within walking distance is Harvard Square. Harvard Square has, for many years, not been a viable place for general daily living needs, especially as far as people living in Charlesview would be looking for.

Golly gee.

The owner of Charlesview agreed to move to the Shopping Center.

4. Western Avenue / Brighton Mills Shopping Center today.

Construction zone. The area which used to hold all those emptied stores has been cleared preparatory for construction.

The McDonald’s is gone. The McDonald’s was a traditional facility, normal size and alignment.

There seems to be a replacement building going up, apparently a much larger McDonald’s. It looks like it will have its back to the moved Charlesview complex.

The super market (and I would invite correction) seems to have changed its name twice.

It was a Star Market. Star Markets were bought by Shaw’s. Shaw's has changed most of the Star Market stores to the Shaw’s name and greatly expanded their size. I am quite certain that this Star Market was expanded and I think its name was changed to Shaw’s. The “Star Market” name has continued on smaller stores in the Cambridge area and perhaps further.

Right now the name Star Market name is back. Could Harvard have forced a decrease in the size of the store to fit its plans?

Quoting from Harvard’s website:

************

The new Charlesview will be constructed on nearly 9 acres of Harvard-owned land in the Brighton Mills Shopping Center, just a few blocks up Western Avenue from the current Charlesview, which the University made available in a mutually beneficial land exchange for the current 4.5-acre site. It will be built in two phases. Phase 1 includes 260 units of affordable housing and home-ownership opportunities, as well as a half-acre park, 14,000 square feet of retail, and a community center. Phase 2 will include 80 home-ownership units.

************

The full Harvard article may be read at http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/05/working-toward-a-new-charlesview/.

It is not at all surprising that the report omits a lot.

Cambridge Chronicle: Praise for Al Vellucci, scorn for the Cambridge, MA Political Machine

2012-01-06T06:41:00.001-05:00

I have printed the same proposed letter to the editor twice in this blog.

It was published yesterday, January 5, 2012, by the Cambridge Chronicle, on the editorial page, page 8 in a middle spot with a significant editorial improvement.

The major problem with my letter was the fact that I did not communicate the reason I was motivated to write it.

Two weeks ago, the Chronicle printed a op ed concerning Harvard Yard. It concluded with: “Where are George Orwell and Al Vellucci when you need them?”

I was so pleased with the op ed and its conclusion that I wrote a letter spinning off from the conclusion. I started the letter with my quote of the conclusion. I just neglected to explain where the statement came from.

In my two publications here, I carefully explained where it came from. The Chronicle had no such option. The editor very nicely resolved the problem by omitting the reason why I wrote the letter and titling the letter “Reprehensible.”

I frequently need a good editor. I had one here. I appreciate the improvement and I thank him both for the improvement and for the printing.

It has not been published on line yet. It if is, I will modify this blog accordingly.

The first of my publications of the unedited letter on this blog with a much longer explanation may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/praise-for-al-vellucci-otherwise-for.html. The actual letter was published in section 2 with a lot of explation.

The publication was without the first sentence, and with the title “Reprehensible.”

BU Bridge Work - Archie responds to Globe Editorial

2012-01-04T16:26:00.003-05:00

1. Archie Mazmanian’s response.
2. Prior postings.
A. MassDOT, 12/28/11.
B. Your editor, 12/28/11.
C. Archie, 12/29/11.
D. Archie, your editor and a hopefully helpful map, 12/30/11.
E. Globe Editorial, 1/4/12.

1. Archie Mazmanian’s response.

The Boston Globe editorial on the BU Bridge "Lots of pain, small gain" is sort of a day late and a dollar short, suggesting that the Globe has not been following the CRWG Blog. Consider this paragraph:

"Part of the particular frustration with the BU Bridge project is that it is no wider now than before construction. Five-foot wide bike lanes have been added on both sides of the bridge's deck, to the delight of cyclists. But instead of two traffic lanes in each direction, the new configuration reduced the number of traffic lanes from four to three."

Thus, the capacity for motor vehicles over the bridge is reduced by at least 25%, probably more because of the lane changes at various points along the bridge.

The Globe may not be aware of the need to redo the deck over the MA Turnpike Extension on Commonwealth Avenue at the southerly side of the bridge that will impact the Boston side as well as the Cambridge side of the bridge noted in my earlier comment. Will it be feasible to do this in phases to keep traffic flowing over the bridge and on Commonwealth Avenue as well as on the Turnpike Extension below? DOT should hold public meetings to address this, keeping in mind that in my earlier comment Boston University has indicated the deck work would take two construction seasons to complete, to reduce further pain. Time may heal wounds but in the meantime there is pain and other costs to bear.

2. Prior postings.

A. MassDOT, 12/28/11.

We reported MassDOT’s announcement of the project being “substantially complete” at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/massdot-bu-bridge-project-substantially.html.

B. Your editor, 12/28/11.

I reported my observations on the ground at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/bu-bridge-repairs-charles-river-white.html.

C. Archie, 12/29/11.

Archie presented a textual analysis of the impact on the ground at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/bu-bridge-traffic-pattern-in-context.html.

D. Archie, your editor and a hopefully helpful map, 12/30/11.

Archie elaborated on his position, and I presented a map with analysis at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/traffic-impact-of-bu-bridge-project.html.

E. Globe Editorial, 1/4/12.

The Boston Globe’s on line version of their editorial is presented by us at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/boston-globe-on-bu-bridge-work.html.

Boston Globe on BU Bridge work

2012-01-04T06:37:00.002-05:00

The Boston Globe has editorialized “lots of pain, small gain” on the nearly completed BU Bridge project. It cited kudos from developer type groups.

Their digest of the editorial may be read at: http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2012/01/04/lots_of_pain_small_gain/.

The full editorial is in the hard copy / on line purchase edition.

The BU Bridge project included significant inexcusable animal abuse targeted at the Charles River White Geese and leaves a big mess of destroyed environment.

Swan deaths reported on WBZ TV, Channel 4 in Boston.

2012-01-03T09:57:00.002-05:00

Ellen Schloss reports:

This was also on the 5pm news last night on channel 4.

Ed: For prior posts, please see:

Dead Swans related to DCR / Cambridge Destructiveness?
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/dead-swans-related-to-dcr-cambridge.html.

Swan poisonings, Cambridge / DCR possible connection. Comment from friend.
http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/swan-poisonings-cambridge-dcr-possible.html.

Friends of the White Geese now PayPal verified.

2012-01-03T09:21:00.003-05:00

We have for quite awhile now posted the PayPal “donate” button on the Charles River White Geese Blog.

Contributions are made through the PayPal account and bank account of Friends of the White Geese, a non-profit recognized and registered with the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We will soon complete our eleventh year of registration.

We are now proud to display the “PayPal Verified” seal on the Charles River White Geese Blog.

The biggest environmental problem in the Charles River and other areas around Cambridge, MA, is the nonstop lying of the Cambridge machine that Cambridge pols are a bunch of environmental saints. And the same lying applies to the City of Cambridge and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation.

There are bright spots.

The DCR tried to get Obama moneys to destroy hundreds of healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. They lied that all the targeted trees were diseased. Proof of the lie, the very filings of the DCR with the Cambridge Conservation Commission, were provided to the Governor. They have not YET gotten the money.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) has been highly responsible. Attempts to put passenger service on the Grand Junction railroad which runs through the destroyed nesting area have been tabled. A plan for a highway in the Charles River and on the banks of the Charles River has been killed for now as the environment nightmare it is. The DCR joined in the last decision.

We are getting good publicity.

But the outrages are accumulating.

We, nevertheless, like the so many victims, are the little guy.

The little guy needs money. Meaningful publicity takes lot of money.

Thanks for whatever you can do.

Cambridge, MA announces environmental destruction at Alewife. Neglects to mention it is avoidable and is useless for its stated purpose

2012-01-02T08:21:00.006-05:00

The City of Cambridge, MA, has posted on its website acknowledgment of its irresponsible destruction of the core of the Alewife reservation, located just west of the metropolitan Boston subway system’s Alewife station. The reservation abuts the eastern end of the northern of the pair of Massachusetts’ east-west superhighways and directly impacts Belmont and Arlington, each of which own parts of the reservation.

The posting is at http://www.cambridgema.gov/citynewsandpublications/news/2011/12/majorprogressinalewifereservationstormwaterwetlandconstruction.aspx.

Destruction consists of a key 3.4 acres.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention that the Alewife area has seen two fifty year storms in the last twenty years.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention that the project will protect against two year storms.

English translation: a fifty year storm is the worst storm expected in a fifty year period. A two year storm, the worst in a two year period. A very major difference.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention of the massive parking lot directly across the street which could readily be used for the needed purposes.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention that the owner of the key part of the parking lot wants to build, that the buildings could go on air rights above the storage, or that, if he builds first, the only option for meaningful protection against flooding is more environmental destruction.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention of the excellence and irreplaceable nature of the virgin forest so wantonly destroyed.

Nowhere in this lovely treatise is there mention of the hundreds of animals needlessly killed for this bizarre project, on top of the bizarre destructive project at nearby Fresh Pond on top of the multiple bizarre, destructive projects on the Charles River.

Boston.com does regularly show the results of the Fresh Pond destruction: wild birds nesting on a nearby office building.

Cambridge, MA, lovely lies of sainthood.

Swan poisonings, Cambridge / DCR possible connection. Comment from friend

2012-01-02T05:46:00.000-05:00

Yesterday we passed on facebook exchanges on the finding of more than a dozen dead swans in Westboro, MA, about 30 miles from where Cambridge / DCR are dumping poisons in migratory waterfowl habitat. The posting was at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/dead-swans-related-to-dcr-cambridge.html.

This use of poisons is part of the continuing massive environmental destructiveness, heartless animal abuse and bizarre large scale animal killings by these two.

Anjell has commented:

Outh! Sounds suspicious, need 2 keep on top of investigation! Poor babies! Plz keep informing us about the progress, as well as where 2 go to know more on it-- thank u so much 4 posting. (My heart broke into 2.).

Dead swans related to DCR / Cambridge destructiveness?

2012-01-01T12:34:00.004-05:00

1. Introduction.

Ellen Schloss posted a report on her Beaks and Noses facebook page which started from a posting on the CBS Boston (WBZ) page.

It is a reminder that the extreme irresponsibility of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the Charles River and at Alewife is not limited to those areas.

Westboro, MA is about 30 miles west of Cambridge, MA.

2. Ellen Schloss.

More Than A Dozen Swans Found Dead In Westboro Pond.

3. My Comment.

Very much horrible.

Can you provide more details or a link?

4. Ellen.

Sorry this is the correct link
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/12/31/more-than-a-dozen-swans-found-dead-in-westboro-pond/

5. Editor.

Shared with my list.

Thank you Ellen for posting this.

State fisheries are investigating these unexplained deaths.

The report says that there normally are not so many swans in that location. Perhaps it is a migration with problems initiated elsewhere.

The deaths, in themselves, are horrible.

In Cambridge, we get inured to heartless animal abuse. We should not, but our government is very, very destructive and does a lot of lying.

Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation has killed perhaps thousands of animals in their bizarre destruction of the Alewife reservation.

Heartless animal abuse by the two is routine on the Charles River. Their stand ins even brag out the heartlessness on the Charles.

6. Dale.

This year we've also seen untimely deaths of seals, et cetera. I suspect that environmental polution is taking its toll on many species of life.

7. Ellen Schloss.

I wonder if any of these swans came from Cambridge?

8. Your Editor.

Responding to Dale, in Cambridge, they have been killed by massive earth destroying machines as part of a project which clearly cannot achieve its stated purposes of flood protection, flood protection which could be provided by putting it under the parking lot across the street.

Ellen's question has value, at minimum, for two reasons.

A. The DCR through its agent the so called Charles River Conservancy has destroyed pretty much all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse. It is not coming back, so it has to be poisoned.

B. The DCR and Cambridge have been using poisons on the banks of the Charles River. Poisons dumped near Mass. General have created an annual algae infestation. The two destroyed seven acres of healthy grass at Magazine Beach and replaced it with sickly stuff that will not survive without poisons which they are applying.

The wanton use of poisons on the Charles could very easily poison migratory waterfowl. Additionally, however, these are only uses that I am aware of. It is highly unlikely that their only poison use is in the locations I am aware of.

9. Ellen Schloss.

So unbelievably sad what the authorities are doing to our wild life.

Cambridge councilor to “reflect on” city’s destructiveness

2011-12-31T14:58:00.001-05:00

1. Cambridge Councilor Leland Cheung to “reflect on” city’s destructiveness.
2. Translation by your editor.
3. Councilor’s Words.

1. Cambridge Councilor Leland Cheung to “reflect on” city’s destructiveness.

Cambridge City Councilor sent out an broad distribution email.

He encouraged the readers to come to the city council inauguration on January 2, 2012. “I hope to share this special day with you and reflect on what we have accomplished this past term.”

2. Translation by your editor.

I think the best response I can give to this is to quote again the letter I recently submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle. I was very pleased with an op ed which concluded with words very favorable to the late Alfred Vellucci who was a member of the Cambridge City Council and served as the city’s mayor.

Al Vellucci was a quirky long term Cambridge City Councilor who stood up to a lot of behavior of Harvard’s, but, more importantly, stood up to some pretty silly thinking by many people in Cambridge who consider themselves intelligent. He had a term for such people. I forget exactly what it was, but the key thing about Al was common sense. While the people he belittled frequently had trouble recognizing what was occurring to their faces, Al never had problems recognizing the reality about him. The basic mentality was that too many people in Cambridge are too intelligent to recognize reality, finding all sorts of complicated situations when all that was necessary was to look around you and observe.

My proposed letter to the editor read:

******************

Where are George Orwell and Al Vellucci when you need them?

One of the most astute comments in Cambridge in many years.

Al would not explain it this way, but Al was not smart enough to convince himself that the obvious was not true.

A superior court judge responded with “reprehensible” to the Cambridge City Manager destroying a female department head’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The appeals court treated Cambridge’s appeal with disgust by refusing to grant a formal opinion. “Ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.” The jury tacks on $3.5 million PENAL damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages.

The Cambridge Pols cannot believe what is in front of their own eyes. They cannot understand that Healy should be fired for Monteiro.

The Cambridge Pols spent 15 years “defending” Alewife by telling people concerned about Alewife not to look at the totally unnecessary and down right bizarre destruction being planned by Cambridge and its friends. They just cannot understand that protecting North Cambridge against massive flooding from 50 year storms cannot be done with environmental destruction that protects against 2 year storms. They just cannot understand that there is a massive parking lot directly across the street from their new strip mine / former irreplaceable forest. They cannot understand that that massive parking lot can do the flood protection job that their destruction of this irreplaceable treasure cannot do.

The Cambridge Pols cannot see why there is a problem with destroying healthy grass at Magazine Beach which survived most of a century and replacing it with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive. They cannot understand why there is a problem with dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles to keep alive vegetation which should not be there.

They praise swimming in the Charles and cannot understand why there is a problem with walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles with a bizarre wall of introduced bushes.

They condemn Michael Vick and cannot understand why heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese as part of so many bizarre projects is wrong.

They condemn Michael Vick and cannot understand why mass killings of thousands of animals at Alewife is wrong.

Al Vellucci was not smart enough to fool himself as efficiently as the Cambridge Pols insist they are fooled.

Al Vellucci was not smart enough to even consider such nonsense.

**********

Councilor Cheung encouraged the readers to come to the city council inauguration on January 2, 2012. “I hope to share this special day with you and reflect on what we have accomplished this past term.”

3. Councilor’s Words.

I hope you are enjoying the holiday season with family and friends and wish you all the best in the upcoming year. I want to remind you that the City Council Inaugural Meeting on Monday, January 2 at City Hall is free and open to the public. I hope to share this special day with you and reflect on what we have accomplished this past term. Everything leading up to this moment was because of your loyal support and dedication and I won't forget all you have done as I enter in to my second term. Thank you for standing with me and I look forward to working with you next year!

Cambridge Machine tries to recreate history on their destruction of Alewife

2011-12-31T09:03:00.004-05:00

One of the Cambridge Machine’s fake environmental groups is giving a platform to the woman most responsible for the wasteful, totally irresponsible destruction of the Alewife reservation.

The Machine helped her destroy it by supporting her lie that she was defending Alewife and all the time telling people to look at everything except for her friends' plans for the totally wasteful destruction.

The simpering, as usual, fails to answer three key questions, as published for the second time on November 18, 2011 in the Cambridge Chronicle at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x745433170/Letter-Explanation-needed-on-Alewife#axzz1hxhzwLOq. Both times were also printed in hard copy.

********

I want to thank Ellen Mass for responding to that part of my letter in the Nov. 3 Cambridge Chronicle that was directed straight at her. The trouble with her very long response is that nowhere in the response do I see any meaningful response to the issues I raised.

I was addressing the mentality shown in the Cambridge city solicitor as quoted by former members of the Human Rights Commission. The points directly aimed at Ms. Mass read as follows.

• This mentality shows how a group supposedly defending Alewife spent 15 years maneuvering people away from the totally avoidable public destruction of the animals and trees in the irreplaceable core Alewife reservation.

• This mentality shows how the Alewife “protectors” “cannot understand” that the destruction of the core reservation cannot possibly protect North Cambridge from flooding. They are protecting against the worst possible rainstorm in any two-year period. They need protection against the two 50-year floods that have hit the area in the last 20 years. There is a big difference.

• This mentality shows how the Alewife “defenders” cannot look at the other side of Cambridge Park Drive from the Alewife reservation. It shows why they cannot see that massive parking lot which could protect against 50-year floods if it were used instead of the core Alewife reservation.

My explanation read, “This mentality shows that all that really counts to the Cambridge Machine is being part of Team Healy.”

Could Ms. Mass, with her 15 years of supposed defense of Alewife, please explain these blind spots?

*******

The machine proceeds with the usual total lack of interest in reality.

The scary thing is that the lies work.

A unanimously bad Cambridge City Council is an excellent example that massive lies by an unthinking and well organized machine keeps people in office whose real record is strikingly opposite to their lovely claims.

Traffic impact of BU Bridge project, other interrelationships

2011-12-30T08:58:00.004-05:00

1. Archie Mazmanian.
2. Your editor - Map of area.
A. General.
B. Harvard’s Maneuvers.
C. Archie’s Analysis.
D. Editor’s conclusion.

1. Archie Mazmanian.

Archie follows up his posting of yesterday, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/bu-bridge-traffic-pattern-in-context.html, as follows:

Bob,

I don't know if Google maps will help but visitors to this Blog who use the BU Bridge when entering or exiting on the Boston side pass over the Commonwealth Avenue Deck over the MA Turnpike Extension. The Deck has a sizable foot(air)print from westerly of the bridge to easterly including the Carlton Street Bridge to where it joins Commonwealth Avenue (easterly of the BU Bridge). A visit on foot provides better views of the Deck, including its extensive foot(air)print. Work on rehabbing the Deck will impact not only motorists and bikers on the BU Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue but also the MBTA Green Line's B trolleys; in addition, such work will impact the extensive high speed vehicular traffic on the MA Turnpike Extension below. So I have some doubts on the work being completed in two constructions seasons as suggest ed by BU. The phasing of the work will be critical. And as noted in my earlier submission, what happens on the Boston side of the BU Bridge impacts the Cambridge side.

Perhaps you and others from the Cambridge side can provide commentary on the Cambridge rotary issues that I referenced. The rehabbed BU Bridge is not a bridge to nowhere but its use may be limited by situations on the Boston and Cambridge sides. Perhaps MassDOT should hold some public meetings to address these situations.

Archie Mazmanian

2. Your editor - Map of area.

A. General.

I have hunted through my files for a map that could communicate Archie’s issues.

This is the best I have, and actually, it shows a lot of the relationships which might escape.

This is taken from a map prepared by the MBTA showing the BU Bridge / streetcar alternative for the Urban Ring subway project.

The dark area running from top to bottom is the Charles River.

At the bottom, the vertical (north / south) line crossing the Charles is the BU Bridge.

The circle at the top (Cambridge) end of the BU Bridge is the rotary under Memorial Drive.

To the lower right of the rotary, barely visible, is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

The massive cross hatched line coming from the right, almost touching the BU Bridge and then going right again is the proposed route of the BU Bridge crossing.

Interstate 90 is marked on the left lower side. This is the Massachusetts Turnpike.

B. Harvard’s Maneuvers.

On the left middle, I 90 can be seen becoming a bunch of spaghetti and connecting to the next bridge to the west by Cambridge Street. This is the River Street Bridge.

Not really visible on this map is the Grand Junction Railroad. It is under the massive crosshatched line which is the BU Bridge crossing of the Urban Ring. Where the BU Bridge crossing turns, the Grand Junction Bridge continues straight. It goes over I90 and follows I90 to its left (west) into the empty area next to the I 90 ramp spaghetti.

In 2003 / 2004, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) demonstrated that a connecting ramp could be made from I90 to Cambridge over the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.

Several months after this report, Harvard University bought the spaghetti which is the exit ramp from I 90 to the River Street Bridge, etc. and bought the railroad yard next to it, to which the Grand Junction goes.

That area is now owned by Harvard University and appears to be the planned future location of Harvard Medical School.

C. Archie’s Analysis.

Toward the bottom of the map, there is a roadway with “57" (bus line) on it and a bunch of T’s (street car, Green Line B stops). This is Commonwealth Avenue.

I 90 crosses under Commonwealth Avenue which is completely built on air rights over I 90 in this area. The extension of the BU Bridge south is also on air rights. Archie lives about two blocks south of I90 very near the extension of the BU Bridge.

Also present but almost not visible is the Boston side correlative to Memorial Drive, Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road (Boston area roads go by multiple names. This assists in confusing visitors.) This is the essentially unmarked area between I90 and the Charles River west of the BU Bridge. It continues barely visible east of the BU Bridge under which it passes. Before coming to the BU Bridge, it also passes under the Grand Junction Railroad.

The traffic pattern for traffic heading south from the BU Bridge currently consists of rotary which is partially obscured by the proposed street car / Urban Ring alternative.

The solid line marked “47" is a bus route which follows that southern pattern. It crosses I90, then turns east on Mountfort Street and then turns south again on Park Drive.

Traffic in the opposite, northerly direction, comes from Park Drive to Mountfort Street and turns north on the Carlton Street bridge over I90. This bridge is obscured by the proposed street car line, but it can be seen approaching from the south as the next street east of the extension of the BU Bridge.

Carlton Street, with a name change, continues straight north past Commonwealth Avenue to Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road, connecting to it and receiving traffic from its eastbound direction.

The northerly traffic turns at Commonwealth Avenue and goes over the BU Bridge.

D. Editor’s conclusion.

I hope this is helpful.

BU Bridge Traffic Pattern in Context

2011-12-29T09:57:00.004-05:00

1. Archie Mazmanian, 11/17/11.
2. Archie, update, 12/29/11

Archie Mazmanian has provided two astute analyses of the BU Bridge traffic pattern in context with neighboring roads. Regrettably, I seem to have either not gotten or misplaced the first until he sent it along on December 28.

Google Maps would likely be helpful to understand the analysis.

1. Archie Mazmanian, 11/17/11.

At a recent meeting on the Boston side of the Charles River, I learned that the work on the BU Bridge may be completed in December; that the traffic configuration may be tested in three different ways to determine which may work best. The roadbed on the bridge is 40' wide. There are to be two five foot bike lanes on each side (not on the sidewalks), leaving 30' for motor vehicles. This could provide three lanes for motor vehicles, each 10' wide (which may be narrow, especia lly for buses). The experiments may involve variations on travel directions depending upon traffic conditions during various commuting times. At each end of the bridge extra lanes may be available for entering/exiting the bridge. It sounds very complicated, especially for the winter months. I don't know if the MA Dept. of Transportation has spelled out the different configurations. But it would seem wise for a disclosure of DOT's plans in order to prepare motorists/bicyclists.

Archie Mazmanian

[Note: This information was provided at a meeting last night of the BU Community Task Force on which I serve as a member representing the Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association in Brookline. There were discussions at the meeting concerning proposed infrastructure changes involvi ng replacement of the deck of Commonwealth Avenue over the MA Turnpike Extension, repairs to the Carlton Street bridge (Brookline) and "improvements" of the Mountfort/St. Mary's Streets area (also in Brookline), all of which will result in major traffic/transportation issues for the BU Bridge, impacting both Boston/Brookline and Cambridge.]

2. Archie, update, 12/29/11

My observations on this subject are based not only on my on the ground observations but also a briefing provided at a Boston University Neighborhood Task Force meeting in November by BU's transportation consultant for its Charles River Campus. Even before the bridge project, when there were four (4) motor vehicle travel lanes, I had observed MBTA regular buses taking up an entire lane. Now with the modified three (3) lanes, and the visible stripings of lanes and their changes, with experience motorists can figure it out. Will it work well with the three (3) lanes? Only time will tell. But imagine erosion or snow/ice making the stripings less visible. At least pre-bridge project, motorists could readily understand the concept of two (2) lanes in each direction. Thus, my point that shifting lanes may b e problems. And the bike lanes may add to the problems, especially if bike riders fail to observe the rules.

BU's Dec. 21, 2011 "Institutional Master Plan Notification Form" submitted to the Boston Redevelopment Authority includes an extensive section on Transportation and Parking regarding BU's Campus. Of particular interest is Section 7.4 "Expected Changes to the Transportation Network (2012-2020)" several of which will impact the Boston side of the BU Bridge:

1. Commonwealth Avenue Turnpike Bridge Deck Replacement Project. This Deck is over the MA Turnpike Extension and is integral with vehicles entering/exiting the BU Bridge on the Boston side. According to the BU submission: "MassDOT is responsible for the design, which they expect to complete by the fall of 2012. Construction would begin in 2013 and last for two construction seasons through 2014."

2. St. Mary's Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project. This is also integral to the BU Bridge in exiting/entering on the Boston side. According to BU: "This project will repair the bridge deck, sidewalks, and railings on this critical thoroughfare. MassDOT is overseeing the project and anticipates redesign to be complete in late 2011. Construction will begin in 2012 and conclude within one season."

3. Commonwealth Avenue Reconstruction Project - Phases 2A and 2B. This relates primarily to Comm. Ave. west of the BU Bridge on the Boston side. These are in the design stage and BU offers no dates for conclusion of the project. MassDOT will be involved with design review.

What happens on the Boston side of the BU Bridge impacts the Cambridge side and vice versa. The rotary on the Cambridge side is not addressed in BU's submission but questions have been raised about the efficacy of rotaries in general and this one in particular. So there are known unknowns to be dealt with for at least several constructions seasons following the BU Bridge Project Completion. And then there's also the anticipated rising like the Phoenix from the ashes of the Phase 2 Urban Ring Project that may be on hold until 2020. If only foresight were 20-20.

BU Bridge repairs, the Charles River White Geese, work still remaining

2011-12-28T14:51:00.001-05:00

During the day on December 28, I observed the situation fairly closely.

I was shocked to see the Charles River White geese huddled in the northern part of the destroyed nesting area next to the wasteful staging extension of the destruction. Normally, when they are grouped, they huddle under the trees abutting the Grand Junction, especially the large tree toward the southern end. A few White Geese were in the Charles.

The only explanation I could see was a loud machine on the western sidewalk of the BU Bridge, closing that sidewalk for work apparently under the main surface. The key vehicle was a machine that looked like a cement mixer with corresponding tubes sticking through the bridge surface.

When I returned about an hour later, the work on the western side of the bridge had stopped and its noise had stopped. The gaggle was trooping in a line back toward their favorite tree.

On the edge of the roadway next to the Destroyed Nesting Area are a variety of temporary fences starting at a location that could be the beginning of the bridge being raised above the ground. They continue to the beginning of the on ramp north of the Destroyed Nesting Area with a construction gate in the middle. The construction gate enters into the ramp illegally installed by Boston University in 1999. The situation on the western side of the intersection is comparable but much smaller.

Each of these areas, on either side of the temporary fences, have more permanent structures.

There were a number of items in the destroyed part of the Destroyed Nesting Area. A lot of them look like staging. Others were similar. There were a number of dumpsters. There was a lot of empty space in the destroyed area.

Extending out from the BU Bridge above the water in both directions are extended sheets that could be intended to protect the river from items falling out of the bridge or to protect workers under them. Observing these structures from further away, they do look like work areas.

The road way layout has sidewalks on both sides of the bridge with a bike lane running the full length of the western side. On the eastern side, the bike lane starts from the south (Boston) and ends at about the middle with markings in the northern right edge indicating bikes can use the full lane.

There are three travel lanes for vehicles along the length of the BU Bridge. Vehicles entering the bridge from either direction enter into one lane and exit by two lanes at the other end.

Staging areas under Memorial Drive have a temporary construction building and some vehicles.

The work being done on the western side included three vehicles before and after the work, two construction vehicles and a marked state police vehicls.

Clearly the work is not fully completed.

Archie tells me the lane widths are ten feet which are not wide enough for fancy buses anticipated in the silly plans for buses in “phase 2" of the Urban Ring package.

The urban ring package is a subway proposal that has been under discussion since the 80's which the bureaucrats are insistent on turning into fancy buses. The fancy buses are destructive. One of the two subway alternatives is destructive. It, of course, is being pushed by Cambridge and its buddies. There is a responsible subway alternative that has seen subsidy by the legislature in the Fenway Park - Kenmore area.

MassDOT - BU Bridge Project “substantially” complete

2011-12-28T08:01:00.001-05:00

1. MassDot.
2. Context.
3. Coming.

1. MassDot.

On December 27, 2011, I received the following email from MassDOT:

************

Dear Robert:

Thank you for contacting the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) regarding the Boston University Bridge Rehabilitation Project.

This project is substantially complete. Additional punch list item work is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2011 and tree plantings will be completed in the spring of 2012. For additional information on the project, please visit the project website at www.mass.gov/massdot/charlesriverbirdges .

Once again, thank you for your email. Please contact MassDOT if you have additional questions, comments or if we can be of further assistance.

-Stephanie

Stephanie Boundy
Public Outreach Coordinator
Massachusetts Department of Transportation

2. Context.

This is very major as far as the Charles River White Geese are concerned.

This project, like so many involving Cambridge and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation was needlessly destructive to the environment and to the animals living in the environment.

They have declared they do not want animals living on the Charles River Basin. Their euphemism is “parkland” with no animals as part of the definition. Over the past decade plus, they have taken major steps to kill off or drive away resident animals.

The mass killing of animals at Alewife as part of that bizarre project is by no means an isolated incident. That is the mentality of the DCR and Cambridge.

MassDOT took over the BU Bridge project by legislative edict as the legislature has been reducing the areas subjected to the DCR.

MassDOT would appear to have been crucial in killing / tabling a Cambridge proposal for a new highway in and abutting the Charles because of its environmental destructiveness.

The mess that has been needlessly created as part of needless destruction of the BU Bridge was something MassDOT inherited by order of the legislature.

Significant parts of the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese have been destroyed. This area is the only significant part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese which has not been destroyed by Cambridge and the DCR during the past decade and the DCR has made the project as destructive as could be imagined.

DCR agents, starting in 2003 destroyed almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east, the area where the Charles River White Geese have been confined.

The ground vegetation not destroyed was exactly where the DCR intended to destroy as part of the BU Bridge project.

I have previously posted photos of the mess at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/photo-record-september-2011-destruction.html. The very limited areas not destroyed can better be explained as a result of inability to exactly predict what would be destroyed by the BU Bridge project.

As shown in the photos, the extension destroying almost all of the northern part of the nesting area is just another example of heartless animal abuse by the DCR.

The portion by the BU Bridge was pretty much necessary.

3. Coming.

Now the state needs to undo its destruction.

The DCR’s description of its plans for the area are strikingly similar to their plans in 1999 when, as the DCR’s agent, Boston University first destroyed the area. They started the work before a public hearing by the Cambridge Conservation Commission on the matter. They finished the work before they could legally start it. Boston University lied for six months that they did the work until the Cambridge Conservation Commission condemned them for it.

Then, the DCR through BU destroyed a balance, viable ecosystem, a refuge of nature in the middle of the city.

The DCR put in silly grass and “native” Dutch flowers, plus a pathway of ashes. The stuff proceeded to wash into the Charles. Their “park” went nearly unused as a park but it was heavily used by the animals who had not been driven away.

Roy Bercaw went to the goose meadow in April 2000. He recorded what he saw. It is posted at http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2007/07/friends-of-charles-river-white-geese.html. [Note: His posting of the video was in 2007. Roy, apparently, did not look at his content well enough in his description. April 2000 is stated in the video.]

What has been done this time is a lot worse than in 1999. Close look at Roy’s video will show a lot of ground vegetation which has been destroyed that was not destroyed in 1999, and it has not regrown, indicating poisoning.

The vibrancy of the small areas not destroyed this time show exactly how excellent this area is when not attacked by unfit state / city employees and their agents.

The reality is, as can be seen in the repeated environmental destruction on the Charles River related to bizarre projects and to bizarre additions to responsible projects, the DCR not fit for its responsibilities. DCR and Cambridge in their animal and tree pogrom at Alewife as part of that bizarre project have further demonstrated their lack of fitness to manage the environment.

More to come.

Praise for Al Vellucci; otherwise for the Cambridge Pols and the Boston Globe / boston.com

2011-12-26T05:50:00.002-05:00

1. General.
2. George Orwell, Al Vellucci and a very smart comment in the Chronicle’s oped.
3. The Boston Globe / boston.com as part of environmental destruction on the Charles River and related.

1. General.

The Cambridge Chronicle had an op ed in their December 22, 2011 edition concerning Occupy Harvard as a result of which Harvard Yard is in now in a state of lockdown in response to an Occupy Harvard demonstration. No non Harvard people are allowed in Harvard Yard.

The piece was well written and went into some silly behavior by Harvard.

It concluded with: “Where are George Orwell and Al Vellucci when you need them?”

Al Vellucci was a quirky long term Cambridge City Councilor who stood up to a lot of behavior of Harvard’s, but, more importantly, stood up to some pretty silly thinking by many people in Cambridge who consider themselves intelligent. He had a term for such people. I forget exactly what it was, but the key thing about Al was common sense. While the people he belittled frequently had trouble recognizing what was occurring to their faces, Al never had problems recognizing the reality about him. The basic mentality was that too many people in Cambridge are too intelligent to recognize reality, finding all sorts of complicated situations when all that was necessary was to look around you and observe.

Based on my appreciation for the astute comment and my thought that Vellucci-speak is very relevant today, I have submitted a response to the op end.

I really was thinking of holding this for awhile, but the Boston Globe’s glorifying environmental destroyers at Alewife as some sort of concerned citizens brought it home to me a lot more slice of reality, which I analyze in part 3.

2. George Orwell, Al Vellucci and a very smart comment in the Chronicle’s oped.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

Where are George Orwell and Al Vellucci when you need them?

One of the most astute comments in Cambridge in many years.

Al would not explain it this way, but Al was not smart enough to convince himself that the obvious was not true.

A superior court judge responded with “reprehensible” to the Cambridge City Manager destroying a female department head’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The appeals court treated Cambridge’s appeal with disgust by refusing to grant a formal opinion. “Ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.” The jury tacks on $3.5 million PENAL damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages.

The Cambridge Pols cannot believe what is in front of their own eyes. They cannot understand that Healy should be fired for Monteiro.

The Cambridge Pols spent 15 years “defending” Alewife by telling people concerned about Alewife not to look at the totally unnecessary and down right bizarre destruction being planned by Cambridge and its friends. They just cannot understand that protecting North Cambridge against massive flooding from 50 year storms cannot be done with environmental destruction that protects against 2 year storms. They just cannot understand that there is a massive parking lot directly across the street from their new strip mine / former irreplaceable forest. They cannot understand that that massive parking lot can do the flood protection job that their destruction of this irreplaceable treasure cannot do.

The Cambridge Pols cannot see why there is a problem with destroying healthy grass at Magazine Beach which survived most of a century and replacing it with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive. They cannot understand why there is a problem with dumping poisons on the banks of the Charles to keep alive vegetation which should not be there.

They praise swimming in the Charles and cannot understand why there is a problem with walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles with a bizarre wall of introduced bushes.

They condemn Michael Vick and cannot understand why heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese as part of so many bizarre projects is wrong.

They condemn Michael Vick and cannot understand why mass killings of thousands of animals at Alewife is wrong.

Al Vellucci was not smart enough to fool himself as efficiently as the Cambridge Pols insist they are fooled.

Al Vellucci was not smart enough to even consider such nonsense.

3. The Boston Globe / boston.com as part of environmental destruction on the Charles River and related.

The Cambridge Pols do a lot of lying. They lie skillfully.

The bizarre party the Globe / boston.com reported on is a typical form of lie out of these people.

They give the false impression they are decent human beings by behaving like decent human beings and suppressing the really rotten stuff they do.

I have reported at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/bostoncom-glorifies-people-key-in.html the Globe’s on line equivalent, boston.com, printing a photo of the group most responsible for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation conducting a winter solstice dance. The background in the photo could be the trees on the edge of the acres of strip mine these people have succeeded in creating in place of acres of an irreplaceable native forest. The supposed goal is flat out bizarre.

So these fakes conduct a party to show their great “concern” for Alewife and do not mention their destruction of Alewife.

The Boston Globe does a lot of this stuff. The false publicity put out for the Cambridge Pols by the Boston Globe too often fools people into thinking that environmental destroyers are environmental saints.

There was one op ed in the Globe accurately recognizing the vileness of the Cambridge City Manager in destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro. And, for the most part, the reporting of the Boston Globe on Monteiro has been excellent.

But, on environmental issues, the Boston Globe / boston.com very clearly fits the mentality that Al Vellucci mocked. “Well intentioned” people incapable of looking at their surroundings and accurately describing them.

If the Boston Globe is meaningfully concerned about the environment, the Boston Globe should send a reporter and a photographer out to the site of that photo.

They may have difficulty getting close to the artificially created strip mine where, until October or so, there was an irreplaceable virgin woods if they stay in the area of the photo.

They should just follow the marked path to Alewife Station, walk past Alewife station and turn right at CambridgePark Drive. Not too far up, on the left, they will see a massive parking lot and across from the parking lot, they will see an entrance to a construction zone. Just past the construction zone entrance is an asphalt small vehicle highway. The Boston Globe needs to realize that both these segments less than a year ago were part of a dense woods. Go up that small vehicle highway to the turn and look in both directions. This was a massive, virgin woodland not that long ago in all directions straight ahead, right and left. That massive woodlands has been replaced with a strip mine.

The Boston Globe should question Cambridge Officials from the Department of Public Works including the City Engineer and the Public Works Commissioner. The Boston Globe should question whoever will come out of hiding in the Planning Department of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

After extended cross examination, the individuals will either claim stupidity or admit that their destruction of the core Alewife Reservation is for flood protection which will protect against the worst possible storm in any two year period.

Try asking them about the fact that the area has seen two 50 year storms in the past 20 years.

Try asking them about that massive parking lot. If you look closer at that massive parking lot, you will realize that it is even larger than it looks. Go quickly to Google Maps, satellite view, and you will see that it extends along the railroad to Fresh Pond Parkway.

And Google Maps still shows the strip mine as a massive, irrepleable virgin woodland, the way it was for more than a century.

And ask the “planners” why they have destroyed an irreplaceable resource for flood protection which will not even approach the needs of the area. Ask them about this massive parking lot across the street which could readily be used for the flood protection the area needs and then have above the flood storage, on air rights the office buildings the owner wants.

As far as the private citizen “protectors” go, this type of people is usually rather useless as far as meaning and damning discussions go.

But the Boston Globe keeps printing these severely misleading puff pieces which give the impression that environmental destroyers are environmental saints. And the Boston Globe somehow cannot see the reality in front of its own eyes.

It takes next to no effort to observe that strip mine that, until recently, was a magnificent irreplaceable woodland. They even have signs bragging about the project without telling the key information, that it cannot achieve the flood protection the Pols imply and that the massive parking lot across the street can.

I do not recall that Al Vellucci had much use for the Boston Globe.

Boston.com glorifies people key in the destruction of Alewife

2011-12-25T07:11:00.008-05:00

For months, Boston.com has posted on its Cambridge page a photo of wild birds nesting on a building next to Fresh Pond Reservation in Cambridge. Boston.com is the on line version of the Boston Globe.

Boston.com has never bothered to ask why wild animals are nesting on a building next to Fresh Pond in Cambridge.

The obvious answer is massive environmental destruction at Fresh Pond by Cambridge and its friends.

Now, the people who were key in the destruction of the core Alewife reservation are playing the usual con game, and Boston.com is celebrating their con game just as Boston.com is celebrating the homelessness of wild birds who belong at Fresh Pond. It is posted at http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/cambridge/2011/12/celebrating_the_solstice_at_al.html.

The “Friends of Alewife Reservation,” the fake group more responsible for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation than anybody else, have had a party to give people the wrong impression about them, the impression that they are a responsible group and pro environment.

The photo is striking. I am not positive, but I think that, in the background is the remnants of trees hovering over the strip mine they helped create in place of acres of excellent trees and animals.

This was, of course for “flood protection.” The area needs protection from 50 year storms at minimum. The area has seen two 50 years storms in the past twenty years.

Their destruction will protect against 2 year storms. And across CambridgePark Drive is an excellent, massive parking lot which can readily be converted to protect against 50 year storms.

So the fake group is celebrating. And Boston.com helps their celebration.

Merry Christmas, but remember all the excellent environment needlessly destroyed and the beautiful animals needless and heartlessly abused and killed. And Boston.com glorifying destroyers.

Cambridge Chronicle Reports Cambridge spent over $12 million on Monteiro case

2011-12-23T07:59:00.000-05:00

The Cambridge Chronicle is reporting at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/features/x1658263526/City-of-Cambridge-spent-12-million-defending-itself-in-lawsuits#axzz1hMUFivQ7, details finally revealed by the City of Cambridge in response to their freedom on information demand.

The check to Monteiro herself was $8.3 million (more accurate than Chronicle report). The check to Cambridge’s attorneys is $2.5 million. Interest payments ran to $1 million.

Cambridge is still refusing to reveal details about payments to the final two plaintiffs.

The Chronicle has major problems with Cambridge’s legal interpretation of their duty to disclose.

Monteiro v. Cambridge is the case that went to the Appeals Court concerning the Cambridge City Manager’s firing of a female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The Appeals Court refused to dignify the Cambridge appeal with a formal opinion. They spoke of “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The Superior Court judge called Cambridge’s behavior “reprehensible.”

The jury said $1.1 million real damages, $3.5 million penal damages.

The Cambridge Pols cannot understand why the Cambridge City Manager should be fired. All he did was destroy a woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Ellen responds to brief history of the Charles and related

2011-12-23T07:06:00.001-05:00

1. Introduction.
2. Ellen’s Response.
3. Your editor.

1. Introduction.

Yesterday I posted a brief history of the Charles and related at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/very-brief-summary-of-situation-on.html.

2. Ellen’s Response.

MSPCA does not have the facility to take on geese, so why are they even considering it? plus adopting geese wild geese is so wrong for the geese.

3. Your editor.

Equivalent to nine city councilor calling themselves environmental saints at the same time as killing hundreds or thousand of free animals at Alewife for "flood storage" that cannot be provided by their project but can be provided across the street.

When they are trying to destroy, all they have to do is get away with it once. And the machine pops out nonsense after nonsense after nonsense, knowing they only have to get people to sucker after one item.

One successful con and they have done their destruction. Just look at Alewife. That was accomplished by one fake group telling people it was defending Alewife, and then telling well intended folks to look at everything but what their friends at Cambridge and the DCR were totally irresponsibly destroying.

And the machine backs up each of the fake groups, giving a massive number of probably fooled people fighting to destroy what they want to save.

Very brief summary of the situation on the Charles River and related

2011-12-22T12:09:00.001-05:00

A long time activist posted on the facebook page looking for feeding assistance for the Charles River White Geese.

A new member of the page responded:

I hope they're not coming for dinner

Your editor’s attempted response, subject to problems in facebook:

At one point, the Pols were proposing to put them up in a “happy farm” managed by the MSPCA.

Marilyn Wellons inspected it. The water to be provided consisted of a tiny wading pool.

Persons wishing to “adopt” could “adopt” for any purpose including dinner.

If they were not “adopted” within a certain period of time, they would be killed.

The local state rep along with an MSPCA representative put a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle which sounded Oh great. It proposed “humane treatment” for the Charles River White Geese.

I posted a flier responding to the letter which described the situation and his letter and sarcastically called for “humane treatment” for the rep. He went on local cable saying I was proposing his assassination.

They had lived in a mile long habitatat centered on the BU Bridge.

Their food at Magazine Beach was taken from them by a bizarre wall of vegetation which blocks of Magazine Beach from the Charles River. Poisons are now being dumped on the banks of the Charles River to keep alive introduced grass which replaced healthy grass which survived the better part of a Century. Nearly all ground vegetation in the tiny area to which they have been confined has been destroyed by DCR agents.

Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation just destroyed acres of the essentially virgin and magnificent Alewife reservation near the MBTA’s Alewife station including perhaps thousands of magnificent trees and thousands of animals who could not get out of their way. The two claimed they were providing flood protection for North Cambridge, but they are protecting against the worst rainstorm every two years. The Alewife area has seen two fifty year storms in the last twenty years.

Directly across CambridgePark Drive and visible from this newly created strip mine is a massive parking lot which could readily be used for underground flood storage needed for the flood protection with office buildings built on air rights.

A good comment on the City of Cambridge came in the recent Civil Rights lawsuit, Monteiro v. Cambridge, in which the Appeals Court noted “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions”; the superior court judge called the behavior “reprehensible”, and the jury awarded $1.1 million in real damages and $3.5 million in PENAL damages.

The Cambridge Pols cannot understand why the Cambridge City Manager should be fired. All he did was destroy the life of this female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Grand Junction Passenger Service - Kathy Podgers Comment

2011-12-21T17:53:00.001-05:00

Kathy Podgers has the following comments on the Grand Junction Passenger Service concept, tabled by MassDOT:

It is a shame that planners failed to connect So and No Station during the Big Dig. In addition, failing to plan for increased rail, and therefore enough space for rail at So Station, because of being focused on the 'Inner Belt' aka 'Urban Ring,' is no excuse for building more highways for busses thru our residential neighborhoods.

I am also opposed to the plan to bus people from Kenmore Sq area, over the BU bridge, thru Cambridgeport, and on to Kendal Sq. Is there no end, whatsoever, for mindboggeling waste of money?

What the MBTA and the GOV should focus on is connecting the Blue Line to the Red Line.

Another gigantic mistake is failure to construct Hi Speed Rail between Boston and DC, thru NYC, with possible spurs from Portland to Boston, DC to Richmond, and Phildelphia thru Harrisburgh, to Pittsburgh, with a future possibility of continuing on North, to Buffalo on to Toronto and Ottawa, and West to Cleveland on to Chicago.

I personally believe that if the so called bail out moola and the QE2 had funded this HSR we would now be out of the real recession, and unemployment would be a thing of the past. Instead, in their continued short sighted, panic mode, only 'shovel ready' projects were even considered.

MassDOT posts Grand Junction Materials

2011-12-21T11:51:00.001-05:00

We have reported on MassDOT’s shelving of the concept of passenger service on the Grand Junction railroad which runs through the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. It crosses the Charles River on the railroad bridge under the BU Bridge.

It was subtly being pushed by the Cambridge Pols. The Pols kept on saying “You can’t win.” As usual, the pols deviated from reality.

MassDOT has announced the posting of their materials at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/GrandJunctionTransportationStudy.aspx (sorry, blogger is not allowing direct links).

The Boston Globe has also reportsed MassDOT’s shelving of commuter trains on Grand Junction.

An extended quote has been posted on the Cambridgeport listserve.

If anybody can provide a link to the Boston Globe report, I would love to post it.

Tactics in lying.

2011-12-19T09:12:00.004-05:00

The falsely named Charles River “Conservancy” has posted on its facebook page a photo of a picnic table at Magazine Beach which has been repaired by its volunteers.

The picnic area is across from the foot of Magazine Street in Cambridge.

The lie is that the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge intend to destroy that picnic area by closing off its parking lot. The picnic area is used by a lot of apparently Hispanic minorities clearly from less expensive parts of the area. Closing off their parking would, at minimum, force a long walk carrying goods including grills. Closing off their parking is just another bizarre, destructive project.

Last I heard, the falsely named “conservancy” supported the destruction without reservation, with, of course, coordinated support of the city manager related front group in the neighborhood.

And it is only a tiny parking area.

Response on the defeat of the Charles River Highway, and on censorship by Davis

2011-12-18T21:46:00.001-05:00

1. Charles River Highway.
2. Censorship by Davis.

Cher responds to our posts:

1. Charles River Highway.

Cher:

I am thrilled to hear your news re the vetoes of the highway. I wonder if anyone is literally turning over in their graves at the very thought of it. disgusting! Its marvelous that you are recognized as someone who is for the people re this situation, literally. To be recognized on the streets of Camb is something! kudos to you again.

Editor:

Thank you. There is a very big difference between the machine and reality. Reality is working well. The machine, as usual, sounds great, but reality is such that they have no credibility.

The machine was properly yelling about a truly bizarre destruction of zoning protections in certain big buildings, but the machine destroyed Alewife. They have no credibility.

2. Censorship by Davis.

Cher:

Listen, how can she possibly veto your response?? I would if I were you remain respectful and stick to the facts and screw her in plain English.

Editor:

Davis lives in a world in Cambridge which is devoid of reality.

The machine lives a fake world.

Davis thrives on the machine’s fake world with the full knowledge that the machine will praise her no matter what.

Cambridge has a truly “reprehensible” city government, to quote that civil rights judge.

Environmentally Destructive Cambridge City Councilor attempts censorship

2011-12-14T09:44:00.005-05:00

1. General.
2. Henrietta Davis pitches her small vehicle highway and censors opposition.
3. Property interests disclosed in the meeting.
4. Interrelationship among plans.
5. Cambridge Machine tactics.

1. General.

Tuesday evening, December 13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted one of its regular meetings to discuss its plans for development. The meeting was conducted in a new, very large, dormitory building at the corner of Albany and Pacific Streets in Cambridge. The building is separated from the Grand Junction Railroad only by Albany Street and by a wet shelter for the homeless.

It was a very civil meeting concerning MIT development plans and concerns of the participants about the MIT development plans.

2. Henrietta Davis pitches her small vehicle highway and censors opposition.

The meeting got unruly only when City Councilor Henrietta Davis put in a pitch for the small vehicle highway proposal along the Grand Junction. This is the destructive proposal about which the machine stacked the MassDOT meeting last week concerning passenger service on the Grand Junction.

I responded to Davis and she, not the chair, immediately turned a civil meeting into the totalitarian tactics which are normal with the Cambridge Pols.

Davis tried to shut me up because I referred to her highway proposal as a highway proposal. One of the key techniques of lying used by the machine is falsely favorable terms used to describe their irresponsible goals. She attempted to shut me up unless I used her falsely favorable term.

Then, I attempted to communicate that her essentially identical highway in the Charles and on its banks had been killed by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation because it was so environmentally irresponsible, and that the portion of her highway in the Destroyed Nesting Area exactly fits the environmental destructiveness of the highly irresponsible highway proposal which had been killed by MassDOT.

Additionally, MassDOT controls the railroad right of way the Pols are trying to build their highway on.

3. Property interests disclosed in the meeting.

The discussion had touched on MIT’s building across Memorial Drive from the Destroyed Nesting Area.

MIT had passed around plot maps which showed MIT’s ownership to be larger than I had realized. MIT owns the land under the Grand Junction north of Memorial Drive and a small area to the east of the Grand Junction which they are leasing to that owner, the property at the corner of Vassar and Memorial Drive across from the eastern portion of the not fully destroyed goose habitat.

The Cambridge Pols’ small vehicle highway would pass over that MIT owned land in the railroad right of way, but their plans are larger than the very narrow two track right of way. Is it possible that Davis was trying to hide from MIT her plans to take MIT property?

4. Interrelationship among plans.

The small vehicle highway proposal is irresponsible because of its direct attack on the small habitat of free animals which has not yet been destroyed. This immediate destructiveness can be avoided by turning the small vehicle highway off the Grand Junction before the MIT ownership and running it between the building on the corner and the building behind it on Vassar Street to a point where Vassar Street turns. Vassar Street parallels the Grand Junction to this turning point and then runs perpendicular to Memorial Drive.

The highway lobbyists have contempt for the environment to the extent that the environment is in the way of their lovely highway. They took a very serious blow when MassDOT rejected their destruction of the Charles and the banks of the Charles for their Charles River highway proposal.

But there is a lot more going on than just the small vehicle highway. The next step would appear to stab this highway lobby in the back for the next highway.

The Grand Junction goes under Memorial Drive through a bridge / underpass just wide enough for two tracks.

Cambridge has previously fought to tear down that bridge to widen the opening supposedly to allow this small vehicle highway proposal plus another highway proposal.

That Cambridge initiative came back in 2003/2004 when MassDOT’s predecessor (the MBTA, now amalgamated into MassDOT in a reorganization) announced its analysis that the Grand Junction Bridge under the BU Bridge could be used for an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to Cambridge.

A few months after that announcement, Harvard University bought the off ramps from the Massachusetts Turnpike perhaps a mile down the Grand Junction track in Allston / Brighton, along with the rail yard to which the Grand Junction track is going.

Harvard is clearly planning to move the Harvard Medical School to the Massachusetts Turnpike Allston / Cambridge exit / the Beacon railroad Yards.

The timing of the purchase so very rapidly after the transportation people’s announcement that the Grand Junction railroad bridge could be used for an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike is most definitely not a coincidence.

The MBTA would have run their off ramp up the Grand Junction over Massachusetts Avenue to Main Street.

MIT has built a building over the tracks at that point. There is a rather distinctive hole in the MIT building which leaves room for the tracks plus more than just the tracks.

The MIT building north of Memorial Drive has a massive parking lot through which Cambridge has built a new boulevard level street. The plans for that street when they were under public discussion show large numbers of street trees, except between the street and the Grand Junction. The opening in the trees toward the Grand Junction would allow the off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to connect to that street and thus to Memorial Drive and the BU Bridge.

The proposal was only for three lanes, however. The Grand Junction Bridge would be widened to allow a two lane off / on ramp plus the highway proposal. There was not allowance for both the off ramp and the highway, just one or the other. It would appear that the small vehicle highway lobby is, in the long run, being shafted for the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramp which, in turn, would allow Harvard to build on the Massachusetts Turnpike off ramp to Allston / Cambridge.

The railroad is already far along in planning to move their rail yard to Worcester.

5. Cambridge Machine tactics.

The first and foremost tactic of the machine is to lie that the victories of their frequently bizarre goal is inevitable.

The machine uses whatever tool is at its disposal to achieve its ends.

One constant lie out of the machine is that the machine is holier than thou.

My use of an accurate term rather than Davis’s lying euphemism was threatening to Davis because I called a spade a spade. Her euphemism calls an environmentally irresponsible proposal something lovely.

But additionally, there is another lie that is always attempted behind everything: “You cannot win.” This lie is constantly used. The presence of a responsible state agency, MassDOT, really puts a kink into the Pol’s non-stop lie, “You cannot win.”

So the censorship.

And bullying.

The abuse of meetings is another very normal tactic.

The meeting with MIT was highly civilized and responsible as long as MIT was running the show. People were treated civilly and allowed without limit to make their comments.

The minute Davis started her abusive tactics, the Cambridge Pol stench pervaded the room.

There is no honor among the Cambridge Pols.

Two Cambridge, MA, Councilors go public; how Cambridge, MA, has a pariah government

2011-12-12T22:23:00.005-05:00

1. The actual vote and the positions.
A. The Project.
B. The position of two environmentally destructive Cambridge City Councilors.
2. Cambridge, MA, a pariah to the politically correct.
A. General.
(1) Monteiro.
(2) West Cambridge, especially but not solely Alewife.
(3) The Charles River.
(4) Manipulating of well meaning people under false pretenses by undisclosed agents of the city government.
(5) The non stop lying of sainthood by a really rotten city government, directly and through the undisclosed agents.
B. Summary.

1. The actual vote and the positions.

The item under review at the Cambridge, MA, City Council meeting on Monday evening, December 12, was itself innocuous. The problem with it was its place in the larger and very rotten scheme of things.

That rotten part was emphasized by Councilors Toomey and Davis who spoke in that order.

A. The Project.

I have gone into detail concerning the Grand Junction railroad and its great and very harmful potential value if you are concerned about the environment or about the environmental destructiveness of the City of Cambridge on the Charles River.

The matter under consideration can be slightly understood by looking at the Grand Junction Map, http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/Downloads/grandjunction/GrandJunctionmap.pdf, put out by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

The map very visibly shows a large brown area occupied by the Massachusetts Institution of Technology (MIT). It is directly above the Charles River. Directly above MIT is a swath of green which seems to be erroneously indicating open space. Directly above this area is a broken line which indicates the Grand Junction railroad line.

Following that line to the Charles River, you see a green area on both sides of the line which is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. Moving east / right on that line, you see a green rectangle above the line which represents the Fort Washington Park which is at the corner of two streets. There is a no longer used railroad spur which runs off the Grand Junction near Fort Washington to the near side of the very large former NECCO (as in NECCO wafers) factory which is located on the south / near side of Massachusetts Avenue in the second block above the Grand Junction railroad line.

This siding was constructed to support the factory operations of the NECCO building when it was an industrial site.

The discussion was on the expenditure of $100,000 to plan the conversion of this no longer used siding into a highway for pedestrians and small vehicles.

It would connect to a comparable highway the City of Cambridge wants built on the Grand Junction right of way.

Responsible construction would have this highway terminate a little north of Memorial Drive, which is the highway paralleling the Charles River, and having users go to Memorial Drive on the ground.

The street immediately below the Grand Junction has a bend just before it reaches Memorial Drive. That is where a responsible government would make connections. It is unbuilt upon and could readily be used.

The irresponsible Cambridge proposal would have the highway go through the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese with corresponding greater heartless animal abuse and environmental destruction.

B. The position of two environmentally destructive Cambridge City Councilors.

Toomey and Davis supported the destructive proposal on the Grand Junction with all its destructiveness.

The only other member of the Cambridge City Council to talk was Kelley who attempted to bring out of the Cambridge City Manager the exact location of the construction in question.

Planning for conversion of the siding to a small vehicle highway will run $100,000. That money was approved Monday night by a unanimous city council with Seidel not attending the meeting.

The next step of planning, for the destructive new highway to the Charles River on the Grand Junction, would cost $900,000. That has not been approved, YET.

2. Cambridge, MA, a pariah to the politically correct.

A. General.

Cambridge MA deserves to be a pariah among the Politically Correct.

I will try to be succinct. In particular, I will not go into the details of the very common lies, or, if you wish to be politically correct, the deliberate withholding of relevant information so as to cause the listener to do exactly the opposite of what the listener would otherwise do.

(1) Monteiro.

Cambridge has decisions of a trial judge and jury plus an appeals court panel indicating that the Cambridge City Manager has been guilty of malfeasance in office because he destroyed the life of a female department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The Trial Judge said “reprehensible.” The Appeals Court said “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.” The trial jury said $1.1 million real damages, $3.5 million penal damages. The check the City of Cambridge has paid said $8.3 million.

A very real, moderate, interpretation of the court messages is that the Cambridge City Manager has committed quite severe malfeasance in office.

A city government which non stop proclaims itself as a beacon to the politically correct should have no question as to how to handle the situation.

The city manager should be fired without golden parachute and without pension.

There has been exactly ZERO attempts to fire the Cambridge City Manager for Monteiro. ZERO.

(2) West Cambridge, especially but not solely Alewife.

The City of Cambridge, lying that it was providing flood protection for North Cambridge, has destroyed the magnificent core Alewife reservation with massive destruction of excellent trees and killings of massive numbers resident animals who could not get out of the way. Destruction runs over acres of land which were previously prides of people concerned about our world.

Directly across the street from this Cambridge created strip mine is a massive parking lot which, if taken by eminent domain could readily provide the claimed flood storage. The owner of the nearest part wants to build office buildings. Those office buildings could readily be built on air rights, but the owner could go forward at any time.

Boston.com has, pretty much non stop for many months published a photo of hawks nesting on an office building between the Alewife reservation and the Fresh Pond reservation. For a number of years now, Cambridge has been destroying the environment and animal habitat around Fresh Pond. The hawks are nesting on the office building because their habitat has been destroyed.

(3) The Charles River.

Outrageous and downright bizarre.

Magazine Beach is slightly west of the BU Bridge. It, for most of the last 30 years, has been the home and principle food of the magnificent Charles River White Geese, who had created a community centered on the BU Bridge. They lived at Magazine Beach most of the year and fed there.

During extremely bad weather and during nesting, they lived in the balanced animal sanctuary immediately east of the BU Bridge.

This was a balanced ecosystem in the middle of the city with a wide variety of resident animals.

This area has seen repeated destruction over the past ten years and heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese, the very visible residents who were not capable of leaving.

Since the Charles River Conservancy became the “volunteer” environmental destroyer for the state in 2003, almost all ground vegetation has been destroyed in the green area on both sides of the Grand Junction including their primary nesting area next to the BU Bridge and a secondary mostly hilly area to the east.

Since their food was destroyed to them at Magazine Beach in 2004, this is the ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined.

This is the area that Toomey and Davis would run their small vehicle highway through.

The bizarre projects at Magazine Beach simply cannot be justified by any sane grounds.

Normal human beings looking at Magazine Beach agreed that it did not need improving.

For the better part of a century this has been playing fields with free animals having access from the Charles River. It was a haven in its wetlands for water fowl.

The wetlands have been replaced by a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which keeps people and animal from moving between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. The only break in this bizarre wall is a former boat ramp which has been destroyed for boating use by the placing of obstacles preventing access to the ramp by boats and preventing access to the mainland by the Charles River White Geese.

The state brags that its work on the Charles emphasizes uses which need the water. Their original master plan for Magazine Beach called for a lawn to the water. They admitted their master plan to be a lie by changing the master plan after the dirty work was done.

Everywhere else on the Charles River Basin, protective vegetation is destroyed twice a year. The introduced stuff has been allowed to grow and grow. The manager has bragged it starves the Charles River White Geese.

Grass which grew in an environmentally responsible manner for the better part of a century has been destroyed and replaced by introduced sickly grass which will not survive without poisons.

To keep the poisons out of the Charles River, the playing fields have been significantly reduced in size to put in a massive drainage system to drain off poisons which should not even be used.

Plans exist for the destruction of between 449 and 660 healthy trees between Magazine Beach and the second bridge east of the BU Bridge, the Longfellow Bridge. The state agency, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, sought Obama moneys for this destruction, flatly lying that all the hundreds of trees they wanted to destroy were sickly. The sickly trees were destroyed years earlier, and the plans they filed with the Cambridge Conservation Commission so indicated.

Somebody, perhaps the governor, prevented this outrage.

Plans also exist to destroy the picnic area just west of the playing fields at the river end of Magazine Street by destroying their tiny parking area. Destruction of this parking would destroy a tiny picnic area used by little people. No reason has been given for the destruction.

(4) Manipulating of well meaning people under false pretenses by undisclosed agents of the city government.

Small groups of people run around Cambridge claiming sainthood and claiming that they are protecting Cambridge. These small groups work with each other and support each other. They have gotten together for zoning changes which all too frequently achieve the exact opposite of what they claim.

Key in the destruction of the Alewife reservation was a fake protective group which claimed to be defending Alewife but told people to look at everything other that what Cambridge was destroying, an irresponsible project which could not achieve its stated goals, stated goals which could be responsibly be achieved. But the fake group achieved its purpose. The core Alewife reservation has been destroyed and well meaning people do not know what hit them. After all, they were told they were protecting Alewife.

A comparable group in Cambridgeport supported the Alewife destructive organization, but now, after they have destroyed Alewife, claims that Alewife is too far away to be interested in.

This fake group has held public meeting on Magazine Beach in which they flat out censored the destructiveness of their friends in Cambridge and at the DCR. Now they claim to be “defending” Magazine Beach. In light of their record at Alewife, need I say more.

(5) The non stop lying of sainthood by a really rotten city government, directly and through the undisclosed agents.

The public relations of these people is outrageous and false, but it keeps a really rotten city government in place in a city which expects behavior exactly the opposite of what they are getting.

B. Summary.

I am sorry about the length of this analysis.

Of necessity, exact correctness on all issues is impossible. I, like a newspaper reporter, have attempted to communicate reality as simply as possible.

I realize that this has been anything but simple.

MassDOT tables Grand Junction Passenger Service; Cambridge Pols push environmental destruction anyway

2011-12-08T22:15:00.004-05:00

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation conducted a neighborhood briefing on the status of its study of passenger service on the Grand Junction Railroad in Cambridge. This is the track that runs through the eastern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. The proposal would be very harmful to the Charles River White Geese and to the environment abutting the Charles River.

MassDOT has determined that, as of the current situation, passenger service on the Grand Junction has significantly less value than using the expansion of South Station in Boston to receive expanded Worcester / Framingham service. So they are tabling the concept to work on expanding South Station.

They emphasized that Framingham / Worcester service needs to expand and that the best way to do that is to put the added trains on the South Station route. The big problem they have is that there is no money to expand South Station and it would be very expensive since it would require tearing down the main Post Office mail handling facility in Boston. The post office is amenable, but the post office expect Massachusetts to bear all associated costs.

The actual expansion in South Station is targeted as part of returning train service to the “South Coast”, Fall River, New Bedford and Taunton, MA. That project is also deferred. Apparently because of the money problem as well.

MassDOT will post the slides from the presentation on their website on December 9. This report is based on my memory of the presentation and I am giving my best memory.

The numbers which stood out to me were MassDOT’s projections of service under the most extreme usage they projected for the Grand Junction. Under this projection, total daily ridership would increase by 300 passengers, and, with a stop near Kendall Square in Cambridge, 500 passengers would be using that stop.

The way the numbers work indicates that, after the new Kendall passengers, ridership would DECREASE elsewhere on the service. This is my point and my understanding of what I got out of them on questioning.

Basically, this just makes no sense to them or to me. So they are going to work for the expansion of South Station and, if they cannot expand South Station, will look once again at adding trains to North Station by the Grand Junction.

The Cambridge Pols had their usual destructive contingent out. The Pols have organized the highway lobby in a very aggressive manner. These are the same types who are fighting for massive environmental destruction on the Charles for their silly highway proposal there.

They emphasized that they want their new highway following the Grand Junction no matter what. As with their destructive proposal following and running in the Charles River, these individuals could care less about the environmental harm or heartless animal abuse.

Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis, of the needless destruction of the core Alewife reservation as part of that bizarre project which cannot achieve its stated objectives but which could be done in the parking lot across the street, very piously supported this highway concept with its harm to the environment and the animals of the Charles. Davis is highly consistent. She, however, has the nerve to claim to be an environmentalist.

Appeals Court considering case relevant to environmental destruction on Charles River

2011-12-08T08:41:00.004-05:00

We are getting hits on this blog from Google News. I have hunted, but I am very bewildered where the link / post is.

Nevertheless, on hunting for the link, I found a very relevant report on Google News. It is relevant to the details of any possible firing of the Cambridge City Manager. The Cambridge City Manager is, of course, the source of the environmental destruction, combined with a unanimously bad city council.

The Salem News reports, http://www.salemnews.com/local/x2088052838/Appeals-Court-decision-on-Bettencourt-pension-likely-within-130-days, that the Appeals Court is considering whether a former Peabody police officer can be stripped of his pension for using the department computer to illegally access information about his fellow officers.

This cop’s misbehavior is one heck of a lot less than destroying the life of an employee in retaliation for the filing of a civil rights complaint. The Cambridge City Manager has resoundingly been found civilly guilty of destroying that woman’s life, with a strong concurrence from the Appeals Court.

I have been strongly in support of firing Healy for destruction of that woman’s life. Such a firing would automatically void his golden parachute, or, to be more exact, would make it inconceivable that he could save it in Court.

The very existence of this police officer case strongly indicates that stripping the Cambridge City Manager of his pension, as well, is an excellent idea, if Cambridge, MA had a responsible city council, which it emphatically does not.

Cambridge City Councilor feels disrespected by Cambridge City Manager over Monteiro

2011-12-06T07:56:00.005-05:00

A few days ago, I reported that the Cambridge City Council would be considering a motion last night, December 5, to get key details about the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The report may be viewed at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/civil-rights-retaliation-case.html. The order may be viewed at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33584.

Cambridge City Councilor Kenneth Reaves was the only councilor to speak on the matter last night.

He said that he filed the order because a lot of people are wondering about the details of the payment. He pointed out that this was a repeated motion, that the Cambridge City Council needs to know this sort of matter. He felt disrespected by the City Manager in that the City Manager is failing to provide this information.

This is a councilor who is a lawyer and has had at least two very strong judicial opinions come down on Monteiro. The Appeals Court treated Cambridge’s appeal with disgust and refused to dignify it with a formal opinion. They commented “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.” The trial judge described the behavior as “reprehensible.” The jury multiplied their $1.1 award of damages with $3.5 million PENAL damages.

This is a councilor who just cannot understand why the city manager should be fired. After all, all the city manager did was destroy the life of a woman in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The councilor is fully capable of reading those opinions. The opinions justify firing and, in fact, strongly direct the firing of the Cambridge without his golden parachute and possibly without pension. But this lawyer just cannot understand.

This is a councilor who just destroyed the magnificent core Alewife reservation in a bizarre project which will not and cannot achieve its stated objectives, meaningful flood control, while the stated objectives can be achieved by taking the massive parking lot across the street to put flood control underground without destroying the magnificent core Alewife reservation. Perhaps thousands of excellent animals were killed as part of this outrage.

This is a councilor who has been party to years of outrageous destruction at Fresh Pond. Hawks are nesting on office buildings because of the destruction of their habitat.

This is a councilor has been part of the outrages on the Charles River as part of those bizarre projects since they began. He has been part of the heartless animal abuse, the dumping of poisons on the banks, the walling off of the banks from the river, the massive destruction of habitat.

This is a councilor who loudly proclaims his sainthood on environmental and civil rights matters.

This is a councilor who would have contempt and disgust for people with contempt for civil rights and for people with contempt for the environment and for beautiful, valuable animals.

The city manager is treating this city councilor and the Cambridge City Council exactly the way decent people should treat this city councilor and the Cambridge City Council, with disgust and contempt.

This councilor has earned this treatment, with a vengeance.

The environmental outrage at Magazine Beach and the Destroyed Nesting Area.

2011-12-04T06:42:00.004-05:00

1. General.
2. Destruction at the Destroyed Nesting Area.
3. Destruction at Magazine Beach, General.
4. 2004, initial starvation.
5. The Canadas, the poisoning of eggs, the “Charles River Master Plan.”
6. The sewer project across from the Hyatt.
7. Alternate food sources.
8. The boat dock area.
9. Photos.

1. General.

One thing that normal human beings all agreed on was that there was nothing wrong at Magazine Beach.

So naturally, Cambridge and MA destroyed it.

The Charles River White Geese have lived for 30 years in a mile long habitat on the Charles River centered on the BU Bridge.

They spent most of the year at Magazine Beach feeding off the grasses there, beloved by all normal people.

During bad weather and the spring, they lived in their nesting area just to the east of the BU Bridge. I have recently posted photos of that outrage. They went to the nesting area to mate and raise their babies.

2. Destruction at the Destroyed Nesting Area.

I have recently provided photos of the latest destruction.

First destruction of the Nesting Area occurred in October 1999. It started the morning before a Cambridge Conservation Commission meeting to discuss the destruction proposed. It was completed before the earliest date work could be completed.

The work in October 1999 was done by Boston University who proceeded to lie that they had nothing to do with the destruction until they were condemned for their lawlessness by the Cambridge Conservation Commission six months later. Then BU blamed six months of lies of their president’s secretary who was not fired.

BU acting for MA entered into an urban wild area and destroyed it.

MA called the destruction a gift. The work was totally illegal. NO AGREEMENTS WERE SIGNED.

The destroyed nesting area was a wild ecosystem in the middle of the city. It was block off by fences from public access.

The fences were broken in two places.

At the corner of the BU Bridge and the ramp to Memorial Drive, a concrete ramp and stairs replaced the wild area.

At the eastern end of that access ramp, a staircase was dug into the wild hillside.

Until then, the nesting area was filled with protective ground vegetation.

The protective ground vegetation was destroyed en mass and replace with silly grass and a winding black stone covered walkway. Animals homes were casually destroyed

This “improvement” was almost totally unused by humans. The “improvements” steadily washed into the Charles.

The only major users were the Charles River White Geese. A video of the area in spring 2000 is posted at

Routinely friends of MA and Cambridge went through the Destroyed Nesting Area destroying nests. Mother Geese who defended their nests were frequently killed and carried away.

The vegetation destroyed regrew. Earth renewed itself.

In 2003, MA contracted with the Charles River Conservancy for environmental destructions services on the Charles River.

Since 2003, almost all the ground vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting Area has been destroyed again. The only exceptions were two tiny patches: (1) abutting the eastern area of the totally unnecessary east leg of the BU Bridge repair destruction and (2) abutting the southern end of the needed access area for BU Bridge repairs.

Protective vegetation in the eastern part of the area, beyond the Grand Junction tracks was totally destroyed.

None of this destruction has regrown, indicating deliberate poisoning, although there has been expansion of the tiny area left around the BU Bridge Construction.

Details on the damage done in the BU Bridge repair project were recently provided with photos at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/photo-record-september-2011-destruction.html.

3. Destruction at Magazine Beach, General.

Initial funding of $1.5 million for destruction at Magazine Beach was voted by the Cambridge City Council in December 1999.

Flat out lies have been normal. The most important lie, constantly repeated was that MA had no intention to “harm” the Charles River White Geese. It developed that “harm” had a secret definition. Starving them and destroying their home is not included in the definition of “harm.”

During the first season after the destruction of the nesting area, this outrage got major publicity. The flat out lies of no intent to harm quieted the publicity.

Cambridge and MA have played games with money which has shifted from one pot to another to allow the parties to lie that the worst was done by MA.

4. 2004, initial starvation.

In 2004, the wetlands bordering the Charles River were destroyed and the Charles River White were barred from their food of thirty years. They went from being almost totally self-sufficient to being totally fed by responsible human beings protecting them from a highly irresponsible city and state.

The wetlands were first walled off. Then they were dug up and a series of introduced bushes were attempted to be grown. They all died until MA finally found something which would grow.

MA and the Charles River Conservancy destroys all bordering vegetation on the Charles River twice a year. I have seen the Boston Conservation Commission shocked at the harm done by their practices to migrating waterfowl.

Now the only bordering vegetation not grown is the bizarre wall of introduced bushes blocking off Magazine Beach from the Charles River. The MA manager has bragged that this wall starves the Charles River White Geese.

The Charles River Conservancy conducted a swim in during the early days of the work to brag that this outrage would help swimming in the Charles River.

So playing fields which abutted the Charles in which nature and humans survived together for the mutual benefit of all have been blocked off to the principal resident.

5. The Canadas, the poisoning of eggs, the “Charles River Master Plan.”

Small numbers of Canadas returned to feed. The Charles River Conservancy started poisoning their eggs for MA in 2003.

I attended a “public meeting” before the poisoning started. I disputed the flat out lie that the Canadas were a problem. I was thrown out of the meeting. They would not allow discussion of whether there was a problem. The meeting was called solely to discuss the resolution of a problem which did not exist and which they would not discuss.

One of the key lies in the “Charles River Master Plan” was that Magazine Beach would consist of a lawn to the river.

After Cambridge and MA walled off the river, MA changed the Charles River Master Plan.

6. The sewer project across from the Hyatt.

Coordinated with the destruction at Magazine Beach was a sewer project by Cambridge across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

MA and Cambridge plans call for the destruction of hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, the second bridge east of the BU Bridge which is in turn between Magazine Beach and the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The sewer project started the destruction of trees, wiping out a number of excellent trees across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

Cambridge completed the project by walling of the riverbanks across from the Hyatt from the river.

So simultaneously, all their traditional food was taken from the Charles River White Geese, both at Magazine Beach and across from the Hyatt.

7. Alternate food sources.

The area to the east of the Hyatt riverbanks is a sea wall.

The area to the west of the playing fields is a steep hill. They considered it and gave up on it.

The Boston side is in heavy public use east of the BU Bridge and is steep west of the BU Bridge.

Plus, if they had tried to use the publicly used area, they would have been killed off as pests.

7.. Destruction of native grass and replacement with poisons.

In 2007, MA and Cambridge dug up seven acres of perfectly good grass and replaced it with grass and poisons. The poisons are “needed” because the introduced grass would die without poisons. The stuff they destroyed lived the better part of a century without poisons.

Large parts of Magazine Beach’s playing fields have been destroyed for an expensive drainage system to drain off poisons which should not even be dumped there.

The lie given to the Cambridge City Council when the money was voted for the project was “improvement” of the playing area. NO IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT the massive destruction which has occurred.

The playing fields being “improved” have been vastly decreased in size to drain off poisons to keep alive sickly grass introduced in place of grass which did not need poisons to survive.

8. The boat dock area.

The eastern end of Magazine Beach next to a sewerage treatment plant was a parking lot.

In the 2007 destruction, the parking lot was rearranged with destruction of trees.

The 2004 destruction continued the boat dock which had been there the better part of a century and installed a silly artificial lagoon which the Charles River White Geese loved.

Until the 2004 destruction, the Charles River White Geese slept at Magazine Beach.

The geese returned after the destruction through the opening for the boats. They carefully worked their way out into a tiny area where they fed until humans and dogs came.

The 2007 destruction filled in the lagoon while continuing a bridge which had been built about it for access to the boat dock.

The boat dock is still there but barriers have been placed for access to the boat docks. So totally access to the Charles River has been destroyed at Magazine Beach by MA and Cambridge loudly proclaiming that the projects on the Charles are water oriented.

Further barriers have been placed discouraging access to the grasses to the Charles River White Geese.

9. Photos.

I have rambled long enough.

Photos will follow.

Core Alewife Reservation destroyed by Cambridge and MA, usual lie of explanation

2011-12-03T16:39:00.004-05:00

I have dreaded this day and put it off and put it off, but I could no longer put it off.

I went to Alewife to inspect. When I got out of the car at the reservation lot, I was shocked by the emptiness I saw where there previously was an excellent native forest with massive numbers of animals.

I was not able to fully realize the horror of the situation until I walked around and saw the devastation up close.

My first meaningful view was at the interim destruction area. Its boundary of trees was gone.

I walked along a pathway that previously had been overwhelmed by this excellent forest. The woods was so thick that I could not photograph it last time. Now it looked like a mining operation.

The explanation of Cambridge and MA: just more lies, tossed out with the assurance that Cambridge has a massive organization which will back up whatever lie that Cambridge comes up with.

The lie this time was that they are protecting against floods. Their secret definition of “protecting against floods” translates into protecting against the worst possible rainstorm in a two year period. But this area has seen two fifty year floods in the last twenty years, and Cambridge and MA are fully aware that anybody listening to their comments will think that Cambridge and MA were protecting against such meaningful events.

I also walked by the massive parking lot across the street which could provide protection against the worst possible rainstorm in a fifty year period with underground flood protection and storage. The massive parking lot is still untouched and “environmental saints” have just accomplished a massive killing of all animals which did not get out of their way.

A highly rotten city council knows it is protected by the lies of this massive organization. This highly rotten city council does not have significant integrity to even consider firing a city manager who has been found guilty of malfeasance in office by judge, jury and appeals court. Destruction of a woman's life because she filed a civil rights complaint.

The Cambridge City Council knows that that massive, destruction organization will protect them.

But this massive organization did not protect this really bad City Council last time. A member of that massive organization publicized typically rotten comments by several members of the Cambridge City Council with regard to the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro. The second worst member of the Cambridge City Council environmentally was fired.

That massive parking lot is still there. The Destroyed Core Alewife Reservation can be returned to what it was. It will take a hundred years of nature repairing nature with very minimal human minimization of the destruction of this rotten government, but it can be done.

Absolutely crucial is the firing of the Cambridge City Manager. Judge, jury and appeals court have given any decent city council ample grounds to fire the Cambridge City Manager without golden parachute and possibly without pension.

After the well deserved firing, a responsible city council would take the massive parking lot by eminent domain. Then cancel all existing contracts at Alewife and replace plans for designer vegetation with minimal work. Then put the flood storage under the parking lot, coordinating work with the existing owner who wans to construct massive office buildings above the storage. Oh yes, while nature is repairing what a rotten city government destroyed, the Cambridge, MA city government should post discrete signs of apology to decent human beings.

At the same time as taking the parking lot by eminent domain, a responsible city council would start to heal the outrage on the Charles River, a much smaller effort, all it takes is decent human beings doing the obvious to repair equally bizarre destruction on the Charles River.

What does firing the Cambridge City Manager have to do with the Charles River White Geese.

2011-12-03T10:47:00.000-05:00

I have posted exactly the same posts on the facebook page as the last few posts on this blog.

I got the following very valid question in response to the post on strategy and timing in firing the Cambridge City Manager:

**********

Hey Robert, Can you give us the short version on how this affects the well-being of the geese? I'm interested, but need it in more of a nutshell.

Response:

It is all one big rotten situation. The contempt for the life of a human being which the City Manager showed in Monteiro is an extension of the heartless abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese and the Charles River, and there were key outrages added to the abuse.

The apparent destruction of Alewife and mass animal killing also was inflicted with a lot of key lying.

In the background is a very large, very rotten organization which rubber stamps whatever lie and whatever destruction the City Manager is pulling this week.

And the City Council is very happy with the rotten behavior as long as the Cambridge pol organization protects them.

The City Council raising the issue of failure to communicate on Monteiro Monday night.

The massive destructiveness and lying on top of that fake organization is one big house of cards. Because there is a very concerned electorate.

One city councilor is being fired apparently as part of that house of cards starting to collapse.

They are staying in office because they are doing a lot of lying.

I am trying to get that house of cards to collapse.

The lies are falling apart in Monteiro.

The Cambridge City Council is in position to amend the request for information on Monteiro with the firing process. All they have to do is attach those decisions and refer to the case and they have full grounds to fire.

Will they clean up their own house? Monteiro was an extension of the environmental destruction, same mentality. Alewife is an extension of the Charles River, same mentality.

The house of cards has started to collapse. Firing the city manager could be a very big removal of key cards.

Would they clean up the messes they have created? Alewife will take a century to fix. The Charles could be corrected in a week. All it takes is a will on the part of people who have been very rotten because their lies have worked.

PS: Excellent point. I will post it on the blog along with my response and not use your name.

Thank you very much.

Firing the Cambridge, MA, USA City Manager because of Monteiro: A small window

2011-12-02T19:50:00.001-05:00

1. Introduction.
2. Details.

1. Introduction.

A few caveats.

First of All, Decades of experience have given me the very strong opinion that it is difficult to UNDERestimate the Cambridge Pols.

Secondly, as I have repeatedly gone into, if Cambridge, MA had a responsible City Council, the Cambridge City Manager would have been fired long ago.

Notwithstanding that, there are two factors which place time crunch on the actions of the next few weeks, assuming, and a very silly assumption, that the Cambridge City Council fulfills very basic levels of responsibility. I keep dreaming on decency from this group. I keep getting proven wrong.

But, assuming decency, the key issues are:

Very quickly, the Cambridge City Council has to give the Cambridge City Manager six months notice as to whether they will hire or fire him.

Secondly, the most responsible choice for acting city manager, should the Cambridge City Council do the right thing, is rumored on the verge of retiring, probably at the end of January. The city clerk, Margaret Drury, is competent and highly respected. She not only has no interest in being a permanent city manager, she probably would have to be talked into taking the position rather than retiring.

But, the appointment would be a great honor and a culmination of her honorable and achieving career, and, although I know nothing about the legalities, I would assume that the much higher pay during the temporary appointment could significantly increase her retirement figures.

But both factors are time limiting.

Most definitely, the city manager can and should be fired for malfeasance in office as determined by Superior Court judge and jury and by the Appeals Court panel, but it would be quite a bit more awkward to do so after the Cambridge City Council has told the Cambridge City Manager it is going to rehire him. Additionally, certainly other people could be acting city manager during the process, but there is no possible alternative with the very great qualities of City Clerk Margaret Drury.

2. Details.

I really do not know how many more details I should go into. I have beat this case to death.

The fact that the city manager is still in office after being found guilty of severe malfeasance in office as stated in the strong, clear key opinion of the Trial Judge, and the informal comments of the Appeals Court, is an indictment of the Cambridge City Council and of the truly rotten Cambridge Pol organization which keep the Cambridge City Council from being thrown out of office.

Once again, the key court opinions may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html (appeals court), and at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html (trial judge).

And I have done a lot of analyses of this particular outrage.

Civil Rights Retaliation Case information still secret from Cambridge City Council

2011-12-02T15:05:00.002-05:00

Cambridge city council order number 4 for this coming Monday, December 5, at http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=33584, says way too much about the situation on the Cambridge City Council.

This order indicates that the Cambridge City Manager is still keeping key information secret from the Cambridge City Council on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

This is the case in which judge, jury, and appeals court are in agreement that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The appeals court panel showed its disgust at Cambridge’s appeal by refusing to issue a formal opinion, and said “ample evidence [of] outrageous action.” The trial judge called Cambridge’s behavior “reprehensible.” The jury awarded $1.1 million for destroying her life and $3.5 million penal damages to show its disgust. The city manager has announced, without explanation, the city solicitor’s retirement.

The key court opinions may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html (appeals court), and at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html (trial judge).

There is nothing complicated about this situation. Jury, judge and appeals court are in agreement that the Cambridge City Manager committed gross malfeasance in office. That translates into ample cause to fire him without golden parachute and probably without pension.

The refusal of the Cambridge City Manager to provide the Cambridge City Council with key information on the case rather reminds me of the treatment of the Cambridge City Council by the predecessor to the Sullivan / Healy regime. He was fired for a lot less than findings of Superior Court judge and Jury and Appeals Court Panel of gross malfeasance in office.

The Cambridge City Manager is treating the Cambridge City Council with the lack of respect that the Cambridge City Council amply deserves.

Grand Junction Map in Cambridge, MA, USA, details of next meeting on Passenger Service

2011-12-01T11:33:00.001-05:00

The Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association has posted state links on the Grand Junction passenger rail project along with the decidedly misleading statement that the Cambridge City Council has opposed the passenger rail project. The truth on the “opposition” is that the “opposition” is to current plans. Current plans are not irresponsible enough to please almost certainly a majority of the Cambridge City Council. One irresponsible vote was fired in the recent elections effective in January.

There is a map of the Grand Junction railroad in Cambridge that could be of general interest. It may be seen at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/Downloads/grandjunction/GrandJunctionmap.pdf.

This map could be used to exactly locate the areas of destruction on the Charles River. Directly to the left of the railroad at the Charles River is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, which extends slightly to the right as well. Ground vegetation has been fully destroyed to the right and mostly destroyed to the left. The first white line to the left is the BU Bridge. Most of the green area to the left of that is Magazine Beach. The area in which massive tree destruction is sought by Cambridge and the state starts with the BU Bridge and goes east to the second bridge to the East, the Longfellow Bridge. The 105 tree grove which is slated to be decimated and for which I have twice provided photos may be located by realizing that Memorial Drive is an undivided highway at the BU Bridge and extending perhaps half a mile to the east where a split with a park in the middle of two separate travel areas is visible. This split is the location of the targeted grove, but the trees in the targeted grove are much smaller than other targeted healthy trees.

The more general Massachusetts Department of Transportation posting is at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/GrandJunctionTransportationStudy.aspx. This has links to other matters of value, including the map of the Grand Junction in Cambridge.

The scheduled meeting is at the Kennedy-Longfellow School Auditorium at 158 Spring Street in Cambridge, Thursday, December 8, 2011, 6:30 pm to 8 pm. A relevant flier is also provided by link.

Environmentally destructive Cambridge Pol is Attorney to North Point Project

2011-11-30T23:28:00.001-05:00

Former Cambridge Mayor / Vice Mayor , City Councilor and State Senator Anthony Galluccio was introduced at the East Cambridge meeting on November 30, 2011 concerning the North Point project as the attorney for the project.

Galluccio was Cambridge Vice Mayor and in favor for the key vote in December 1999 giving the Cambridge City Council’s $1.5 million funding for the environmental outrage at Magazine Beach.

As mayor / vice mayor / city councilor it is inconceivable that he, in any way, objected to environmental destruction at Magazine Beach or to the heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese as part of this bizarre project.

As State Senator from Cambridge, it is equally inconceivable that he objected in any way to further implementation of the escalating outrages at Magazine Beach.

His current position as attorney on the North Point project puts him smack in the middle of one of the largest developments ever seen in Cambridge, MA or the Boston, MA area. The area is the former railroad yard complex associated with North Station in Boston. It is close to Bunker Hill Community College, Sullivan Square in Charlestown, Washington Street in Somerville, and to the McGrath / O’Brien Highway in Somerville / Cambridge. It abuts the Gilmore Bridge connecting Bunker Hill in Charlestown to East Cambridge / Lechmere.

The most comparable project would be the creation of the Back Bay neighborhood in Boston in the 19th Century, except, in dramatic contrast, the Back Bay was not developed by one developer and probably was smaller.

And smack dab in the middle of this is a Cambridge Pol with a Cambridge Pol’s record of environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

Cambridge City Councilor on Monteiro, Healy

2011-11-30T10:09:00.004-05:00

The voters of the City of Cambridge fired the second worst city councilor environmentally after he was quoted as saying that destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint was no big thing.

The worst member as far as environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse goes is Henrietta Davis. The same letter that quoted the soon to be former city councilor also quoted her in the same breath. The letter was published by the Cambridge Chronicle on line. Davis responded with her own letter on line. The photo attached by the Chronicle to her response looks like it was taken from the candidate forum. Neither made the Cambridge Chronicle hard copy.

English translation of the Davis comments are the usual. She abhors discrimination by anybody else and in no way gave in on her indifference to the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.

Elizabeth Anne Kanze just posted a link on facebook to the Davis comments in the August 31 2011 candidate forum with the comment, ”Henrietta Davis on Retaliation Lawsuit : money more important.” The link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnYwPv5RiKg&feature=share.

One interesting comment by her at the forum is that the jury award exceeds the possible award in response to killing somebody.

Davis totally fails to mention that $3.5 million of the $4.6 million jury award was PENAL DAMAGES intended to express the jury’s disgust at the City of Cambridge. The judge followed by referring to Cambridge’s behavior as “reprehensible” in support of the jury award. The appeals court panel showed its disgust at Cambridge’s appeal by refusing to issue a formal opinion and commenting that there was “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

I am not positive, but I presume this is the forum the letter was referring to.

The letter from the former head of the Cambridge Women’s Commission, Nancy Ryan, may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x236282661/Guest-commentary-The-heart-of-the-Monteiro-case-a-matter-of-values-governance#axzz1f6jP4nyD. In addition to the Chronicle publication, she distributed these comments widely apparently as part of an email mailing. I received a copy of the email mail on a listserve.

Davis’ supposed response may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x671084598/Davis-I-abhor-retaliation-and-discrimination-in-the-workplace#axzz1f6jP4nyD.

Addendum:

The key opinion of the Trial Judge may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

The Appeals Court panel’s comments may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

February 2011, Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, Photos of what once was beauty

2011-11-26T12:33:00.035-05:00

We have just posted some September 2011 photos of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

A little bit earlier, we posted photos of a grove of excellent trees, about 105, about half a mile east of the Destroyed Nesting Area. This excellent grove is on the verge of being destroyed for what the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the City of Cambridge, and their apologists call “improvement.”

We have also posted photos of the pristine Alewife reservation, excellent massive trees with untold animals within sight of the Boston Red Line’s Alewife Station.

Last I heard, the powers that be claimed to be destroying the Alewife reservation for flood storage to protect North Cambridge. They are protecting against the worst flooding event to occur every two years, a two year storm, in an area which has seen two fifty year storms in the last twenty years. Directly across the street from this outrage is a massive parking lot which could readily handle fifty year storms.

The massive parking lot is not being destroy for what would be real value. The jewel of the core Alewife Reservation is being destroyed for a cause that cannot be achieved but which can be achieved across the street.

Winter is coming at the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

The following are photos which were taken on February 13, 2011. I will walk you through the area as I took the photos.

To avoid repeating myself, all areas of destruction in the Destroyed Nesting Area were destroyed to this date.

We have had a meeting and site view with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation which is doing the work.

MassDOT accurately told us that the plans were written by the DCR and MassDOT was stuck with them.

The area next to the BU Bridge needed to be destroyed for access to the BU Bridge to do work, but that work was over in February 2011 when these photos were taken. This is the western part of the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The area next to the on ramp to Memorial Drive should not have been destroyed in the first place. There was ample places in the area which are not sensitive which could have been used without this destruction.

The destruction occurred and continues.

This photo was taken approaching the destroyed nesting area from the west.

The road curving from left to right and then to left again is the BU Bridge rotary. It is under Memorial Drive.

Note the total absence of anything in that part of the BU Bridge rotary which is visible. Nothing is there because what should have been put there was used to destroy part of the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese.

Straight ahead, where the cars are pointing, is the on ramp to Memorial Drive from the BU Bridge / the BU Bridge rotary. At the bottom of the picture, barely visible, is another roadway. It is the off ramp from Memorial Drive to the BU Bridge / the BU Bridge rotary.

Beyond the traffic cones is an area which used to connect to the BU Bridge. That area is now part of the construction zone for work on the near side of the BU Bridge. Straight ahead and to the right is the BU Bridge.

The very large concrete and green structure straight ahead is Boston University’s School of Law, located on the south, opposite, side of the BU Bridge.

Immediately below BU Law and straight ahead in the picture but below the street level and not visible is the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

This photo is taken from the BU Bridge. You are looking primarily at the biggest tree in the Destroyed Nesting Area, plus some Whites and some Canadas.

This area was heavily vegetated until the vegetation was destroyed by the DCR / its representatives. The failure of the vegetation to grow back indicates poisoning.

The items in the foreground are in the destroyed part of the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Again taken from the BU Bridge. To the right is the eastern side of the BU Bridge. The vast emptiness used to be natural habitat. As you can see, at the time of this photograph, it was simply empty.

Straight ahead is the core part of the Boston University campus, west of the School of Law. Below of it can be seen a sliver of the Charles River. Below that is the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The white area between that and the BU Bridge is the snow and ice covered Charles River. The trees are at the edge of the Destroyed Nesting Area. The line is the end of the BU Bridge construction destruction.

The structure to the left of the line are structures blocking access to the unused wasteland.

This photo is of the area beyond the artificially created wasteland next to the BU Bridge. The structure at the top is a bridge support in the middle of the Charles River.

The Charles River White Geese are enjoying a small part of the river which is not frozen.

Minimally changed land abutting the river is at the bottom of the photo.

The geese are excellently adapted for this environment. They have lived free here for 30 years. They have goose down jackets. Their biggest problem is that the DCR and Cambridge are deliberately starving them.

This photo is taken of the view in the opposite direction from the prior photo, with the camera moving north.

The totally unnecessary destruction is straight ahead. Immediately above it is the hillside which is the northern extremity of the Destroyed Nesting Area. Above that is the on ramp to Memorial Drive. Then Memorial Drive. Then a building now owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, formerly owned by Polaroid Corporation and before that by Ford Motor Company.

Photo from the top of the staircase illegally constructed as part of an apparently unwritten (and thus illegal) agreement with the DCR by Boston University at the eastern end of the ramp to Memorial Drive.

This used to be beautiful, and the snow hides the worst of the destruction. Beneath the snow is a very significant part of dirt created by the destruction of ground vegetation by the DCR / its agents. To the right can barely be seen that portion of the construction zone which constituted totally useless destruction.

Straight ahead is the BU Bridge. Above the BU Bridge is a new dormitory complex built on top of what was an historical armory, which a lot of people thought BU should not destroy.

As I recall, the agreement by which BU obtained the armory is another of those strange agreements.

Whites and Canadas under the big tree, Charles and BU Bridge in the background.

Whites admire the water of the Charles River. Canadas feeding below them. Above them are the supports for the Grand Junction bridge. Taken from the eastern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area between the big tree and the water, another area formerly heavily vegetated, vegetation destroyed.

The Whites enjoy the Charles and some free water. Taken below the wasteland that was needed for access to the BU Bridge but which still has not been returned to nature. Artificial wall blocking off wasteland can be seen to the right.

A further distance shot of the previous. The plastic wall is seen again with apparently stronger support above.

View from close to the previous location looking up at the empty no longer needed access area at the BU Bridge.

Additional view of the previous, camera moving slightly to the east, nothing there. The Ford / Polaroid / MIT building is above and to the right.

This used to be a heavily vegetated woods.

It is the hillside below the Grand Junction, taken from below the large tree.

Visible are Charles River White Geese and Canadas.

Photo from the illegally constructed staircase. The never sensible construction area is to the right. The artificially created dirt is straight ahead. There is some view, under the snow, of the little bit of ground vegetation which has not been destroyed. At the top is the Charles, the BU Bridge and those dormitories which used to be a historical armory and which have the strange history.

Cambridge City Solicitor to Retire - Over Monteiro?

2011-11-21T17:24:00.004-05:00

1. General.
2. Two Alternative Interpretations.
3. Monteiro.
A. General.
B. Malpractice against the trial attorney?
C. Finding that the City Solicitor was responsible for the debacle?
Addendum.

1. General.

In a letter being presented to the Cambridge City Council by the Cambridge City Manager this evening (November 21, 2011), the Cambridge City Manager informs the City Council of the intention of the City Solicitor to retire on January 20, 2012. The letter may be read at: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/cmLetter.cfm?item_id=20456.

2. Two Alternative Interpretations.

It is impossible to react to this notice through anything other than through informed speculation. Therefore, let us be clear that I know nothing directly behind the circumstances of the City Solicitor’s retirement.

There are two reasonable and readily thinkable reactions to this news.

One very likely reason for this action is that the Cambridge City Solicitor thinks it is time for him to retire.

One alternate reason is the case of Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

3. Monteiro.

A. General.

Malvina Monteiro was recently paid $8.3 million by Cambridge as the result of decisions of superior court judge and jury and a panel of the Appeals Court.

Findings were strongly against the Cambridge City Manager in a case where judge, jury and appeals court found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The jury awarded about $1.1 million in real damages and a strikingly large $3.5 million in penal damages. The trial judge, in her key opinion, reviewed the award and went into great detail concerning the testimony of the Cambridge City Manager. She found his actions “reprehensible.” The appeals court reacted to the city’s appeal with disgust. Its reviewing panel refused to dignify the appeal with a formal opinion in comments which cited “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The key opinion of the trial judge quoted the City Manager as saying he was fully aware of the pendency of the civil rights case during his actions against Monteiro and that he carefully operated in communication with council.

The judge interpreted this comment as communicating deliberate action by the Cambridge City Manager.

B. Malpractice against the trial attorney?

There have been various speculations by Cambridge Pol types of the possibility of a malpractice suit against the attorney representing the city in the case.

My reaction is that these contentions amount to yet another change of subject by the Cambridge Pols. The decision says that the Cambridge City Manager has committed “outrageous” and “reprehensible” malfeasance in office.

The Cambridge City Council has not even heard a motion to fire the Cambridge City Manager. A majority of five of the nine incumbents (one not reelected) committed themselves to rehiring the Cambridge City Manager during the recent election.

Exactly zero City Councilors presently on the council or newly elected have publicly supported firing the Cambridge City Manager for Monteiro.

It is always impossible to fully evaluate comments made by Cambridge Pols on major issues. A long time ago, I stopped trying to determine intent, but rather evaluate their comments by impact. The impact of the malpractice idea against the trial attorney, to me, is changing the subject.

First of all, the city manager, according to jury, judge and appeals court, should be fired.

Secondly however, the city council voted to fund the appeals WITHOUT SEEKING INDEPENDENT COUNCIL. This is absolutely outrageous.

With the comments of the judge and jury in the trial, absolute minimum action by the Cambridge City Council would have been to get a second opinion. Failure to get a second opinion communicates, as usual, that the Cambridge City Council did not want to know what it was doing.

The trial attorney can be expected to be biased toward appeal. The trial attorney is trying to achieve his/her agreed upon results as best as he/she can. Failure to check that opinion is very much failure on the part of the Cambridge City Council, not the attorney.

C. Finding that the City Solicitor was responsible for the debacle?

Really, this is the other possibility.

I am raising it. There are a whole bunch of permutations on this part of the analysis.

I really do not want to go there, pretty much for the same reason I find a malpractice action against the trial attorney outrageous.

You are changing the subject.

The City Manager has civilly been found guilty of “outrageous” and “reprehensible” malfeasance in office by jury, judge and appeals court, to wit, destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The games should end.

The City Manager should be fired.

Addendum.

I attended the meeting long enough to see the city council had no comment on the retirement.

Large housing project announced south of Alewife

2011-11-21T09:25:00.003-05:00

Cambridge Day is reporting a 429 unit complex announced as “The Residences at Fresh Pond. Their report may be read at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/11/16/project-will-add-429-apartments-at-alewife-developer-says/.

I attended two Cambridge Conservation Commission discussions on this project.

The construction impacts Belmont perhaps half a mile to the west and Arlington perhaps half a mile to the north plus traffic coming in on Route 2. Route 2 is the northern of the two major east-west superhighways in Massachusetts. The Route 2 super highway ends just north (above) of the area in the Cambridge Day photo, just north of Alewife station.

The Cambridge Day report provides excellent details although its photo does not go far enough south. If the project is in the photo, it is at the very bottom. The photo shows the massive Alewife Red Line station with a portion of the Alewife reservation which is being destroyed by Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Reservations. A whole bunch of lies and a key fake “protective” group are helping that destruction.

The project in question in the Cambridge Day report is south of the railroad tracks / below the railroad tracks in the photo. The massive parking lot directly above the tracks is but a tiny portion of the massive parking area which should be used for flood storage rather than destroying the Alewife reservation and then “discovering” that the destruction will not provide the needed flood storage.

I do not know the exact zoning history of the particular project in the Cambridge Day report. I do know about the very recent upzoning that impacts the area of the project.

The game was “transfer of development rights,” a variation of the beggar your neighbor politics which is one of many dirty tricks normal in Cambridge politics. They have a predictable script. “Beggar your neighbor” is one of the standard tactics in the script.

I lived in Cambridge to the west of the project area for nearly two years, the Cambridge Highlands neighborhood.

Between the north south highway (Alewife Brook Parkway / Route 16) is a low density industrial area. The key lie in the zoning change was that development would be transferred from the area near where I lived to the area near Route 16. The secret behind the lie was that the resulting zoning density near my former home was set at a density which simply and clearly will not be allowed by Cambridge. The zoning density in the “protected area” was way below even the density allowed in my residential neighborhood, after the games / development transfer is played.

Thus massive development is encouraged to go in in that portion of the industrial area in toward Route 16 while the portion toward Cambridge Highlands is “protected.”

When the area next to Route 16 is filled in, the powers that will look at the area which was “protected” in that zoning change with shock. Totally unacceptable to have such small industrial buildings next to their massive new buildings. They will have to correct that.

And they would not get the increase in density of the zoning near Route 16 if they did the upzoning in an honest manner.

So a massive industrial area gets a massive upzoning in two steps. Very similar to the total destruction of the publicly owned and irreplaceable Alewife reservation in two steps with bizarre claims of “protection.”

Yet another lie from the City of Cambridge.

Public meeting scheduled on possibility of Grand Junction Passenger Service

2011-11-19T10:54:00.003-05:00

1. Meeting announcement.
2. Reality in Cambridge.

1. Meeting announcement.

The following email was received from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation on November 18:

************

Grand Junction Commuter Rail Feasibility Study -- Public Meeting

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is pleased to announce a community meeting to discuss progress on the Grand Junction Commuter Rail Feasibility Study.

This meeting will be held:
Thursday, December 8, 6:30pm-8:00pm
Kennedy-Longfellow School – Auditorium
158 Spring Street, Cambridge

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss an ongoing study of the potential use of the Grand Junction Railroad for supplemental MBTA Commuter Rail service to Cambridge and North Station. At this meeting, MassDOT staff members will discuss results of a ridership analysis and traffic impact analysis, as well as overall study findings, and next steps. This meeting follows up on a community meeting held last June. For more information on prior meetings, see out study website at: http://massdot.state.ma.us/planning/GrandJunctionTransportationStudy.aspx.

All are welcome at the meeting, and please feel free to share this notice. For more information, or to request alternative language or other special accommodations, please contact Matthew Ciborowski at matthew.ciborowski@state.ma.us, or (617) 973-7180.

Please join us on December 8th!

Matthew Ciborowski | Office of Transportation Planning
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
phone 617.973.7180 | email matthew.ciborowski@state.ma.us

************

2. Reality in Cambridge.

The same group which “protected” Alewife is extremely visible in this effort, just different faces.

The Cambridge proposal is highly destructive of the environment on the Charles River and, as usual, destructive to the causes they claim to stand for.

The Pols are fighting for commuter passenger service on the Grand Junction railroad, the track that goes through the edge of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

Their proposal would cross at grade a number of very active streets in the eastern part of Cambridge with associated disruption of traffic and environmental pollution from standing, idling cars.

This railroad track has seen perhaps four trips a day in connector service between the railroad yards associated with Boston’s passenger oriented North Station and the freight dominated Beacon Yards.

Harvard University owns Beacon Yards along with the adjacent exit ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to Cambridge and the Brighton neighborhood of Boston. Harvard bought Beacon Yards and the Massachusetts Turnpike exit shortly after a state agency demonstrated that it is possible to put an off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to Cambridge over the rail bridge under the BU Bridge which is part of the Grand Junction Railroad.

The Pols claim that the adding passenger trains would benefit Worcester. The Pols claim to oppose the “existing plans.” They give the impression that their opposition is to passenger service on the Grand Junction. The reality is that there are no “existing plans,” just a study.

Worcester currently has all its passenger service run out of Boston’s South Station. South Station is being expanded to add trackage which would be needed for service to New Bedford and Fall River, plus a lot of extra tracks. Worcester has no need to use the Grand Junction. Studies have shown only a small percentage of Worcester residents would have any benefit from the use of that line.

On the other hand, going inbound on the South Station - Worcester line from the point where traffic would be diverted to the Grand Junction, you come to Yawkey Station.

Cambridge wants an irresponsible subway line which would cross the Charles at a point that requires moving Yawkey Station. The legislature is spending millions upgrading Yawkey Station in place. Yawkey Station in place is an integral part of the responsible subway alternative to Cambridge’s irresponsible subway proposal.

Moving ALL Framingham trains to the Grand Junction would make Yawkey Station useless in the subway plans.

Additionally, passenger service on that line would support the massive development Cambridge is building in that area.

Cambridge claims its plan only would create a few passenger trains on the Grand Junction.

Cambridge also claims it is “only” destroying the core of the Alewife reservation, but that proposal cannot do what it claims to with those stated limits either.

Fake limits are the norm with these people.

Most of Letter Calling out Destructive “Protector” of Alewife Reservation Printed by Cambridge Chronicle

2011-11-17T16:10:00.002-05:00

Last Friday, November 11, 2011, I passed on on this blog, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/response-to-protector-of-environment.html, a letter I sent to the Cambridge Chronicle.

My submittal of this letter was highly unusual and the fact that almost all of it was printed is even more unusual because of very severe procedural oddities. Nevertheless this letter was one of the few which make sense being printed in spite of the oddities.

The biggest environmental problem in or near Cambridge, MA, is a bunch “protective” groups I consider fakes. The “protective” groups, once you scratch the highly polished surface have a very strong tendency to be highly influenced by the Cambridge City Manager / City Council. They commonly have the problem of achievements which are in conflict with their stated goals.

One of the worst of these groups has been running around for 15 years or so claiming to be defending the Alewife reservation but maneuvering people away from the winnable / savable part of the reservation, that owned and controlled by public agencies, with the City of Cambridge smack dab in the middle of the situation.

The Alewife reservation is / was a virgin forest only a few hundred feet west of Alewife Station, the northern terminus of the subway systems Red Line. The leader has been crying for 15 years her love for Alewife. A few weeks ago, in the Chronicle, she praised the destruction of the core Alewife reservation, controlled by Cambridge / the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation.

The destruction planned / accomplished involves clear cutting acres of massive, excellent trees with the associated killing of all animals who do not get out of their way and the gutting of massive numbers of nests.

Two weeks ago, the Chronicle published my letter building on a letter from a number of former members of Cambridge’s Human Rights Commission. They had had the nerve to ask about the Monteiro case to the Cambridge City Manager. This case has resulted in the City of Cambridge paying Ms. Monteiro $8.3 million after orders of the appeals court and superior court. That number includes $1.1 million actual damages and $3.5 million penal damages.

The city solicitor apparently treated the request as a violation of the expectation that all people associated with the City of Cambridge pay obeisance to Team Healy [Cambridge City Manager].

My letter two weeks ago applied the principal expressed by the city solicitor and said that his apparent position goes a long way to explain the very commonly irresponsible behavior of these supposed “protective” groups. Three of the points directly hit the Alewife issue.

Last week, after her earlier letter was printed supporting destruction of the core Alewife reservation, the key woman had an other letter bemoaning lack of interest in protecting that part of the reservation she is not trying to destroy. Her letter followed mine by a week and totally ignored my letter and the points which destroy her argument for destroying the core Alewife reservation.

So I sent a letter, printed at the link, asking why she had not responding to the three points in my letter which destroy her position supporting destruction of the core Alewife reservation. My letter was printed at page 17 of the November 17, 2011 Chronicle. Interestingly, my last sentence did not make it into the Chronicle. That was the sentence quoting her prior letter statement of her support for the destruction, without mentioning yet another letter, for obvious reasons.

The letter and its printing was unusual because it constitutes a direct attack by name on the supposed protector of the Alewife reservation. Perhaps the last sentence was omitted to bring the letter closer to what really is normal procedure. The situation, however, called for my letter to be printed, and, once again, the Cambridge Chronicle printed it.

Thank you to the Cambridge Chronicle.

Cambridge City Council compared to Vick, Paterno

2011-11-17T12:28:00.004-05:00

1. General.
2. Michael Vick.
3. Joe Paterno.
4. Summary.

1. General.

The Cambridge pols live in their own world. It is a world strikingly different from the world that their massive organization brags about.

This fake world is achieved by a whole bunch of lovely words on matters which generally are not within their powers or barely within their powers, combined with taking really bad actions as secretly as possible.

The voters got rid of a very bad City Councilor from an environmental point of view. He was quoted as saying in public words very similar to the words the Cambridge pols have quite constantly used about their animal victims. This time, he said those words with regard to the woman whose life the Cambridge City Manager destroyed because she had the nerve to file a civil rights complaint.

To me, it is all one mentality, and to a lot of people it is all one mentality.

People who are heartless animal abusers have a distressing tendency to graduate to human beings and, really, listening to a whole bunch of different types of abusers sounds very much alike.

One thing in common is the demeaning of the victim.

And that was exactly what the soon to be former city councilor did with regard to Malvina Monteiro. He and other members of the city council were questioned on the case and they reportedly responded that [destroying her life] was no big thing.

Responsible outsiders have emphatically shown disgust and contempt for the destruction of Malvina Monteiro’s life, and responsible outsiders are routinely shocked by Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s heartless abuse of animals.

The one thing the Cambridge pols have most going for them is their own non stop self lauding based on matters which are at most peripheral to their real responsibilities.

2. Michael Vick.

Vick certainly did some terrible things in his dog fighting outrages. He has gone to jail and he has reformed.

The outrages on the Charles River continue unabated as part of truly bizarre proposals.

The plans to make things worse continue unabated.

The contempt for living beings is being reenforced as part of the animal pogrom going on at Alewife, again as part of a truly bizarre package.

Vick is repentant and smaller scale.

Cambridge and the DCR are making things much, much worse.

It is an insult to Vick to compare him to these people.

3. Joe Paterno.

Joe Paterno is a saint at Penn State because of his very long football success combined with his demands of quality scholarship from his players.

He has been fired because of a continuing series of allegations about sexual abuse of children by an assistant with failure to act by Paterno.

The first and most important thing to say about Paterno is that the alleged culprit is exactly that, alleged, and he denies the behavior.

The Cambridge City Manager continues to say he did nothing wrong with regard to Malvina Monteiro.

The jury, the trial judge and the appeals court very strongly disagree.

The jury calculated $1.1 million actual damages. They awarded an essentially unprecedented $3.5 million in penal damages to communicate their feelings.

The judge agreed with the jury and used the word “reprehensible.”

The appeals court would not dignify the appeal with a formal opinion.

The appeals court, in their informal comments, spoke of “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The response of the Cambridge pols:

Exactly zero Cambridge City Councilors want to fire the Cambridge City Manager for his proven and adjudged destruction of the life of Malvina Montero in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Five Cambridge City Council incumbents, reduced to four with the unelection of one, are committed IN ADVANCE to rehiring the City Manager in the coming contract discussions. Three other incumbents and the newly elected councilor are noncommittal.

Paterno has well earned his very great lauding as part of his football legacy.

Paterno was summarily thrown out of his job for failure to supervise.

4. Summary.

Cambridge, MA, USA, has a really rotten city government.

A Photo Record, September 2011, Destruction of the Charles River environment by Massachusetts

2011-11-15T17:32:00.015-05:00

On September 4, 2011, I took a number of photos on the Charles River.

Not long after that, I posted a portion of those photos showing the excellent grove perhaps a mile to the east of the BU Bridge which Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreations intended to destroy.

This is the balance of the photos.

I want to thank the folks who saved Bert for posting two photos showing the environmental outrage.

This photo is of the eastern part of the Destroyed Nesting Area.

The structure to the left is in that part of the BU Bridge construction zone which simply cannot be justified.

At the top of the picture is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology owned building which formerly was a Ford Plant and, more recently, was part of the Polaroid complex.

Those major trees to the right are excellent but threatened by the multiple projects targeted for the area.

Straight ahead is undestroyed vegetation going up the hill supporting the on ramp to Memorial Drive which is the northern boundary. To the left can be seen additional very healthy ground vegetation which is the very small portion not destroyed by the DCR acting through the Charles River Conservancy and other agent.

The dirt would be just as fruitful if it were not for the destructiveness of the DCR and its agents.

On the left is the BU Bridge, at the top is Memorial Drive.

There are two tiny areas of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse which have not been destroyed by the DCR and its agents.

On the right is the western portion of the small remnant which I showed in the prior picture.

On the left is other area which has not been destroyed. Sticking out of the vegetation are two or three undestroyed trees. I published a photo of this area in the spring, thinking that the state had shown some decency by planting these trees and trees I saw in the other undestroyed area. I was wrong. It was not decency. It just was that, over the years, the DCR and its agents, destroyed, and destroyed and destroyed. The only area they did not destroy was the area they planned to destroy in the BU Bridge project. They missed some.

The trees sticking out of the ground vegetation are the bare trees I showed in my photos in the spring. They are healthy.

The very wide path in the middle goes to the corner entrance illegally created by Boston University for the DCR in 1999. The geese did create a narrow path in this location going up to the ramp to get food under Memorial Drive. The vast majority of this destruction, once again, is DCR and its agents.

This is a more distant view of the first photo.

To the right, under the largest tree in the Destroyed Nesting Area is a number of the Charles River White Geese. They used to be able to rest in natural vegetation, but the sick situation in Cambridge, MA, has destroyed that natural vegetation.

This gathering of part of the gaggle under that excellent tree is photographed from the BU Bridge itself.

Look at all that dirt that used to be healthy vegetation and would continue to be healthy vegetation except for the very sick situation in Cambridge, MA and in the DCR.

At the top of this photo, to the east of the destroyed nesting area, is the Grand Junction Railroad Track. The vegetation which has not been destroyed is so thick that the Grand Junction cannot be seen.

This photo, also from the BU Bridge is of the area shown in the first few photos with that major tree and the partial gaggle also included.

Also from the BU Bridge. This is the portion of the construction zone which was totally unnecessary. The silvery shed is visible in the first few photos.

At the top is MIT’s Ford / Polaroid plant. Below it can be seen the bricked edge of the Memorial Drive overpass.

Immediately below the construction zone is the eastern of the two tiny patches of ground vegetation.

Look at how excellent this stuff is in comparison to the patches of dirt artificially and sickly imposed on the environment and its animals by this horribly irresponsible state agency working in close coordination with the City of Cambridge whose behavior has been called “reprehensible” by a civil rights judge.

Response to a “Protector” of the environment who supports massive environmental destruction

2011-11-11T14:47:00.003-05:00

The biggest environmental problem in Cambridge, MA, is all those supposedly protective organizations with connections to the Cambridge City Manager or Cambridge City Councilors which tend to achieve exactly the opposite of their supposed goals.

In my opinion, the most important factor in the imminent / ongoing destruction of the irreplaceable Alewife reservation is such an organization.

Alewife is very close to the Northern terminus of the Red Line subway.

It is essentially a virgin wilderness with massive excellent native trees and all sorts of excellent animals. My biggest problem in trying to defend this area has been a supposedly protective organization which has been telling people to look at everything else.

When push came to shove, after 15 years of pious proclamations of love for Alewife, the leader of the supposed protective organization, Ellen Mass, went public with support for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

In the November 10, 2011, issue of the Cambridge Chronicle and on line, she once again proclaims her love for Alewife in a very long letter.

One big trouble with her latest letter is that she is following my letter in the November 3, 2011, Cambridge Chronicle which is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-former-cambridge-human.html. And she looks like she is responding to it.

I have just offered the following response to her response:

********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I want to thank Ellen Mass for responding to that part of my letter in the November 3, 2011, Cambridge Chronicle which was directed straight at her. The trouble with her very long response is that nowhere in the response do I see any meaningful response to the issues I raised.

I was addressing the mentality shown in the Cambridge City Solicitor as quoted by former members of the Human Rights Commission. The points directly aimed at Ms. Mass read:

***********

This mentality shows how a group supposedly defending Alewife spent 15 years maneuvering people away from the totally avoidable public destruction of the animals and trees in the irreplaceable core Alewife reservation.

This mentality shows how the Alewife “protectors” “cannot understand” that the destruction of the core reservation cannot possibly protect North Cambridge from flooding. They are protecting against the worst possible rainstorm in any two year period. They need protection against the two fifty year floods which have hit the area in the last twenty years. There is a big difference.

This mentality shows how the Alewife “defenders” cannot look at the other side of Cambridge Park Drive from the Alewife reservation. It shows why they cannot see that massive parking lot which could protect against 50 year floods if it were used instead of the core Alewife reservation.

***********

My explanation read: “This mentality shows that all that REALLY counts to the Cambridge Machine is being part of Team Healy.”

Could Ms. Mass, with her 15 years of supposed defense of Alewife, please explain these blind spots? She very clearly supports destruction of the core Alewife Reservation.

Thank you.

Photo of Bert

2011-11-10T12:18:00.005-05:00

Here is the photo of Bert made by the nice people who saved him and returned him to the Destroyed Nesting Area on Sunday, the 6th.

Bert, very clearly, is an Emden Goose, very similar in looks to a lot of the beleaguered Charles River 30 year residents under attack by Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation and under attack by Cambridge, MA, USA.

The background of this photo is the hillside which supports the on ramp to Memorial Drive. That on ramp in turn is the northern boundary of the area with so much destruction.

This hillside is important because the sick people from the DCR / their agents the Charles River Conservancy did not bother destroying the hillside vegetation. They just destroyed almost all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.

If DCR / CRC had not run around destroying things, all that dirt on the ground would be as lush as this hillside.

One possible explanation is that the geese cannot walk on such a slope. There was no value to DCR / CRC in destroying the hillside. Their heartless animal abuse was satisfied by destroying the vegetation on flat land.

Sorry about the delay in posting. It took a lot of figuring to decide how to work around the “improvements” in Yahoo, and it was strictly a wild guess in the middle of doing something else that retrieved this lovely photo.

Preliminary Cambridge City Council Vote: A very bad guy loses.

2011-11-09T06:34:00.006-05:00

The details of the permutations in the Cambridge voting are beyond the scope of this blog.

“Preliminary” voting results are posted at http://www.rwinters.com/. You can get to detailed results by following links. The value of this link may not last for more than a few days after this Blog posting, if that.

It would appear, subject to various permutations, that City Councilor Samuel Seidel loses. Davis is worse. Seidel is very bad.

He is being replaced by Minka vanBeuzekom. There is nothing complicated about her election. There is a very, very slight chance that, instead of replacing Seidel, she will replace Reeves.

Seidel is one of the incumbents who was quoted as saying that the Cambridge City Manager’s destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro was no big thing. Seidel is a former member of the Cambridge Conservation Commission. He was in the middle of the planning for the outrages on the Charles River. He is very strongly pro the City Manager.

Good riddance to Seidel. It is a shame a lot more did not disappear.

The reality, however, is that vanBeuzekom looks like very much part of the Cambridge Machine, although she is more ambiguous about the future reappointment of Healy. And she most definitely is not as bad as Seidel.

ADDENDUM: A nice write up may be read on the Cambridge Chronicle’s page, http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/breaking/x1696635366/Van-Beuzekom-wins-Cambridge-City-Council-seat-Osborne-on-School-Committee#axzz1d9rjAwF3.

Comment: Correction. I used a small "v " in her name above because that is how the sources spelled it.

I have since checked Ms. VanBeuzekom's facebook page and see a large "V". I left a message with her on the issue, but I must assume the spelling on her page is correct.

The computers on facebook are not nasty people.

Comment: Correction to Correction.

Councilor Elect vanBeuzekom informs me that the facebook computers are the problem, not the news sources. Small “v.”

Very distressing. They do get my “é” right.

Follow up on Charles River White Goose Bert and his adventures on Sunday, City Council Recommendation

2011-11-07T12:28:00.004-05:00

1. Angelynn reports.
2. Your editor responds.
3. Angelynn.
4. Your editor.
5. Angelynn: City Council recommentation?
6. Your editor: Jamake Pascual.

1. Angelynn reports.

Angelynn reports on facebook:

Bert was on Agassiz at 6 am. My neighbors and I tried to make him comfortable on our entry stairway until we could get help from Animal Control or the Animal Rescue League of Boston. (Sadly, we didn't know about your organization or about the ongoing battle for habitat of these white geese.) I accidentally spooked him at 10 am when I went out to check on him and that's when he went down the hill, down Hurlbut, and, apparently, across Mass Ave. I'm so grateful to the people over there for knowing how to contact you and help him.

2. Your editor responds.

Thank you for the follow on and for your great help to Bert.

Clearly, crossing Massachusetts Avenue would have been a very frightening and dangerous experience.

For the information of those not expert on Cambridge, MA, Agassiz Street is about two streets west of Massachusetts Avenue and the park where Bert wound up, which in turn is about half way between Harvard and Porter Square, closer to Porter. It is a beautification of an air duct from the Red Line.

3. Angelynn.

I do not have that photo and do not know Diana. I'd love to see it as well. BTW, he had some blood traces on his feathers, mostly on his chest, and one red spot on his side that may have been a puncture wound. Would it have been possible for a hawk to carry him all the way over here from the BU bridge area?

4. Your editor.

This is so nice. It looks like quite a few people were involved in helping out this fine Emden Goose.

Clearly, from what you have told me, he does not seem that badly hurt.

The trauma involved in leaving the Charles River again would far exceed any value of having him see a vet.

We had one goose who was stabbed in the side when Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle was killed. She had one leg useless because of the injury. She hopped around for five months on that one leg, healed and eventually returned to normal walking and being not identifiable from the rest of the gaggle.

The core problem on the Charles and at Alewife is a city council which lies about its really rotten attitude concerning animals and the environment. This is combined with a massive organization created by the city manager and his predecessor over 35 years. The city manager’s organization and the city councilors’ organizations combine to do a lot of lying.

If they could not get away with their lies, they would not do the terrible things they do.

5. Angelynn: City Council recommentation?

Are there any candidates in tomorrow's election that you can confidently endorse?

6. Your editor: Jamake Pascual.

The situation in the city council race is so bad that the Cambridge Chronicle condemned pretty much the lot of them, incumbents and challengers, and then made the absolutely minimal number of endorsements possible.

The heartless environmental destruction and animal abuse is inextricably linked to “reprehensible” treatment (to quote the Superior Court judge) of one city employee in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The jury awarded $3.5 million penal damages in addition to $1.1 million real damages. The appeals court expressed its disgust at Cambridge’s appeal by refusing to issue a formal opinion and then speaking of “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.”

The sickness is all one big problem.

The judges and jury clearly were sending a message: fire the city manager without his golden parachute and possibly without his pension.

Almost all the candidates did not want to hear the message.

The only candidate I know of who would fire the Cambridge City Manager because of the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro is Jamake Pascual.

I recommend bulleting for Jamake Pascual to send a very clear message, the more the merrier.

Bert, member of the Charles River White Geese gaggle, is saved

2011-11-07T09:08:00.006-05:00

One of the Charles River White Geese had an eventful day on November 6.

His savior, Diana, calls him Bert. They found him wandering in the park at 1705 Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge.

This is open space ancillary to the Red Line subway halfway between Harvard and Central Square. How he got there is impossible to guess and probably not very nice.

Diana reports:

******

Thanks for your help earlier today. We successfully managed to capture "Bert" the goose from where we found him wandering around in the parking lot here, ~3 miles from the BU bridge), and dropped him off with what looked like the rest of his flock, down the stairs at the base of the bridge on the Cambridge side. He was definitely the same breed/species (fairly large body, orange bill, white feathers, orange webbed feet, blue eyes, etc.)--see photos from when we dropped him off, attached.

If you need any help with your cause in the future (or help with more geese rescue...this little guy actually didn't give us much trouble at all, once we had him all bundled up in the car), please don't hesitate to contact me.

Diana

*******

Diana provided two photos taken at the Goose Meadow when she dropped off Bert. They came over odd, probably because of “improvements” in Yahoo. I cannot get either uploaded directly to the Blog.

I have succeeded in posting the second photo, of the nesting area, posted on facebook, Charles River White Geese. I cannot get Bert posted. He, very clearly, is an Emden Goose, one of the two primary breeds.

I have downloaded the photo of the nesting area and uploaded it here. This area was lush and green until the undergrowth was destroyed by the DCR rather clearly acting through the Charles River Conservancy. In the background is the BU Bridge. To the right is undestroyed and excellent vegetation bordering the construction.

The bare dirt would be like that vegetation except for the really bad people destroying the environment and the animals.

I have invited Diana to post Bert’s photo directly on facebook. I will pass it on to the blog when I can.

I will hopefully follow up in coming days with related photos of the Destroyed Nesting Area I took in September.

Aesthetically nice Cambridge City Manager / City Council analysis in Cambridge Day

2011-11-05T10:55:00.003-05:00

Cambridge Day has presented a very attractive writeup of the Cambridge City Council candidates positions on the Cambridge City Manager at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/11/04/care-about-the-city-manager-a-voters-guide/. It is heavily based on the Cambridge Chronicle questions which I gave up on when I saw no indication or even consideration of him being fired over the Monteiro outrage. There, equally, is no analysis of environmental destructiveness. I anticipate there would be little real difference.

Cambridge Day lists the following positions:

Pro Healy Incumbents: Davis, Maher, Reeves, Seidel, Toomey.
Anti-Healy Incumbents: Craig Kelley
Incumbents without a clear position: Cheung, Decker, Simmons.

Pro Healy Challengers: Moree, Nelson, Ward.
Anti-Healy Challengers: Marquardt, Mello, Pascual, Stohlman, Williamson.
Challenger without a clear position: vanBeuzekom.

Cambridge Day provided a nice individual summary.

The trouble with this stems from the reason why I stopped following the Chronicle questioning: No indication of any interest whatsoever in implementing the court’s decision on Monteiro and firing him. The answers which I read all refer to rehiring the City Manager or not.

My basis for saying that Pascual supports firing because of Monteiro is that I had him live on my cable show, asked him and he so stated. I have generally indicated my willingness to entertain similar opinions, but have not received anything positive.

Cambridge Day followed up by questioning borderline candidates and tried to get greater detail, included in their report.

As I said, I gave up on the Chronicle series. Thus I cannot confirm the accuracy of the report. Nevertheless, this analysis is the sort of analysis the Cambridge Chronicle has done in past years and is beautifully presented.

There are candidates / supporters of candidates who are friends of the facebook page. I have welcomed any elaboration they might wish to post concerning REAL environmental issues (as opposed to saving the world but how dare you object to Cambridge destroying Cambridge). I also welcome elaboration of their treatment of the City Manager with regard to the Monteiro decision. I intend to post appropriate elaborations on this Blog as well.

Similarly, if any person in a position to communicate such positions wants to pass them on to me at boblat@yahoo.com, I would be pleased to consider posting on the Blog and facebook.

Cambridge Chronicle Election Issue, Second analysis

2011-11-04T09:18:00.004-05:00

The Chronicle has posted their rather clear and strong editorial on the forthcoming city election at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x167854759/Editorial-One-hard-choice-this-election-in-Cambridge#axzz1ckFLsiMN. They provide five very left handed endorsements. This is a majority. They do not like the situation, but they list a majority for very weak endorsement.

The Chronicle presents an analysis of the complaints for the final two plaintiffs in the Monteiro v. Cambridge case both in hard copy and on line at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/features/x167854483/Details-exposed-on-Cambridge-discrimination-case#axzz1ckFLsiMN.

The details of the complaints certainly sound damning if you are pro civil rights. The plaintiffs have settled for a secret amount which the Chronicle is in state administrative review trying to obtain.

I reported on this edition of the Cambridge at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/cambridge-chronicle-blasts-candidates.html.

I am honored that the editor saw fit to include my comments on how Cambridge is really run. This was the only substantive comment published on the city council other than his editorial. We seem to be in agreement.

My letter concisely destroyed the lies Team Healy is putting out concerning their massive logging and animal kill at Alewife. This is the first time these details, to my knowledge, have appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle.

The election coverage was decidedly truncated. The Chronicle in hard copy ran one page with photos and very brief descriptions. Past editions have provided several pages of comments from the candidates. The failure to go that far is a slap in the face to the entire situation.

I reported that the op ed from the former head of the Women’s Commission and one councilor’s response were published on line but not in hard copy.

This is entirely possible because the Chronicle does not allow specific candidate comments by the public in its last issue. Another possible explanation is the inclusion by the writer of two statements concerning candidates whom she favored in which the writer was quoting reports in the Chronicle. Her quote was false.

I am sorry that Jamake Pascual did not communicate to the Chronicle better. He was disturbed about happenings over a decade ago which he found distressing. Mr. Pascual’s support for firing the Cambridge City Manager over Monteiro quite possibly could have been not communicated to the Chronicle as a result. Pascual’s support for firing the Cambridge City Manager over Monteiro really places him as the only responsible candidate in the race that I am aware of.

Cambridge Chronicle blasts candidates, prints our “Team Healy” letter

2011-11-03T12:36:00.001-05:00

The Cambridge Chronicle has a tradition of selecting candidates for the city elections in its last edition before the election. This is normally a rosy, happy event. Their editorial this year was anything but rosy and happy.

Although I would be happy to provide a link to this strong editorial, I have not been able to find it on line.

The key comments are two:

The second sentence: “Although it’s customary for newspapers to make endorsements before an election, this newspaper finds it difficult to recommend many of the current crop of incumbent and challengers.”

The Chronicle discusses aspects of the Monteiro case, summarizing: “the one power they do have is oversight of the city manager and in this situation they have shown none, making themselves irrelevant.”

The op ed written by the former head on the Cambridge Women’s Commission which was published on line which I have reported at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/monteiro-former-womens-commission-head.html was not printed in the hard copy, nor was the response by one incumbent which was also published on line.

My letter placing the Monteiro comments of the former human rights commissioners was printed as the third of three letters on the editorial page, quite visible. It may be read at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-former-cambridge-human.html.

Evaluation 2 of letter by FORMER Cambridge Women’s Commission Leader

2011-10-30T21:14:00.002-05:00

The reality behind this letter is that two incumbent city councilors with terrible records are being praised for being pro civil rights with regard to the fight over the destruction of the life of the former head of the Cambridge Police Review Board in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The two people praised in her letter voted to fund the outrageous appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court which was treated with disgust by the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

The two people praised in her letter would not dream of implementing the court decisions and firing the Cambridge City Manager.

Cambridge is a city in which there is an awful lot of very pious proclamations of sainthood.

Cambridge has self proclaimed “environmentalists” associated with Team Healy who brag of a level of ethics with regard to heartless animal abuse which would embarrass Michael Vick.

Frankly, I do not see a great deal of reason to praise people who will not fire Healy for destroying that woman’s life, any more than I feel need to praise heartless animal abusers for their claims of environmentalism simultaneous with their bragging of those ethics which would embarrass Michael Vick.

I know of exactly one candidate for Cambridge City Council who would implement the court decisions and fire the Cambridge City Manager.

Jamake Pascual.

Cambridge politics are owned by Team Healy. Cambridge Politics is a world well worthy of the contempt of decent human beings.

Evaluation of letter by former Women’s Commission head

2011-10-30T10:38:00.004-05:00

On looking at the Ryan letter I posted, I was surprised to see that she commented that two city councilors had been reported in the Chronicle to have questioned the appeal. My memory is that the Chronicle reported that THEY stated they had questioned the appeal.

My understanding is that the only member of the council to express a wish that the City Council seek independent council is Kelley. These other self serving, after the fact comments could be behind the Chronicle’s attempt to get the official record. The Chronicle very clearly wants to know what really happened behind closed doors. This would allow the Chronicle to make certain, among other things, that these self serving comments after the fact are in fact true.

Exactly ZERO incumbents or candidates, OTHER THAN JAMAKE PASCUAL, would accept the court opinion and fire Healy for destroying the life on Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for the filing the civil rights complaint.

I am still waiting for somebody to correct me on this last statement, or for that matter to provide exact citations to the validity of Ryan’s report that the two incumbents’ self serving statements were instead reports of the Chronicle. In any case, such statements, if true, would be far overshadowed by the failure to support getting independent council.

Then again, the current total lack of interest OTHER THAN BY JAMAKE PASCUAL, in firing the City Manager for Monteiro says everything.

Monteiro: Unexpurgated letter from the former head of the Cambridge, MA, Women’s Commission

2011-10-30T01:02:00.004-05:00

I am very hesitant about using names if I can avoid it. Under the current situation, there seems no alternative and, taking her communication in context, it would appear that the source would find it acceptable to use her name.

The following letter was posted on the Cambridgeport listserve as part of a series of communications on the Monteiro / Cambridge City Manager situation.

Laura Blackwell is passing a letter from Nancy Ryan, the former head of the Women’s Commission which corresponds to the oped published by the Cambridge Chronicle on line which I have digested. I have not checked to ensure the two communications are identical. I have omitted Laura and Nancy’s email addresses and Nancy’s phone number.

****************

Got this letter from a person I really respect. Laura

****************

Dear Cambridge Friends—

I am deeply disturbed by the remarks of most Cambridge City Councilors that the issues raised in the Malvina Monteiro case are not serious enough to merit their concern. Most of the non-incumbents seem to share this dismissive attitude toward a case of racial discrimination that led to a jury’s verdict of retaliation at the highest levels of the city’s administration. The retaliation occurred after Monteiro filed a formal discrimination complaint. Councilors’ recent comments impel me to offer a very different perspective – one informed by my values and by my own experiences during the 13-year effort to bring these issues to the attention of City officials.

We must ask ourselves --do we expect City government officials -- both elected and appointed -- to stand up for the right of employees to get a fair hearing when they complain of discrimination? Can we allow retaliation to silence the diverse experiences and points of view in our city’s workforce? Are these not serious issues for our City Council to act on?

The treatment of Malvina Monteiro, according to Superior Court Judge Bonnie MacLeod Mancuso, involved “a deliberate, systematic campaign to punish the plaintiff as a reprisal for her effrontery in lodging a discrimination claim.” The judge’s “Memorandum of Decision,” issued in April, 2009, affirms the jury’s unprecedented award of $4.5 million for back pay, emotional distress and punitive damages; it states: “The jury, proceeding on the collective sum of their experiences, appear to have worked their way to dollar amounts that reflect the jurors’ assessment of the reprehensibility of Healy’s conduct, and what it will take to deter like conduct in the future.” [I will provide the judge’s complete Memorandum to anyone who requests it.]

It is important to note that City Council members had this document in hand in the Spring, 2009. Yet according to the Cambridge Chronicle, only two Councilors (Decker and Reeves) urged the City Manager not to appeal and to look seriously at the implications of the jury’s and the judge’s decision regarding the treatment of this Cape Verdean woman, the Executive Secretary of the Police Review and Advisory Board. In August, 2011, the Massachusetts Appeals Court rejected the City’s appeal, and the final award ballooned to $8.3 million. And now the City has reached a settlement with two other employees of color involved in the original discrimination suit.

But it’s not even about the money – for me, it’s about the values by which we live and work in Cambridge. Councilor Davis stated in a recent candidates’ debate that these concerns about discrimination and retaliation are not serious; Councilor Toomey brushed them aside with the claim that there are secret truths about Monteiro yet to be revealed; Councilor Seidel admitted that he hadn’t read the judge’s commentary when he supported the city’s appeal; Councilor Simmons, Mayor at the time of the jury’s decision and issuance of the judge’s Memorandum, has maintained silence regarding her role in closed-door meetings. Please ask all the Councilors where they stood when they might have made a difference. And ask every candidate about the real issues of this case – the chilling effects of retaliation and the outright or tacit rejection of any responsibility for the City’s actions.

Nancy Ryan (Executive Director, Cambridge Women’s Commission, 1981-2006)

(Please feel free to share this with others who might care about these issues)
___________________________

Nancy Ryan

Monteiro: FORMER Women’s Commission Head Condemns Cambridge Pols

2011-10-29T10:34:00.002-05:00

On October 29, 2011, the Cambridge Chronicle posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x236282661/Guest-commentary-The-heart-of-the-Monteiro-case-a-matter-of-values-governance#axzz1c50xzNv4 an op ed written by Nancy Ryan who was executive director of the Cambridge Women’s Commission from 1981 to 2006. Presumably, the editor intends to publish this document in the hard copy on November 6, 2011.

The op ed commences:

“I am deeply disturbed by the remarks of most Cambridge City Councilors that the issues raised in the Malvina Monteiro case are not serious enough to merit their concern. Most of the non-incumbents seem to share this dismissive attitude toward a case of racial discrimination that led to a jury’s verdict of retaliation at the highest levels of the city’s administration.”

Ryan goes into the details of the Monteiro outrage. We have posted the key superior court decision at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and the appeals court panels comments at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

She continues, “The treatment of Malvina Monteiro, according to Superior Court Judge Bonnie MacLeod Mancuso, involved ‘a deliberate, systematic campaign to punish the plaintiff as a reprisal for her effrontery in lodging a discrimination claim.’”

Ms. Ryan names incumbent City Councilors Davis, Toomey, Seidel and Simmons by name in her comments.

The Monteiro case is not at all unusual. It exactly fits the contempt for the environment and for beautiful, valuable animals communicated by the Cambridge Pols, Team Healy.

Response to former Cambridge Human Rights Commissioners

2011-10-28T07:51:00.002-05:00

A few days ago, I posted a report on the letter printed by the Cambridge Chronicle that had been sent in some manner to the Cambridge City Council by former members of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission.

The letter shed new light on the Monteiro situation in Cambridge city government. Malvina Monteiro is a former head of the Cambridge Police Review Commission who, according to finding by judge, jury and appeals court had her life destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. $8.3 million has been paid by the city to her including $1.1 million actual damages and $3.5 million penal damages.

I am not able to find the letter in the City Council records. I have informed the Chronicle editor of this and checked the agenda for next Monday. The Chronicle editor had no comment on this oddity in the October 27 edition, so I assume he has checked things out and is confident in his source. I thus submitted the following response.

The original letter is posted by the Cambridge Chronicle at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x984138967/Letter-No-information-on-Monteiro-case-from-the-start#axzz1c50xzNv4.

Explaining the closing sentence, “Team Healy” refers to Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The letter from the FORMER human rights commissioners concerning Monteiro gives a rare insight into how the machine which controls Cambridge works.

The writers say their commission sought Monteiro information from the City Solicitor. They state “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 . . .”

This mentality is shared by people who control “protective” organizations in Cambridge.

This mentality shows why the Cambridge machine’s “environmental” groups machine constantly “save the world” but do not want to know about Cambridge destroying Cambridge.

This mentality reaffirms the Globe columnist who said Cambridge fought the Monteiro case beyond any level of reason. That fight sends a message to the machine.

This mentality shows why, when one City Councilor wanted an outside legal opinion on pursuing the Monteiro appeal, NO other Councilor was interested.

This mentality shows how a group supposedly defending Alewife spent 15 years maneuvering people away from the totally avoidable public destruction of the animals and trees in the irreplaceable core Alewife reservation.

This mentality shows how the Alewife “protectors” “cannot understand” that the destruction of the core reservation cannot possibly protect North Cambridge from flooding. They are protecting against the worst possible rainstorm in any two year period. They need protection against the two fifty year floods which have hit the area in the last twenty years. There is a big difference.

This mentality shows how the Alewife “defenders” cannot look at the other side of Cambridge Park Drive from the Alewife reservation. It shows why they cannot see that massive parking lot which could protect against 50 year floods if it were used instead of the core Alewife reservation.

This mentality shows why certain people run around proclaiming that, if you support transportation, you MUST support the City Manager’s subway proposal under the Grand Junction, and why those people insist there is no other proposal. They do not want to know that MassDOT and the MBTA say there is a responsible alternative to the city manager’ irresponsible proposal. The responsible alternative was subsidized by the legislature in the rebuilding of Yawkey Station.

This mentality could show why, yet again, Council deliberations are being kept secret concerning Monteiro.

This mentality shows that all that REALLY counts to the Cambridge Machine is being part of Team Healy.

LMA Maneuvering toward responsible Urban Ring Subway Alignment

2011-10-26T09:34:00.002-05:00

1. Report.
A. General.
B. Bus route CT2.
C. BU Bridge.
D. BU Rotary.
2. Analysis.
A. General.
B. Bus route CT2.
C. BU Bridge.
D. BU Rotary.
3. Summary.

1. Report.

A. General.

The Citizens Advisory Committee on the Urban Ring met October 24, 2011 in the Boston Redevelopment Authority board room in Boston City Hall.

This committee is hardly a citizens committee. It is overwhelmingly a bunch of big big entities, businesses and non profits.

Most of the meeting concerned Chelsea and other areas to the north. These areas are far advanced in planning but are not really relevant to this blog.

There were also extended discussions of Melnea Cass Boulevard traffic. That gets much closer since the portion of the traffic they are interested in also crosses the Charles River. Melnea Cass Boulevard is south of Ruggles Station. It connects Ruggles Station to the Southeast Expressway / I93.

Discussions in the area we are concerned about were favorable to responsible development in the area and thus, of course, a step back for the goals of Cambridge.

B. Bus route CT2.

The Longwood Medical Area’s transportation company has been studying rearrangements of bus routes impacting the area.

The Longwood representative emphasized that the institutions are the second largest sources of employment in the City of Boston. A comment was made that some of their efforts are on a scale larger than the comparable aspects in the state of Rhode Island.

The representative presented a report on a bus study they are doing.

Longwood reemphasized Longwood’s support for a bus tunnel starting near Ruggels station on the Orange Line and providing Longwood service at a station under the traffic circle at Longwood and Louis Pasteur, The tunnel would come to ground near Yawkey Station and thus near Kenmore Square.

Longwood is studying the possibility of moving service on the CT2 bus from the BU Bridge to the Mass. Ave (named “Harvard”) Bridge, then apparently stopping at Kenmore and going up Brookline Avenue. They are talking of merging CT2 and CT3.

C. BU Bridge.

Repairs will be completed within the next few months.

There were discussions that the lane alignment in the ultimate bridge are not completely firm yet. It seems firm that there will be bike lanes on either side and three auto lanes between them. The exact alignment of those travel lanes is still under discussion.

Cambridge affirmed its wishes that the three lanes be arranged with less travel lanes for vehicles entering the bridge and more for vehicles departing the bridge. Thus on the Cambridge side, the western of the three lanes would be heading toward Boston while the middle and southern lanes would be heading toward Cambridge. The opposite alignment would occur on the Boston side.

D. BU Rotary.

MassDOT wants to rebuild the bridge over the Mass. Pike that connects to the BU Bridge. The exact alignment is still uncertain but the entities are pushing for four lanes, two in each direction, connecting the BU Bridge to Mountfort Street. There were vague comments about Brookline’s concerns in the matter.

2. Analysis.

A. General.

The game on the Urban Ring is almost always the location of the ultimate subway line. As usual, Cambridge is supporting the destructive alternative which also performs inferior to the good alternative.

The friends of Cambridge complicate things with a barrage of lies that there is only one alternative subway line, the bad one. Last I heard this lie kept getting repeated on behalf of the local Sierra Club branch. Just a brief look at the key people there shows a bunch of people with connections to Cambridge’s extremely bad city manager / city council.

The environmentally responsible, functionally far superior alternative is the heavy rail Kenmore Crossing (of the Charles) alternative which I first proposed in 1986 and which was accepted as a formal alternative in 1991. This alternative uses the same technology as the subway systems Orange Line. It would connect to the Orange Line at Ruggles Station, a little south of the Longwood Medical Area, have a stop at the LMA’s Longwood / Louis Pasteur stop and then stop above the Massachusetts Turnpike under Brookline Avenue. It would provide direct connection to the existing Green Line (streetcar) station at Kenmore, have excellent connections to the Red Sox at Fenway Park and to Commuter Rail at Yawkey Station.

Cambridge’s alternative would, among other thing move Yawkey Station from its current location near Fenway Park to a location near Marsh Chapel, the heart of the Boston University campus.

The legislature has decided. The legislature is spending something like $10 million upgrading Yawkey station in place, thus choosing the responsible Kenmore alternative for the Urban Ring subway.

B. Bus Route CT2.

A highly responsible phase 1 for the Urban Ring subway would be a spur off the Orange Line to the Yawkey-Kenmore stop as a temporary terminus for the Urban Ring subway. This spur exactly fits the LMA bus tunnel proposal except that it would go slightly further on both ends, directly connecting to Ruggles and to the Yawkey-Kenmore stop.

The current route of the CT2 bus dates back to the thinking on this matter before my suggestion of the Kenmore crossing was made a formal part of the proposal. The idea was to have a busline which, as much as possible, followed the path of the Urban Ring subway.

The LMA suggestion of moving the CT2 bus to the Mass. Ave. bridge and then to Kenmore and Brookline Avenue, moves the path from Cambridge supported streetcar alternative alignment to the Kenmore Orange Line alignment.

The LMA is recognizing reality. It is going with the responsible proposal for the Urban Ring, with the Red Sox, and with the legislature.

And Cambridge is stuck with its friends running around lying that the alternative supported by the legislature, the LMA, and by people who understand the alternatives, does not exist.

So lies, as is so common, are pretty much all Cambridge has going for yet another bizarre, environmentally inferior proposal.

C. BU Bridge.

The Cambridge position seems to align it with MassDOT.

D. BU Rotary.

Here again, there are a lot of games going on.

The bureaucrats have changed the proposal on the table from subway to buses.

Bus improvements make excellent sense in the outer areas of the Urban Ring concept, and are going forward in the outer areas where they make sense.

The core area needs that subway system.

So the people fighting for Cambridge’s silly and destructive streetcar alignments maneuver over various bus proposals attempting to ensure that their silly alternative is made a fait accompli through maneuvers over buses.

They have lost, but they are backfighting through various techniques.

The BU Rotary argument is closely connected to the Grand Junction bridge which goes through the destroyed nesting are of the Charles River White Geese.

BU has agreed to destroy a building next to the BU Bridge which it has been using for an affiliate high school.

The idea is to maneuver traffic under the BU Bridge at that point and onto the Grand Junction bridge.

In the background as well, is Harvard.

Harvard bought an area in Allston roughly the size of Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood. This is the off ramp from the Massachusetts Turnpike to Allston and Cambridge, a portion of the Massachusetts Turnpike, and the Beacon railroad yards.

Harvard made this purchase months after a state study showed that the Grand Junction bridge could be used for an off ramp from the turnpike, thus allowing it to build on the current off ramps.

Anything which converts that railroad bridge to highway use also benefits Harvard. The distance of the rail yards from the destroyed nesting area by rail is perhaps half a mile. Harvard’s purchase is visible from Magazine Beach.

Another factor in the BU Rotary calculations is Harvard’s wish to provide access to its purchase.

The responsible way to provide Harvard access would be a streetcar line off the Commonwealth Avenue Green Line which starts as a spur above the Massachusetts Turnpike just west of the BU Bridge. That spur would be built on air rights until crossing Cambridge Street (the extension of the first bridge west of the BU Bridge), and then would go underground through the Harvard Business School / Stadium area and connect to an existing tunnel stub at Harvard Station.

All sorts of machinations are under the surface concerning transportation for that area.

3. Summary.

There are a number of links posted on the blog to past very extended discussions of the Urban Ring.

This meeting is a good sign.

The "reprehensible" (to quote that civil rights judge) government of the City of Cambridge moved a tiny bit back in this arena.

Bar Michael Vick, How about Cambridge and the DCR?

2011-10-23T14:57:00.009-05:00

The following is a copy of an exchange and several other postings on the facebook page.

I think Friend would prefer to be anonymous. I would be pleased to identify him/her should he/she change his/her mind. I am positive there were more comments but I cannot find them. If anybody wants to pass on the other comments, they are welcome.

1. Friend: Michael Vick purchases Parrot - should not be allowed to do so.

A. Comment 1.

This is worth posting more than once. Todd Marcuse of Birds Exotics just sold a Caique Parrot to Michael Vick!!!!! Please forward to everybody you know. He has already taken the picture down from his FB site.

B. Comment 2.

See Michael Vick in Birds Exotics who ended up purchasing a Caique Parrot from Todd Marcus. He must have been really desperate to sell to MV as he is going to lose a lot of business over this one.

2. Your Editor.

I see good reason why a lot of people have very major problems with Vick.

I do distinguish between Vick and Cambridge and the DCR, however. Vick has gone to jail and served time. Vick seems to be trying to claim that he has reformed.

Cambridge and the DCR do nothing of the sort. They have a long standing pattern of heartless animal abuse and massive environmental destruction combined with flat out holier than thou lies of environment sainthood.

The situation with regard to Vick is comparable to the Monteiro case, another situation which involves flat out lying of sainthood by Cambridge that they are saints on civil rights issues. In Monteiro, the Cambridge City Manager has been found civilly guilty of destroying a woman's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The jury said $3.5 million damages. The judge said "reprehensible." The appeals court panel said "ample evidence [of] outrageous actions."

Translation: The courts say that the Cambridge City Manager should be fired without his golden parachute and possibly without his pension. But a bad city council keeps him in office and gives no indication of firing him.

So Vick has served his time and looks like he is trying to reform. The Cambridge City Manager and City Council, on the contrary, are in the process of massive animal killings and have been deliberately starving the beautiful valuable Charles River White Geese for seven years.

I sympathize with the concerns for Michael Vick, but, in my very strong opinion, the key actors on the Charles and at Alewife are far beneath him.

3. Friend.

Vick can not reform as he wasn't punished properly. He was glorified by HSUS and they downplayed all that he did wrong. He is a murderer he has killed many dogs and is not the least bit sorry for it. Some of his dogs are still at best friends in utah trying to recover from the horrendous acts of MV. Nobody should sympathize with this cold blooded murderer. And now this idiot sold him a bird? What will he do when the bird bites him? Throw him up against the wall and break his neck?

4. Friend.

Anybody that deliberately kills animals whether it be by poisons, taking away their environment or fighting they all should be punished accordingly.

5. Your Editor.

Correction: The Monteiro jury said $3.5 million PENAL damages. Actual Damages were about $1.1 million. $8.3 million has been paid with likely cost to Cambridge in excess of $10 million.

And the animal pogrom at Alewife is still on track.

And the heartless animal abuse on the Charles with much more scheduled is still on track.

And their nonstop lies of sainthood on environmental issues has not missed a beat.

Former Cambridge Human Rights Commissioners go public on Monteiro

2011-10-23T06:02:00.008-05:00

1. Their comments.
2. Source on line.
3. Comment.
4. Other links.
5. Addendum, added two hours after posting.

1. Their comments.

Former Cambridge, MA, USA Human Rights Commission commissioners commented in a letter to the Cambridge City Council that the then members of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission first learned of the Monteiro case in the media. Apparently, the human rights commission, in accordance with its charge, requested information on the case.

“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 ant ‘protect . . . the human rights of all city . . . employees.’ Further our attempt to be ‘properly informed,’ we were told, carried the threat of a conflict of interest.”

2. Source on line.

We learned of this letter from the Cambridge Chronicle which published it on pages 10 and 11 of the October 20, 2011 edition. It appeared as the second letter of the issue. Almost all of the letter was printed in letters to the right of the editorial. The first letter was a letter from a city council candidate calling for disclosure of closed session information concerning the Monteiro Case.

The Chronicle’s complete publication of the letter is on line at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x984138967/Letter-No-information-on-Monteiro-case-from-the-start#axzz1bb63kGDe.

According to the Chronicle, the letter was sent by the former commissioners “last week”.

I searched the records of last Monday’s meeting and did not find the letter. The next prior meeting, two weeks earlier, did not include it either.

If I had been able to find the letter, I would have published it in total. This partial publication is made out of respect for the Cambridge Chronicle.

3. Comment.

The response attributed to the Cambridge City Solicitor is very much consistent with the mentality of various fake "protective" groups in Cambridge. The supposedly independent groups are clearly more free than appointed entities. Nevertheless, this mentality is the rather obvious reason why many groups are fake.

Writing this letter took a lot of guts.

4. Other links.

The superior court decision on Monteiro may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

The appeals court comments on Monteiro may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

A partial summary of Department of Conservation and Recreation outrages may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/charles-river-connectivity-bizarre.html.

All environmental outrages in Cambridge are coordinated by the DCR with Cambridge. There are many environmental outrages by Cambridge on its own.

It all has the same stench.

5. Addendum, added two hours after posting.

Addendum: I have searched the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting without finding the letter. I have also checked reports on communications from city officers both for tomorrow’s and last Monday’s meeting without success.

Cambridge Chronicle: City Manager ”in office too long”

2011-10-23T05:17:00.002-05:00

“It is imperative to democracy that there is governmental oversight, especially in Cambridge where we have a strong city manager who’s been in office too long and an anemic City Council that seems to be ineffective in reining him in.”

This paragraph is the fifth paragraph the Cambridge Chronicle’s editorial on page 10 of the edition of October 20, 2011, published on line at. http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x268459622/Editorial-Coakley-should-take-city-of-Cambridge-s-stonewalling-seriously#axzz1bb63kGDe.

The editorial is a plea to the Massachusetts Attorney General to provide disclosure of the minutes of executive sessions of the Cambridge City Council concerning the handling of the Monteiro cast. The judge’s “reprehensible” comment is featured prominently. The editorial seeks the Attorney General’s action to force disclosure “before Election day [of] details that may change the way voters think of certain sitting councilors.”

The editorial’s description of the Cambridge City Council is too kind.

The jury, judge and appeals court have found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

Monteiro fits the stench of environmental outrages.

The superior court decision may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

The appeals court comments may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

A partial summary of DCR outrages may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/charles-river-connectivity-bizarre.html.

All environmental outrages in Cambridge are coordinated by the DCR with Cambridge. There are many environmental outrages by Cambridge on its own.

NOTE: This is the 700th entry in this blog dating back to November 19, 2005. Before that, commencing on March 6, 2000, we published more than 600 editions of our on line newsletter. The newsletter reached a distribution of over 1300. The computer file of the newsletter contains 646 entries.

Charles River Connectivity, third meeting

2011-10-19T08:38:00.003-05:00

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) conducted their third presentation on "Charles River Connectivity" on Tuesday evening, October 18 at the Morse School in Cambridge, MA, across Memorial Drive from Magazine Beach.

Our report on the second meeting is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/charles-river-connectivity-bizarre.html. The posting includes a blow by blow but necessarily incomplete summary of fairly recent DCR attacks on the environment and on resident / visiting animals.

The third meeting concentrated on the Charles River east of the Eliot Bridge. The Eliot Bridge, in turn, crosses the Charles River just east of the WBZ studios. It is the fourth full sized bridge over the Charles River west of the BU Bridge.

As I previously reported, MassDOT and DCR have rejected what they call the “Cambridge plans” for even more massive environmental destruction on the Cambridge side.

The “Cambridge plans” call for the construction on the Cambridge side of a bizarre new highway in the Charles and on its banks. This bizarre new highway would run from the area between the Eliot and Anderson (Harvard Square) Bridges to the Memorial Drive split just east of the Hyatt, the BU Boathouse, the mostly vegetation destroyed ghetto to which the Charles River White Geese are confined, and the BU Bridge.

New comments of note in the presentation by MassDOT / DCR include:

1. Concerns for the approaches to the BU Bridge on the Boston side, particularly above the Masachusetts Turnpike.

2. Concerns for the lack of direct connection between the BU Bridge and the park under the BU Bridge between Soldiers Field Road / Storrow Drive and the Charles River. Note there are stairs being reconstructed connecting the BU Bridge to the area further from the Charles on the south side of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road.

3. Concerns for the lack of direct connection between the park on the Charles River and the Muddy River Reservation / Fens in association with the highway connector between Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road and the highway system connected to the Fens / Muddy River Reservation.

All of their concerns have possible environmental problems, but at least MassDOT / DCR have rejected outright the very irresponsible package of the Cambridge machine for further destruction on the Cambridge side.

Please note that I was only able to stay for the formal presentation and was not able to stay for public comments. Timewise, this means I missed about two thirds of the meeting.

Charles River Connectivity, Bizarre Sainthood Claims, Possibly Acceptable Plans

2011-10-16T05:49:00.002-05:00

1. General.
2. Sainthood claims, as usual, are bizarre.
A. General.
B. Alewife.
C. Magazine Beach to BU Boathouse.
(1) Work at Magazine Beach Unnecessary.
(2) Poisons dumped to keep alive sickly grass planted in place of environmentally responsible grass which was destroyed.
(3) Playing fields destroyed to drain off poisons which should not be dumped in the first place.
(4) Bizarre wall of bushes replaces wetlands, starves Charles River White Geese.
(5) Boat dock apparently destroyed.
(6) Transition area designed to provide additional barriers to access from the Charles to Magazine Beach.
(7) Almost all ground vegetation destroyed from BU Bridge to BU Boathouse.
(8) Food in area across from Hyatt barred to Charles River White Geese at same time as use of Magazine Beach taken.
(9) BU Bridge repairs needlessly destructive. DCR refuses to ameliorate harm to Charles River White Geese.
(10) DCR plans to destroy picnic area south of Magazine Street.
D. Massive Tree Destruction Planned, Memorial Drive, Magazine Beach to Longfellow Bridge
E. Greenough Boulevard.
F. Herter Park area.
G. Dumping of Poisons near Mass. General. Annual infestation of algae caused.
H. Poisoning of the Eggs of Migratory Waterfowl.
I. Protective vegetation in general.
J. Nonantum Road.
K. Other locations.
3. Connectivity Plans could be acceptable, include one commendable part.
A. Good parts.
(1) Rejects New Highway.
(2) Western Avenue / Arsenal Street Bridge Area.
B. Inferior parts.
(1) Greenough Boulevard between Arsenal Street and North Harvard Street.
(A) Naming.
(B) Greenough Boulevard.
(2) Greenough Boulevard / North Beacon Street intersection.
(A) Naming.
(B) The intersection.
4. Formal response.

1. General.

The Charles River Connectivity Report, as presented at the October 13, 2011 meeting on Nonantum Road has at lease one aspect which is downright commendable. Overall, with care, the study could result in responsible behavior.

The meeting was severely marred, however, by Manager A’s responding to my comments on existing animal and past animal abuse with my hope that the report not segue into future animal abuse.

I really do not want to go through yet another attack on the Department of Conservation and Recreation but it is unavoidable. Section 2 is that, hopefully as concise as possible. Should I, in my attempts at concise presentation inadvertently omit something, the omission is not deliberate.

Section 3 is my report on the meeting.

Section 4 is my formal submission at the meeting, names of the guilty redacted.

2. Sainthood claims, as usual, are bizarre.

A. General.

In response to objections I will go ahead with later, Manager A denied that the DCR has been doing any harm to animals.

As I recall, the denial was past tense. Manager A is key

Manager A was responding to my comment on Greenough Boulevard.

I responded to his claims of sainthood that the DCR’s plans for the Charles River call for parks.

The DCR’s secret definition of parks is no resident animals.

But this is yet another excellent example of pretty much non stop lies, and you can only respond to so much outrageous comments. He made further comments while I was very visibly writing up my written comments and transcribing them onto my laptop. I did not dignify his further comments with further response.

As with so many of the Cambridge City Manager’s “protective” groups, “You can’t possibly be that stupid.”

The DCR and their fellow travelers brag of seeing a lot of animals. They do not state that many of the “sightings” are of animals which are pretty much unthinkable on the Charles River Basin. Others, such a migratory waterfowl, are animals they are determined to get rid of and actively working to get rid of and that determination is implied in the statement.

Their stated goal, once you get through the secret definitions, is to kill off all resident animals. And they are working constantly toward that goal.

B. Alewife.

Past tense, as I said was key.

The plans here are for massive and heartless killing of resident animals unless they are able to escape massive and very destructive machines.

The plans are flatly and simply bizarre because they admit when questioned that the destruction cannot achieve its stated goals and because there is a readily available alternative which can achieve those goals without environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

Alewife is subject to flood because Cambridge has allowed so much of the watershed to be destroyed.

Alewife has seen two storms in the past twenty years equal to the worst storms expected in any fifty year period.

The “solution”: massive destruction of an excellent virgin forest and its wildlife to achieve protection against TWO YEAR STORMS.

The problem is flooding. They are protecting against moderately bad rainstorms.

Directly across Cambridge Park Drive and visible from the initial destruction area is a massive parking lot which extends to railroad tracks to the south and Alewife Brook Parkway to the east.

This parking lot could be dug up and turned into the necessary massive tanks to catch flood waters and release those flood waters in a responsible matter.

The nearest part of the parking lot was slated for development before the market crash.

It would be readily achievable to take the parking lots by eminent domain and build the building on air rights about the flood storage. But those parking lots will readily disappear under the current plans.

C. Magazine Beach to BU Boathouse.

Heartless starving of the Charles River White Geese by denying them access to their food at Magazine Beach by the introduction of the bizarre bushes very clearly is “harm.” Manager A’s associate, Manager B, the local manager, has bragged of starving the Charles River White Geese. Their names were provided in the unredacted comment reported in section 4, below.

(1) Work at Magazine Beach Unnecessary.

Throughout the build up for the massive destruction, normal humans looking at Magazine Beach clearly were of the opinion that there was no need to “improve” it, some possible need to the west but not in Magazine Beach proper.

The “improvements” which have occurred are things which could have been done without the massive destruction and heartless animal abuse.

(2) Poisons dumped to keep alive sickly grass planted in place of environmentally responsible grass which was destroyed.

Native grasses which survived the better part of a century without poisons being dumped on them were casually destroyed, seven acres of them.

The grasses introduced in place of the healthy grasses killed off are so blatantly inappropriate that they cannot survive without poisons to keep them going.

Naturally, the poisons poison waterfowl feeding off them.

(3) Playing fields destroyed to drain off poisons which should not be dumped in the first place.

They are dumping poisons to keep alive the sickly grasses which are unfit for the location. To keep the sickly stuff alive and keep the poisons out of the Charles River, they have destroyed playing fields for drainage.

They replace the poisons with seeds for the healthy grass they irresponsibly destroyed. They return the healthy grasses, they can return the drainage system to playing fields.

(4) Bizarre wall of bushes replaces wetlands, starves Charles River White Geese.

The “planners” claimed there was a water problem. Translation: it was wetlands.

Nature and humans coexisted on Magazine Beach for the better part of a century. Those wetlands were crucial transition between the playing fields and the Charles River.

The DCR claims they want water related activities.

The work at Magazine Beach was delayed years because their wall of fancy bushes kept dying. It died because their “native” bushes were unfit for the Charles River. Once they got something which would survive, they simply let it grow.

Everyplace else on the Charles River Basin, bordering vegetation is killed off / chopped down twice a year, to the great harm of migratory waterfowl.

At Magazine Beach, that bizarre wall keeps growing, and starving the Charles River White Geese who lived on Magazine Beach for the better part of the last 30 years, feeding off the grasses and sleeping there at night.

Manager B has bragged that the wall starves the Charles River White Geese.

And the DCR brags that they want water related activities when they are barring access between water and playing fields for humans and animals?

Chop it down. The native vegetation they destroyed there has shown signs of returning anyway.

That native vegetation which was a target of the wetlands destruction was mentioned by the Boston Conservation Commission when they objected to the DCR / fake conservancy’s destruction. The BCC was concerned about their blatant contempt for the needs of migratory waterfowl.

(5) Boat dock apparently destroyed.

The DCR claims they want water related uses. A boat landing was at Magazine Beach for the better part of a century.

It is still there, but you can’t get at it. Access to back up cars is clearly blocked.

(6) Transition area designed to provide additional barriers to access from the Charles to Magazine Beach.

There is very much a line of barriers which has been created inside the bizarre wall of introduced vegetation.

(7) Almost all ground vegetation destroyed from BU Bridge to BU Boathouse.

Starting in 2003 when the fake conversancy commenced environmental destruction for the DCR, ground vegetation began being destroyed.

The vegetation that was destroyed can readily be observed in the lush hillside holding up Memorial Drive and its off ramp to the north of the animal habitat. That vegetation is lush and the ground vegetation used to exactly that lush.

The small areas which were not destroyed by the fake conservancy or by the much too large BU Bridge construction area is just as lush, but there is very little of it.

(8) Food in area across from Hyatt barred to Charles River White Geese at same time as use of Magazine Beach taken.

At the same time as the DCR walled off Magazine Beach from the Charles River, the DCR’s accomplices at Cambridge did a “sewage control project” across from the Hyatt.

When they left, they left a wall of plastic barring access to the grasses on the river bank from the river.

(9) BU Bridge repairs needlessly destructive. DCR refuses to ameliorate harm to Charles River White Geese.

The BU Bridge repairs needed access from underneath. That portion of the destruction was necessary.

The DCR’s plans included a massive parking lot sticking into the animal habitat and excellent vegetation along the northern side under the on ramp to Memorial Drive. That was totally unnecessary and cruel.

The access area and parking lot continues to this day to be barred to animals.

DCR refused to ameliorate harm to the Charles River White Geese.

Why?

Their plans are to kill off all resident animals since their plans are to kill off all resident animals, they have no need to avoid utter cruelty.

A responsible entity would have allowed them to return to Magazine Beach, chop down the bizarre wall, replace the sickly grass and its poisons with the environmentally responsible grass they destroyed.

(10) DCR plans to destroy picnic area south of Magazine Street.

This is a location used by the little guy for barbeques. They are just going to take out the access openings and tiny parking lot. No explanation. The riffraff is offensive to them.

D. Massive Tree Destruction Planned, Memorial Drive, Magazine Beach to Longfellow Bridge

Cambridge and the DCR are working to destroy hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. This includes devastation of an excellent grove of 105 trees at the Memorial Drive split. I have twice posted photos of these trees, in winter and in late summer.

The DCR has been lying that these trees are diseases. The diseased trees were destroyed more than five years ago. The DCR’s filing with the Cambridge Conservation Commission confirmed the health of these trees.

Using that lie, they tried to get Obama moneys, but did not succeed. It is possible that Governor Patrick blocked the Obama moneys when he received documentation of the lie.

It is possible that this destruction is being sneaked into the state budget.

E. Greenough Boulevard.

Please see my comments below in section 3.B.(1).

F. Herter Park area.

Herter Park is located between Soldiers Field Road and the Charles River at the end of Everett Street. Everett Street is the traditional dividing line between Boston’s Allston and Brighton neighborhoods. It is near the WBZ studios and across from a medium height hotel whose name has changed a number of times. It is between the Elliot Bridge and the Arsenal Street Bridge.

Herter Park has been subjected to massive destruction of animal areas during the past decade.

G. Dumping of Poisons near Mass. General. Annual infestation of algae caused.

The dumping of poisons on the playing fields at Magazine Beach copies environmental destruction at playing fields across Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road / Charles Street from Massachusetts General Hospital.

At these playing fields, the DCR figured their favored poisons were not sufficiently destructive. So they dumped poisons marked with a prohibition against use near water.

THE NEXT DAY, the Charles River was dead from the Charles River Dam to the Mass. Avenue (Harvard) Bridge, choked with algae.

Last I heard the algae infestation returns annually now.

H. Poisoning of the Eggs of Migratory Waterfowl.

In 2003, the DCR started poisoning the eggs of as much migratory waterfowl as it could get away with. I am not aware that the poisonings have stopped.

Their agent has been the falsely named “Charles River Conservancy.”

I. Protective vegetation in general.

Massive destruction throughout the Charles River Basin commencing during the past ten years. The only bordering vegetation which is not destroyed twice a year is the bizarre, destructive stuff introduced at Magazine Beach since 2004. And that is very clearly left there to starve the Charles River White Geese.

The entity doing the destruction is, once again, the falsely named “Charles River Conservancy.”

I have sat through a meeting of the Boston Conservation Commission in which members of the Boston Conservation Commission were disgusted at the destructiveness of the “Charles River Conservancy” on the Boston side of the Charles River.

J. Nonantum Road.

I have gone into detail as to why this entity is really Soldiers Field Road.

That monstrous boathouse where the meeting was conducted is an outrage.

K. Other locations.

I have received quite distressed communications concerned wildlife on the Mystic River.

In any case, this communication has been prepared, for the most part, off the top of my head. It is highly likely there are omissions.

3. Connectivity Plans could be acceptable, include one commendable part.

It is a shame that a pretty good report was sullied by the blatant falsehoods of sainthood on treatment of animals.

The report is on how the various properties on the Charles River Basin interrelate.

The Nonantum Road meeting was pretty much limited to the Elliot Bridge (west of Harvard Stadium, large formal interchange connecting to Fresh Pond Parkway) and west. Tuesday’s Cambridge meeting was announced to be concerned with east of the Elliot Bridge. A meeting the prior Tuesday at the Shriner’s Burn Center presumably concerned areas farthest to the east but they did not specify.

A. Good parts.

(1) Rejects New Highway.

The report rejects the concept of a new highway in and abutting the Charles River pretty much throughout Cambridge. Manager A referred to that in response to my comment as the Cambridge proposal.

(2) Western Avenue / Arsenal Street Bridge Area.

The report accurately states that the interchange is bad between Western Avenue, the Arsenal Street Bridge and Soldier’s Field Road.

B. Inferior parts.

I say inferior because, except for the bizarre claim of sainthood in response to my Greenough Boulevard discussion, it is really not particularly bad.

(1) Greenough Boulevard between Arsenal Street and North Harvard Street.

(A) Naming.

Massachusetts traffic planners maximize confusion and thus accidents by drivers by any number of incompetent traffic actions. One of those excellent examples of incompetence is the arbitrary changing of names of what are very frequently the same road.

Greenough Boulevard is Memorial Drive with a name change. The name changes at Fresh Pond Parkway / the Elliot Bridge.

(B) Greenough Boulevard.

The sidewalks and bike paths in this area are not fancy. This area has much less traffic than Memorial Drive. There really is not a great deal of need to spend a bunch of money on this area. It is quite fine the way it is.

Work in the past decade emphasized the DCR’s contempt for wildlife.

Hell’s Half Acre is to the most part a former animal habitat just west of the Elliot Bridge across from Buckingham, Brown and Nichols School. The DCR devastated the portion of Hell’s Half Acre nearest the river during their environmental destructions of the past decade. The DCR devastated wildlife areas to the west of Hell’s Half Acre running to Arsenal Street by scorched earth development of what had been excellent ground cover.

I objected to the Greenough Boulevard plans because change is really not necessary and because change would probably wipe out too many of what few free animals they did not kill off or drive away during the destruction in the past ten years. If they can do the changes with no impact on the environmental areas, fine, but the DCR has no reason to be trusted. Plus, it is not really needed and their record is too extremely bad.

(2) Greenough Boulevard / North Beacon Street intersection.

(A) Naming.

The stretch of Greenough Boulevard between Arsenal Street and North Beacon Street reemphasizes the determination of traffic planners to maximize accidents by confusing drivers.

There is no meaningful connection between the two segments of Greenough Avenue. They both connect with Arsenal Street but the connections are several hundred feet apart.

If Massachusetts had responsible traffic planners, the Arsenal - North Beacon segment would be named Greenough Avenue and the Elliot Bridge - Arsenal segment would be named Memorial Drive.

(B) The intersection.

The Greenough Boulevard - North Beacon Street intersection is an excellent example of how traffic gets lazier and lazier the further west you go.

Arsenal Street is a nightmare in rush hour and frequently outside of rush hour. Soldiers Field Road at the rotary between Soldiers Field Road and North Beacon Street and Nonantum Road is a nightmare in rush hour.

The corresponding section of Greenough Boulevard is quiet and its intersection with North Beacon Street is quiet.

The planners are proposing a traffic light. It seems a waste of money. A man followed my comments with reasonable sounding comments in favor of the traffic light. I really did not understand the comments. It just looks to me like a fairly quiet intersection which really does not need the added interference to traffic flow, not to mention the expenditure of funds.

4. Formal response.

I left the following written comment. This transcription was made on my computer from the writing during the presentation. A brief review of section 2 will clearly indicate that this comment was too kind, very much too kind.

******

I strongly object to the blatant falsehood by [Manager A]:

His denial of doing any harm to animals. You have been deliberately starving the Charles River White Geese. [Manager B] has bragged of it in a public meeting.

The bizarre wall of introduced bushes at Magazine Beach is the only bordering vegetation which is not destroyed twice a year.

You claimed water based uses and have walled off Magazine Beach without meaningful explanation other than deliberate heartless starvation.

You add that to that the destruction of nearly all ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and BU Boathouse, the only part of their habitat you have not taken away.

Monstrous building on Nonantum Road, update on meeting report

2011-10-15T16:32:00.004-05:00

This replaces an earlier post. I got a bit confused as to attributions.

Kathy Podgers has responded to my posting announcing the Nonantum meeting on the Cambridgeport listserve.

The relevant part of my original posting on the listserve read:

Nonantum Road is yet another name for Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road. Nonantum Road starts after the rotary after the Soldiers Field Road Staples. I assume Community Rowing Boathouse is the monstrous new structure a little bit further to the west.

There were comments by some confused people or worse.

Kathy’s responses to the confused people were:

1. The Charles River Estuary has been under assault for decades. It is no wonder some do not understand how development along Mother Nature's masterpiece is Monsterous to those who value wildlife habitat over Architectural awards and other ego stroking hubris.

2. All over the world, migrating waterfowl have been settling down on 'controlled' rivers due to extensive ongoing habitat loss, caused by both human incursion into wetlands due to over-development and climate change.

The melting of the tundra results in seasonal lakes not forming in the north, and in the south some 50% of wetlands habitat has vanished. Closer, to Boston, the preserve on long island has lost 24% of habitat that hosted migrating waterfowl.

While I know that many have eschewed religious morals, I still believe we have a duty to protect the precious waterfowl, and other wildlife that seek refuge fron the storm of climate change, and I do not see wildlife as monstrous at all.

I see it as Mother Nature's gift of life.

Thank goodness.

********

Thank you Kathy.

Last two Monteiro plaintiffs settle

2011-10-14T09:49:00.001-05:00

Boston.com reports that former Cambridge city lawyer Linda Stamper and current city employee Mary Wong, the last two of the five Monteiro plaintiffs, have settled their cases.

Malvina Monteiro was recently paid $8.3 million by order of superior and appeals courts as a result of a judgment which found that Cambridge destroyed her life in retaliation for her filing one of five civil rights complaints which were joined in one legal action against Cambridge.

The boston.com article looks like a good summary of the situation.

Key quote in Boston.com of Attorney Zucker representing the plaintiffs:

“Miss Wong and Miss Stamper, with the resolution of this case, believe that their work is done here,’’ said Zucker, who added she cannot disclose details of the settlement. “It’s really up to the city’s citizens and its leadership to decide what lesson they want to learn from the concerns that were raised, and the resolution, of this matter.’’

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/cambridge-two-women-settle-discrimination-claims-dating-back/WHHGx2qeEATJ0YThz7yT2J/index.html?p1=News_links

Blackballed for being pro-environment?

2011-10-13T21:05:00.001-05:00

1. Unacceptable (?) Behavior by Your Editor.
2. Blackballed?
3. My opinion.
4. The threat.

1. Unacceptable (?) Behavior by Your Editor.

Yesterday, October 13, 2011, I posted on the Blog and on facebook directions to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) / Department of Transporation (MassDOT) meeting that evening as follows:

“Nonantum Road is yet another name for Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road. Nonantum Road starts to the west of the rotary to the west of the Soldiers Field Road Staples. I assume Community Rowing Boathouse is the monstrous new structure a little bit further to the west.”

2. Blackballed?

I got the following reply in response to a nearly identical notice by email on a listserve:

“Community Rowing Boathouse is a beautiful structure--inside and out. You ought to be watching what you say.”

3. My opinion.

This structure strikes me as one of the many reasons why DCR managers should be fired for their contempt for the environment.

The structure is smack dab on the river and is way out of scale.

4. The threat.

It is very silly to count developer type “positions” as meaningful with regard to any construction project.

It is very dangerous for developer types to condemn any structure being built, no matter how irresponsible.

Developer types can have their livelihood taken away from them. A member of the development community who does not comport with the mandatory demands for praise will simply have all work taken away from him / her.

There is no such thing as free speech in the developer community.

Very clearly, this is a threat to blackball, or worse.

Charles River Connectivity meetings

2011-10-13T07:41:00.003-05:00

I picked up a possibly valuable meeting in fine print on a reference which had nothing to do with the meeting. That could mean yet another secret public meeting being hidden as much as possible by the Department of Conservation and Recreation while loudly proclaiming their sainthood. The more these things get hidden, the more likely they are to be important.

There are three public meetings scheduled. These meetings are sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, MassDOT, and DCR with DCR apparently in the lead.

1. Tuesday, the day before yesterday, at Shriner’s hospital, next to Mass. General.

2. Tonight, October 13, 6:30 to 8 pm

It will be at the Community Rowing Boathouse, 20 Nonantum Road, Brighton.

Nonantum Road is yet another name for Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road. Nonantum Road starts to the west of the rotary to the west of the Soldiers Field Road Staples. I assume Community Rowing Boathouse is the monstrous new structure a little bit further to the west.

3. October 18, 2011, 6:30 pm to 8 pm, Morse School, Cambridge.

Morse School is directly across Memorial Drive from Magazine Beach.

Boston Conservation Commission Meeting, October 19. Two possible hearings of interest

2011-10-12T07:25:00.004-05:00

The following is excerpted from a much longer notice of hearing which was sent on October 11.

The short of it is that hearings will be conducted on October 19, 2011 (1) at 7 pm on Boston Latin School work at 525 Western Avenue, Allston and (2) at 7:30 pm on the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s plans for vegetation destruction on the Charles.

PUBLIC HEARING

In accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, the Boston Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing in Boston City Hall, Room 801 on October 19, 2011 to review the following projects to determine what conditions, if any, the Commission will impose in order to protect the interests of the public and private water supply, ground water, prevention of pollution, flood control, prevention of storm damage, protection of fisheries and land containing shellfish, and protection of wildlife habitat:

*********

7:00 PM Request for Determination of Applicability from Friends of Boston Latin School Crew for improvements to an existing boathouse and installation of stormwater management infrastructure and gravel pads, at 525 Western Ave, Charles River Reservation, Brighton, Charles River (100-foot Buffer Zone to Inland Bank).

[Ed: Google Maps puts this in the middle of the Charles River by Herter Park. That does not compute. My educated guess is that this facility is located just north of the Western Avenue access to the bridge going to Watertown and is between Soldiers Field Road and the Charles River. Perhaps a better guess would be the former DCR horse stables at the intersection of and between Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road. I would love to get corrected by someone with better knowledge.]

*********

7:30 PM Report from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation on the annual seasonal cuttings of vegetation, pursuant to the Order of Conditions DEP File No. 006-0971, for the Charles River Basin Shoreline Vegetation Management Plan, Charles River, Boston (Riverfront Area, Inland Bank, 100-foot Buffer Zone).

[Ed. The last time I was in a Boston Conservation Commission meeting, the committee was highly displeased at the environmental destructiveness of the falsely named Charles River Conservancy acting on behalf of the DCR.]

Boston Globe praises Charles, very clearly omissions in its view of reality

2011-10-11T19:51:00.002-05:00

1. Archie’s Report.
2. Editor’s Comment.

1. Archie’s Report.

Today's (10/11/11) Boston Globe features on its Opinion page columnist Derrick Z. Jackson's "Clear And Clean - In 20 years, the Charles goes from embarrassment to a wild river." The article is upbeat and this quote is highlighted:

One by one, people started believing, and we hit that tipping point where people remembered that their grandmothers swam in the Charles and wanted that for themselves again." (Bill Walsh-Rogaleski, attorney in the EPA's New England office)

The photo for his article appears to have been taken from the BU Bridge depicting the view to the east.

Yes, it is an upbeat article, but this portion seems to be missing something:

"Another visible tipping point of the Charles is the wildlife. The river now hosts otters, beavers, fishers, heron, hawks, herring and migrating loons. Maury Eldridge, one of the river's most most dedicated kayaking photographers, says it has become more a 'national park or wildlife sanctuary than an urban/suburban river.'"

Perhaps Mr. Jackson is not aware of the plight of the Charles River White Geese. Visitors to this Blog might Email Mr. Jackson, who is an excellent columnist, to let him know about the Charles River White Geese and how their hosts, the Commonwealth and the City of Cambridge, have been mistreating them. Mr. Jackson can be reached at: jackson@globe.com.

Archie Mazmanian

2. Editor’s Comment.

Sounds like the kind of people who support the imminent destruction of the Alewife reservation as well.

The wildlife the author praises are very clearly targeted for destruction on the Charles River Basin by policies adopted by the DCR. The DCR has no world for wildlife.

Aside from that the Globe is living in reality.

Strong column in Boston Globe against Cambridge City Manager, whistleblowing analysis

2011-10-10T07:50:00.005-05:00

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.
2. Archie’s Whistle Blower Series.
3. Editor's Comment.

1. Archie Mazmanian reports.

Adrian Walker's Boston Globe column this past Saturday (10/8/11) "Change is overdue" comments on the 30-years tenure of Cambridge City Manager Bob Healy, focusing upon the retaliation lawsuit of Malvina Monteiro that was recently resolved. [I was unsuccessful in finding a link to the column.] The column closes with this:

"Which means that every city employee remains under the direction of a city manager found to retaliate against those who cross him and who has demonstrated that he will wage such battles far beyond the point of reason. Two other retaliation cases are still pending against the city. Malvina Monteiro has gotten justice. But has her long battle guaranteed anything for the next woman who s teps out of line?"

A couple of years ago, I contributed a post to your Blog on the MA Whistleblower statute, General Laws Chapter 149, Section 185, reporting on my search at Cambridge City Hall for notices required by subsection (g):

"An employer shall conspicuously display notices reasonably designed to inform its employees of their protection and obligations under this section, and use other appropriate means to keep its employees informed. Each notice posted pursuant to this subsection shall include the name of the person or persons the employer has designated to receive written notification pursuant to subsection (c)."

I reported that I could not locate any such notices on the several bulletin boards at City Hall. I don't know if any such notices have since been posted there or at other city offices, or whether the city has formally adopted a "Whistleblower Policy" pursuant to the statute or otherwise complies with its requirements. Perhaps Cambridge employees/residents might follow up and inform this Blog. While the MA Whistleblower statute is not perfect, it does afford protection to Cambridge employees against retaliation as well as protect taxpayers/residents with some transparency of possible municipal misdeeds.

2. Archie’s Whistle Blower Series.

I find the following posts on the Whistle Blower series:

Part I: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-i.html.
Part II: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whistling-in-dark-part-ii.html.
Part III: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009_12_30_archive.html.
Part IV: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010_01_04_archive.html, second posting.
Part V: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010_01_31_archive.html.

3. Editor's Comment.

The fake "protective" group which spent 15 years loudly proclaiming its love of Alewife and which just praised its imminent destruction is not at all unusual in Cambridge.

And there are very real connections to the Cambridge City Manager.

This group is probably the most important single factor in the imminent destruction of this irreplacable part of our world by a city government which constantly lies about its environment sainthood.

Monteiro follow up delayed again, New Report posted.

2011-10-10T05:39:00.007-05:00

1. Monteiro follow up delayed again.
2. Cambridge Day provides new information?

1. Monteiro follow up delayed again.

We have been reporting on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge for quite awhile.

This is a civil rights matter which has the same stench as the environmental destruction which is so much the norm with the City of Cambridge, MA, USA, while constantly, and falsely, declaring themselves saints on environmental and civil rights matters.

The Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of black, Cape Verdean, female department head Malvina Monteiro in retaliation because she filed a civil right complaint. The jury said $3.5 million penal damages in addition to about $1.1 million actual damages. The judge went into detailed analysis of the City Manager’s testimony and summparized with the word “reprehensible” in her key opinion. The appeals court panel treated Cambridge's appeal with disgust and spoke of “ample evidence [of] outrageous conduct”.

Cambridge has paid Malvina Monteiro $8.3 million and the total cost will apparently exceed $10 million.

Monteiro was one of five related cases filed together. Two were apparently settled handsomely. Two have yet to be tried.

The final pre-trial hearing on the fourth case has been repeatedly delayed during the appeals court process and thereafter. It was scheduled for Tuesday, October 11.

The final pre-trial hearing has, by agreement between the parties, been rescheduled yet again, to January 10, 2012, at 2 pm in Session (courtroom) F at the Superior Court building in Woburn, MA.

It could be strictly a coincidence, but that timing puts the hearing a week or so after the newly elected Cambridge City Council is sworn in.

For the record, final judgment in Malvina Monteiro’s case was entered into the Superior Court docket on September 21, 2011.

2. Cambridge Day provides new information?

Cambridge Day has posted an extended analysis of the case with comments associated with City Councilor / Representative Toomey. This, in turn, cites a YouTube posting which has been pulled and reposted.

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/10/09/toomey-says-public-lacks-full-story-of-monteiro-firing/

Student in critical condition after being pulled from Charles River in the BU Bridge area of Boston at about 1 am

2011-10-09T11:38:00.001-05:00

Passing on a post from boston.com.

This woman was pulled from the Charles River on the opposite end of the BU Bridge from the destroyed nesting area of the Charles River White Geese. This was at about 1 am on October 9, 2011.

Details are not apparently available.

However, this area is posted with signs warning against use at night because of mugging and sexual assaults. Not that long ago, a woman was assaulted near the next bridge to the east on the Boston side of the Charles River.

These areas are very dangerous.

The environmental destroyers are fighting to repeat this haven for muggers on the Cambridge side.

They neglect to mention the muggings on the Boston side.

They neglect to mention the environmental destruction and further heartless animal abuse involved in their plans.

They neglect to mention the massive destruction of trees involved in their plans.

A bunch of their friends are on the verge of destroying the Alewife reservation in another bizarre project.

But they do run around praising each other for their shared sainthood.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/student-pulled-from-river-critical-condition/Y8PRLuNiTT2dXus4qOfKWP/index.html?p1=News_links

Belmont targeted op ed on Alewife

2011-10-08T08:47:00.004-05:00

I have just sent the following, realizing that destruction of the core Alewife reservation is imminent.

Editor
Belmont Citizen-Herald

Residents of Belmont are, for good reason, concerned about Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s plans in the Alewife area.

The two are about to go forward with a destructive, bizarre proposal, a proposal which is consistent with bad environmental behavior elsewhere.

The core Alewife reservation starts pretty close to Alewife Station and runs into Belmont. The northern boundary is Little River. On the south, it approaches the railroad right of way near Belmont and, in Cambridge, it comes close to Cambridge Park Drive.

The massive development Cambridge has allowed has done severe harm to the watershed. There have been two fifty year floods in the area in the past twenty years. That portion of Cambridge between Cambridge Park Drive and the railroad, north and south, and running on the east to Alewife Brook Parkway include a massive parking lot which occupies easily half the area.

That massive parking lot would be ideal for flood storage at the level needed to protect against 50 year storms or worse. Major tanks could be placed underground for storage in emergencies with gradual emptying after the emergency. The owner of the biggest contiguous parking lot has plans for major buildings and intended to go forward before the collapse of the financial market.

A joint project would be ideal, starting with a taking by eminent domain. Cambridge has quite a bit of Community Preservation Act moneys which could be used for flood storage, about a million I understand. Moneys of this sort have been spent by Cambridge in the past on property in Lincoln.

Instead, Cambridge and the DCR propose to destroy the core Alewife reservation and intend to go forward with logging / clear cutting in October, within days, lasting for a month.

The “protection” provided by the project would be a pittance. It would protect against the worst storm likely in any two year period. What is needed is 50 year or more protection. They protect against a rain storm. We need protection against floods.

Cambridge and the DCR’s bizarre project fits bizarre projects by Cambridge and the DCR on the Charles River.

The leader of a “protective” group which claims to defending Alewife has been telling people to look at everything but the core reservation for something like 15 years. This is in spite of the fact that Cambridge has a City Council which claims to be environmental saints. The group has been fighting long shot fights on less important property in private ownership. The group has been telling people to ignore this bizarre needlessly destructive project by their friends.

The leader of the group has recently gone public in the Cambridge Chronicle supporting destruction of the irreplaceable core Alewife reservation in spite of the reservation’s excellence, excellence she has praised for years, and in spite of the fact that destroying the core Alewife reservation is downright silly.

I have 35 years experience working for the environment in Cambridge. I have been the most visible person standing up to the bizarre destruction on the Charles. Using the tool of zoning for environmental protection, I have written more successful zoning changes in the City of Cambridge than any other person not employed by the City of Cambridge.

My most visible victories are: (1) the Inn at Harvard, which Harvard wanted to build 72% larger and built to the lotline and (2) the return to the environment of the large parking lot which used to be located between Alewife Station and Route 2. I have downzoned approximately 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard University and City Hall.

My biggest problem in my environmental efforts has been “protective” groups which have connections to the Cambridge City Manager and City Council. These groups have a distressing tendency of achieving the opposite of what they claim to stand for.

The Alewife “protective” group has such connections and has just admitted it supports destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

It is not too late to save Alewife.

Governor Patrick has, apparently, blocked plans of Cambridge and the DCR to get Obama moneys to destroy hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge. The DCR lied that the trees were all diseased. The diseased trees were destroyed five years earlier. Governor Patrick received a copy of the DCR’s filing with the City of Cambridge which proved the diseased tree argument to be a lie.

I should think Belmont officials would be very interested in reality at Alewife and there are a number of things they could do.

Belmont has reps and senators who claim to be concerned about our world.

A lot can be done, but the outrageous and needless destruction is occurring almost immediately. And that parking lot will not remained unbuilt upon forever.

Press Release, Franciscan Fathers Bless the Animals of the Charles and Alewife

2011-10-05T09:05:00.002-05:00

We have issued the following press release:

Press Release

Franciscan Fathers Bless the Animals of the Charles and Alewife

Contact: Robert J. La Trémouille, chairman, Friends of the White Geese, 617-283-7649 or boblat@yahoo.com.

On October 2, 2011, the Franciscan fathers of St. Anthony’s Shrine and Missionary Center blessed the Animals of the Charles and Alewife as part of their Franciscan Blessing of the Animals in celebration of the Feast of St. Francis of Assissi. The Franciscan Friars respected the needs of the resident animals by blessing them.

Services were conducted as an open air service in their block of Arch Street in Downtown Crossing, Boston, MA.

Robert J. La Trémouille, chairman of Friends of the White Geese presented as a representation of the Animals of the Charles and Alewife a plush raccoon which he carried with me.

The service was well attended, overwhelmingly by dogs with their masters. There was one cat.

The service was quite lovely. The dogs were uniformly well behaved. There was a significant amount of barking, but it was happy barking of dogs saying hello to their canine friends.

The Franciscans provided La Trémouille a certificate signed by Father Jim Kelly, Guardian and Executive Director of St. Anthony’s Shrine and Ministry Center indicating that “Animals of the Charles and Alewife received a special blessing for the Feast of St. Francis of Assissi” on Sunday, October 2, 2011.

The animals of the Charles River Basis are subject to ongoing abuse by Cambridge and its friends. This has extended to deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese, the most visible of the few remaining animals who have not been killed or driven out.

The animals of Alewife are about to be subjected to killing on mass. Killing will commence in October 2011 and last for a month as part of a massive logging and clear cutting project for “flood storage” which amounts to a pittance of the flood storage needed.

Directly across Cambridge Park Drive in Cambridge from destruction zone is a massive parking lot which could readily hold, if taken by eminent domain, a very large multiple of flood storage needed.

The Alewife area, as a result of overdevelopment allowed by Cambridge, has seen two storms in the last twenty years each of which normally would be the worst storm expected to occur in a 50 year period, 50 year storms. The massive destruction of trees and animals which is imminent will protect against two year storms, a fraction of the storage needed.

Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation admit the pittance of storage their destruction will provide, but have no intention to put the storage across Cambridge Park Drive where it could do good and would not kill a lot of animals.

The two have now officially declared the Charles River Basin off limits to resident animals. They have stated they will allow no use except as a “park” with “park” defined as no animals. While they were doing earlier destruction on the Charles, they specifically claimed they no intent to harm the Charles River White Geese who have lived on the Charles River as very valuable residents and tourist attractions for more than 30 years now..

For further details, please see our blog report at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/franciscan-fathers-bless-animals-of.html.

North Shore Flooding Emphasizes the extreme irresponsibility at Alewife

2011-10-04T09:52:00.006-05:00

New England Cable News network this morning is dominated by pretty much non stop helicopter footage of the flooded Peabody, MA, downtown area. This flooding apparently occurred in a period of about an hour or so, with something like 3.5 inches of rain. The damage apparently extends over major parts of the Massachusetts North Shore region.

Flooding like this has occurred twice in the past twenty years at Alewife. http://www.openeyesvideo.com/Floodpix.html is a group of pictures of the flooding in 1997?

The extreme irresponsibility at Alewife is the imminent project which will destroy an irreplaceable virgin forest and untold thousands of animals for storm drainage which will only drain a tiny fraction of the flood impact by the two major storms.

The con game, and so much in Cambridge is con games, is the constant nonsense that they are protecting, and the nonsense is proven nonsense when you ask the level of protection. TWO YEAR STORMS, the worst rainstorm in the average two year period. The flood danger is those two fifty year storms.

Directly across Cambridge Park Drive from the destruction area is that massive parking lot which should be able to hold 50 year storms or more.

The difference can be seen on Google Maps, http://maps.google.com, satellite view. Go to 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA. Look at the virgin forest above and the massive parking lot below. Too much of the virgin forest has been destroyed in “preliminary” work, but the satellite map is from earlier photos.

As with the repeated bizarre environmental destruction on the Charles River, the destruction at Alewife is impossible to explain as the behavior of normal, responsible people.

The only explanation approaching reason is flat out contempt for the environment and its animals.

Cambridge and the DCR are doing things which can only be explained by contempt for nature and nature’s beings.

It is made much easier by the massive organization in Cambridge of which the fake protective groups are only the visible part.

They quite simply have no shame, and they know their machine will protect them.

Discontinuance of Cambridge (MA) Election Question Reports

2011-10-03T09:23:00.002-05:00

I have been religiously following the Cambridge Chronicle’s questioning of City Council candidates in the forthcoming November elections: “Do you think it is time for a new City Manger?”

I have seen enough.

The candidates are split as to whether they would rehire Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy when his latest contract ends.

The candidates make no mention of the decision in Monteiro v. City of Cambridge in which judge and jury at the superior court level and the appeals court panel rather clearly have indicated that Healy should be fired for malfeasance in office. Under these decisions, it is quite certain that the courts would look favorably on Healy being fired without his golden parachute and possibly without his pension.

For the city council candidates to treat these very serious and meaningful communications as non entities shows once again that reality is irrelevant in Cambridge, MA, politics.

I have better things to do than report on silliness.

If any of these answers approaches reality, I will let you know. However, I am not at all positive that I will spend a lot of time reading this nonsense.

Thank you Chronicle for the question. It was a nice try.

Franciscan Fathers Bless the Animals of the Charles and Alewife

2011-10-02T14:16:00.002-05:00

Today, October 2, 2011, St. Anthony’s Shrine and Missionary Center conducted an open air service in their block of Arch Street in Downtown Crossing, Boston, MA.

They conducted the Franciscan Blessing of the Animals in celebration of the Feast of St. Francis of Assissi.

Included in their blessing were the Animals of the Charles and Alewife.

The service was well attended, overwhelmingly by dogs with their masters. I did see one cat. I carried with me as a stand in for the Animals of the Charles and Alewife a lovely plush racoon loaned to me by my sister Jeanne.

At the service, I was pleased to say hello to Maynard S. Clark who persuaded me to participate and, more importantly, Rev. Jim McIntosh, with whom Maynard put me in contact to clear our participation.

The service was quite lovely. The dogs were uniformly well behaved. There was a significant amount of barking, but it was happy barking of dogs saying hello to their canine friends.

The Franciscans were kind enough to give me a certificate signed by Father Jim Kelly, Guardian and Executive Director of St. Anthony’s Shrine and Ministry Center indicating that “Animals of the Charles and Alewife received a special blessing for the Feast of St. Francis of Assissi” on Sunday, October 2, 2011.

When you get away from the pols who dominate politics in Cambridge and their friends in the state bureaucracy, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, people are very uniformly decent and commendable. The good reception by the Franciscans was quite lovely and a very pleasant breath of fresh air away from what is the political world in Cambridge, MA, USA.

The animals of the Charles River Basis are subject to ongoing heartless abuse by Cambridge and its friends. The animals of Alewife are about to be subjected to killing on mass.

Whatever excuse the destroyers can get away with they use. The excuses are commonly decidedly bizarre.

At Alewife, which they will destroy within days, they even admit they cannot achieve their stated goals. They do not admit they can achieve their stated goals, meaningful flood protection, by taking the massive parking lot directly across Cambridge Park Drive and using that for flood protection. Why not?

Why have they killed off or driven away pretty much all of the animals on the Charles River Basin? Why are they starving and abusing the most visible remaining residents, the Charles River White Geese?

The destoyers have publicly stated that, on the Charles River Basin, they have contempt for animals. At Alewife, they have not done the really horrible thing yet. Now they are lying that they are decent human beings. Once they do the killing, as they “clarified” their position on the Charles, after the mass killing, Cambridge and the DCR will brag of their heartlessness as they brag of their heartlessness on the Charles.

Once it is too late.

Reality is the ruling of the superior court judge and jury and the appeals court in Monteiro where Cambridge was found guilty of destroying a woman’s life because she filed a civil rights complaint: “Reprehensible”, $3.5 million penal damages, “ample evidence [of] outrageous actions.” They have paid $8.3 million so far.

Monteiro is not isolated. Monteiro is just one decision obtained because the representative of the victim were willing and able to spend millions of dollars standing up to these people. The Monteiro case was kept away from their fake protective groups.

As I said, it is always a pleasure to get away from the “reprehensible” situation in Cambridge. The Franciscans are commendable. The Franciscans fit in with a very decent world, outside the City of Cambridge, MA, USA.

Memories of North Cambridge and Alewife

2011-09-29T09:05:00.006-05:00

1. Archie Mazmanian comments.
2. Response.

1. Archie Mazmanian comments.

Your recent post at your Blog brought to mind memories in the mid 1930s of my family's visits to relatives on Dudley Street, in North Cambridge.

I was probably around 5-6 years of age and an older cousin took me on a trip to a nearby ice house where there was a creek. We played in the creek and I caught some polliwogs, which my cousin explained would become frogs/toads as they grew and changed. This was exciting to a curious child.

The area has of course changed quite a bit. I understand the herring may still run in Alewife. I recall the chemical factory as well.

I had been under the impression that care and consideration were given to the extensive development in the area. Ice houses are no longer that important but the creek surely was/is not just for a curious child.

2. Response.

Archie, you have accurately communicated what the fake protective group communicated.

The letter in the Cambridge Chronicle from the fake group praising the destruction said everything.

These entities with connections to the City Manager / City Council keep concerned people down and enable frequently very destructive behavior.

The impending destruction of Alewife for very minimal flood storage with that massive parking lot directly across Cambridge Park Drive and on the verge of being lost itself is one of the most environmentally heinous achievements of an extremely bad city government.

As the courts said looking at the City Manager’s destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint: “Reprehensible.” “Ample evidence [of] outrageous actions” and $3.5 million penal damages.

A really bad city government stays in power doing these terrible things because of the fact that fake groups are running around spouting lies that that government is worthy of respect.

As usual, it is impossible to say with precision that the fake groups are passing on the lies with knowledge of the falsity. All that can honestly be said, as is so common with the fake groups, is: “You cannot possibly be that stupid."

And the logging and clear cutting of that virgin, excellent forest with massive and needless destruction of animal life is slated to start in October.

Destroy Alewife to Save North Cambridge? Nonsense!

2011-09-27T21:05:00.004-05:00

There is a very real disconnect from reality among the Cambridge pols, and it is amazing just how consistent that disconnect comes out in response to the most destructive actions by the City of Cambridge.

A person who has been a 15 or more year member of the Fake Protective Group on Alewife very indignantly proclaimed a few days ago that the destruction imminent at Alewife is necessary to keep North Cambridge from being the flood storage for Alewife.

Absolute nonsense, as usual.

Truly bizarre destruction out of Cambridge. Truly bizarre explanation, as usual.

The core Alewife reservation is being destroyed, supposedly, for flood storage to protect against a TWO year storm. A TWO year storm is the worst storm, on average coming every two years. Alewife has seen TWO FIFTY years storms in the past 20 years.

A few days ago, Marilyn Wellons provided a link to photos of one of those 50 year storms in 1997?, http://www.openeyesvideo.com/Floodpix.html.

The Cambridge pols, as usual, do not want to know reality.

Reality is those flood photos.

Reality is the Satellite view from http://maps.google.com showing 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA.

In that satellite view, above Cambridge Park Drive is the virgin Alewife reservation with its excellent native trees and its massive animal population. When I last saw the Google Maps view, it was dated. It did not show this massive destruction which has been already accomplished, but which is PRELIMINARY, far smaller than the intended destruction.

Directly below Cambridge Park Drive is a massive parking lot, readily usable for a very large multiple of the silly flood storage being created by the destruction of the core Alewife reservation. That parking lot runs all the way over to Alewife Brook Parkway. That massive parking lot occupies a very large percentage of the area between Cambridge Park Drive and the Commuter Rail to the south of the parking lot.

But the owner of a very large part of that parking lot wants to build, and, once the suckers learn just how much they have been shafted, the destroyers will be oh, so sorry. “Why did you not keep us from doing this terrible thing?” is their usual position. And this will not be the first time a con game has achieved exactly the opposite of what has been claimed.

Just another con game.

If the Cambridge City Council even slightly resembled the environmental saints they constantly tell us they are, there is no question that that parking lot would be taken for flood storage with the buildings being constructed on air rights above the flood storage. And the flood storage would be a very large multiple of the silly flood storage for which the core Alewife reservation is being destroyed.

If the Cambridge City Council even slightly resembled the environmental saints they constantly claim to be, the destruction of the irreplaceable core Alewife reservation will not commence in October 2011 and be done for a month with logging, clear cutting and massive killing of animals.

The destruction would be ended immediately and that massive parking lot would be used for flood storage.

But the Cambridge City Council is lying in its constant claims of environmental sainthood.

Reality is the opinion of independent third parties looking at Cambridge.

Reality is Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. Jury: $3.5 million penal damages. Superior court judge: “reprehensible.” Appeals court: “ample evidence [of] outrageous conduct.” $8.3 million paid to the plaintiff with total cost reported to exceed $10 million.

For the key superior court opinion, see http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. For the comments of the appeals court panel, see http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

That was on a civil rights case which concerned a woman’s life being destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager because she had the nerve to file a civil rights complaint. The Cambridge City Council also claims to be civil rights saints. The failure to implement the court decisions and fire the Cambridge City Manager shows reality once again.

The Cambridge City Council is living a lot of lies.

But fake groups help them out by running protection for them.

South Station Expansion Project, information link

2011-09-27T08:44:00.005-05:00

When dealing with the situation in Cambridge, MA, USA, accurate information is always a lot more valuable than the stuff being passed around in Cambridge.

The Cambridge pols are fighting for commuter rail trains on the Grand Junction railroad line running under the BU Bridge through the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, and passing through the eastern part of Cambridge with at grade crossings at a number of busy Cambridge Streets.

Worcester / Framingham commuter service currently goes to South Station. An excellent connection to the proposed Urban Ring Orange Line service has been assisted by the legislature’s subsidy to the rebuilding of Yawkey Station near Kenmore Station on the Green Line and near Fenway Park. Yawkey Station is on the line currently serving Framingham / Worcester.

The Cambridge Pols are putting out nonsense that moving “a few” (and then all) commuter trips from Framingham / Worcester to the Grand Junction is needed to expand service. They want that service to go to North Station via the Grand Junction.

The pols, as usual, just cannot understand that the expansion of South Station for the South Coast Rail Project will create ample room for expansion of Worcester / Framingham service without their silly and very destructive Grand Junction route.

Marilyn Wellons has been kind enough to provide the URL for the state documents on the South Station Expansion Project.

http://web.massdot.net/southstationexpansion/Documents.html

Thank you, Marilyn.

Estate Planning and the Charles River White Geese

2011-09-26T07:53:00.001-05:00

A very major defect in Massachusetts law has existed concerning binding transfers for the benefit of animals.

The state legislature and the governor have recently added Chapter 203, section 3C to the General Laws.

Under this wording, trust conveyances can be made for the care of animals alive during the donor’s lifetime. The money cannot be retained beyond the death of the last surviving animal alive during the donor’s lifetime (legally important words). I have recently had a report by a caregiver of White Chinas living into their 30's.

Almost all of the Charles River White Geese have the appearance of White China Geese or of Emden Geese or of their progeny.

The trust can be created during the donor’s lifetime or by will at the time of death.

What you can do, the short of it

2011-09-26T05:14:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, I posted a very extensive analysis of what you can do on the Charles River and at Alewife.

If you can only do one thing, contact the governor. I will be linking yesterday’s post at the top of this Blog modified to that extent.

Governor Deval Patrick is at the heart of this situation on the state side. His managers do not merit attention. His own contact information is:

Email form: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us

888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.

The detailed information is at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-you-can-do.html.

What you can do.

2011-09-25T08:32:00.014-05:00

INTRO.
1. General.
A. An integrated attack on the environment.
B. Charles River, Abridged.
C. Destruction of the core Alewife reservation is imminent.
D. The Cambridge City Manager condemned by the courts for destroying a black, Cape Verdean, woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights action.
2. Basic Action.
3. Contact the big guys.
4. Specific contact information.
5. Estate Planning and the Charles River White Geese.
6. Summary.

INTRO.

If you can only do one thing, contact the governor.

Governor Deval Patrick is at the heart of this situation on the state side. His managers do not merit attention. His own contact information is:

Email form: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us

888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.

1. General.

A. An integrated attack on the environment.

The basic purpose of this blog is to protect the Charles River, its animals, its vegetation, its waters and its air from truly destructive state and local governments, and the fake groups that they work through.

It would be foolhardy to think that this problem is limited to the Charles River. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge are destroying both the Charles River and virgin wild areas in the western part of Cambridge.

B. Charles River, Abridged.

Massive destruction has been done at Magazine Beach on the Charles River in Cambridge, just west of the BU Bridge. Heartless starvation is being imposed on the Charles River White Geese as part of a public policy of killing off all animals on the Charles River Basin with hypocritical lies whitewashing things. Poisons are being dumped on the banks of the Charles River to keep alive introduced sickly grasses which replace seven acres of healthy grass that survived without poisons for the better part of a Century. Magazine Beach has been walled off from the Charles River with a bizarre wall of introduced bushes. This bizarre wall is the only vegetation bordering the Charles River Basis which is NOT destroyed twice a year. The manager brags that it starves the Charles River White Geese.

Pretty much all ground vegetation was destroyed between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse to the east except for vegetation near planned construction work on the BU Bridge. This is the area to which the Charles River White Geese have been confined since the destruction at Magazine Beach. Their habitat for most of the time since 1981 has been a mile long stretch centered on the BU Bridge. The destruction of ground vegetation has been done since a fake protective group started destroying the environment for the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Massive and very much worse tree destruction is planned. Hundreds of trees are targeted, along with wildlife habitat, between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge in one of many projects. Federal money has been sought using flat out lies. Governor Patrick seems to have prevented the Federal moneys for the time being but money could very likely be in the state budget.

The DCR brags, translating the fine print, of intent to kill off all resident animals in the Charles River Basin.

C. Destruction of the core Alewife reservation is imminent.

The Alewife reservation is an essentially virgin and massive woods just west of the subway Red Line’s terminus, Alewife station.

This vile behavior is playing out at Alewife with the imminent destruction of the core Alewife Reservation, with logging and clear cutting scheduled to commence in October 2011 and proceed for one month. The big difference at Alewife is that the local fake group, after years of telling people concerned about Alewife to look at everything except the most important pending destruction planned by their friends, has gone public admitting 15 years of con games to be flat out lies by praising the environmental destruction in the Cambridge Chronicle on September 16, 2011, and in a publication on line.

The massive destruction at Alewife is claimed to be for flood storage to protect against two year floods, directly across the street from a massive parking lot which readily could be used for a very large multiple of the flood storage possible through their silly and very very destructive project.

The extreme irresponsibility of the Alewife situation may be seen on Google Maps. Go to maps.google.com, select satellite view, and go to 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA. Directly above the street is an excellent, virgin wood lands with thousands of excellent animals. The view I see is dated. There is now a scar in the middle of this virgin woods for “preliminary” work that is outrageous on its own, but the destruction is scheduled to be a multiple. Below Cambridge Park Drive and between it and the commuter rail and Alewife Brook Parkway to the east (left) is a MASSIVE parking lot. That massive parking lot can hold a very large multiple of the two year storm flood protection that the virgin woods are being destroyed for.

D. The Cambridge City Manager condemned by the courts for destroying a black, Cape Verdean, woman’s life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights action.

One key person, the Cambridge City Manager, has been called “reprehensible” by the superior court (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html) with the appeals court agreeing, finding “ample evidence [of] outrageous conduct.” (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html) The Cambridge City Manager has, civilly, been found guilty of destroying the life of Malvina Monteir, a black, Cape Verdean department head, by firing her in retaliation for her filing a civil right complaint. Cambridge has paid her $8.3 million in response to the court decisions, including $3.5 million penal damage awarded by the jury.

These combined decisions give the self declared environmental and civil rights saints on the Cambridge City Council power to fire the Cambridge City Manager for malfeasance in office without his golden parachute and, possibly, without pension.

It is not too late.

2. Basic Action.

First of all, please friend the Charles River White Geese on facebook.

Secondly, this blog has a link by which you can make a contribution to Friends of the White Geese through Paypal which accepts all major credit cards. Money is crucial to publicize the escalating outrage.

By snail mail, please send contributions to:

Friends of the White Geese
Post Office Box 391412
Cambridge, MA 02139.

Our Financial Director is Ellen Schloss, 978-362-8786, beaksandnoses@verizon.net.

Fliers are minimal. Print advertisements are ideal. Mass mailings are a dream which might come true with your help.

These contributions are NOT tax deductible.

Workers, telephoning / writing and money are key.

We need leafleters, especially at the BU Bridge, but also at key meetings. Please contact Bob at 617-491-7181 or at boblat@yahoo.com.

3. Contact the big guys.

The really destructive people on the first ten miles of Charles River and in the most important part of Alewife are the governments, especially the state and Cambridge.

They have a very major weakness. They run around pretty much nonstop proclaiming they are environmental saints, and they have massive organizations repeating these silly claims.

The Cambridge City Government is particularly sensitive because they certainly look like they are in contact with pretty much everybody.

At the state level, the bureaucrats are beneath consideration. The responsible person is the governor. And the worst of the destruction is on state property.

The governor is very likely the one person most likely to behave responsibly. He has already prevented use of Obama moneys for destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive.

The City of Cambridge is very much a part of the destruction. Moneys come from the Cambridge City Council. The Cambridge City Council routinely tells everybody how to save the world.

The Cambridge City Council brags of environmental initiatives. They vote the bad stuff fast, occasionally by suspending rules to keep things as secret as possible. They then brag about “initiatives” which are next too meaningless. The Cambridge City Council is fully within its powers and its duties to end these outrages.

Communication is crucial, individual and, if possible, on a large scale.

4. Specific contact information.

Contact Information for people to contact:

A long shot, if these people are still trying to stick in Obama moneys is President Barack Obama. Millions of Obama stimulus dollars were requested for destruction of hundreds of healthy trees between the BU Boathouse and the Longfellow Bridge, PLUS being used for destruction of even more goose food across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel. That money could be once again requested. It is normal to find out about dirty tricks after the fact.

President Obama’s email contact form is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/. His telephone number is: 202-456-6213.

Much more important right now is Governor Deval Patrick.

Governor Deval Patrick is at the heart of this situation on the state side. His managers at the Department of Conservation and Recreation do not merit attention. They are way beneath consideration and are repeated liars.

Governor Patrick’s contact information is:

Email form: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us

888-870-7770 / 617-725-4005.

It is pointless to contact the Cambridge City Manager. It may be useful to contact the Cambridge Conservation Commission although its members are the Manager's appointees. (One former appointee in a different city agency won that $8.3M legal payment against the City Manager for his retaliation against her when he found her civil rights complaint displeasing. As I mentioned above, Cambridge lost the case and the Cambridge City Council has it in its power to fire the City Manager because of the court decisions.)

The Cambridge Conservation Commission may be reached by e-mail:
Director Jennifer Wright, jwright@CambridgeMA.GOV; telephone: 617-349-4680.

The Cambridge City Council and other city officials and their supporters dismiss concerns about these environmental outrages to the extent they comment at all. 2011 is, however, an election year and voters need to know where the candidates stand.

Incumbent City Councillors are:

Mayor David P. Maher
mailto:dmaher@cambridgema.gov
617-547-7219 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis
mailto:hdavis@cambridgema.gov
617-547-0877 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Leland Cheung,
mailto:LCheung@cambridgema.gov
617-491-2692 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Marjorie C. Decker
mailto:mdecker@cambridgema.gov
617-349-4280 (W)

Craig A. Kelley
mailto:ckelley@cambridgema.gov
617-354-8353 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Kenneth E. Reeves
mailto:kreeves@cambridgema.gov
617-661-1635 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Samuel Seidel
mailto:sseidel@cambridgema.gov
617-547-1067 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

E. Denise Simmons
mailto:dsimmons@cambridgema.gov
617-491-7435 (H), 617-349-4321 (W)

Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.
Also State Representative
mailto:TimToomey@aol.com
617-576-6483 (H), 617-349-4280 (W)

Cambridge School Committee incumbent:

Marc McGovern
617-945-1866 (H)

State Representatives:

Martha M. Walz
Rep.MartyWalz@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2460

Alice K. Wolf
Rep.AliceWolf@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2460

State Senators:

Sal N. DiDomenico
Sal.DiDomenico@state.ma.us
617-722-1650

Anthony Petruccelli
mailto:Anthony.Petruccelli@state.ma.us
617-722-1634

Rationale behind this list may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/visibility-367-october-15-2008-nice.html in section 3, Distinction among the bad guys.

It is our opinion that, in order to end the attacks on the Charles River, and possibly Alewife as well, the Cambridge City Manager must be fired.

The Cambridge City Council has a very strong court opinion calling the City Manager “reprehensible” for civil rights violations. We have posted that opinion at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html, and have a YouTube analysis at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k. This analysis is dated because it was made before the Appeals Court decision.

The Appeals Court decision affirming the Superior Court was handled in such a manner that the Court communicated disgust at Cambridge for the appeal be refusing to file a formal opinion. It is posted at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

The City of Cambridge has paid $8.3 million so far because of the court decisions, which, we understand will increase to over $10 million including everything.

5. Estate Planning and the Charles River White Geese.

A very major defect in Massachusetts law has existed concerning binding transfers for the benefit of animals.

The state legislature and the governor have recently added Chapter 203, section 3C to the General Laws.

Under this wording, trust conveyances can be made for the care of animals alive during the donor’s lifetime. The money cannot be retained beyond the death of the last surviving animal alive during the donor’s lifetime (legally important words). I have recently had a report by a caregiver of White Chinas living into their 30's.

Almost all of the Charles River White Geese have the appearance of White China Geese or of Emden Geese or of their progeny.

The trust can be created during the donor’s lifetime or by will at the time of death.

For the specific language of the change, please see: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2010/Chapter430.

6. Summary.

Thank you in advance for whatever you can do.

This report was initially posted October 10, 2008

This report was updated on September 26, 2011.