Destruction coming on the Charles River

The vilest thing about Cambridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and their fake groups is their constant lying that they are environmental saints.

I have reported on the imminent and downright silly October 2011 destruction of the core Alewife reservation by these people loudly declaring their environmental sainthood.

The situation is comparable on the Charles River. The proposed destruction makes no more sense. Here are photos of the 105 tree grove at the Memorial Drive split scheduled for decimation. The photos were taken on September 4, 2011. The Memorial Drive split is about a block east of the Hyatt Regency Hotel and perhaps half a mile east of the BU Bridge.















The DCR sought Obama money to decimate this grove and also DESTROY MANY LARGER, also healthy trees.














The lie they used was that they were destroying diseased trees and they put out the same lie responding to a Boston Globe reporter as well.















Marilyn Wellons gave the governor a copy of their application to the Cambridge Conservation Commission which proved the target trees healthy. There were diseased trees on Memorial Drive. They were destroyed five years ago. The governor apparently prevented the Obama money.















It is highly likely now that there is money in the state budget for the Memorial Drive destruction.















But Cambridge, the DCR and their fake groups do not want to know reality. They just want to destroy and lie that they are environmental saints.














Will these be destroyed before Alewife?

A different view on MassDOT — State Hearing on Transportation Delays

1. General.
2. MassDOT complaints.


1. General.

Tuesday evening, September 14, 2011, I attended the state environmental office’s hearing on delays of a number of projects.

Most visible were the Green Line extension to Tufts University in Medford / Somerville and plans to scrap planning for a connection between the Blue Line subway at Government Center / Bowdoin Station to Charles Station at the southern end of the Longfellow Bridge.

Handicapped activists raised long comments against MassDOT’s handling of hearings on the Green Line extension. They supported the delay at least in part based on their claims of misbehavior. A number of people, most associated with Somerville, objected to the delay. It appears that the line will now not be completed prior to 2018, rather than 2015 or so.

MassDOT explained the change as giving in to the inevitable.

I was one of the few commenting on the apparent latest death of the Blue Line — Red Line connector. This short tunnel would get people off the Green Line between Government Center and Park Street stations in Boston and eliminate one transfer in making changes between the two lines. This would clearly be a great improvement for people who need to go related routes. It be an improvement in reducing congestion in the core subway.

The stated reason for this was lack of apparent future funding to go forward.

Green Line supporters blamed funding problems on highway costs (the Big Dig) being improperly allocated to the MBTA.

When I was done, both sides on the Green Line dispute thanked me for my comments defending the Blue Line — Red Line connector.

2. MassDOT complaints.

At the end of the meeting, I explained to both MassDOT and to the objectors that I had been tempted to speak in defense of MassDOT based on my experiences on the Charles River. I did not do so because the comment would be solely attacks on Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation and would not really have relevance to MassDOT.

Nevertheless, MassDOT has been a breath of fresh air in the really rotten situation in Cambridge.

The outrageously destructive behavior of Cambridge and the DCR has been beneath contempt. Their goals are “reprehensible” and demonstrate “outrageous misbehavior”, to quote the Superior and Appeals Courts on Monteiro. Their tactics are comparable. The most recent secret public meeting on the impending destruction of the Alewife reservation is just one sample.

The fake group which has fought for the destruction of the core reservation for 15 to 20 years was created after consultation with the Cambridge Development Department. I was at her initial organizing meeting. She clearly admitted it.

The fake neighborhood association fighting for the destruction of the Charles River admits to being created at the request of the Cambridge City Manager.

The first of these fake groups, in the central city was likewise created working with the City Manager’s people and has done a lot of harm.

A multitude of organizations run around praising / fighting for destructive behavior by the city and clearly work closely with the city.

They work together and praise each other, frequently stating goals exactly the opposite of reality. Formal proposals commonly have fine print belying lovely claims.

False statements out of the DCR and its predecessor have been legion.

The lies out of the City of Cambridge are usually more sophisticated than from the DCR, but when it counts flat out lying is not surprising. An excellent example is the lie that the only option on the Urban Ring rapid transit proposal is Cambridge’s silly and destructive streetcar route. I proposed the Kenmore Crossing seven years befer it was adopted as a formal option by the state. I can provide the state’s maps of the two option. It is still on the table and has been funded by $10 million from the state for Yawkey Station in a location only working with the Kenmore Crossing. Yet Cambridge’s friends keep on putting out the lie.

It should not be necessary to disprove flat out lies. In Cambridge and in dealing with the DCR, it is commonly necessary.

The folks in these destructive groups clearly work together and have a number of other so called community entities which spout the nonsense coming out of Cambridge / the DCR. These people are clearly friends with each other, and these entities work for each other’s goals. They commonly give themselves lovely (and frequently flat out false) names.

They have done a lot of harm and are fighting for even more harm with commonly bizarre projects.

MassDOT has conducted responsibly located meetings and a lot of them. MassDOT has meaningfully stood up to people fighting for destruction.

I have well earned contempt for Cambridge and the DCR.

I have respect for MassDOT.

Cambridge Day: City of Cambridge Pays $8.3 million to Monteiro

Cambridge Day reports that, by transmittal latter dated Friday, Cambridge satisfied its legal obligations to Malvina Monteiro. Payment was probably made by wire transfer.

As I reported yesterday, the final pretrial hearing on the last two plaintiffs in this originally 5 plaintiff case have been delayed yet another month, to October 11, at 2 pm in Middlesex Superior Court, room / session F.

Monteiro’s victory was based on retaliation. My apparently knowledgeable source on Monday described a continuing pattern of behavior. Whether the retaliation victory will translate into large payments to the last two plaintiffs rather than trial is yet to be seen. My understanding is that the first two plaintiffs got good payments.

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/09/13/monteiro-lawyer-have-8-3-million-from-city/

Cambridge Day: Tree Lover Gave an Explosive Start to City Council meeting

Cambridge Day reports Judy Johnson indulging in a strong attack on Denise Simmons for destruction of trees at the beginning of the September 12, 2011 Cambridge City Council meeting.

Johnson is a repeated accomplice of the woman who has been fighting for destruction of the core Alewife reservation while loudly claiming to be defending Alewife.

Johnson need to go no farther than a mirror to see where tree destruction problems exist.

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/09/12/public-comment-starts-council-meeting-with-bang-crash-boom/

Final Monteiro plaintiffs — Key Hearing Postponed Again

The final pretrial hearing for the final two of the five Monteiro plaintiffs has been postponed again.

This time it has been rescheduled from tomorrow, September 14 to October 11, 2011, 2 pm in session (courtroom) F at the Middlesex Superior Court.

My source, confirmed from the docket, never wants to be credited.

He says he has been following the cases pretty much from the beginning and that a clear pattern of harassment among between the five plaintiffs.

New City Manager for Cambridge, MA, USA? Minka vonBeuzecom and Tim Toomey

1. General.
2. Minka vonBeuzecom.
3. Tim Toomey
4. Prior Reports.


1. General.

The situation in Cambridge, MA, USA is outrageous.

Environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse by government on the Charles River is bizarre and getting worse.

The city and its friends in the state are preparing to destroy the last virgin forest, the core Alewife reservation, for flood storage that is patently silly. They are protecting against a two year flood in an area that has seen two 50 year floods in the last 20 years. Directly across the street from their destruction is a massive parking lot that can handle a multiple of the flooding. It is impossible to call the explanation serious.

Informed analyses by non-insiders have a tendency to communicate shock.

Judge, jury and appeals court panel have evaluated Cambridge’s treatment of a black, Cape Verdean department head with extreme displeasure. They have found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed her life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The jury spoke with $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.

The judge reaffirmed the jury in an opinion which quoted the Cambridge City Manager’s testimony extensively. She called him “reprehensible.”

The appeals court panel reacted to Cambridge’s appeal with disgust, refusing to honor the appeal with a full fledged opinion. They commented that there was “ample evidence [of] outrageous misbehavior.

The cost of the case to Cambridge now seems to be approaching $8 million and estimates are frequently presented that total cost will approach $10 million.

The Cambridge Chronicle’s editorial, posted on August 18, 2011, at : http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1852620823/Editorial-A-multimillion-dollar-gamble#axzz1VBaL41vk, seems to go both ways on whether the City Manager should leave.

My personal opinion is that the binding judicial decision seems to indicate that the Cambridge City Manager should be fired without his golden parachute and probably without pension. The latter would be an extension of existing law, but the case is ideal to extend the law. I think the courts have reached an excellent opinion.

The election season is here.

The Cambridge Chronicle is asking candidates: “Do you think it is time for a new City Manger?”

I will be reporting on the answers with links to the complete comments.

2. Minka vonBeuzecom.

Minka vonBeuzecom was quoted in the September 8, 2011 edition on page 19. Her comments are posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1069115254/Cambridge-Election-2011-Meet-the-Candidates-Minka-vanBeuzekom#axzz1XYbbI8Wr.

Mr. vonBeuzecom makes no comment on Monteiro, on the $8 to $10 million cost, or on the judicial findings and orders.

A brief summary of her answer is: “The Council is obligated to objectively evaluate [Healy's] performance, his cost to the city and whether extending his contract for three additional years is warranted. I do not believe the Council has fulfilled their obligation nor have they communicated their objective evaluations."

3. Tim Toomey.

Toomey was quoted in the September 8, 2011 edition on page 19. His comments are posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1638750470/Cambridge-Election-2011-Meet-the-Candidates-Tim-Toomey#axzz1XNscf1TP.

Toomey is an incumbent. He was apparently uninterested when another member of the Council attempted to get the Council to obtain independent opinion on whether an appeal should be conducted in Monteiro. Toomey is part of the very bad Cambridge City Council environmental package. He has a terrible environmental record where it is meaningful.

His answer to the question is negative. "If the City Manager were to ask for another contract, I would certainly welcome having him . . ."

His comments rather clearly communicate that the Monteiro decision does not exist.

4. Prior Reports.

Tom Stohlman and Sam Seidel: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-city-manager-for-cambridge-ma-usa.html.

Alewife destruction meeting good primer on Cambridge con games

1. Introduction.
2. The person with the greatest individual guilt.
3. The folks from Arlington.
4. Marilyn Wellons.
5. Other individual.
6. Summary.



1. Introduction.

The secret public meeting on the imminent destruction of the Alewife reservation was an excellent primer on how the Cambridge Pol games work.

There were a few non suits in the room.

Off the top of my head, I count six speakers.

2. The person with the greatest individual guilt.

One of the six spoke in glowing terms of the project. She was the only non suit in the room who glowed about the project.

But this woman has run around for 15 or 20 years loudly yelling her non stop opposition to destruction of the Alewife reservation.

Fine print: She has consistently fought against peripheral destruction by private parties.

This was destruction of the core reservation, destruction, downright silly and irresponsible, by her friends.

The common reaction to so much behavior by core Cambridge Pols has to be: “You cannot possibly be that stupid.”

This person, in my opinion, in the one person most responsible for the imminent destruction of the excellent core Alewife reservation, its massive native trees and its uncountable numbers of animals with almost certain killing of most of the animals.

She is guilty because she got concerned people to fight against far less important destruction, fights which were real long shot. She is guilty because she kept concerned people from attacking the real rotters: an irresponsible but highly self righteous city council which has a significant proportion lying that they are pro environment.

She distracted people and protected the real bad people from their own behavior.

Pretty non stop lies on environmental sainthood make these nine destructive city councilors highly vulnerable. The con game that has gone on at Alewife told people non stop to look at everybody except for the real rotters, the hypocrites on the Cambridge City Council running around lying that they are environmental saints.

3. The folks from Arlington.

One woman I have known for nearly 30 years, since I lived about a mile from the Alewife reservation.

She gave an excellent speech.

When I asked her to put it in writing to be reproduced on these pages, she, as usual, refused to do so. It is not her sort of thing.

She is perfectly happy to have a great sounding con artist (amply proven by her comments at the meeting) run around loudly “protecting” everything except what counts most, “protecting” everything except the fight which was most winnable. The con artist keeps sounding so good, but somehow just cannot behave properly on the important stuff.

The woman from Arlington is an excellent example of the common people victimized by the Cambridge Pols. She has done a great job communicating the extreme irresponsibility of Cambridge and the state bureaucrats in small meetings, but she will not take the next step.

The Cambridge Pols sound so good and deliver so bad, but the “little guy” defers to the ones who can be bothered, and the ones who can be bothered altogether too often are on the wrong side.

A second woman who spoke excellently commented when I spoke to her: What could she do? They had lost the lawsuit.

This is another con game. Keep the victims busy. Keep them chasing their tails. Let them spend years suing over something peripheral and get other people involved.

As long as the Cambridge Pols keep well meaning people away from the real game which is that rotten city council, the Cambridge Pols have done their job.

4. Marilyn Wellons.

Excellent job of speaking, excellent. I have encouraged her to put her comments into words. She has full access to both the Blog and the facebook page.

5. Other individual.

This person was the source of the information that the “flood plain” being created would only protect against two year storms. This fact was admitted by the suits.

I would love to credit him for that comment.

The trouble is that over the years, he has made many excellent comments, but he has, to a very high degree if not more, very consistently been part of the Cambridge Pols machine and their very destructive behavior.

In Cambridge, you cannot tell the difference between the knaves and the fools. It is possible, however, to be aware of their records.

6. Summary.

A really rotten city government kept in power by a really destructive organization which protects them from their record.

It is impossible to distinguish between the knaves and the fools, and really irrelevant.

It is really impossible to distinguish between lies, lack of knowledge, and stupidity, and really irrelevant.

The rotten city government gets away with these terrible things because people object but are overwhelmed by destructive tactics of a massive, lying, destructive machine.

This is Cambridge, MA, USA.

Cambridge Chronicle: Cambridge Mayor refuses to provide access to Monteiro records, other Monteiro updates

The Cambridge Chronicle has posted on line its report on its attempts to see the records of the city council’s closed door deliberations on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

The mayor has refused access.

The URL of the story is: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/features/x1069113308/Cambridge-Mayor-blocks-Monteiro-records#axzz1XNscf1TP.

In other related action, Monteiro’s attorneys have filed papers with the Appeals Court to obtain payment by Cambridge for Cambridge’s appeal of the Monteiro decision in Superior Court.

This coming Wednesday, September 14, 2011, at 2 pm, the Middlesex Superior Court will conduct a final pretrial hearing on the last two plaintiffs in the Monteiro case.

FLASH REPORT: Cambridge, DCR to destroy Alewife reservation “in October” for flood protection against a TWO YEAR storm

Last night, September 7, 2011, Cambridge and Massachusetts’ Department of Conservation and Recreation announced they would take one month to clear cut the core Alewife reservation, destroying all the massive trees there and all the wildlife while loudly proclaiming their concern for the environment and wildlife.

Logging was announced to start in October 2011 with construction to be completed in 2013, but, while they loudly proclaimed their concern for wildlife, wildlife which they do not kill outright would be kept from “returning” until their lovely new park gets a chance to regrow.

The fancy new park being created will protect against the worst storm likely to occur every two years, called a two year storm. The destroyers did a lot of self congratulation on the expensive new system to protect against two year storms.

The area has seen two fifty year storms in the last twenty years.

Directly across the street, Cambridge Park Drive, is a massive parking lot which could readily hold much greater flooding than the two year storms they are so destructively protecting against.

Marilyn Wellons made an excellent presentation, supporting use of the parking lot for the flood storage, and pointing out the silliness (excessively positive word) of the DCR/Cambridge destruction. She stated there are excess Community Preservation Act moneys available could be used on a responsible version of the project. My comments at the meeting are included in this posting.

But, in the Cambridge tradition, Cambridge and the state has had the usual fake organization running protection for the destruction. The creator of this fake organization has been running around for fifteen years loudly proclaiming her love for Alewife and telling everybody to protect against everything except for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation by her friends.

She spent considerable time telling people how beautiful the dead replacement facility will be.

The presentation was done to a room which had far more suits in it than people concerned about the environment.

In the DCR tradition so clearly shown at the BU Bridge, the meeting was conducted in a blatantly inconvenient location for the people most directly affected, an auditorium on the far side of one or two large bodies of water, two miles from the destruction. There is a frequently used auditorium in the middle of the victims and convenient to almost all the other HUMAN victims, .9 miles down the street from the destruction site.

To make things worse, the acoustics were terrible. But the DCR and Cambridge checked the proper boxes.

The event made me lonely for reality as demonstrated in Monteiro v. Cambridge. There, truly responsible institutions looked at Cambridge and intoned: “outrageous misbehavior,” “reprehensible,” and $3.5 million penal damages.

Nothing different at Alewife.

They even made pious noises declaring their sainthood.

Environmental Secretary: Harvard Business School expansion on Charles allowed without review

This week’s Environmental Monitor provides a notice (http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepacerts/2011/sc/ad/harvardao.pdf) that Harvard can build in the last open space facing the Charles in the Harvard Business School for “Tata Hall.” No environmental review will be required.

This construction would create pretty much a continuous row of buildings facing the Charles River on the south side (Boston / Allston) between the Anderson Bridge and the Western Avenue Bridge, filling in what has been a nice lawn.

Clarification of candidate’s night question concerning Cambridge City Manager

I have just read the Cambridge Chronicle’s on line report, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x488549132/Cambridge-city-manager-becomes-an-issue-at-candidate-debate#axzz1XC8mzarb concerning the candidates night last Wednesday, August 31, 2011. I have commented on the Cambridge Day report of this event at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/cambridge-day-city-manager-is-key-issue.html.

There is a key difference in the approach of the two reports from my perspective. Cambridge Day’s report was marked preliminary, and Cambridge Day does a very good job getting things out fast. The difference between the reports can come from editing for space, and really most people would not be reading the report with the legal eye I am applying to it. You simply cannot expect legal perfection in a news report.

The Cambridge Chronicle’s report did provide the exact wording of the question being answered: “Lesley Phillips, chair of the Ward 6 Committee, . . said Healy’s performance, compensation and tenure has recently become a subject of attention. She asked the candidates, if they were to be elected, what would be their position on any potential extension of Healy’s contract.”

So the failure to talk to whether or not Healy should be fired for malfeasance in office was really not in front of the candidates.

I would very strongly suggest, however, a responsible candidate talking on this subject really should note that Healy’s malfeasance in office AS DETERMINED BY COURT WITH APPEAL makes him ripe for firing under very severe conditions. But then again, this is Cambridge, MA, USA. Reality is commonly irrelevant in political discussions.

Longwood Medical Area / Windsor School Environmental Certificate Impacts Charles River by protecting Urban Ring Planning.

1. Introduction.
2. The Urban Ring.
A. General.
B. Urban Ring — Orange Line.
C. Urban Ring — Street Cars.
D. Urban Ring — Silly Bus Proposal.
E. Impact of the ENF.
3. Grand Junction.
4. Urban Ring is not dead.


1. Introduction.

The situation on the Charles River is a massive nightmare. There is so much going on, and much of it has value, and can be done responsibly.

The problem is that the destructive people keep warping good things into bad.

On August 5, the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs issued a certificate saying that expansion by The Winsor School does not require the submission of an Environmental Impact Report. The decision is posted at http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepacerts/2011/sc/enf/14720eenf.pdf.

Windsor School does not directly impact the Charles, BUT the secretary includes allowances, at pages 8 and 9, for the Urban Ring.

The comment indicates that the Winsor School project will not interfere with Urban Ring tunnel plans.

2. The Urban Ring.

A. General.

This is the game, and a very nasty game, as usual, when destructive people get involved.

If you listen to City of Cambridge related people and organizations they influence, you would be given the impression that there is one and only one possible Urban Ring route.

The very major trouble is that, like too many things with City of Cambridge friends running around, that is a very false statement.

There are two possible Urban Ring alternatives. The one the City of Cambridge and friends are fighting for is inferior from a transportation and environmental point of view. It is quite destructive to the Charles River.

The responsible alternative has received state funding for a key part of the package, making the City of Cambridge’s “only one route” nonsense that much more irresponsible.

The Urban Ring is a subway line proposal that I have been working on since about 1985.

The responsible alternative I initially proposed in about 1986. It was formerly adopted as one of two alternatives in 1991 or so.

The basic concept is an alternate subway line to get people off the central Boston subway. It would connect from Roxbury / the Orange Line through the Longwood Medical Area through the area in dispute to Cambridge Kendall station / the Red Line to Cambridge Lechmere station / the Green Line and then to Boston Charlestown / the Orange Line.

The proposal was initiated as Heavy Rail subway / Orange Line. The problem area is between an agreed upon stop at MIT / Mass. Ave. / the Grand Junction Railroad crossing on one end, and the Longwood Medical Area at the other end.

B. Urban Ring — Orange Line.

The responsible Orange Line proposal would run under the MIT playing fields and the Charles River to a new station next to Kenmore Square, and then to the Longwood Medical Area at Louis Pasteur and Longwood.

That new station next to Kenmore is key.

It would be located under Brookline Avenue over the Massachusetts Turnpike, a few hundred at most from Fenway Park. On one end, it would provide an underground connection to the Green Line station at Kenmore Station with its three branches to Brookline and Brighton on one side and its connection to downtown / Back Bay on the other. The Urban Ring Station would connect in the other direction to Framingham / Worcester commuters and Yawkey Station.

The physical arrangement would provide ideal covered connections for rail commuters to the Urban Ring and the Green Line, plus provide excellent connection to Fenway Park.

The legislature has subsidized this arrangement with about $10 million to upgrade Yawkey Station.

An initial phase could connect downtown Orange Line trains to Longwood Medical Area and Kenmore Station by a spur ending at this new station, giving excellent service to the Longwood Medical Area, one of the big reasons for the route and one of the most important centers of employment and services in the state.

C. Urban Ring — Street Cars.

Cambridge and its friends are pushing the original alignment, lying that this is the only proposal on the table.

Their streetcar proposal would continue along the Grand Junction railroad rather than going under the playing fields. It would devastate the banks of the Charles and the habitat of the Charles River White Geese.

Instead of one station, it would have two, one at Mountfort and St. Mary’s, and one under Park Drive between Beacon Street and Longwood Station.

The proposal would move Yawkey Station away from Fenway Park and Kenmore Station so that it abuts the station in the Mountfort / St. Mary’s area.

This moving of Yawkey Station has rather clearly been forgone by the state funding of upgrades in the current location of Yawkey Station.

Mountfort / St. Mary’s is a block from and within sight of Boston University’s Marsh Chapel, the center of the BU campus.

Commuter rail passengers, rather than having covered connections to all Brookline / Brighton Green Line Branches and to the Urban Ring would have to transfer at one of the two stations.

Mountfort / St. Mary’s would connect to ONE Green Line Branch at the BU Central stop by means of a tunnel under St. Mary’s street which would drop them on the south sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue and they would walk through all kind of traffic and weather to one of the branches.

The Park Drive station would provide connection to the Riverside Green Line branch in one direction and the Beacon Street Green Line branch in the other direction by a yet another new station under Beacon Street.

So the Cambridge proposal would provide inferior transportation to the Orange Line proposal for people wanting an alternative to going downtown, streetcars v. full scale heavy rail subway, and it would be inferior for commuter rail going into Boston, and it would be far worse for Fenway Park connection, and the $10 million upgrade to Yawkey is very close to a death knell.

D. Urban Ring — Silly Bus Proposal.

The bureaucracy is pushing buses as an interim phase of the Urban Ring.

The trouble is that while buses can make excellent sense in outer locations, they are very much silly in the area of the Charles.

What makes sense in the area of the Charles is the Orange Line proposal.

The Longwood Medical Area people have put into the Urban Ring bus proposal an underground bus tunnel. It would be way underground in parts. At one end it would ALMOST go to Ruggles Station. In the middle, it would provide the station at Louis Pasteur and Longwood. At the other end, the exact route gets vague. It ends almost at Yawkey Station, and the bus proposals run around it.

This proposal is silly for buses, but makes excellent sense connected to Ruggles at one end and to the Urban Ring station between Yawkey and Kenmore at the other end, with direct downtown connection and Orange Line trains.

E. Impact of the ENF.

The Expended ENF Certificate is based on assurances from Winsor School that their project will not impact the bus tunnel which makes excellent sense as the Urban Ring Phase 1 connecting downtown to Longwood Medical Area and Kenmore.

3. Grand Junction.

I have spent a lot of time discussing Cambridge’s maneuvers on the Grand Junction.

If Cambridge can move ALL the Worcester / Framingham commuters to the Grand Junction, they will render Yawkey Station and its $10 million upgrade meaningless because none of the commuters would be going through there. And that would help their silly and environmentally destructive streetcar proposal. One step at a time, first they move a few, then they move the rest.

4. Urban Ring is not dead.

The Secretary very clearly left that tunnel in play in the Winsor School planning.

Cambridge Day: city manager is key issue in council candidates forum.

Maybe I should start hanging around to see what goes on in these candidate nights, rather than just leafleting and running.

Cambridge Day reports a bunch of non incumbents talked about replacing the Cambridge city manager at the August 31 forum. They report two incumbents praising the city manager.

The strongest quoted comment was from Minka vonBeuzekom, “I feel there’s been a violation of that public trust.”

The trouble is that nobody, including vonB seemed to be interested in implementing the decision of the Superior Court judge and jury and the Appeals Court panel. The report includes nobody calling to fire him for malfeasance in office documented by appellate decision.

I will consider hanging around in the future, but with the strongest comment being vonB’s, I am not at all certain it is worth my time. Great words, typical Cambridge implementation. Too much more of the same.

Please see the full report at: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/09/01/city-manager-is-key-issue-in-council-candidates-forum/.

Planned Coverage of the Cambridge, MA, USA Election

My environmental concerns on the Charles and in the area very clearly are rooted in the rotten situation in Cambridge.

It is beginning to look like the Cambridge Pols are going to treat the Appeals Court / Superior Court orders in Monteiro as they treat pretty much everything else which accurately and negatively describes the situation in Cambridge: ignore it and continue to run around calling themselves saints.

I will follow the Cambridge Chronicle series on ending the reign of the Cambridge City Manager because the Chronicle is doing something positive, and might actually achieve something.

I started looking around campaign related sites to see if I could find reports more directly meaningful on real environmental issues.

One site has been publishing positions by candidates for years now.

It was interesting to note that only one candidate, so far, has answered the questions this year.

That candidate both impresses me and scares me.

Thinking the situation over, while I will comment on the Cambridge Chronicle series, I will likely avoid specific candidates and evaluating organizations unless there is reason to cover them.

This is based on the analysis of this candidate, who is not an incumbent but looks like a very major candidate.

The candidate has meaningful campaign experience managing campaigns. He also claims to have environmental experience.

His connection to Cambridge City Councilor Davis stands out too strongly.

Davis has looked like the most environmentally destructive member of the Cambridge City Council while loudly, and very much non stop, calling herself a saint on environmental issues.

The pitch is she is saving the world and how dare you object to her destroying Cambridge. This is the standard pitch. It is very destructive and distressingly effective at least in part because it is backed by the pretty much non stop propaganda of the massive Cambridge Pol organization.

I will try to elaborate on the environmental destructiveness of the City of Cambridge and its various related organizations in future reports.

Please just be advised that, during the election season, I only specifically intend to follow the issue of the Cambridge City Manager’s tenure in light of the opinion of jury, Superior Court judge and Appeals Court panel.

I have better things to do than try to evaluate degrees of destructiveness of too many people who are simply too destructive, whether from indifference, stupidity or from inherent rottenness. I would be very pleased to be proven wrong.

New City Manager for Cambridge, MA, USA? Stohlman and Seidel

1. General.
2. Tom Stohlman.
3. Sam Seidel.


1. General.

The situation in Cambridge, MA, USA is outrageous. Environmental destruction by government on the Charles River is bizarre and getting worse. The city and its friends in the state are preparing to destroy the last virgin forest, the core Alewife reservation, for flood storage that belongs under a massive parking lot across the street.

Informed analyses by non-insiders have a tendency to communicate shock.

Judge, jury and appeals court panel have evaluated Cambridge’s treatment of a black, Cape Verdean department head with extreme displeasure. They have found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed her life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.

The jury spoke with $1.1 million real damages and $3.5 million penal damages.

The judge reaffirmed the jury in an opinion which quoted the Cambridge City Manager’s testimony extensively. She called him “reprehensible.”

The appeals court panel reacted to Cambridge’s appeal with disgust, refusing to honor the appeal with a full fledged opinion. They commented that there was “ample evidence [of] outrageous misbehavior.

The cost of the case to Cambridge now seems to be approaching $8 million.

The Cambridge Chronicle’s editorial, posted on August 18, 2011, at : http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1852620823/Editorial-A-multimillion-dollar-gamble#axzz1VBaL41vk, seems to go both ways on whether the City Manager should leave.

My personal opinion is that the binding judicial decision seems to indicate that the Cambridge City Manager should be fired without his golden parachute and probably without pension. The latter would be an extension of existing law, but the case is ideal to extend the law. I think the courts have reached an excellent opinion.

The election season is here.

The Cambridge Chronicle is asking candidates: “Do you think it is time for a new City Manger?"

I will be reporting on the answers with links to the complete comments.

2. Tom Stohlman.

Stohlman was quoted in the September 1, 2011 edition. His comments are posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1038224447/Cambridge-Election-2011-Meet-the-Candidates#axzz1WqAyIFpn.

Mr. Stohlman makes no comment on Monteiro, on the $8 million cost, or on the judicial findings and orders.

A brief summary of his answer is: Yes. Yes. "Let's get to it, and hope we can do as good a job as the Cambridge City Council did in 1981."

3. Sam Seidel.

Seidel was quoted in the September 1, 2011 edition. His comments are posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x488547915/Cambridge-Election-2011-Meet-the-Candidates#axzz1WqAyIFpn.

Seidel is an incumbent. He was apparently uninterested when another member of the Council attempted to get the Council to obtain independent opinion on whether an appeal should be conducted in Monteiro. Seidel has a terrible environmental record where it is meaningful. He calls himself an environmentalist.

His answer to the question is negative. "Over a long career, the City Manager has led Cambridge effectively through many challenges while improving the overall performance of city government and I do not seek to replace him in the next two years."

His comments rather clearly communicate that the Monteiro decision does not exist.

Public “input” scheduled, as fake as can be managed, concerning Alewife destruction.

Next Wednesday, September 6, 2011, at 6:30 pm, Cambridge, MA will do a presentation at 680 Huron Street, Cambridge.

This is the usual game: conduct the “public meeting” as inconveniently as possible, to prevent meaningful discussion. The topic is the planned destruction of the Alewife reservation. They want to yell that they have had public discussion while preventing, as much as possible, knowledge.

This follows on 15 years of using a fake “protective” group to tell well being people to look at everything but the destruction of the core reservation.

I agree with the Middlesex County Superior Court on behavior by this government: “reprehensible.”

I agree with the Massachusetts Appeals Court panel on behavior by this government: “ample evidence [of] outrageous misbehavior.”

And the pols are running around seeking reelection based on the lie that they are pro environment. Oh, and they are running away from the court decisions as well.

For photos of PRELIMINARY destruction, and a further link to satellite view, please see the following link. Look in particular at the photo of the massive parking lot where flood storage should go. This massive parking lot is across the street from the virgin woodland being needlessly destroyed.

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/destruction-of-alewife-pre-cambridge.html

Cher responds to Jeff and Archie, history of the Charles

Hi Bob,

I just read your letter to the man who provided that wonderfully interesting information, Jeff. I certainly hope that we can get more of this posted for all to see. For those who do not think that the reason you are doing this is or rather are, sufficient to win them over, than perhaps their reading a historical narrative may vastly change their opinion on the matter. Different strokes for different folks is all I am saying, and whatever it takes, is all that matters.

Reading about just that little bit of historical trivia places an even more important reason to save the land and geese and to keep the waterways pristine. Did Jeff write an article for the newspapers or did you or someone else?

I’ve not been able to keep abreast of things. I would love to see such an article if it hasn’t been done and maybe even a series, or even on the blog, maybe you could do trivia questions etc. to engage people. It may generate interest of many who are not currently involved. I hope that if you are doing this already youwil just ignore me but since I am so far behind on what is going on had to just state this as it seems such a wonderful idea. I will take the risk of thinking you haven’t thought of it alreasdy since you are writing about it. LOL regardless, its brilliant of you to start posting about the history of the area, just brilliant.

Keep up the good work.

The Charles River, the Harvard Bridge, Paul Revere and our History

1. Introduction.
2. Bridge and Charles River Ferry / Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:30:53 pm, EDT.
3. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:47:16 pm, EDT
4. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011 10:07:49 PM EDT
5. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 29, 2011, 6:59 am.



1. Introduction.

On September 28, 2011, I posted a response by Jeff purporting to correct history put on this Blog by Archie Mazmanian, at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/correction-on-charles-river-bridges.html.

Archie has responded in detail.

2. Bridge and Charles River Ferry / Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:30:53 pm, EDT.

Here is a link to Wikipedia on the Harvard Bridge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge

that indicates it was built in 1891.

See also "List of crossings of the Charles River" at:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/List_of_crossings_of_the_Charles_River

at page 2 for details on the Harvard Bridge. Also note on the same page "Anderson Memorial Bridge (Great Bridge (Cambridge)>Great Bridge)". A review of this List fails to disclose a 1775 bridge crossing the Charles River. Perhaps Jeff can provide more details for his claim.

Regarding Paul Revere, it is possible that he did not use the ferry operated by Harvard. I shall follow up with more research. But perhaps Jeff can provide a cite for his claim.

3. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011, 9:47:16 pm, EDT

Here's a link that provides the "true story" of Paul Revere's ride in Revere's words:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/revere/chapt3/

It is necessary to scroll down to get to Revere's words. It appears he crossed from Boston to Charlestown in his own boat, rowed by friends, but without his horse. Rather, he obtained a horse in Charlestown. So technically, while Revere's "trip" to Concord began in Boston, his "ride" began in Charlestown.

I trust this helps to clarify the matter.

4. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 28, 2011 10:07:49 PM EDT

Further on Revere, here's a link to "The Real Story of Revere's Ride" at:

http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html

This link includes a map/sketch depicting the routes of Revere, Dawes and the British. It is not clear from this map/sketch whether the British crossed a bridge over the Charles. As noted in an earlier Email, it is not clear that a bridge then existed where the Harvard Bridge is now located.

In any event, it should be kept in mind that Part VII of my series was primarily focused on Harvard University and its profitable ferry and the much later Charles River Bridge case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and raising the question of future crossings of the Charles River if the Commonwealth's chartering of the Warren Bridge were determined to have violated claimed exclusive rights of the Charles River Bridge (from which Harvard University was receiving annuities).

5. Bridge and Charles River Ferry/Revere, August 29, 2011, 6:59 am.

Further on the British, here is a link to the New World Encyclopedia "Battles of Lexington and Concord":

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord#British_Army_and_Marines_move_out

Scroll down to "1.3 British Army and Marines move out" for how they crossed the Charles by boat to Cambridge:

"The British began to awaken their troops at 9 p.m. on the night of April 18 and assembled them on the water's edge on the western end of Boston common by 10 p.m. The British march to and from Concord was a terribly disorganized experience from start to finish. The boats used were naval barges that were packed so tightly that there was no room to sit down. When they disembarked at Phipps Farm in present day Cambridge, it was into waist-deep water at midnight. After a lengthy halt to unload their gear, the approximately 700 regulars began their 17 mile (27 km) march to Concord at about 2 a.m. During the wait they were provided with extra ammunition, cold salt pork, and hard sea biscuits. They did not carry knapsacks, since they would not be encamped. They carried their haversacks (food bags), canteens, muskets, and accoutrements, and found themselves in wet, muddy shoes and soggy uniforms. As they marched through Menotomy (modern Arlington), sounds of the colonial alarms throughout the countryside caused the few officers who were aware of their mission to realize that they had lost the element of surprise."

Longfellow's "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" was significantly fictionalized. As to the "One if by land, Two if by sea," apparently the "sea" was the Charles River, which at the time was a tidal river, of course quite different in its contours from the present.

Correction on Charles River Bridges

The following is from Jeff, in response to Archie’s posting:

*********

In 1775 there was the "Great Bridge" that existed where the present day Harvard Bridge is. The Brits crossed it on their march to Lexington - Percy's reinforcements did.

I say this in response to you saying there were no bridges to the north - although of course the Harvard bridge would have been a mile or two upstream from where Revere crossed.

Revere did not use the Charlestown Ferry to cross the Charles River. He had his own boat and 2 friends rowed him across but he did not take the Charlestown Ferry though he crossed in that area.

*********

Ed.: For the non-experts, the Harvard Bridge is the correct name for the Mass. Ave. bridge which connects Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge to Massachusetts Avenue in Boston / Back Bay. This is the first bridge to the east over the Charles from the BU Bridge.

The bridge which connects the main Harvard Campus / Harvard Square, Cambridge to the Harvard Business School / the Allston neighborhood of Boston is the Anderson Bridge.

Cambridge / DCR announce secret “public meeting” on Alewife destruction

1. Secret Location.
2. Announcement.
3. The record.

1. Secret Location.

The City of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation have announced a “public meeting” on the massive destruction schedule for the core Alewife Reservation. They have located the meeting so as to keep it as secret as possible.

The meeting location is 1.9 miles from the destruction site in a strikingly different part of the city of Cambridge at a meeting location which is badly served by public transportation, especially if you are coming from the area most impacted by the destruction.

The location is 680 Huron Avenue, 1.9 miles from the destruction site. It is on the far side of the Fresh Pond Reservation. People concerned about the project who want to make the meeting will be required to take public transportation into Harvard Square (bus or subway) and then take another bus out. The service which goes past the location is an alternate route to a route which does not have particularly good service in the first place.

By contrast, the Peabody Elementary School is less than half the distance, .9 miles. It is on the same road as the proposed destruction and is a short distance from the 77 line which has very frequent service. It is also walking distance from Alewife Station which abuts the planned destruction. It is in the middle of the people most impacted by the destruction and convenient for folks in Arlington who are even closer.

Peabody has a large auditorium which has frequently been used for public meetings.

2. Announcement.

The city’s announcement may be read at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/citycalendar/view.aspx?guid={DAF66B39-7BC0-482E-897B-9AA279D50B79}&start=20110907T183000&end=20110907T200000.

I tried to get a link to the actual announcement, but that seems to have been prevented (surprise?). You need to follow the link and click on the blued “meeting notice.”

There is a map of the planned destruction but no plans of what is being destroyed. The City Manager brags that he only needs to tell people about what he is creating. How dare anybody expect him to tell what he is destroying.

Take Google Maps, satellite view, to 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Cambridge, MA to see the target area. I have posted photos of the area with destruction to date at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/destruction-of-alewife-pre-cambridge.html. The Google Maps view precedes the start of destruction, and is thus very useful in order to view the outrage.

The access road on the City Manager’s map appears on Google as a treed area connecting to a round about / rotary to the west (left) of 100 Cambridge Park Drive. Part of the massive destruction which has already occurred is directly above the rotary. The treed area above the rotary is now the access road. The other destruction which has already occurred is at the Alewife Station end.

The massive parking lot which should be used for the flood storage is directly below (south of) Cambridge Park Drive.

The secret “public meeting” is scheduled for 6:30 pm on September 7.

The euphemisms are shocking. Massive and unnecessary destruction of animal habitat is described as “enhance wildlife habitat.”

3. The record.

This is the same tactic used on the BU Bridge reconstruction. Three secret “public meetings” were conducted, two in Boston on the Boston University campus, the third near Kendall Square on the MIT campus.

By contrast, the Department of Transportation meetings have been convenient and sensible.

It is no surprise that Cambridge Pols are very much nonstop in their praise for the DCR and equally nonstop in trying to undermine MassDOT.

Cambridge has kept this destruction as secret as possible by influencing a supposed protective organization to tell people to look at everything but the totally avoidable massive destruction in the core Alewife reservation.

Boston Globe editorializes on Cambridge City Manager

Archie Mazmanian reports:

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

Here's the link:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/08/24/more_oversight_for_healy/

to today's Boston Globe editorial on Robert Healy's decision not to appeal the Monteiro decision. The editorial suggests that Healy may be serving for too long a period, although the editorial does state that he has done some good things for Cambridge. The editorial closes with:

"Healy may or may not be the best person to run Cambridge, but he can only do it better with a little pressure from above."

Presumably the reference to "from above" is the Council, or is it? It seems that the Council has been reluctant to provide any pressure; perhaps it has to apply a lot of pressure. But what are the chances of that? Or should the pressure come from voters in electing members of the Council? Or is there a suggestion of a miracle needed "from above" in another sense?

MassDOT Meeting on Anderson Bridge

1. General.
2. The Crowd.
3. MassDOT was impressive on the general issues.
4. Vegetation.
5. Highway details.

1. General.

Tuesday evening, August 23, 2011, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation conducted a public presentation at the Martin Luther King, Jr. School in Cambridge on Putnam Avenue, about a block from the Callahan Playground. The Callahan Playground, in turn, faces on Memorial Drive and is not far from the footbridge across the Charles connecting Harvard’s dormitory area to the Harvard Business School.

The meeting concerned repairs on the Anderson Bridge, which connects Harvard Square to Allston. This is the third highway bridge west of the BU Bridge over the Charles River. It is just west of the footbridge.

2. The Crowd.

The crowd was reasonable in size, especially for a Tuesday evening at the end of August.

Many members of the crowd did, however, drive home to me the point of just who are the visible people in the Cambridge Pol organization. What happens is that, like most organizations, most people do not have the slightest idea what is happening. They just want to get along, do good, and try to make intelligent decisions. The trouble is that this mentality is ripe for destructive people to abuse.

The reality is that there is a very large developer lobby and development professionals are very much forced to knee jerk support any and all development proposals, no matter how irresponsible, at the threat of being blackballed.

So you have a large group, most of whom do not know what is going on, and a tiny destructive minority who will support anything no matter how irresponsible. They look good because they keep showing up. Their developer group makes money out of showing up.

The destructive minority showed up, as usual.

3. MassDOT was impressive on the general issues.

MassDOT was having nothing of the developer con game.

I spoke, praising MassDOT for standing up to the developer con game.

I objected to one of the con artists spouting safety, safety, safety.

I pointed out that their beloved new highway on and abutting the Charles is not just a minor “underpass” on this bridge and do not look at everything else.

I pointed out that their proposal is a massive highway project trying to duplicate the small vehicle / pedestrian highway on the Boston side. In contrast to the care taken by MassDOT to provide minimal impact on the Charles, these people are determined to destroy, destroy, destroy, the river, its wetlands, its animal habitat, and massive numbers of trees, many hundreds between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge including that excellent grove of 105 trees near the Hyatt Regency Hotel on the banks of the Charles at the point where Memorial Drive changes from an undivided road to a divided highway.

The nonsense about safety is belied by yet another report of a sexual attack on the highway they want to duplicate from the Boston side. The Boston side has signs warning people about muggings and sexual attacks. A portion is even marked as closed at night. And these people want to bring this to the safe Cambridge side, spouting comments about safety?

MassDOT repeated their comments made at the Western Avenue / River Street Bridge.

I cannot be positive on details from MassDOT or members of the audience. The acoustics were not that good.

4. Vegetation.

Marilyn Wellons made some excellent comments on bordering vegetation, using the outrage at Magazine Beach as an example to encourage MassDOT not to follow the lead of the irresponsible and environmentally destructive Department of Conservation and Recreation. DCR’s planning department would be improved by massive firings for incompetence based on their contempt for nature.

Again, the acoustics were such that I could not fully make out Marilyn’s presentation. I encourage her to supplement my comments here with her own presentation.

5. Highway details.

MassDOT intends to prohibit left turns on Memorial Drive at the bridge intersection for traffic going in both directions at all times. Currently the left turns are prohibited only during rush hours.

I have serious misgivings as to the advisability of this regulation. The reality is that prohibitions which make no sense to the general public add to the common feeling that regulators really do not care about what they are doing. This, in turn, builds on the contempt for highway safety which has built up over a century in New England.

No left turns during rush hours clearly make sense. No left turns at all times seems highly questionable.

Monteiro v. Cambridge: Questions and Answers

Archie Mazmanian has questions on the City Manager’s statement concerning Malvina Monteiro. For readability, I have inserted my answers immediately after each question.

The City Manager’s statement as quoted by the Cambridge Chronicle is posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1837750487/Cambridge-City-Manager-statement-on-wrongful-termination-verdict#axzz1VVJJ4Gah.


Bob,

I have been rereading this portion of Healy's statement:

"I am very disappointed with this decision and maintain that the City did not retaliate against Ms. Monteiro after having been found by an earlier jury not to have discriminated against her. I have reviewed the Appeals Court decision with legal counsel and informed the City Council this morning that I have decided not to pursue an appeal to the State Supreme Judicial Court in this 13 year old case. It is now time for the City to move forward and bring closure to this matter."

and have a few question:

1. Wasn't the retaliation brought about by City Manager Healy's actions? His actions resulted because of his role as the City Manager for which the City has legal responsibility. But he seems to shift full responsibility to the City of Cambridge as if he is teflon.

Response by editor:

The Cambridge pol organization certainly looks like it was created by the City Manager’s people. One way to identify a lot of these people is the almost reflexive response to their actions and words: You cannot possibly be so stupid.

The finding of judge, jury and appeals court is that Malvina Monteiro's life was heartlessly destroyed by the Cambridge City Manager because she had the nerve to exercise her rights under civil rights law. The $1.1 million reflects the jury's attempts to make her whole insofar as as money can do that.

The $3.5 million is the jury's attempt to try to communicate their opinion of the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager. The most visible entities with whom the jury is trying to communicate are the voters of the City of Cambridge and the City Manager's employers, the Cambridge City Council. Money is a language the jury has power to talk in.

An additional disposition, fully justified by the judge and jury's rulings as strongly supported by the Appeals Court panel, would be for the City Manager's employers, the Cambridge City Council to terminate the City Manager based on the legally binding findings in this case. Such action would communicate the City Council's support for Civil Rights in general and, in particular, support for the civil rights of the employees of the City of Cambridge.

Silence by the Cambridge City Council sends a different but also very clear message. A major part of the message of silence is that the City Council is not persuaded to protect its employees by the penal and real damages even after such a strikingly strong statement by the Appeals Court. That silence also says a lot about the City Council's real opinion on Civil Rights.

Just as the jury is limited to money damages by which it can communicate, the most important way the Cambridge City Council can communicate is by the power to hire and fire. This, of course, would come in the face of such strong and legally binding actions, and strong language both at superior and appeals courts.


2. What are the details on the earlier jury on discrimination put into context with the successful retaliation claim?

Response by editor:

The reality is that the retaliation claim and the original discrimination action are related but strikingly different.

The original discrimination action made the political statement that five plaintiffs were being discriminated against, at minimum, on the basis of their gender.

Two plaintiffs settled, handsomely. Two plaintiffs have yet to be heard. The final superior court hearing preparatory to the case is scheduled for September 14 at 2 pm in the Superior Courthouse.

Monteiro lost the discrimination claim and won the retaliation claim.

The retaliation action is based on bindingly proved really rotten behavior.

The issue for the voters, if the City Manager is not fired, is what do the voters think of a City Council which has no problems with such behavior.


3. Did Healy have the decision making power not to pursue a further appeal? If so, what does that say about the role of the City Council?

Response by editor:

I researched this matter at the time of the Appeals Court appeal. I should think that appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court would be comparable.

The City Manager has the power to further appeal. The City Council has the power to refuse to pay for the appeal. The City Council also has the power to hire and fire. I should think the City Council would be well within their rights to fire the City Manager for improperly further appealing, and to anticipate that his replacement, noting the reasons for the firing, would reverse the appeal.

The silence of the City Council after Friday’s hearing gives the impression that the City Council is waiving their strongest tactic to discipline the City Manager: settlement including firing him based on the case, with consent of the Superior Court judge.

Questions by:

Archie Mazmanian

Cambridge will not further fight the Monteiro case

The Cambridge City Council scheduled an emergency meeting on Melvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge for 9 am today, August 19.

Cambridge Day and Cambridge Chronicle have reported a statement from the Cambridge City Manager issued today.

The Chronicle, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1837750487/Cambridge-City-Manager-statement-on-wrongful-termination-verdict#axzz1VVJJ4Gah, provides the text..

Cambridge Day, at http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/08/19/city-wont-fight-monteiro-payout-city-manager-says/, provides analysis.

The key part of the Cambridge Day report reads as follows:

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

The council went into a closed-door session at about 9:20 a.m. to hear from Healy; his statement was issued at about 10:50 a.m., and e-mailed shortly after 11 a.m. The meeting followed a stinging appeals court rejection of the city’s case.

Cambridge Chronicle on both sides with regard to City Manager termination?

Today’s Cambridge Chronicle had coverage on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge which reads like a highly qualified editor put it together.

They first page headlined the Appeals Court decision with an extremely well written article.

The editorial page featured an editorial, which may be read at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1852620823/Editorial-A-multimillion-dollar-gamble#axzz1VBaL41vk. It is a judicious and very moderate comment, including some very nice words about Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy. It tells the City Council to pay the plaintiff.

What stands out in my mind is the first sentence of the last paragraph, “Healy has helped our city greatly, but everybody’s grip on power must come to an end eventually.”

I was going to refer you to the editorial without any comment, but that sentence stands out. Please follow the link and decide for yourself.

The letters column was organized in a decidedly unusual manner.

The editor printed three letters.

The first was that of Charles Marquardt, a good writing to which I have previously provided a link.

The second was mine, calling for the city manager’s firing. I am not specifically printing this letter in this forum because, for all practical purposes, it is the comment I very quickly posted after reading the decision of the Appeals Court panel. To my great amazement, for the first time I can remember, he printed my full word capitalizations.

The unusual thing about the letters column is the location. It starts immediately below the editorial in the upper left corner of the editorial page, but only a headline and six lines of content appear there. The rest of the column is on the op-ed page.

In any case, please check the editorial link, Charles Marquardt’s letter, and my past statement of position on this matter. I hesitate to spell everything out again.

For your convenience, the respective links to the latter two are: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x919534627/Letter-Cambridge-City-Council-oversight-failure#axzz1VBaL41vk, and http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-on-monteiro-fire.html, section 2.

Cambridge City Council Emergency Session on Monteiro; Why Civil Rights on the Charles River White Geese Blog?

1. Cambridge City Council meets in emergency session — Monteiro.
2. Why Civil Rights on the Charles River White Geese Blog?


1. Cambridge City Council meets in emergency session — Monteiro.

The Cambridge City Council will meet in emergency session tomorrow, Friday, August 19, 2011 on the second floor of Cambridge City Hall at 9 am.

They are expected to immediately vote to go into executive session to discuss the Monteiro decision from the Appeals Court panel.

No public comment will be allowed. The meeting will not be televised.

The decision of the Appeals Court panel in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge may be reviewed at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

2. Why Civil Rights on the Charles River White Geese Blog?

I am reporting the Monteiro case because Cambridge and the situation in Cambridge is a dominant factor in the ongoing environmental destruction on the Charles River.

Judge, jury, and now appeals court are legally significant matters reflecting very badly on the ethical situation in the City of Cambridge.

Cambridge’s pols brag of being saints on civil rights and the environment. They are lying on both points, and a massive organization passes on the falsehoods. The corruption is interrelated.

A very bad city government stays in power destroying the environment by riding false claims in a city which expects responsible behavior from its government.

We have judge, jury, and appeals court panel condemning Cambridge on civil rights. Their environmental destructiveness is even worse.

Letter: City Council Oversight Failure

Very nice letter on Monteiro from Charles Marquant in the Cambridge Chronicle on line on August 16, 2011, and presumably coming up in hard copy.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x919534627/Letter-Cambridge-City-Council-oversight-failure#axzz1VBaL41vk

Appeals Court on Monteiro; Fire the Cambridge City Manager; responses

1. Appeals Court decision.
2. Analysis.
3. Marilyn Wellons.
4. Archie Mazmanian.


1. Appeals Court decision.

The Appeals Court three judge panel has clearly communicated that Cambridge’s case in Monteiro v. City of Cambridge is so lacking in merit that the panel would not dignify it with a full scale decision. I have posted a copy of the decision at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/appeals-court-decision-in-monteiro.html.

Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of the Cambridge Police Review Board. She filed a civil rights complaint. Judge, jury and appeals court panel have now found that her life was improperly destroyed by the City of Cambridge in retaliation for her filing the complaint.

The Superior Court judge summarized the facts including, very visibly, testimony of the Cambridge City Manager, and called the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible.”

One section of the Appeals Court’s abbreviated decision is of particular value, omitting introductory language, citations and footnotes. This section analyzes the award by the jury of $3.5 million penal damages on top of about $1.1 million real damages. The section, section 5.b of the abbreviated opinion, reads:

***********

b. Punitive damages.

'Under the existing standard, '[p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." . . . 'An award of punitive damages requires a determination of the defendant's intent or state of mind, determinations properly left to the jury, whose verdict should be sustained if it could ' reasonably have [been] arrived at . . . from any . . . evidence . . . presented."

We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct. . . . She therefore appropriately allowed the question to go to the jury. . . . Because the jury's award could reasonably have been arrived at from the evidence presented, the judge appropriately denied the city's new trial motion and affirmed the damages award. There was no error. . . .

2. Analysis.

“Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct.”

The Cambridge City Council is not in a forum with a massive organization running around making false statements that the City of Cambridge is worthy of respect.

The Cambridge City Council is dealing with the big boys.

The Appeals Court panel gave Cambridge MORE time in oral argument than is normally allowed under its rules. The Appeals Court panel has joined with the Superior Court judge and jury in communicating its disgust at the rotten situation in Cambridge by refusing to dignify Cambridge with a full blown opinion.

If the City Council meaningfully resembles the City Council that its massive organization keeps talking about, the decision is clear:

FIRE THE CAMBRIDGE CITY MANAGER WITHOUT GOLDEN PARACHUTE by settlement with permission of the Superior Court judge. Seriously consider firing him without pension. The facts of this matter constitute a very strong situation for expanding the law this far.

The worst thing is that the City Council does not meaningfully resemble the City Council its apologists keep FALSELY bragging about.

3. Marilyn Wellons.

8/16/11, 10:58 am

The estimated $10M (including legal fees) Cambridge now owes to Ms. Monteiro is 3% of the city's estimated revenue from taxes in FY2012. Ten million dollars is more than the estimated revenue from all Licenses and Permits or from Fines and... Forfeits.

It is more than three times the proposed expenditure for education in the city's capital budget.

See the Budget Summary, http://www.cambridgema.gov?/budget.aspx, pp. I-5--I-6.


4. Archie Mazmanian.

8/16/11, 11:13 am:

Archie Mazmanian comments:

Bob,
Your posts on this make quite an impact. I wonder if you might consider a post on next steps that Cambridge might take (although not sensibly), including an appeal to the SJC, in the context of potential additional expense to Cambridge (which may need a prop. 2.5 override to cover all the expenses).

Archie Mazmanian

Appeals Court Decision in Monteiro. Published under a special rule communicating panel’s lack of respect for Cambridge’s appeal of the matter.

Monteiro decision: The following is taken verbatim from the Appeals Court posting.

This is a “rule 1:28" posting. I understand from the Cambridge Day report that this method of posting was used because the Appeals Court panel did not find the case worthy of a formal opinion. It was that one sided.

***********


NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT


1. MALVINA MONTEIRO vs. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
10-P-1240
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The plaintiff, Malvina Monteiro, brought a G. L. c. 151B action in Superior Court against her employer, the city of Cambridge (city), alleging discrimination based on race and national origin, as well as retaliation. A jury found in her favor on her retaliation claim and awarded over $4.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. In addition, she was awarded pre- and postjudgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs, for a total award of roughly $6.7 million. The city appeals, arguing (1) the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) erroneous jury instructions, (3) erroneous admission of comparator evidence, (4) improper closing argument, (5) a variety of errors related to the jury's damages awards, and (6) erroneous computation of postjudgment interest. We affirm.

We forego a complete recitation of the facts as they developed over the course of more than ten years of litigation, including two jury trials. We recite the facts as necessary to explain our decision.

1. Jurisdiction. The city, citing, inter alia, Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585 (2009), claims that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of Monteiro's retaliatory termination claim because the claim did not 'relate back' to Monteiro's original complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and Monteiro never filed a separate MCAD retaliation complaint. We disagree.

The Superior Court has no jurisdiction to entertain G. L. c. 151B claims without a predicate MCAD complaint. Id. at 600. A retaliation claim does not require an additional MCAD complaint when it is ''reasonably related to and grows out of' [the] discrimination [originally] complained of to [the] agency.' Id. at 603, quoting from Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 245 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 2001).

Monteiro filed an MCAD complaint in September, 1998, alleging, inter alia, retaliation for raising concerns about discrimination. When Monteiro filed her original complaint in Superior Court in 2000, she alleged ongoing retaliation against her because she engaged in activities protected by G. L. c. 151B, § 4, the statute which classifies, inter alia, the filing of an MCAD complaint as a protected activity. 'In these circumstances, she was not required to return to the MCAD to file a second complaint.' Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 443 Mass. 367, 388 n.19 (2005). Accordingly, the 2004 amended Superior Court complaint alleged only that the ongoing retaliation alleged in the original complaint also included her 2003 termination. [FN1] Because Monteiro alleged retaliatory termination reasonably related to and growing out of her original MCAD complaint and allegations of ongoing retaliation, she alleged no new retaliation claim requiring that she return to the MCAD. [FN2] The Superior Court had jurisdiction over Monteiro's retaliatory termination claim. [FN3]

2. Jury instructions. The city makes two interrelated arguments about the judge's instructions on the definition of 'adverse employment action': (1) the judge erroneously and prejudicially instructed along the lines of Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), instead of MacCormack v. Boston Edison Co., 423 Mass. 652 (1996); and (2) the judge's application of the more lenient Burlington standard erroneously permitted the jury to infer a causal link between Monteiro's 1998 MCAD complaint and her termination in 2003 based on insufficiently serious ongoing retaliation between 1998 and 2003. We are not persuaded.

First, assuming without deciding that the judge erroneously instructed, there was no prejudice. The city concedes, as it must, that Monteiro's termination constituted an 'adverse employment action' under the stricter MacCormack standard. And, in any event, irrespective of whether the Burlington standard or the MacCormack standard was applied, the jury did not award any damages based on the intervening retaliatory actions. The judge's instructions therefore caused the city no prejudice and present no basis for disturbing the judgment. See Dahms v. Cognex Corp., 455 Mass. 190, 207 (2009).

Second, the city essentially claims that, in order to demonstrate the requisite causal link between a termination long postdating protected activity and the protected activity based on an intervening 'series of retaliatory measures,' Mole v. University of Mass., 442 Mass. 582, 596 (2004), each such retaliatory measure must itself constitute an individually actionable 'adverse employment action.' The city has cited no authority imposing such a restriction, and we decline to create a new rule of law imposing one here. [FN4] Moreover, the city neither requested the judge to instruct that only a series of independently actionable adverse employment actions could constitute a 'series of retaliatory measures' nor objected to the instruction as given. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Monteiro, enabled a reasonable juror to conclude, based on a series of intervening retaliatory measures not necessarily individually actionable, that a causal relationship existed between Monteiro's MCAD complaint and her termination. There was no error.

3. Comparator evidence. The city, citing Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 426 Mass. 122 (1997), argues that the judge abused her discretion in admitting circumstantial evidence of the city's treatment of similarly situated individuals. The city also asserts that it was clear error for the judge to deny its motion for a mistrial based on the admission of this evidence. There was no error. [FN5]

'[T]he great deference appellate courts accord the rulings of trial judges in [the admission of evidence is] too well established to require citation.' Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Assocs., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 480, 485 (2000). The judge, acting well within her discretion, could conclude that Monteiro's comparator evidence was 'roughly equivalent' and presented, if not '[e]xact correla[ries],' 'fair congeners.' [FN6] See Trustees of Health & Hosps. of Boston, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 449 Mass. 675, 682 (2007), quoting from Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1989). The decision to admit the complained-of testimony was not an abuse of discretion. [FN7] Because the decision to admit this evidence was not an abuse of discretion, it follows that the judge did not commit clear error in denying the city's motion for a mistrial.

4. Closing argument. The city argues that the judge abused her discretion in denying its motion for a new trial based, inter alia, on Monteiro's counsel's closing argument. We agree with the judge that the references to the existence of the term 'flex-time' prior to March, 1998, and to a flex-time committee were based on fair inferences from the city manager's testimony and exhibits introduced during his testimony. Notwithstanding the propriety of this comment, the city objected during the closing argument. The judge immediately responded to the objection with a thorough, appropriate curative instruction. Accordingly, the argument that this comment unfairly prejudiced the city is wholly without merit. The judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the city's motion for a new trial on this basis. [FN8]

5. Damages. a. Compensatory damages. 'An excessive award of damages is grounds for a new trial. . . . The allowance of a new trial is within the judge's discretion, and an appellate court will not find an abuse of discretion . . . unless the damages awarded were greatly disproportionate to the injury proved or represent a miscarriage of justice.' Commonwealth v. Johnson Insulation, 425 Mass. 650, 667-668 (1997). On this record, we cannot conclude that the damages awarded were so disproportionate to the injury caused as to make denial of the city's new trial motion an abuse of the judge's discretion, let alone a miscarriage of justice. There was no error.

b. Punitive damages. The city argues that (1) the judge erroneously permitted the jury to consider awarding punitive damages, and (2) the judge abused her discretion in denying the city's motion for new trial or remittitur on the basis of improper and excessive punitive damages. We are not persuaded.

'Under the existing standard, '[p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (No. 1), 455 Mass. 91, 107 (2009), quoting from Dartt v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. (Mass.), 427 Mass. 1, 17a (1998). 'An award of punitive damages requires a determination of the defendant's intent or state of mind, determinations properly left to the jury, whose verdict should be sustained if it could ' reasonably have [been] arrived at . . . from any . . . evidence . . . presented." Ibid., quoting from Dartt, supra at 16.

We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct. [FN9] She therefore appropriately allowed the question to go to the jury. [FN10] Because the jury's award could reasonably have been arrived at from the evidence presented, the judge appropriately denied the city's new trial motion and affirmed the damages award. There was no error. [FN11]

6. Postjudgment interest. The city argues that the judge erroneously permitted postjudgment interest to run beginning June 12, 2008, when Monteiro requested separate and final judgment pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(b), 365 Mass. 820 (1974). The city argues that postjudgment interest should run starting June 2, 2009. We agree with the judge.
The June 4, 2010, corrected amended final judgment on jury verdict, which, pursuant to G. L. c. 235, § 4, properly entered separate and final judgment nunc pro tunc to June 12, 2008, forecloses the city's argument. The city has not challenged the propriety of the entry of separate and final judgment nunc pro tunc to June 12, 2008, and we discern no abuse of the judge's discretion in entering that nunc pro tunc judgment. [FN12] See Santos v. Chrysler Corp., 430 Mass. 198, 216-217 (1999). The city's chosen date for the commencement of postjudgment interest therefore lacks legal and factual bases. [FN13] There was no error.

7. Conclusion. We have no occasion to disturb the judgment. Monteiro has requested, and is entitled to appellate attorney's fees and costs. She may submit a petition for fees and costs, together with supporting materials, within fourteen days of the date of the rescript of this decision. The city shall have fourteen days thereafter to respond. See Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004).

Corrected amended final judgment entered June 4, 2010, affirmed.

By the Court (Mills, Sikora & Rubin, JJ.),

Entered: August 15, 2011.
FN1. Everett is readily distinguishable because the plaintiff there made no retaliation claim. Everett, 453 Mass. at 605 n.28.



FN2. The city argues that decisions on various pretrial motions, which decisions did not reference Monteiro's retaliation claim, prove that it was inoperative prior to the 2004 amendment. Allegations and claims in a complaint remain operative, even after amendment, until waived or abandoned. See National Constr. Co. v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 38, 40 (1980), and cases cited. Because the city does not argue that Monteiro waived or abandoned this claim, and because the record contains no evidence that she did so, we are not persuaded.


In addition, the judge's decision awarding prejudgment interest from January 5, 2005 (the date of the amended complaint), rather than from September, 2000 (the date of the original complaint filed in Superior Court), as requested in Monteiro's posttrial motion, is not to the contrary. In its answers to special verdict questions, the jury determined that the city retaliated against Monteiro both by terminating her employment and through other adverse employment actions, but that she suffered financial damages only as a result of the termination decision. Compare DeRoche v. Massachusetts Commn.


Against Discrimination, 447 Mass. 1, 16 (2006) (in MCAD action, where damages awarded on retaliation claim only, prejudgment interest appropriately awarded from date retaliation commenced, rather than from earlier date when complaint was first filed with MCAD).



FN3. To the extent the city argues that the judge should not have allowed Monteiro's 2004 motion to amend her complaint, as suggested at various points in the city's brief and reply brief, we discern no abuse of the judge's discretion to permit the amendment. See Murphy v. I.S.K.Con. of New England, Inc., 409 Mass. 842, 864 (1991).



FN4. We note that, in the context of sexual harassment claims under G. L. c. 151B, the Supreme Judicial Court has expressly rejected such a restriction. See Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermkt. Co., 434 Mass. 521, 532-533 (2001) ( 'Incidents of sexual harassment serious enough to create a work environment permeated by abuse typically accumulate over time, and many incidents in isolation may not be serious enough for complaint').



FN5. Because there was no error, we do not address the city's argument that, in the absence of this evidence, the jury could not infer retaliatory animus in the city's 2003 decision to terminate Monteiro. Even were there error, this claim would fail because we have already concluded that the jury could have inferred retaliatory animus based on the series of retaliatory measures which took place between Monteiro's 1998 MCAD complaint and 2003 termination.



FN6. We note that the city has not pointed to any discrimination or retaliation case in which an appellate court


reversed a judge's decision to admit comparator evidence at trial because the comparators lacked sufficient similarity.



FN7. Moreover, the judge's instructions, drawn nearly verbatim from Matthews, mitigated any claimed prejudice occasioned by the admission of this testimony.



FN8. We have reviewed the balance of the closing argument and conclude that it presents no basis for questioning the judge's exercise of her discretion to deny the new trial motion.


Specifically, to the extent the city argues that it was entitled to a new trial based on the judge's stray comment that one of Monteiro's attorneys had been her ethics student, we are not persuaded. To the extent the city argues that it was also entitled to a new trial based on Monteiro's counsel's statement that Monteiro 'lost' her pension, we read the statement in context as referring to Monteiro not accruing pension benefits in her current employment and losing the opportunity to reach twenty years of payment into the city's pension system. These assertions have ample record support.



FN9. The city argues that we should use the Haddad court's reformulation of this standard. See 455 Mass. at 110-111. Because our result would be the same under both standards, we need not address the issue.



FN10. As the judge aptly noted in her thoughtful consolidated memorandum on several of the city's posttrial motions, the ambiguous result of the first jury trial presents no basis for questioning the basis of the subsequent jury verdict.



FN11. To the extent the city argues that the judge should have allowed the motion for new trial in order to instruct a different jury on the new standard enunciated in Haddad because, by reason of Monteiro's pending motion pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 59, 365 Mass. 827 (1974), this case had not 'gone to judgment,' 455 Mass. at 110, by the date of the Haddad decision, we are not persuaded. The instructions here substantially conformed to those which the Haddad court determined were without error. See id. at 109-110. Moreover, the city claims no error in the instructions.



FN12. To the extent the city argues that the judge improperly entered separate and final judgment without making the requisite findings, as suggested by footnotes 51 and 53 of its brief, we do not address the argument. 'Arguments relegated to a footnote do not rise to the level of appellate argument.' Commonwealth v. Lydon, 413 Mass. 309, 317-318 (1992), citing Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).



FN13. To the extent the city argues that the commencement of postjudgment interest on June 12, 2008, is improper because of the delay incurred following Monteiro's rule 59 motion to clarify, alter, or amend the judgment, the city has cited no authority in support of its claim of error. Accordingly, we do not address it. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). We note that the city had the opportunity to take steps to obviate the running of postjudgment interest during the pendency of posttrial motions, such as payment into an escrow account or other alternative arrangements. The city thus acted at its own peril by neglecting to pursue alternatives.


END OF DOCUMENT

FLASH “Cambridge loses $7.7 million-plus appeal in Monteiro case”

The Cambridge Day reports that the City of Cambridge has lost its appeal in the Monteiro case.

“We agree with the judge that Monteiro presented ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could find outrageous conduct,” the finding says, as quoted by Cambridge Day.

I have checked the docket. It is not posted yet.

I will keep on top of this matter. I will post the Appeals Court decision when available.

For my information, please see: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2011/08/15/city-loses-6-7-million-plus-appeal-in-monteiro-case/.

Sexual assault on the Charles River

WBZ radio is reporting a sexual assault on the Esplanade, the more heavily developed park on the Boston / south side of the Charles River. It apparently occurred at about 3 am on Sunday, August 14.

The report is that the victim is a 20 year old college student who stated she had been assaulted and thrown in the Charles River.

Details may be obtained at: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/08/14/student-sexually-assaulted-on-esplanade-thrown-in-charles-river/.

This is only the most recent attack on the Boston side of the Charles. The river bank in the area of the BU Bridge has signs warning of danger at night from rapes and muggings.

The violence on the south side of the Charles is yet another indication of problems with the individuals working for environmental destruction and animal abuse on the Charles River.

These destructive individuals are fighting to duplicate the mugging area and put it on the north side of the Charles River. They want to continue their heartless animal abuse, and they clearly support state and Cambridge’s goals to kill off all resident animals.

Plans, in addition to heartless animal abuse and encouraging muggings, would destroy hundreds of excellent trees between Magazine Beach and the Longfellow Bridge, attack historical bridges with this new highway, destroy wetlands, destroy animal habitat, and destroy portions of the Charles River itself.

But then again, the people fighting for this outrage recently conducted a “celebration” party of the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse at Magazine Beach. They did this after censoring any comments about the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse in a supposed public meeting presenting state / Cambridge plans for further destruction at Magazine Beach. They then neglected to tell people that they were celebrating environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse.

The censorship and flat out lying that the outrage at Magazine Beach deserves “celebration” combines with the violence and so many other outrages involved in the ongoing behavior of very destructive people on the Charles River.

They cannot get what they want honestly. So they lie through falsely named organizations, through censorship, and through key omissions and false claims. They declare that a destructive state bureaucracy and a destructive Cambridge City Council are something other than what they are. And that their plans are worthy of respect.