Cambridge Chronicle letters on imminent Alewife destruction disappoints, bad guys say look at the small stuff

1. Cambridge Chronicle.
2. Fake Tree Protection.
3. My letter, unedited, marked to show what was printed.
4. Marilyn Wellons letter.


1.. Cambridge Chronicle.

I recently reported on the posting on line by the Cambridge Chronicle of their edit of my clean up of the letter I previously posted here concerning the pending destruction of the core Alewife reservation. The unedited clean up letter is printed below.

Marilyn Wellons letter was also posted on line. It is printed below as well.

Regrettably, my shortened letter was printed in the September 22, 2011, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle. Marilyn’s was not. The impact on the substantive issues is that I objected about the outrageous destruction of the core Alewife reservation, and the fact was included that it was being done for silly purposes, protection against a two year flood. What was not said was that directly across the street is a massive parking lot which could hold a large multiple of the storage being provided by the clear cutting / logging of the core Alewife reservation.

Instead of Marilyn’s substantive letter, a letter was printed preceding mine which claimed very broad knowledge and experience of the writer and said that people concerned about trees in Cambridge should base their vote in the upcoming election on the handling of four street trees.

The letter was from a friend of the Alewife "protective" group and its timing is highly suspect.

2. Fake Tree Protection.

The writer talking about the four street trees created a supposedly universal organization which claimed concern for all trees in the City of Cambridge. The writer of the substitute letter has helped the Alewife “protective” group along with Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation in their imminent plans to destroy the core Alewife reservation and she is helping Cambridge and the DCR destroy Memorial Drive.

She has created the usual Cambridge Pol group which sounds so great. As is altogether too common with these groups, reality and achievements tend to be exactly the opposite of the lovely claims. Many fake groups are interrelated and loudly and falsely praise each other.

The basic pitch of her tree “protective” group has been a claim of defending all trees, but the unstated fine print is: “How dare you object to the destruction of the core Alewife reservation! How dare you object to the destruction of Memorial Drive! How dare you expect this organization to meaningfully protect trees that our friends want to destroy and which constitute a massively greater multiple of the street trees our friends will consider not destroying!”

The technical term for the fake groups is “company union.” I would not dream of trying to figure out if any individual person in any of these fake groups is a knave or a fool. The problem is too general and too severe in the City of Cambridge, MA. However, a very reasonable and downright normal reaction to the individual behavior of too many of these people is: “You cannot possibly be that stupid.”

The Alewife “protective” group told people to defend against everything except what counts and was winnable. They told people to chase their tails, just do not do anything that has a high probability of winning something of meaningful value. They kept well meaning people “out of trouble” and worked to allow their friends to destroy the most important, the most winnable and valuable part of the Alewife reservation.

The Alewife “protective” group fought for the destruction of the core Alewife reservation through a very vile con game which is highly normal in Cambridge. And this woman’s fake tree protective group, along with this letter, falls into the same category.

In a related matter, the falsely named Cambridgeport “neighborhood association” had a meeting against tree destruction on Wednesday. Without going it, I can guarantee that they did not mention the planned destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive by their friends. Their key members have routinely supported the Alewife “protective” group in its fight for the destruction of massive number of excellent trees on the Alewife reservation, and they have celebrated the environmental outrage at Magazine Beach after censoring mention of the destruction in a supposed public meeting on Magazine Beach. The key people in that “neighborhood association” support the fake tree protective group in its support of the destruction of massive numbers of major trees that their friends want to destroy.

As I said, part of the strength of the Cambridge fake groups is their mutual support and praise.

3. My letter, unedited, marked to show what was printed.

I have been concerned about the Alewife reservation since I lived in North Cambridge thirty years ago. I have been very deeply concerned about Cambridge and the DCR’s plans to destroy the core Alewife reservation for about 20 years. I have frequently printed letters in the Chronicle warning about the threat to the core Alewife in response to letters telling people concerned about Alewife to look at everything else.

In 2000, I wrote Sheila Cook’s successful downzoning to restrict the large parking lot between Alewife station and Route 2 to open space.

My big problem at Alewife has been a group which was created after its leader had discussions with the City Manager’s people. That group has been running around telling people concerned about Alewife to look at everything but the core reservation. They been fighting next to impossible battles, fighting to regulate private uses of less important areas.

They have told people to look at everything but the core reservation, owned by a City Council which loudly proclaims its environmental sainthood. The group has close friends who are also friendly with the Cambridge City Manager. Those friends include people who have been major problems on too many of my successful and frequently major downzonings.

The Alewife “protective” group treated Sheila Cook very badly when she downzoned that parking lot to open space.

The leader of the Alewife “protective” group just went public in these pages. She has spent years condemning all sorts of private development at Alewife, loudly proclaiming her concern for the reservation.

In these pages, the leader of this Alewife “protective” group praised the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

The core Alewife reservation is far more valuable than peripheral areas the Alewife “protective” group has been “protecting” against much more difficult odds than exist in the core Alewife reservation.

The core Alewife reservation is massive irreplaceable aged NATIVE trees with an irreplaceable animal population. The logging and clear cutting has already started. The main destruction will take a month and will commence in October.

Birds have been dislocated from here and from Fresh Pond to the windows of office buildings. Chipmunks, possums, rabbits, raccoons, deer and untold other excellent animals will casually be killed by massive machines totally and needlessly destroying their homes, unless they can run away from the relentless machines..

Why? For flood storage to protect against a TWO YEAR FLOOD in an area which has seen TWO FIFTY YEAR FLOODS in the past twenty years.

[End of Chronicle publication. I have not compared for edits.]

Directly across Cambridge Park Drive, visible from the core Alewife reservation, is a massive parking lot which could be readily be used for flood storage if Cambridge had a city council resembling the claims of environmental sainthood spouted by the Cambridge City Council.

This barren parking lot is massive and is readily takeable by eminent domain. If the Cambridge City Council were the environmental saints that their constant claims proclaim.

The flood storage that could be placed under that massive parking lot is a very large multiple of the silly TWO YEAR FLOOD protection provided by the massive and reprehensible destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

It is not too late, the leader of the Alewife “protective” group has publicly admitted her group is a con game by her praise for destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

Gone is her praise for the irreplaceable, virgin woods.

Gone is her praise for the irreplaceable and excellent animals.

Present is outright contempt for the excellent environment being destroyed.

Essentially, she is now saying “Do not look at what the City Council is destroying. Look at the beautiful pork project WE are providing.”

“Reprehensible.” “Ample evidence [of] outrageous misbehavior.” The superior court and appeals court were talking about Cambridge’s contempt for civil rights. These words apply to Cambridge’s contempt for our environment as well.

The key to the imminent destruction of Alewife is the self proclaimed environment saints on the Cambridge City Council.

The self proclaimed environmental saints on the Cambridge City Council have very carefully not wanted to know what is going on. But they have been kept abreast of plans.

It is not too late, but the serious logging starts in October. The City Council should be told to behave like the environmental saints they claim to be.

This irresponsible and totally needless destruction should be stopped with the damage that has already been done.

That massive parking lot can hold much more needed flood storage than the pittance that can be gotten by destroying the core Alewife reservation. That massive parking lot should be used for the needed flood storage with the owner developing planned buildings on air rights.

4. Marilyn Wellons letter.

At the September 7, 2011 meeting about Alewife flood storage in DCR parkland, Cambridge said the system it will build can handle 2-year floods. As readers may know, there have been at least two 50-year floods there since 1996. Cambridge's solution will be grossly inadequate, the loss of parkland gratuitous.

Community Preservation Act legislation allows for purchase of watershed lands. Cambridge has spent more than a million dollars of Community Preservation Act funds to buy watershed outside of the city, in Lincoln. I propose that instead of destroying Alewife, the city spend CPA funds to buy watershed in Cambridge, at Alewife, to deal with the torrents of water that will continue to flood there in future storms.

It should be possible for the city and the current property owner of a parking lot on Cambridgepark Drive to agree on flood storage under any future building there. The developer would retain air rights for such a building or buildings. The city would pay the developer for the easement and marginal increase in the costs of a foundation built over the flood storage.

The owner of the parking lot has been attuned to environmental issues and has previously installed a rain garden at Alewife property to deal with runoff from its buildings.

The city could reasonably pursue this option as an alternative to its imminent crime against the environment at Alewife.

Alewife destruction letters posted by Cambridge Chronicle

A few days ago, I posted the first submitted draft of a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle on the impending destruction of the irreplaceable core Alewife reservation by Cambridge, MA, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and their fake groups.

I rewrote the letter to moderate the tone and resubmitted.

Today, 9/21/11, the Chronicle has posted a shortened version of the letter.

Omitted is the fact that the destruction of the core Alewife reservation is totally unnecessary because there is a massive parking lot across the way which could readily hold much more than the flood storage that the core reservation is being destroyed for.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1804875708/Letter-Concerned-about-Alewife#axzz1YafFVL9L

It is being printed along with a letter from Marilyn Wellons making the omitted point.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1408092943/Letter-Solution-to-flooding-inadequate#axzz1YafFVL9L

Nice combination. It will be interesting to see the hard copy. Thank you Chronicle.

A Summary on Alewife and the "protectors" in the middle of destruction

1. General Background.
2. The City Manager’s Alewife “Protective” Group.
3. Their one “victory.”
4. Have they succeeded in destroying the core Alewife reservation?
5. The real record in Cambridge, with confirmation by judge, jury and appeals court.
6. Summary. Photos.


1. General Background.

The core Alewife reservation is an irreplaceable virgin woodlands within view of the Alewife (western) terminus of Boston’s Red Line subway and of the eastern terminus of Route 2, the northern of two superhighway systems connecting east and west in Massachusetts. It is teeming with wildlife.

Cambridge and its state accomplice, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, are highly destructive of the environment. Projects are too often so bizarre it is difficult to say they have any value except as pork.

Cambridge has been governed by two related city managers since 1974.

Cambridge’s worst dirty tricks have frequently been assisted by “citizen’s groups” which have undisclosed connections to the Cambridge City Manager.

I have 35 years experience fighting for the environment in Cambridge. I have major victories using zoning as a tool. I have forced votes out of the Cambridge City Council and won a majority of votes. The victories usually have been at the expense of the City Manager and of groups friendly to the Cambridge City Manager which do not clearly disclose the connection or of unnamed entities composed of the same people. Such groups have caused major harm to goals which are shared by a very significant part of the Cambridge electorate.

Working with various groups, my zoning changes have included downzoning of about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares, and the restriction of a key parking lot between Alewife Station and Route 2 to open space. The further I have kept away from the City Manager groups, the greater has been my success.

2. The City Manager’s Alewife “Protective” Group.

A group claiming to be defending Alewife has spent perhaps 20 years running around claiming to be defending Alewife. Reality is that the group was telling people to defend everything except for the part owned by its friends. This group was created after discussions with the Cambridge City Manager’s people.

The actions of this group kept potential activists “out of trouble” by keeping them from focusing on the most valuable part of the Alewife reservation. The group told people to yell at private property owners in nearly impossible battles. They sounded great. They told people to keep away from proposed destruction of the most important part of the reservation, fight readily winnable because the Cambridge City Council claims to be a bunch of environmental saints.

3. Their one “victory.”

They seem to claim one victory during their existence. That victory looks like their taking credit for Sheila Cook's and my achievement.

In 2000 an effort led by Sheila Cook, using a zoning change written by me, restricted the use of the large parking lot between Alewife station and Route 2 to open space. About 5 years later, the owner obeyed the zoning. The supposed “protective” group treated Sheila Cook very badly for her downzoning and have since claimed sole credit for the implemention of and the obvious results of her downzoning. They do not mention the downzoning.

4. Have they succeeded in destroying the core Alewife reservation?

After 20 years loudly claiming to be defending Alewife but in reality defending everything in Alewife except for the portion owned by its friends, the group just went public supporting destruction of the major part of that core portion of the Alewife reservation owned by its friends. Destruction has already been accomplished on a distressingly large but “preliminary” area. Full scale destruction is expected to be actually accomplished in a month of clear cutting and logging commencing in October 2011.

The destruction is just as bizarre as too many prior examples of destruction in Cambridge. This excellent virgin native woods teeming with valuable wildlife is being destroyed for “flood storage.” The “flood storage” will protect against two year floods in an area which has seen two fifty year floods in the past 20 years.

Directly across the street from the target virgin woods is a massive parking lot, readily usable for flood storage and capable of holding a very large multiple of the two year storm drainage being created by Cambridge, the DCR, and their fake group.

5. The real record in Cambridge, with confirmation by judge, jury and appeals court.

The Cambridge City Council, pretty much non stop, proclaims its sainthood on the environment. The typical Cambridge voter wants a responsible city government. The Cambridge City Council’s claims of sainthood are flat out lies. They translate as: “I’m saving the world. How dare you object to my destruction of Cambridge." The Cambridge City Council is very vulnerable to communication of reality.

Projects by the two on the Charles River are comparably bizarre, displaying contempt for the environment and for the animal population. The governor may have stepped in to prevent use of Obama moneys for a massive tree destruction project. The DCR described all the trees as diseased. The DCR’s filing with the Cambridge Conservation Commission proved the DCR’s claims to be flat out lies. Flat out lies have been very much too common.

Within the past week, Cambridge has paid an $8.3 million judgment in the case of Monteiro v. Cambridge. In this case, jury, judge and appeals court found that the Cambridge City Manager destroyed the life of a black female Cape Verdean department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The jury said $3.5 million penal damages. The superior court judge summarized his testimony and behavior in the word “reprehensible.” The appeals court panel should its disgust by refusing to issue a formal opinion. They said “ample evidence [of] outrageous misbehavior.” But the Cambridge pols blithely run around praising the city manager and totally seem to be unaware of the informed opinions of judge, jury and appeals court on the Cambridge City Manager.

And those words/actions by judge, jury and appeals court sound strikingly like appropriate reactions to Cambridge’s environmental behavior.

6. Summary. Photos.

I have recently published on this blog a copy of a proposed op ed I have given to the Cambridge Chronicle responding to the fake protective group’s support of destruction of the core Alewife reservation after years of claims by them that they were defending Alewife. Since then, I have submitted a modified version which is more subtle. The words “lie” and “fake” were deleted, and “con game” was only used after I proved the con game a con game.

Here are two prior postings on this matter, providing key photographs:

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/destruction-of-alewife-pre-cambridge.html. This is my report from July 28, 2011, providing photo of the “preliminary” destruction and a photo of the part of the massive parking lot across Cambridge Park Drive where the flood storage should be placed.

Please compare Google Maps, satellite view, for 100 Cambridge Park Drive in Cambridge, MA. This shows Alewife before this first stage logging and shows the full extent of that massive parking lot. It extends far beyond the area seen in the photograph, winding between large buildings, the commuter rail and Alewife Brook Parkway.

http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/large-alewife-parking-lot-returned-to.html. This goes into more detail about the parking lot saved by Sheila Cook and me, with photographs.

Alewife is savable. All that is necessary is for a Cambridge City Council which claims to be saints on environment issues to vaguely resemble their claims.

New City Manager for Cambridge, MA, USA? Charlie Marquardt and James Williamson

1. General.
2. Charlie Marquardt.
3. James Williamson.
4. Longer quote from Williamson.
5. 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 paid by Cambridge to the plaintiff is $8.3 million. Estimates are frequently presented that total cost will approach or exceed $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 am reporting on the answers with links to the complete comments.

2. Charlie Marquardt.
Charlie Marquardt was quoted in the September 15, 2011 edition on page 12. His comments are posted at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x519377765/Cambridge-Election-2011-Meet-the-Candidates-Charlie-Marquardt#axzz1YJ3bCD5d.

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

A brief summary of his answer is: “Yes. Mr. Healy has served Cambridge well over his tenure, but it is time to begin the process of transitioning to a new City Manager. "

3. James Williamson.

Williamson was quoted in the September 15, 2011 edition on page 12. I would be very pleased to be corrected, but I have hunted and hunted. I do not see his comments on line. I am therefore quoting the relevant portion of his comments below.

He includes financial references to Monteiro and mentions that it was a “‘retaliation’ verdict.”

His answer to the question is positive. "It would be prudent for the Council to begin a search for a suitable replacement NOW."

4. Longer quote from Williamson.

Yes. Of course. But it's time for a new City Council, as well. (Aren't they responsible for the City Manager??) Robert Healy gets paid - pays himself? - $336,000 a year. His 'depadee', Richard Rossi, gets $270,000. Tim Geither, the Secretary of the US Treasury, gets $172,000 a year. Anything wrong with this picture. Anything wrong with this picture?

Healy squandered $10 million fighting a "retaliation" verdict by two juries. Money well spent??

"Bob" Healy has been in power for 35 years, longer than Mubarak?

It would be prudent for the Council to begin a search for a suitable replacement NOW. But we can't wait and blame everything on the manager.

[Series of issues not relevant to this blog, shut off by Chronicle at their 140 word limit]

5. Prior Reports.

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

Tim Toomey and Minka vanBeuzekom: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-city-manager-for-cambridge-ma-usa_10.html.

A response on the destruction of the core Alewife reservation to an admission of a con game by the leader of the con game

The following has been submitted to the Cambridge Chronicle a few minutes prior to its publication in this Blog. Yesterday, September 15, 2011, the leader of the fake protective group claiming to be defending Alewife published a letter praising the destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The following is offered as an op ed piece in defense of the core Alewife reservation, and this introductory language is part of the op ed piece.

You are reminded that the con game that the fake environmental group has been conducting has used multiple op ed pieces in its non stop diversions aimed at keeping people away from the standing up to totally unnecessary and irresponsible destruction of the core Alewife reservation by its friends until it is “too late.”

The core Alewife reservation is far more valuable than peripheral areas the fake protective group has been “protecting” against much more difficult odds than exist in the core Alewife reservation.

The core Alewife reservation is massive irreplaceable aged NATIVE trees with an irreplaceable animal population. The logging and clear cutting has already started. The main destruction will take a month and will commence in October.

Birds have been dislocated from here and from Fresh Pond to the windows of office buildings. Chipmunks, possums, rabbits, raccoons, deer and untold other excellent animals will casually be killed by massive machines totally and needlessly destroying their homes, unless they can run away from the relentless machines..

Why? For flood storage to protect against a TWO YEAR FLOOD in an area which has seen TWO FIFTY YEAR FLOODS in the past twenty years.

Directly across Cambridge Park Drive, visible from the core Alewife reservation, is a massive parking lot which could be readily be used for flood storage if Cambridge had a city council resembling the lies of environmental sainthood spouted by the Cambridge City Council.

This barren parking lot is massive and is readily takeable by eminent domain. If the Cambridge City Council were the environmental saints that their constant lies proclaim.

The flood storage that could be placed under that massive parking lot is a very large multiple of the silly TWO YEAR FLOOD protection provided by the massive and reprehensible destruction of the core Alewife reservation.

There are big differences between the destruction of the core Alewife reservation and the destruction of less valuable locations that the fake protective group has been yelling about. The key difference is in the ownership.

The less valuable locations the fake protective group has been running around in circles about is privately owned. Alewife is owned by a bunch of liars who are elected by the public, a bunch of liars who lie that they are environmental saints.

The fake protective group tells us it is ok for its friends to destroy, destroy, destroy the core Alewife reservation, but the fake protective group tells us it is inexcusable for private owners to destroy far less valuable land.

If Cambridge had a city government that resembles the lies of this environmentally irresponsible city government, that massive parking lot would be taken in a moment. Flood storage would be placed under it and development of the air rights would be coordinated with the current owners who will go forward anyway.

The most important difference is that the fake protective group has been lying itself.

The fake protective group has been telling people not to look at the important stuff, not to look at the excellent virgin forest about to be destroyed by a lying city council which claims to be environment saints. The fake protective group has been telling well intentioned people to look at everything else, to look at the long shots, look at the private property owners. Do not look at the lying city council involved in yet another totally inexcusable and wasteful piece of pork.

And the leader of the fake protective group has just admitted the con.

Gone is the praise for the irreplaceable, virgin woods.

Gone is the praise for the irreplaceable and excellent animals.

Present is outright contempt for the excellent environment being destroyed.

Do not look at what a lying city council is destroying.

Look at the beautiful pork project WE are providing.

“Reprehensible.” “Ample evidence [of] outrageous misbehavior.” The superior and appeals court were talking about Cambridge’s contempt for civil rights. These words apply to Cambridge’s contempt for our environment as well.

Shame, shame, shame, but the fake environmental saints on the Cambridge City Council have none.

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