Walsh Commentary: Omissions in Cambridge Chronicle Hard Copy

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Two weeks ago, I published an oped I submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle on the death of former Cambridge City Councilor William Walsh. Walsh was an attorney and member of the Cambridge City Council. He went to jail for mortgage manipulations in his practice of law. His ethics in public office were unblemished.

He very clearly led two lives. The matters which put him in jail were part of a wink and a nod, “getting things done” mentality in the financial sector, a mentality which probably was responsible for the Great Recession.

My oped was printed last week on line. I reported on it in an update. The full report is at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/op-ed-proposal-william-walsh-compared.html.

The oped was printed in today’s November 4, 2010 Cambridge Chronicle. It was printed on page 12, the last page of the first section. This page is frequently used as the third page of the op ed section, overflow from the main two pages of the oped section. The end was omitted, perhaps for space. The portion omitted read as follows:

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

Walsh had his right to take his full appeals on matters which had nothing to do with Cambridge city government.

In the Monteiro case, the City Council is implementing Walsh’s private mentality in the public sphere. Walsh played games with mortgages in a corrupt system in which a wink and a nod were part of the culture. Walsh was never as venal as the finding of the Monteiro judge against the Cambridge City Manager.

The Malvina Monteiro matter shows the reason why state ethics laws which require the expulsion from office without pension for criminal venality in office should be expanded by the judge with city council initiative to the situation where the Cambridge City Manager has been found, in office, to have destroyed the life of a black, Cape Verdian city employee because she exercised her rights under civil rights law.

The Monteiro case is not a matter when the Cambridge City Council is sitting back and watching while a miscreant defends himself for outside behavior. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is spending millions defending the miscreant in spite of a brilliant and persuasive opinion by the judge in the case. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is failing to exercise its duty to protect our employees and our government from behavior which a persuasive judicial opinion has called “reprehensible.”

So I praise Bill Walsh for his commendable public service to the City of Cambridge.

I condemn the current Cambridge City Council which continues in office a city manager persuasively demonstrated as “reprehensible” by judge and jury for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro.


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

I regret that my public praise for Bill Walsh’s public service did not make the newspaper.

Vision Walk on the Charles.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I spent three hours Saturday morning walking for a solution to vision loss. I was part of a team from The Blur webseries.

We walked around the block of the Charles River starting from the Publik Theatre on Soldiers Field Road in Brighton. We walked west through increasingly formalized parkland to the Western Avenue / Arsenal Street Bridge, back eastbound between Greenough Boulevard and the Elliot Bridge and back on the Boston side of the river.

This is an area which has seen massive environmental destruction by the state as part of its goal to kill off all animals living on the first ten miles of the Charles River. There was a lot of wild area here. It has been destroyed. The destruction of wildlife habitat and protective vegetation for migrating waterfowl was flat out horrifying.

The state and Cambridge are very compatible bedfellows when it comes to environmental destruction. They are creating a fine college campus out of what used to be a viable, balanced ecosystem.

Harvard shows perhaps half of the northern side of Greenough Boulevard as Harvard housing in its plans.

The only part of the walk in which the state has not attempted outright to destroy all animals is a place just west of the Elliot Bridge which used to be called “Hell’s Half Acre.” This is an area in which there was an enemy the DCR hates more than animals. It was a gay trysting spot. So the DCR destroyed this wild area and put up signs calling the destroyed animal habitat “animal habitat.” This was done during the earliest parts of the attacks on the Charles River White Geese.

Urban Ring Update, Advisory Committee Meeting Coming

Archie Mazmanian reports:

1. Report.

I Emailed MassDOT recently inquiring as to the status ("Where's Waldo?") ot its proposed new website for the Urban Ring project and as to the activities of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). I was told that the new website is indeed not in place as yet as it has been more difficult than had been anticipated. Also, the CAC has a meeting scheduled for Monday, November 22, 2010, 4-6 PM at 10 Park Plaza, Conference Rooms 2-3. It is a good thing I inquired because I was not on MassDOT's Email contact list that gave notice that the previously scheduled October 13th CAC meeting had been rescheduled. I wonder if others formerly listed did not receive such notice.

Regarding the old Urban Ring website, which is still standing, I informed MassDOT's Scott Hamway today that Secretary Bowles' June 22, 2010 response to Secretary Mullan's letter of January 22, 2010, should have been posted, as well as the minutes for the last CAC meeting held on July 13, 2010, at which I reminded its Chair that the CAC is subject to both the MA open meeting and public records laws.

Perhaps at the upcoming CAC meeting we may learn of more extensive use of the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) proposed for commuter rail to North Station that will impact the Charles River under the BU Bridge (and thus the Charles River White Geese) as well as the GJRL route through Cambridge.

Stay tuned.

2. Bob response.

I also did not get a notice although I was on the mailing list as well.

William Walsh compared to the current Cambridge City Manager and City Council.

Update, 10/27/10

The letter has been published on line at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1946667471/Guest-commentary-My-dealings-with-former-Cambridge-City-Councilor-Bill-Walsh, under the title "My dealings with former Cambridge City Councillor Bill Walsh."


Bob La Trémouille reports:

Last night, October 20, 2010, former Cambridge City Councilor William Walsh was waked in his long time parish church in West Cambridge. The funeral mass will be this morning.

I have submitted the following as an op ed to the Cambridge Chronicle. There are no guarantees, but it seems that it may get published.

********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

My relationship with William Walsh was punctuated by two speeches.

Our relationship started in Walsh’s successful run for Cambridge City Council, in a campaign debate between him and Councilor David Sullivan concerning Rent Control. I was part of the audience for that debate. It was generally agreed that in my brief comments against Mr. Walsh, I was the only person in the room who “drew blood.”

Then there was the debate in City Council in which my friends concerning Rent Control fought to have Walsh thrown off city council FOR MATTERS WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PERFORMANCE ON CITY COUNCIL and which were on appeal in court. I objected to his expulsion for those reasons, but also because, while we strongly disagreed on Rent Control, Walsh’s performance on City Council was, without exception, commendable from an ethical point of view.

In between I had business dealing with Walsh’s law office in which I saw the contempt for ethics present there, a contempt for ethics which is called by insiders “getting things done.” That attitude made it not at all surprising to me to see people in his office going to jail a few years later. I provided the Boston Globe with information on Walsh’s dealings which expanded the Globe’s investigative report on Walsh from a two part report on a few projects to a three part statewide report concerning a lot of projects. My input was based on an extended records review by me on Walsh’s real estate dealings which stretched from Land Court files in Boston to Bankruptcy Court records in Springfield. That “getting things done” mentality in the banking / financial sector proceeded to destroy our economy in recent years.

In Cambridge politics, however, Walsh’s integrity, in spite of our differences on Rent Control, was beyond reproach, and it was his enemies who were the “getting things done” practitioners. Those enemies certainly do look like they dominate Cambridge politics now, and their approach to government has been notable for zoning initiatives with secret fine print that turned loudly proclaimed “benefits” into the opposite of what was claimed.

One of Walsh’s big victories came in my East Harvard Square Downzoning. He was probably key in the seven member majority (eighth vote in the hospital) which forced Harvard to build the Inn at Harvard in a responsible manner rather than the 72% larger structure built to the sidewalk that Harvard wanted. The “getting things done” people in Cambridge bullied major, uncompensated concessions from the petitioners with the flat out lie, “You have made your deal with the City Council. Now you must negotiate with the Planning Board.”

The “getting things done” mentality in Cambridge City Government now extends to the Cambridge City Council spending millions to defend the Cambridge City Manager against a soundly written decision by a respected judge in which she called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible.” This was because she and a jury of decent human beings found that Cambridge deliberately destroyed the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for her exercising her rights under civil rights law.

Walsh had his right to take his full appeals on matters which had nothing to do with Cambridge city government.

In the Monteiro case, the City Council is implementing Walsh’s private mentality in the public sphere. Walsh played games with mortgages in a corrupt system in which a wink and a nod were part of the culture. Walsh was never as venal as the finding of the Monteiro judge against the Cambridge City Manager.

The Malvina Monteiro matter shows the reason why state ethics laws which require the expulsion from office without pension for criminal venality in office should be expanded by the judge with city council initiative to the situation where the Cambridge City Manager has been found, in office, to have destroyed the life of a black, Cape Verdian city employee because she exercised her rights under civil rights law.

The Monteiro case is not a matter when the Cambridge City Council is sitting back and watching while a miscreant defends himself for outside behavior. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is spending millions defending the miscreant in spite of a brilliant and persuasive opinion by the judge in the case. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is failing to exercise its duty to protect our employees and our government from behavior which a persuasive judicial opinion has called “reprehensible.”

So I praise Bill Walsh for his commendable public service to the City of Cambridge.

I condemn the current Cambridge City Council which continues in office a city manager persuasively demonstrated as “reprehensible” by judge and jury for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro.

Updates, Monteiro case, Cambridge pols fight for mercury distribution

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Monteiro Update.

A. Supreme Judicial Court - Direct Appellate Review Request..

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, on September 29, 2010, denied Cambridge’s request that the SJC hear the Monteiro v. Cambridge case on Direct Appellate Review without consideration before the Appeals Court.

B. Appeals Court.

The Appeals Court on October 5, 2010, allowed Ms. Monteiro’s attorneys an extension to November 16, 2010, to file their brief in response to Cambridge’s appellate brief.

Two days later, Cambridge filed an opposition to the extension. That filing was denied by the SJC the next day.

This extension gives Monteiro an extra 35 days to file. Cambridge was given an extension of 19 days.

2. Cambridge pols fight for mercury distribution.

On September 30, I posted my response to a Cambridge pols’ praise of the splattering of mercury around the world in the name of “environmentalism”. That may be read at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/mercury-supporters-should-switch-sides.html.

In last Thursday’s Cambridge Chronicle, October 7, 2010, the Chronicle printed my letter and a response to the pro-mercury letter by the person whose original op ed led to the Cambridge’s pols ode for mercury. They were at the end of a fairly long number of letters on the editorial / op ed pages. Mine was the next to last letter. The op ed writer’s was the last letter. Both were published on line as well.

Mine may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x83585432/Letter-No-concern-for-environmentalism-in-Cambridge.

The op ed writer’s response may be read at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1423333508/Letter-Mercury-Still-a-danger-no-matter-how-green.

This latter letter is quite well written, and it corrects me on one point. I objected to the supposed environmentalist’s claim that there was so little mercury in each container that it is not worth discussing, on the grounds that millions of these things are being distributed. He states:

“Keep in mind that the United States currently has one billions CFLs in operation and the scheme is to fill our 4.7 billion light sockets with CFLs.” [ed: one typo corrected.]

I accept the correction.

Mercury supporters should switch sides. They should defend the environment.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On September 27, 2010, The Cambridge Chronicle published a letter on line supporting the world wide distribution of mercury containing light bulbs. I presume it is in the September 30, 2010 hard copy. I have not seen the paper yet.

The responses on line have been about 4 to 1 against splattering mercury around the world, particularly as some sort of way to “improve” the environment.

I submitted the following letter on September 28. The responses have been so broadly and intelligently critical of mercury distribution that I would anticipate the editor will have perfectly good letters to choose from. As a result, I anticipate that the editor will not need to print a letter from a person who has been published as much as I have.

So here is my response. The original may be read at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x552736722/Letter-Column-on-CFLs-filled-with-inaccuracies.

***********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I see an “environmentalist” has written a letter supporting the massive distribution of a mercury containing product, a fancy light bulb. She says there is just a little mercury in each bulb. She neglects to mention the millions of bulbs she wants distributed or the amount and harm of the mercury in those millions of bulbs.

It is interesting watching these activists. I have yet to see a single one concerned about massive environmental destruction in their home city of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

There is no concern about plans to destroy the excellent trees of the Alewife reservation for flood storage that belongs under a nearby massive parking lot. There is no concern about the ongoing destruction of perhaps thousands of trees at Fresh Pond. There is no concern about the plans for destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive.

There is no concern about the ongoing dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach to feed introduced grasses which needs poisons to live. There is no concern about the perfectly healthy grass which survived most of a century without poisons and was destroyed for the sickly stuff. There is no concern that the only thing needed to return this environmentally responsible grass is to stop spending money on poisons and start spending money on responsible grass seed. There is no concern about the major destruction of playing fields to create a drainage system to drain off poisons that should not be dumped on the banks of the Charles.

There is no concern about the introduced wall of bushes walling off the Charles from Magazine Beach by a government which twice a year destroys all other vegetation bordering the Charles, and which has bragged that the introduced vegetation starves the 30 year resident Charles River White Geese. There is no concern that the responsible approach to this introduced wall is to chop it down like the environmentally protective vegetation is regularly chopped down.

There is no concern about the excess environment damage and animal harm in the BU Bridge project or the refusal to remediate because the governments want to destroy all animals living on the first ten miles of the Charles.

But there is loads of support for splattering mercury all over our world in millions of light bulbs which replace perfectly functional light bulbs.

I think these “environmentalists” should change sides.

I think they should start protecting the environment.

Monteiro postings resume at the Appellate Level

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The dockets on the Malvina Monteiro case at the Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court levels have not been available for several days.

They are now available again.

For several days, as I reported, the case was not findable through the appellate site. It is now.

During the period of absense, only two cases were visible on search through the appellate site. Now six, including Monteiro at Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court levels, are visible. That seems to be about right for the situation as it was before.

I see no difference in the filings.

Reminder of Dormant Urban Ring Project

Archie Reports:

Tuesday's [ed: Sept. 14, 2010] Boston Globe Metro Section (page B1) has an article illustrated with a photo of several of the 60-foot long articulated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses that the T is using on its Route 28 through Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan. Apparently some residents of the areas served by Route 28 are not pleased that their inputs were not sought or considered. These BRT buses are the same buses proposed for the now dormant Urban Ring project's Phase 2.

Curiously, area residents did not want designated bus lanes. A major failing of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring was a lack of adequate designated bus lanes to avoid mixed traffic issues on narrow streets. Perhaps if and when Phase 2 of the Urban Ring is revived, the experiences of T Route 28 BRT buses in mixed traffic may prove valuable.

It should be noted that apparently institutional stakeholders are not that involved in the areas served by the T's Route 28, unlike the areas served by the Urban Ring. The T, according to the Globe article, seems to have ignored residents whereas major institutions have dominated the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Urban Ring project: apparently, residents be damned.

Meantime, the BU Bridge repairs continue. When the work is completed, there will be one less lane (down from four to three) for motor vehicles. What will that do for traffic? Will the Phase 2 Urban Ring project include the BU Bridge as part of its route? Or will the Grand Junction Rail Line under the BU Bridge be augmented to provide two BRT bus lanes AND an active commuter rail line from Worcester through streets of Cambridge to perhaps North Station? Surely the institutions are being consulted; but are the residents?

Meantime, the Charles River White Geese continue to pay the price for inadequate planning.

Op ed on proposed sign ordinance changes compared to environmentalism.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following letter to the editor by me was printed on line by the Cambridge Chronicle on September 13, 2010, under the heading “Cambridge Sign op-ed ‘Refreshingly Well Written’”.

It was printed in the hard copy on September 17, 2010, page 12, the editorial page. It was the middle of only three letters printed, all on the editorial page, same title. An op ed was printed two pages later. Very nice handling.

I note in brackets a typo deleted by the editor. I appreciate the correction.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The oped you printed opposing the proposed sign ordinance amendments was refreshingly well written and thought out.

The arguments I have been seeing more commonly are highly misleading.

Opposing this zoning change has been branded as “defending” the Charles River.

These self-proclaimed defenders of the Charles River certainly look like the same old environmentally destructive group, and they certainly look like they are playing yet another con game.

Loudly calling themselves “environmentalists” for initiatives which distract from their environmental destruction.

The same old group has no problems with destroying hundreds of trees on the Charles River. This group has no problems with poisons being dumped on Magazine Beach. This group has no problems with the ongoing killing off of all resident animals on the first ten miles of the Charles River. This group has no problems with decreasing the size of Magazine Beach to drain off poisons which should not be dumped there in the first place. This group has no problems with walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles River with bizarre introduced bushes which have no business on the Charles River. This group has no problems with heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese as part of the long series of bizarre projects on the Charles River.

But they sure do[ing] run around praising their supposed defense of the Charles River.

Thank you to the writer for a well written, informative piece.

And thanks to the writer for not making her oped part of the non stop con games in which environmental destroyers try to fool people into looking away from the Charles River and their destruction of the Charles River.

It takes reality to be an environmentalist, not shell games. In Cambridge, altogether too often, we get shell games.

Medeiros Oddity in Appellate Docket

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I anticipate there is some sort of computer problem, but I just did a search of the appellate court docket for “Medeiros” filed in “2010" as I have many times.

I get Edmund and Steven. No Malvina Monteiros came up after repeated tries.

Drug Dealing at Magazine Beach Playground

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following email was sent to a neighborhood listserve on Saturday, September 11.

It is reprinted with permission:

********

I just wanted to let folks know that my school-aged kids saw an apparent drug deal in the playground at Magazine Beach yesterday afternoon. They saw two adults, one waiting for the other. Money was exchanged for a snack-sized baggy containing green material.

I find this very disturbing, especially since it was across the street from Morse School, just around when school was going to be let out, and lots of kids use Magazine Beach. I did call the cops at the time and described the guys to them. Is there anything we can do to increase police presence around our parks and schools? This is not the kind of education I want my kids to have!

Melissa
Chalk Street

Patrick administration brags about environment destruction, neglects to mention the environmental destruction.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation publishes a weekly on line newsletter. It very prominently features a photo of Governor Patrick.

Featured this week is a report on the pedestrian bridge between the north and south sides of Memorial Drive in Cambridge at Magazine Beach.

Earlier this blog published Phil Barber’s photo report on all the trees destroyed for this project.

Somehow, the destruction of trees failed to make the Governor’s report.

The newsletter is at: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/massdotnewsletter/vol49.htm.

This links a more detailed report at: http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2010/09/pedestrian-bridge-project-moves-forward.html.

Nobody mentions the destruction. Odd is it not.

Globe supports Patrick’s environmental destruction?

Archie reports, on September 12:

Today's Globe in its Starts & Stops section (page B2) features the GJRL [ed.: Grand Junction Railroad, the track that runs by the Destroyed Nesting Area and under the BU Bridge.] through Cambridge, ending with the reporter's "humorous" comments as the trip approached the BU Bridge. What might a restored, revitalized GJRL do for (or to) Cambridge?

Ed: The following is the on line link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/09/12/little_used_rail_line_a_key_link_to_worcester.

Monteiro Update, City files its brief in Appeals Court, why this blog follows Monteiro

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. On line dockets.
2. Analysis of more recent filings.
3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?


1. On line dockets.

I have been keeping up on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge primarily from on line dockets. These on line dockets list, at minimum, the title of the action which is the subject of the docket entry.

The Superior Court docket is only available to attorneys who have requested access. This docket frequently has posted full text of actions by the judge.

The Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court dockets are available to the public on line.

To give you a feel for the situation, the following are the appellate entries. I have tried to put this data in table form, but have not been successful because of limitations of the blog software.

The docket at the Supreme Judicial Court consists of three entries:

Date Paper # Entry Text

08/05/2010 Docket opened.
08/05/2010 #1 DAR [Ed: Request for Direct Appellate Review] APPLICATION of City of Cambridge filed by Joan A. Lukey, Esquire, Dan Krockmalnic, Esquire, Jacob Scott, Esquire.
08/17/2010 #2 OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application filed for Malvina Monteiro by Ellen J. Zucker, Esquire.

I have previously given my analysis of these papers.

The docket at the Appeals Court consists of the following entries.

Date Paper # Entry Text

7/16/10 #1 Entered.
07/16/2010 Notice of entry sent.
08/05/2010 Copy of DAR application of City of Cambridge.
08/18/2010 #2 Motion for leave to file principal brief in excess of fifty pages filed by City of Cambridge.
08/19/2010 #3 Notice of withdrawal as counsel for City of Cambridge, filed by Jennifer L. Carpenter.
08/19/2010 #4 Notice of appearance of Jacob Scott for City of Cambridge.
08/25/2010 #5 Contingent Motion for leave, if necessary, to re-file principal brief after original filing deadline, filed by City of Cambridge.
08/30/2010 RE#2: Denied. The appellant is to file and serve a brief not exceeding fifty pages on or before September 13, 2010. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
08/30/2010 RE#5: See court's action on paper #2 dated
8/30/10. Due to their size, the record appendix volumes are deemed accepted on 8/30/10 pending filing of the brief. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
09/01/2010 #6 Service of appendix (13 vols) filed by City of Cambridge.
09/10/2010 #7 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant City of Cambridge.

The brief of Ms. Monteiro in response to the city’s brief is due on October 12.

2. Analysis of more recent filings.

The filing of Cambridge on 8/18/10, permission to file longer brief, looked like a holding action intended to delay appeals court action until a response was obtained by the SJC on the request for direct appellate review. The Appeals Court Scotched this tactic on August 30, by denying the motion and ordering brief filing by September 13.

The August 25 motion is hard to fully understand without the papers. It was denied along with the motion for a larger brief.

The appendix, mentioned on August 30 and formally logged on September 1, would be the record from the Superior Court action. This record is the basis for everything occurring in Appeals Court.

Cambridge filed its brief on Friday. If anybody wants to go through the bother of checking the papers and copying it, I would be pleased to have access to the copies. The Cambridge Chronicle, for example, posted one key judge’s order on line when the full order was not made available in the on line docket.

In any case, the Monteiro response brief is due October 12.

3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?

I have posted two links to YouTube videos in which I analyze the “reprehensible” (quoting the judge) situation in the City of Cambridge.

I consider it all one mess.

A. A bad city manager.

B. A bad city council.

C. Massive organizations running around spouting lies to the contrary, lies which are necessary to keep that bad city council from being thrown out of office.

The lies are not usually direct lies. The lies are mostly con games, but pretty much nonstop con games.

Cambridge takes initiatives on the “good” side which are meaningless or next to meaningless when compared to the reprehensible behavior which is so common.

So they run around bragging about supposed good behavior which amounts to trash and suppress the meaningful, rotten behavior. I call that a con game. I call that continuing lies.

The state, on the other hand, has indulged in blatant, key lying.

I think the environmental situation would go a long way toward being resolved if the supposedly pro civil rights city council changed sides to the side they claim to be on.

The city council should accept the decision of judge and jury in Monteiro and fire the city manager without pension and without golden parachute to the extent the superior court judge will bless such action.

That would go some distance to reversing the environmental destruction on the Charles since the city manager’s people have their hands in who know how much, but it looks like pretty much everything.

Cleansing the city of the current city manager would give the city government a chance to resemble the lovely and very false claims of the Cambridge City Council in the environmental front.

The state’s behavior is so closely coordinated with Cambridge that it is silly to think that firing the City Manager would be other than a possible reversal of the destructiveness of the state.

Cambridge, MA: Killing, rape, heartless animal abuse, destruction of park and river

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have posted another segment from our 8/15/10 show of the Cambridge Environment on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6HY-ndOjo. The following summary is provided on YouTube.

The reality of the true rottenness of Cambridge’s manager and city council is reemphasized day by day by day as it becomes clearer to all that the expenditures at Magazine Beach are a truly bizarre waste of money, and are destructive in addition to the totally unnecessary and very heartless animal abuse.

*********

Cambridge, MA: Killing, rape, heartless animal abuse, destruction of park and river
© 2010, Friends of the White Geese

Out takes from the 8/15/10 show, The Cambridge Environment.
Commentator and Preparer of these notes: Robert J. La Trémouille

Segments:

1. Rape, murder and the killing of nesting mother geese. The Cambridge City Council had voted to starve and destroy the habitat of the Charles River White Geese in the truly bizarre project that just finished. So they were “neutral” when a follower started killing nesting mother geese. Then, when he graduated to rape and murder, the City Council spent an hour discussing the rape and murder and did not want to know where it occurred.

2. Library park: 23 hundred year old trees “replaced” with 57 saplings, most of which were then destroyed for the obvious phase 2 of the project. The first phase would have been environmentally responsible if placed where the second phase was placed.

3. Straight out lying from the state, and con games from the Cambridge City Council. How the lies work, whether out right or con games.


On the graduation from killing mother geese (with a wink and a nod from the Cambridge City Council) to rape and murder.

First of all, please see my separate posting on the judge/jury decision in Monteiro v. Cambridge “City Manager can be fired.” The description includes key citations. [Ed: link at the top right of this blog.]

A comparison between the two graduations:

The killer of nesting mother geese
● graduated to rape and murder
● in possible response to the tacit encouragement of the Cambridge City Council.
● The City Council admitted its complicity by speaking out on the rape and murder for an hour and not wanting to know where it happened, emphasized by Davis’ behavior when she accidentally said where it happened.

We have a very clear graduation of the Cambridge City Manager

● from heartless animal abuse aimed at the Charles River White Geese
● to, according to judge and jury, the destruction of the life of Malvina Monteiro.
● With very clear support of the heartless animal abuse by the Cambridge City Council.
● And the Cambridge City Council still doesn’t want to know what they are doing.
● But they sure do keep on bragging that they are pro-environment and pro-civil rights. And playing con games to fool well meaning people.

YouTube: The Cambridge City Manager Should be Fired

Bob La Trémouille reports.

I have posted on YouTube my slightly over five minute analysis of how and why the Cambridge City Manager should be fired for his treatment of Malvina Monteiro. This firing could go a long way toward reversing the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse on the Charles River.

Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.

Monteiro update — Action in Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court, Direct Appeal Requested.

1. General.
2. Appeals Court.
3. Supreme Judicial Court.


Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. General.

I have kept people up to date on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The best details can be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.

Succinctly, the City of Cambridge is now facing a judgment slightly in excess of $6 million because judge and jury have found that Cambridge destroyed the life of a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The judge’s key opinion is very notable for its use of the word “reprehensible” with regard to the City of Cambridge.

On July 16, Cambridge filed appeal in the Appeals Court. That created a time limit of August 25, 2010 for Cambridge to file its appellate brief explaining why it is appealing.

The case number in Appeals Court is 2010-P-1240.

There has been action in Appeals Court and in the Supreme Judicial Court.

2. Appeals Court.

On August 18, 2010, Cambridge filed a motion that it be allowed to file a principal brief in excess of 50 pages.

That should stay the August 25, 2010 due date for their brief.

3. Supreme Judicial Court.

On August 5, 2010, Cambridge filed an application for Direct Appellate Review with the Supreme Judicial Court.

On August 16, 2010, Ms. Monteiro filed an “OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application.”

I do not have access to more than the names of the papers.

The case number is DAR-19067.

A filing of this sort by the appealing party (Cambridge) normally would be based on a contention that the case is going to wind up in the SJC anyway, so why waste time at the Appeals Court.

It is interesting that Ms. Monteiro filed a “limited” opposition. My guess as to what that means comes from whole cloth.

If Monteiro’s lawyers think that the case is going to wind up in the SJC no matter, that language would mean that Ms. Monteiro, in order to get her position into the court, has to file a paper called an “opposition,” and that the “limited” nature of the “opposition” probably comes from a situation in which Ms. Monteiro really agrees with Direct Appellate Review, and the paper is filed because there is something that Ms. Monteiro wants to put on record.

Clearly, if the case WILL wind up in front of the SJC, it is to both parties’ benefit to skip the Appeals Court.

However, I am not at all certain that it would be responsible for the City to file yet another appeal. I have real questions as to whether the Appeals Court appeal has value. Under this analysis, it could be the position of Ms. Monteiro that the City of Cambridge is going to chase a silly appeal to the SJC.

We will see. We will see.

Charles River environmental money used for a school garden?

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. Email from Minka vanBeuzekom.
3. My response.


1. Introduction.

The last things one should expect from somebody involved in the Cambridge Machine are environmental comments which resemble common seanse or reality.

It gets worse in Cambridge because the Boston Sierra Club has a number of people very visible in it who sure do look like very visible parts of the Cambridge Machine. Many of these individuals have been very active in zoning petitions which did destruction of zoning protections for the environment while loudly proclaiming exactly the opposite.

It thus comes as no surprise that the Boston Sierra Club has repeatedly endorsed environmentally destructive members of the Cambridge City Council and that non-incumbents endorsed certainly look like they fit the environmentally destructive incumbents.

An email concerning the Charles River has been distributed over the name of a person endorsed by the Sierra Club in the last election. The endorsement made her suspect from my point of view and her subsequent aura confirmed my suspicions.

I have start checking the reality on this nonsense, but the fact of these communications are instructive as to reality in the City of Cambridge.

Please just study what she has put on the record and what I have attempted to put on the record in an attempt to respond.

Looking at the source, I would say it is probably true that the candidate sent out this document.

2. Email from Minka vanBeuzekom.

Remember the 2,500 gallon diesel spill in February of this year in the Charles River ? It occurred at MWRA’s Cottage Farm Facility ( 660 Memorial Drive ) in Cambridge . In June, MWRA was fined $30,187 by the Mass DEP for failing to follow procedure, failing to notify the DEP in a timely way and discharging a pollutant into water body without a permit.

The fine has been converted to a SEP (Supplemental Environmental Project) involving funding a rain garden at the Morse School to mitigate stormwater runoff from the school parking lot. I’d be curious to know if anyone hears more about this rain garden planning and construction. Thanks.

Minka vanBeuzekom

3. My response.

Use of that money would make a lot more sense neutralizing Cambridge and the DCR's deliberate environmental destruction on the Charles. The MWRA was victimized by an irresponsible delivery company. Cambridge and the DCR are deliberately destroying.

Replace the poisons being dumped to keep sickly introduced grass alive with seeds for the grass that was there for most of a century.

Chop down the bizarre introduced vegetation walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles and starving the 30 year native Charles River White Geese.

Undo the massive destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.

Fill in the drainage ditches to carry away poisons that should not be dumped next to the Charles in the first place to get Magazine Beach's playing fields back to the size they were until Cambridge and the state destroyed the fields and the environment.

Allow the 30 year native Charles River White Geese to return to their home at Magazine Beach.

To Tom’s of Maine on an Environmental Destroyer

Marilyn has forwarded the following concerning her contact with Tom’s of Maine about their considering providing environmental moneys to the environmentally vile Charles River Conservancy:

**********

Sent just now, at their Contact Us:

Your company has established an image of itself as independent of the giant consumer products corporations and environmentally aware.

Unfortunately, by associating the company with the Charles River Conservancy's ongoing wholesale destruction of Amorpha frutescens (a native plant that has been cultivated to control erosion since 1724); iris pseudacorus (it reduces bacterial loads and absorbs heavy metals; the Charles River remains contaminated with chemicals from long-gone tanneries); solidago spp. (much beloved goldenrods); and other plants that provide habitat for resident and migrating birds, you cast that reputation in doubt.

The CRC is a tool of institutions that seek to turn public parkland on the Charles into their own office parks and campuses.

Please do not be misled by the glossy self-presentation of the Charles River Conservancy.

The future of Memorial Drive and the Charles River?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

These photos are of the street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts on Memorial Drive near the eastern end of the desolation which has been inflicted on the Charles River animal habitat. About a block to the west is the ghetto into which the Charles River White Geese have been forced, which now has been three quarters destroyed with no remediation offered or accomplished.














If you look very closely at the left side of the photos, you will see tiny saplings.

If you will look at the right, you will see what looks like trees. The “large trees” are on the grounds of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Privately owned trees are much less subject to irresponsible destruction in Cambridge and on the Charles River than are publicly owned trees. The street, Vassar Street, ends at the Charles River.














Only a few months ago, the apparently large trees on the right were dwarfed by about twelve magnificent trees on the left. They towered over the buildings to the left. They extended over the street blocking the sun. They were magnificent.

Various nonsensical excuses were given for the destruction. The pieces of nonsense can be summarized by saying that the magnificent 12 trees were in the wrong location. The liars proved themselves liars by planting saplings in the place of the excellent trees they destroyed because the trees were in the wrong location.

The real reason? Cambridge’s “planners” were planting saplings up the length of this street, Vassar Street. They were obviously offended that the magnificent trees would tower over their saplings. So they destroyed the magnificent trees, with the usual fake review.

Cambridge and state “planners” have their minds squarely in the 19th century while fronting themselves with fake environmental groups.

This is the “plan” for hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach, with the same sick destructiveness.

The environmentally vile Charles River Conservancy praises the forthcoming destruction.

The environmentally vile CRC has been the most important front entity for the state in the destruction on the Charles. The environmentally vile CRC praises the environmental planners of the 19th Century.

Before the destruction next to the BU Bridge, all ground vegetation was destroyed, between Memorial Drive and the Charles River from the BU Boathouse near the foot of Vassar Street to the BU Bridge, except for vegetation in and near the construction zone.

The quality of the ground vegetation destroyed by these people can be appreciated by looking at the area on Google Maps, satellite view. There still is EXCELLENT vegetation undestroyed next to the construction, 50% too large, in the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese. Most of the ghetto and all the area from there to the BU Boathouse has been denuded of ground vegetation.

The CRC brags of what it calls “vegetation management.”

The CRC is seeking money from Tom’s of Maine for “vegetation management.”

The sick destruction of these trees falls into their euphemism of “vegetation management.”

The sick destruction of all ground vegetation near the Charles between BU Boathouse and the BU Bridge falls into their definition of “vegetation management.”

What sort of destruction will the CRC fund with the money from Tom’s of Maine?

Environmental Destroyer seeks money from Tom’s of Maine

Bob reports:

1. General.
2. Posting to Tom’s of Maine.
3. Leaflets.
4. Add on.


1. General.

The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy is seeking money from Tom's of Maine under the lie, it would appear, that they are pro-environment.

Please defend the animals, the trees and the water of the Charles from this group. Please tell Tom's not to assist their destructive cause. Tom's may be contacted at https://tomsofmaine.custhelp.com/app/ask/session/L3NpZC9jYkI5eTUyaw%3D%3D

2. Posting to Tom’s of Maine.

I have posted the following comment on Tom’s email card:

*******

Enclosed are two documents concerning the environmental nightmare on the Charles River and in Cambridge, MA.

The Charles River Conservancy is uniformly on the wrong side.

Cambridge and Massachusetts are destroying all resident animals on the first 10 miles of the Charles River because they are offended by the presence of water related animals near a river.

The CRC runs around poisoning the eggs of Canada Geese every year.

The CRC twice a year destroys all protective vegetation on both side of the Charles River.

The State has been punished by the City of Boston for the environmental destructiveness of their agent, the Charles River Conservancy.

If you want to do something positive on the Charles River, I would request that you fund the people defending the river against these destructive people, Friends of the White Geese, address on the fliers.

Please also note our blog, website and facebook page, all on the fliers.

3. Leaflets.

Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com. I would be pleased to provide you the files (opposite sides of leaflet) I provided to Tom’s of Maine.

The situation on the Charles River and in Cambridge is bad enough without the destroyers fooling more good people to fund their cause.

4. Add on.

I realized that the above posting was not completely correct. So I added the following:

*********

I just made a posting which states that the Charles River Conservancy destroys all protective vegetation on the lower Charles River twice a year.

That is not completely true. They destroy all protective native vegetation.

The state with CRC’s support has introduced a bizarre wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles River at the Magazine Beach playing fields. This replaces an animal habitat in existence for the better part of a century and starves the Charles River White Geese from keeping them from their primary source of food for most of the last 30 years: the grass on the playing fields.

This bizarre stuff is allowed to grow without limit which the CRC destroys the valuable native vegetation everywhere else.

The grass, 7 acres which survived the better part of a century, has been dug up and replaced with sickly stuff that requires poisons to survive.

They have introduced a massive drainage system supposedly to keep these poisons out of the Charles River, poisons that would not be necessary if they returned to the healthy grass which has been native to this area for the better part of the last century.

The CRC, of course, is on the destructive side.

It gets worse.

Cambridge announces Monteiro appeal, gets value wrong

Bob La Trémouille reports:

It is always difficult to figure out what comes out of the City of Cambridge, but here goes.

Yesterday, July 29, there were two media reports of the appeal in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. Both got the value wrong. One reported that they had tried to contact the Plaintiff’s attorney without success. So the report with its error must have come from Cambridge. Since Cambridge is the appealing party, it is possible the appellate papers have the same error.

Final judgment entered May 25.

My calculation of the numbers came in the low to middle $6 million. The Cambridge Chronicle, at that time, quoted the Plaintiff’s attorney at $6.9 million.

Appeal was filed on July 16. I reported the appeal on this blog on July 21.

Yesterday, Lawyers USA and the Chronicle reported the appeal, quoting the value at $4.5 million, a modest understatement of the value before the post judgment motions. Coming from the Chronicle, that lower number is quite telling, since two months ago, they were saying $6.9 million.

My reading, because of the error and the Chronicle’s statement that they could not contact the Plaintiff’s attorney, is that the information was put out by Cambridge. Very interesting that Cambridge would understate the value by $2 million. But that is the City of Cambridge for you.

Cambridge Council Playing Environment Games, Again

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have submitted the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. It was published on line on July 28, 2010.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I am pleased to see that, for the time being, Cambridge will not destroy four excellent street trees near Hoyt Field. This would have followed on the destruction of 12 even better street trees behind the Hyatt Regency and on major destruction of trees around the Magazine Beach footbridge.

One or more city councilors will tell us about an “effort” to “improve” regulation of street tree destruction. Playing with these regulations commenced one week after the city council voted to allow destruction of 17,000 square feet of densely grown trees for highway construction. The council voted to exempt themselves from public hearing on this destruction.

Environmental destruction by the City Council and the City is far more massive than their irresponsible destruction of street trees. Thus street tree regulations were silly when passed and “improving” them does not make the regulations less silly.

There is the coming destruction of the main part of the Alewife reservation by Cambridge and its friends. There is the ongoing destruction of perhaps thousand of trees at Fresh Pond by Cambridge. There is the planned destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive by the state working closely with Cambridge.

There is the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach to keep alive sickly grass introduced after the destruction of healthy green grass which survived the better part of a century without poisons. There is the decrease in size of those playing fields for a drainage system to drain off poisons which should not even be there. There is the wall of introduced bushes walling off the Charles River from Magazine Beach. There is the nonstop, heartless abuse of the beautiful, 30 year native Charles River White Geese.

Cambridge public works projects are routinely destructive.

The City Council and its friends do not want people to know of their ongoing destruction of our world. They want to talk about what they do not destroy.

The Monteiro civil rights judge accurately called Cambridge “reprehensible.” She gave the City Council a strong argument for firing the city manager without pension and without golden parachute, with permission of court. Her initiative would go some way to save our environment as well.

Regrettably, the environmental and city manager problems rest on a city council which wants to brag about what it has not destroyed rather than stopping the destruction of which it is such a clear part.

Appeal filed in Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The case of MALVINA MONTEIRO & others vs. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE has been entered as an appeal in the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The case number is 2010-P-1240.

It was entered on July 16, 2010.

The appealing party is the City of Cambridge.

Brief (legal argument) is due from the City of Cambridge on August 25, 2010.

TAKE 2: MARK TWAIN + URBAN RING PHASE 2

Archie Mazmanian reports on the latest developments of the Urban Ring Phase 2:

My prodding of MEPA to respond to Commissioner Mullan’s letter of January 22, 2010, resulted (email response 5/13/10) in being informed that the response, following its preparation, would be posted at MEPA’s website:

http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/eeanews.aspx

I checked this website from time to time, finding it quite difficult to navigate. Finally, after learning from the Urban Ring website of the CAC’s July 13th meeting, I went upstream, downstream, and finally located MEPA’s June 22nd response to Commissioner Mullan in advance of the CAC meeting. Unfortunately, I was unable to retrace my journey so as to provide a link. The Urban Ring website did not post or provide a link to MEPA’s response.

One of the handouts at the July 13th CAC meeting was a “spreadsheet” 5 pages in length headed “MassDOT Urban Ring Planning Progress Report (July 8, 2010).” One of the items is “Urban Ring website transfer” which is in progress to a new website hosted by MassDOT: www.mass.gov/massdot/urbanring expected to be launched sometime this Summer. A recent check indicates it is not in place as yet.

In the meantime, if someone is able to pinpoint MEPA’s June 22nd response at its website, it would be appreciated if the URL could be provided to this Blog for purposes of a link. The response is quite interesting and calls for careful scrutiny. For example, the response includes the following:

“Moreover, I concur with MassDOT’s assessment that continuing the review of this project which, according to the long-range Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, is not slated for construction within the next twenty years makes meaningful environmental impact review difficult to achieve.”
http://www.blogger.com/
And what does this mean for the public’s mass transit needs in the Greater Boston area today? In twenty years, if I make it, I’ll be celebrating my 100th birthday. In the meantime, I’ll be marking time; alas, no one will be able to “Mark Twain” at the Charles River crossing proposed for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring as the Commonwealth and Cambridge continue their Charles River White Geese “killing fields” projects.

Stayed tuned for follow up.

Archie Mazmanian

Magazine Beach poison drainage, trees near Phil Barber photos.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The Charles River White Geese have been cherished natives of the Charles River for nearly 30 years.

For most of that time, they lived a migratory life in a one mile habitat centered on the BU Bridge. Most of their days, they fed at Magazine Beach. Part of the year, and in the worst storms, they lived at their nesting area which is the only part of the habitat not yet destroyed to them, just 3/4 destroyed with no remediation.

The Cambridge voted to destroy the playing fields and animal habitat at the seven acre Magazine Beach. This has been implemented along with the outrages at the nesting area under the watch of Governor Patrick.

When the plans were first proposed by the Cambridge City Manager, the response of the public was very uniform. This hillside to the west of the playing fields could use some work. The playing fields themselves were very clearly in no need for “improvement.”

As part of their implementation of the Cambridge City Manager plans, the state created a master plan for the Charles River which showed Magazine Beach as a lawn to the Charles River.

The state introduced massive bushes blocking off the Charles River from Magazine Beach and starving the Charles River White Geese by blocking off their food.

Starting in 2000 and repeatedly since then, the state has repeatedly proclaimed “no intent” to harm the Charles River White Geese. They have since explained that starving them is not harming them in their world.

When the Cambridge City Council voted funds to assist in the environmental destruction, the explanation was that they were “improving” open space. How does blocking off the Charles River and starving the residents “improve” open space? The Cambridge City Council and their undisclosed representatives do not want to discuss that.

Cambridge and Patrick destroyed seven acres worth of grass at Magazine Beach which had survived the better part of a century green, without poisons.

Cambridge and Patrick replaced the green native vegetation with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive. To keep the poisons that should not even be there out of the Charles River, Cambridge and Patrick have introduced large drainage ditches a few feet from the Charles to drain off the poisons that need not be there.

This drainage system replaces food for the Charles River White Geese, if they could get beyond the barrier.

This drainage system replaces playing fields that are the supposed excuse of Cambridge and Patrick for this outrage.

So they have replaced perfectly good playing fields and animal food with poisoned grass, smaller playing fields, and a drainage system to drain off poisons that should not even be dumped on the banks of the Charles River.

Here are photos of the drainage system taken in the last few weeks.

The major trees shown in the rear are trees which have not been destroyed, although significant recent destruction has occurred here, in the Destroyed Nesting Area and a massive destruction of excellent trees behind the Hyatt Regency just east of the Destroyed Nesting. Cambridge brags of being a tree city. Cambridge brags of saplings planted. Cambridge keeps secret healthy trees and healthy environment needlessly destroyed. Yet another lie from a very destructive government.

The photos provided by Phil Barber and recently printed are of major destruction very close to the trees in the background, if not some of these trees. Phil’s photos may be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/bob-la-tremouille-reports-phil-barber.html.

MARK TWAIN + URBAN RING PHASE 2

Archie Mazmanian reports, Bob La Trémouille ed.:

Mark Twain has been in the news recently with reports that Volume 1 of his autobiography will be published this November, 100 years following his demise pursuant to his directions. This brings to mind the premature publication of Twain’s obituary that triggered his cable from London stating: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

I attended the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on the Urban Ring on July 13, 2010, its first public meeting since January 11, 2010, that I reported on at this Blog. http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010_01_13_archive.html. The January 11th meeting was followed with MassDOT Commissioner Mullan’s two letters of January 15th and 22nd to MEPA in effect suspending many aspects of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring from MEPA review.

Finally on June 22nd, MEPA responded to Mr. Mullan. Prior thereto, with several Emails, I had prodded MEPA about responding to MassDOT. MEPA’s response [ed: Archie will provide the link with installment 2 of the report.] is quite detailed, pointing out concurrence with Mr. Mullan’s proposals in his letter but also reminding him that MEPA compliance may be determined to be required from time to time for various aspects of actions proposed to be taken on certain segments of Phase 2. After several readings of MEPA’s response, I can understand why it took five (5) months.

Attendance of CAC members seemed quite sparse at its July 13th meeting and a quorum may have been lacking. However, there were many MassDOT department personnel present, including a new spokesperson from MassDot for the Urban Ring.

I do not plan with this submission to summarize the meeting but wish to point out how disjointed it was. There were suggestions that perhaps subcommittees or select members of the CAC had been meeting with MassDOT and the compact communities following the January 11th meeting. During the public comment period, I mentioned the need for the CAC to be in compliance with both the Open Meeting and Public Records Laws of the Commonwealth as down the road the public may be addressing such compliance. Tom Nally, CAC Chair, said he would look into whether such Laws apply to the CAC.

The elephants in the room remain: (1) the Charles River crossing and (2) the Longwood/Fenway area. Since the January 11th CAC meeting, MassDOT has completed certain CSX acquisitions. Newspaper reports spoke of the Framingham commuter rail tracking to North Station, presumably via the Grand Junction Rail Line (GJRL) under the BU Bridge. My public comments made reference to this, pointing out possible physical conflicts with two lanes for 60-foot long BRT Buses somehow maneuvering from a reconstructed trestle to then go over the rails on the Boston side from the west to the east side of the BU Bridge by means of a short tunnel to surface at Boston University’s Academy site along University Road to cross Commonwealth Avenue to the Carlton Street Bridge in Brookline (and on to the Longwood/Fenway area). At present, the trestle provides only a single set of tracks; it would seem that a double set of tracks would be required for what could be a busy commuter rail line to justify MassDOT’s investment.

The Phase 2 route from the Charles River crossing to and through the Longwood/Fenway area continues on hold. Meantime, traffic and transportation issues in that area continue to pile up and will worsen once construction starts on Parcel 7, Kenmore Square, air rights over the MA Turnpike Extension, a humongous development. And of course the BU Bridge construction will be with us for at least another year.

I shall submit further reports on the recent CAC meeting. (Its next public meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 13th.)

Like Mark Twain, the CAC may be saying: “Reports of the death of Phase 2 of the Urban Ring are greatly exaggerated.” But how effective may be the CAC’s CPR?

Archie Mazmanian

Photos of Tree Destruction

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Phil Barber has sent me two emails and photo attachments. The following are the emails. Below are the photos.

Phil Barber Reports:

Report 1, 6/30/10, 7:54 pm

Hi Bob, I hope this finds you well.

I was dismayed to see this evening that the arboricides have struck again. You’ve probably seen this already (I haven’t been down to the river much of late) but they’ve cut down a number of mature oaks, maples, and others near the footbridge over Mem Drive at Magazine Beach on both sides. Another upsetting and unnecessary loss!

Take care,
Phil

Report 2, 7/1/10, 10:01 am

Hi Bob, here's some shots I took yesterday of the denuded wide-open spaces, etc. These best show what was taken, I'd say at least half a dozen big trees and some smaller ones

Phil

Worcester vote on Department of Transportation plan for Worcester, Beacon Yards, Grand Junction bridge and line

The Worcester City Council has voted in favor of the Department of Transportation's plan to expand the freight yards there, so as to increase commuter rail use of the Beacon Yards while drastically reducing freight in the latter.

The plan will have major consequences for Worcester neighborhoods as well as metro Boston. In Allston and Cambridge it will not seem to reduce rail traffic in the Beacon Yards, since DOT wants to use that facility as a car barn for commuter rail as well as increase through traffic on the Worcester-Framingham line to both North and South Stations.

Eliminating rail freight almost entirely, as it aims to do, will in fact greatly increase truck traffic throughout metro I-495, with attendant problems for the environment, roadway maintenance costs, and public health. There are other consequences, some of which are outlined in the letter Marilyn Wellons sent to the Worcester Telegram on Monday, June 28, 2010:

To the Editor:

On the eve of the city's vote on plans to move the Beacon Freight Yards to Worcester, please consider the following:

1. Recently announced plans to send Worcester-Framingham commuter trains to North Station would free up space in South Station for the new South Coast service that will compete for it. Will some or eventually all Worcester-Framingham trains end up at North Station? Will commuters learn to accept this change?

2. The same plans would send some or all Worcester-Framingham trains over the Grand Junction rail bridge. This structure has been the Urban Ring Phase 2 (UR2) critical Charles River crossing. Although UR2 is now on hold, will the new commuter rail plans scotch UR2's for the same bridge?

3. Crossings in Framingham and in Cambridge are to be at grade, with all attendant problems.

4. Your recent article on the virtues of the CSX facility in Atlanta make an excellent case for keeping the Beacon Yards in Allston rather than moving them west, to Worcester, with the increased truck traffic there and within I-495.

With so many last-minute uncertainties and so much at stake, Worcester should think again about these plans, rather than merely cross fingers and wish to make the supposed benefits so.

***********

For the Worcester Telegram's coverage of last night's vote on DOT's plans, see: http://www.telegram.com/article/20100630/NEWS/6300450/1116.

Marilyn Wellons

Day 396, Desolation.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Work.
3. The resident animals.
4. The Bad Guys’ Explanation.

1. Visibility.

I conducted a visibility across from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese at about 1 pm or so on June 22, 2010.

There is definitely not the foot traffic at this hour as during the evening rush, but there was more than yesterday.

People were nice, and the drivers show aggressiveness I have seen in the past.

2. Work.

In contrast to yesterday, I actually saw workers.

The workers have spread themselves out. Destruction of 3/4 of the Nesting Area was as heartless as the behavior which has been tradition from Governor Patrick’s people and from the City of Cambridge. Spreading out their goods did not hide the fact that about have the work area destruction was unnecessary.

3. The resident animals.

The really rotten nature of Governor Patrick’s people and Cambridge comes when you see the condition which has been forced on resident animals.

Their food has been poisoned at Magazine Beach and walled off with introduced vegetation which has no business on the Charles River, but the really rotten behavior is in the tiny ghetto who which the Charles River White Geese have been confined.

All ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed.

What was once lush greenery is now dirt. The green environment was destroyed in stages from about 2003 to the destruction as part of the BU Bridge repairs. There is no coincidence whatsoever that the construction zone destroyed almost all of what was not destroyed in the period 2003 to 2009.

I have posted some good photos in earlier reports and a larger collection of photos appears on the home page of the Charles River White Geese at Facebook.

4. The Bad Guys’ Explanation.

Governor Patrick’s people started their lies before he came into office, nonstop lies of intention to do no harm.

Cambridge’s machine simply tosses out the usual holier than thous that they are protecting the environment. Natuarlly,the somehow neglect to mention their environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse during their pieties.

Really rotten people.

Day 395, No signs of work.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Observations.

1. Visibility.

On June 21, 2010, I leafleted a little after noon in sight of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

Traffic, once again, was quite bad because four lanes have been reduced to two.

There were even less people on the sidewalk than was the situation the day before, on Sunday. Nevertheless, the few people I saw were quite responsive.

2. Observations.

I saw no signs of life with regard to the construction.

There were people using the soccer field.

Day 394 at the Destroyed Nesting Area — The work looks that much more bizarre

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Magazine Beach.
3. Malvina Monteiro.

1. Visibility.

On Sunday, June 20, 2010, I conducted a visibility on the west side of the BU Bridge across from the Destroyed Nesting Area.

It was a little bit past noon on Sunday, and the temperature was in the 80s.

Definitely not a busy time for pedestrians, although, because of the closing of bridge lanes, the car traffic was heavy.

We changed generations of fliers to a slightly different new printing. The new flier tells people about the new Facebook page created by Nick Cheung, a friend of the Charles River White Geese in Maine. As I started passing out the first few of the new fliers, I mentioned friending the Charles River White Geese on Facebook. The comment was well received.

2. Magazine Beach.

The bizarre introduced vegetation gets thicker at the same time as the DCR destroys native protective vegetation everywhere else on the Charles River twice a year.

The poison drainage system looks really very massive, an awful lot of recreation area destroyed simply because Cambridge and the state are so irresponsible as to dump poisons on the banks of the Charles River and then devise a way to drain the poisons off.

The responsible techniques would have been to have meaningful respect for the environment.

There were seven acres of healthy grass which survived without poisons for the better part of a century. That grass would survive one again. All that is necessary is toss on seeds for the responsible grass and stop feeding the poisons to keep the sickly introduced stuff alive.

To make it worse, the sickly introduced stuff seems to be wearing down under whatever little use the playing fields has seen.

3. Malvina Monteiro.

To date the appeal does not seem to have been filed yet. At least the public index does not reflect a case filed this year under her name.

When the case was in Superior Court, membership in the legal profession was needed to get access to the docket. On the appellate level, anybody can get access. The search page is: http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search.php. Just put in Ms. Monteiro’s name and 2010. There are a number of Monteiro cases in the index, but not Malvina, not yet.

Monteiro Appeal Filed by Cambridge

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Today, June 14, 2010, Cambridge filed notice of appeal in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. We have given quite a few reports on this case. The most important case paper can be accessed from the link in the upper right corner which reads: “Monteiro Judge on Cambridge: Reprehensible.”

The following is the notice of appeal from the on line docket. The on line docket uses software which destroyed paragraphing. ALL the below paragraphing is my best guess. To the extent extraneous numbers appear in my quote, please let me know about them. They would be line numbers that I missed in the edit.

Please also note that the software loses a lot of punctuation / emphasis. I have made no attempt to correct these errors.

It is highly likely that the below quote is just the title. There may have been other matters filed as part of the document.


*******

Defendant City of Cambridge's (second renewed) notice of appeal from:

(1) Corrected Amended Final Judgment on Jury Verdict entered on June 4, 2010;

(2) Amended Order of Judgment entered on May 20, 2010;

(3) Memorandum and Order on defendant's motion for reconsideration entered on May 20, 2010;

(4) Memorandum and Order on plaintiff's Petition for award of fees and costs entered on May 20, 2010;

(5) Memorandum and Order on plaintiff's motion to clarify, alter and 8 amend the court's judgment on jury verdicts entered on May 20, 2010, including but not limited to reversal to the previous award of costs 10 to defendant relating to the first trial;

(6) Judgment on jury verdicts entered on June 2, 2009;

(7) Order entered on May 8, 2009 denying the defendant's post-trial motions, including without limitation:

(a) defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict;

(b) Defendant's motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for a remittitur, and

(c) motoin to supplement the record on appeal.

(8) Order from the Bench at the Charge Conference in May, 2008, rejecting defendant's proposed retaliation charge under McCormack v. Boston Edison, and other objections as preserved;

(9) Order denying defendant City of Cambridge's Motion for reconsideration of decision and order on post-trial motions;

(10) Order from the bench denying defendant City of Cambridge's motion for directed verdict dated May 20, 2008;

(11) order from the bench of May 13, 2008 denying defendant's motion for mistrial in connection with the admission of so-called "comparator" evidence;

(12) Implicit orders refusing to consider the defendant's submission of Statement of Authority regarding Everett v. The 357 Corp., filed on April 22, 2009, while giving full consideration to plaintiff's co-called statement of supplemental Authority regarding Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed on December 28, 2009;

(13) Order denying defendant's motion for directed verdict dated February 22, 2005 (first trial);

(14) Order denying defendant's motion for directed verdict and/or reconsideration of the denial of motion for directed verdict dated June 2, 2005, including but not limited to the denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a rule 64 Report (first trial);

(15) order denying motion of defendant City of Cambridge for entry of partial judgment dated August 4, 2005 (first trial); and

(16) January 2005 order from the bench allowing plaintiff Monteiro's motion to amend complaint filed on December 14, 2004 (first trial).

Cambridge School Committee Member Marc McGovern: "Compassion" v. Heartlessness

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn’s Letter to the Editor.
3. The Exchange on Line.
A. Bob #1. Two weeks ago.
B. McGovern #2. Two weeks ago.
C. Bob #2. One week ago.
D. McGovern #3. One week ago.

1. Introduction.

In the June 3, 2010, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle, there was a letter to the editor from Cambridge School Committee Member Marc McGovern.

McGovern communicated a high level of sweetness in calling for compassion in the budget process. Compassion came through a lot more clearly than budget.

In the past, McGovern has printed two letters in the Cambridge Chronicle endorsing the outrage which has since been implemented at Magazine Beach.

McGovern has been disowning any responsibility for anything negative at Magazine Beach ever since.

McGovern’s latest letter was also printed on line. I responded on line. McGovern responded to me. I responded back. McGovern responded back to me.

Marilyn Wellons submitted a letter to the editor aimed at publication in the hard copy edition.

Marilyn’s letter follows. Then follows the on line exchange without the original McGovern letter. My two pieces are my two pieces and I think there would be no problem whatsoever passing them on. McGovern’s responses to me are extremely short and highly relevant to the purposes of this blog. They seem appropriate. The original McGovern letter is too long to print here without very clearly violating the doctrine of fair use, and really, except for the tone, is not relevant to this blog.

2. Marilyn’s Letter to the Editor.

David Harris, Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

To the Editor:

Cambridge School Committeeman McGovern’s letter about the School Department budget and staff firings (“We must never lose our compassion” May 31, 2010) and the subsequent online exchange about his support for the city’s squandering of $1.5M at Magazine Beach sent me to my notes of a telephone call Mr. McGovern made to me last summer, on August 5, 2009.

Campaigning for re-election and apparently stung by my July 23 letter to the Chronicle about the chemically maintained Little League and youth soccer fields that $1.5M was buying, he quickly acknowledged the project was a mistake. I gathered voters, especially parents in the Cambridgeport Little League that he headed, were not happy at the prospect of their children’s exposure to endocrine-disrupting substances.

We had a free and frank exchange of views. He said then, as he does now online, that he had no responsibility for the planning of the project. I challenged that, citing his consistent public support for it individually, as both a Little League official and School Committee candidate, and together with State Rep. Marty Walz. When he claimed he had no knowledge of plans for chemical maintenance, I reminded him with some heat of our conversation at the Dana Park party in June, 2007, when I told him about it and handed him a flyer with that information in writing. On the phone, he pointed to the DCR as responsible for the fields’ maintenance, and when I told him Cambridge would maintain the fields he said that was Paul Ryder’s responsibility, not his.

Money is fungible. Our elected officials have thought $1.5M a reasonable sum to pay to destroy sustainable, naturally maintained playing fields at Magazine Beach, open to all, that were also simultaneously a place for contact with the natural world. What else could that $1.5M (or, say, another $6.9M) have bought, or buy now, to make Mr. McGovern’s call for compassion unnecessary?

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons

[Ed: Marilyn’s mention of $6.9 M refers to the latest counting of the award in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, reported elsewhere in this blog. This is the Chronicle’s quote of the plaintiff’s attorney. In this blog, please note in particular the link referring to a judge calling Cambridge “reprehensible.”]

3. The Exchange on Line.

I start with McGovern #2 counting the originally published letter which I am not reproducing (see above) as #1.

The dates are those posted on line.

A. Bob #1. Two weeks ago.

A very major expenditure that Mr. McGovern has belligerently supported is the bizarre project at Magazine Beach featuring very prominent and very heartless animal abuse. Heartless animal abuse which is a direct result of bizarre expenditure of funds is exactly the opposite of 'compassion.'

I would suggest that Mr. McGovern show compassion. He repeatedly claims that he only has responsibility for the good stuff in this outrageous waste of money. There is no good stuff.

Mr. McGovern could save money at Magazine Beach by stopping the dumping of poisons there. The poisons are there to keep alive introduced grass which cannot survive without lots of money being spent on poisons to keep it alive. Mr. McGovern, at the same time, is poisoning animals feeding off this and poisoning kids rolling in it.

Mr. McGovern can responsibly save money by tossing on the seeds of the grass which survived at Magazine Beach for the better part of a century and did not need poisons to survive. You toss on enough seeds and you no longer have to spend money on poisons to keep alive sickly grass.

At the same time, the beautiful 30 years resident and thus native Charles River White Geese are kept from their primary source of food at Magazine Beach by a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which has not business on the Charles River.

Mr. McGovern's agents at the DCR, twice a year, run around the Charles River destroying native vegetation vegetation, but they do not destroy the bizarre introduced stuff that Mr. McGovern is responsible for.

Boston's Conservation Commission has punished the DCR for its destructiveness toward the native vegetation. The BCC is concerned about resident and visiting water fowl.

I would suggest that Mr. McGovern show compassion and common sense. Have the DCR chop down his introduced vegetation to end its harm to the native water fowl.

The DCR representative has bragged that this stuff keeps away the native water fowl.

My understanding is that Mr. McGovern has a total lack of compassion when it comes to his bizarre project at Magazine Beach.

Shame. 'We must never lose our compassion' is what he says in the next to the last sentence.

Interesting.

B. McGovern #2. Two weeks ago.

I am the president of central division little league. The project you are referring to is being run by DCR. I can't even get them to put a port-a-potty at the field let alone stop their project. You make slanderous and outrageous statements. 'Mr. McGovern is at this time is poisoning animals...' This is untrue and I am demanding that you stop making false allegations. 'Have the DCR chop down HIS introduced vegetation...' I did not introduce anything in this project. I never attended a meeting. I was never asked my opinion and had nothing to do with the planning of this field. I did write two letters thanking the DCR for redoing the little league field. That is all. I will not comment any further on your ridiculous statements.

C. Bob #2. One week ago.

Golly gee. Those lovely letters in the Chronicle must have been fakes, and even after never attending a meeting.

I live and oppose the really rotten situation you have consistently supported.

Have compassion. Undo the outrage you have public[ly] supported and then claim[ed] shock that anybody would blame you.

Give Cambridge open space. Start with the open space you have destroyed at Magazine Beach.

Massive amounts of open space have been destroyed for an expensive drainage system to drain poisons which were not necessary until you destroyed the healthy grass which was there for the better part of a century and replaced it with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive.

Stop the poisons (and stop poisoning kids) by replacing your sickly grass with the native stuff you destroyed. Then you can fill in the poison drainage and give up back the playing fields you destroyed.

Chop down the bizarre wall of vegetation which has no business starving animals, and no business on the Charles River.

Chop down all those bizarre fences.

Oh, and, as usual, the two letters you put in the Chronicle unconditionally supporting this outrage are a fiction and my imagination.

How dare anybody expect you to be responsible a project which you have unconditionally supported.

A project which HAS NO VALUE. Destruction which HAS NO VALUE.

NO, NO, NO.

Small open space is not an improvement. [Ed: Typo, “small” should have been “smaller”.]

Poisoned playing fields are not an improvement.
Show compassion on the kids you have done this to.

Show compassion on the animals you have done this to.

Show compassion on the environement.

And stop the lies that you do no support an outrage to which you gave unconditioned PUBLIC support in the pages of this newspaper.

OUTRAGEOUS.

D. McGovern #3. One week ago.

I said I wrote two letters.

Monteiro judge’s reconsideration memorandum.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

Thank you to the Cambridge Chronicle for posting the key judge’s decision this year on line at http://www.scribd.com/doc/31878327/monteiro, and thank you to Marilyn Wellons for recognizing the link in the Chronicle report, which I missed.

I have traded the key 2009 decision for this decision and attempted to download this decision to my hard drive.

Scribd tells me it downloaded, but my computer tells me it is not there.

This thing is not directly copiable and I now seem to be in some sort of loop.

In any case, the decision is at the above link. Total postings are apparently 16 pages including other papers which I have already posted.

In order to resolve the oddities, I have retyped the memorandum.

My retyping is perfect except for converting double spacing to single. Some specific formatting has been changed by the blog. An extended quote was double indented in the original and my copy. That has been lost. This formatting is replaced by asterisks preceding and following.

The Court's Memorandum on Reconsideration of the Penal Damages award follows:

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. MICV2001-02737


MALVINA MONTEIRO,
Plaintiff

vs.

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE,
Defendant


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Defendant City of Cambridge (“Defendant” or “the City”) has moved for reconsideration of the issue of punitive damages on the basis that the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009) requires that the award be vacated. The City contends that, as a matter of law, “the standard for the award of punitive damages as enunciated in the Haddad decision was not met in this case.” This Court disagrees.

In Haddad, although there was no claim of error in the instructions given on punitive damages, and the SJC found none, the Court nonetheless “[took the] opportunity . . . to set forth a new standard describing the circumstances in which punitive damages may be awarded.” Id. at 110.

**********

To sustain an award of punitive damages under G.L., c. 151B, §4, a finding of intentional discrimination alone is not sufficient. An award of punitive damages requires a heightened finding beyond mere liability and also beyond a knowing violation of the statute. Punitive damages may be awarded only where the defendant’s conduct is outrageous or egregious. Punitive damages are warranted where the conduct is so offensive that it justifies punishment and not merely compensation. In making an award of punitive damages, the fact finder should determine that the awarded is needed to deter such behavior toward the class of which plaintiff is a member, or that the demendant’s behavior is so egregious that it warrants public condemnation and punishment. Id. At 110-111 (citations omitted; emphasis added).

**********

Although the present case pre-dated Haddad, the jury instructions on punitive damages (which were essentially those requested by the City) emphasized the need for the jury to make findings that the conduct was “outrageous” and “extreme” in nature. Therefore, assuming Haddad applies to this case, the jury instructions were consistent with the standard set forth by theSJC. This Court, however, is of the opinion that the SJC’s discussion in Haddad is not applicable here.

The Court in Haddad made it clear that its new enunciated punitive damages standard was to be applied prospectively, that is, it is “to be applied in (1) all claims for punitive damages under G.L., c. 151B commenced after the date of the rescript in this opinion, and (2) all pending claims that have not gone to judgment in the Trial Court by such date.” Id.

The decision does not appy there to a case such as the present case, where the case has been tried, the jury has been instructed and has rendered its verdict, and post-trial motions have been heard and decided. Here, verdicts were returned on May 23, 2008; this Court entered its decision on post-trial motions, which included uphonding the award of punitive damages, on April 24, 2009; a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment was allowed on May 18, 2009; and Final Judgment entered on June 2, 2009. The only matter “pending” at the time of the SJC decision was a Rule 59 motion concerning the form of the judgment. The City’s motion for reconsideration thus has no legal support.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the City’s Motion for Reconsideration of its post trial motions on punitive damages is DENIED.

Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso
Judge of the Superior Court

Date: May 20, 2010