Cambridge Chronicle: BU Bridge and related DCR / Cambridge Bad Works

Bob La Trémouille:

The following letter was printed in the August 14, 2008, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle, page 10, under the editor inserted title, "Environment? What environment?"

The anonymous gripe reference is to an anonymous complaint line maintained by the paper from which they print selected comments.

I have not compared versions in detail, but I noticed one minor edit in the Chronicle while preparing this report.

*********

Your anonymous gripe about the closing of the BU Bridge’s western sidewalk for repairs has great value.

The DCR announced the closing on May 20, 2008. The repairs may start the week of August 10.

This is part of a pattern of bad DCR performance.

A quick look at the Boston end of the bridge will show a brand new two lane turn from Commonwealth Avenue. An entire block of greenery was destroyed to create that two lane turn.
The DCR, apparently, has placed markings on the left lane of the new two lane turn PROHIBITING use of the left lane.

Further destruction of vegetation in the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese, east of the Cambridge end of the BU Bridge, is related to the sidewalk project. Some trucks ran over ground vegetation so the DCR’s Charles River Conservancy (CRC) wiped out that vegetation.

They regularly destroy protective vegetation in the nesting area and along the Charles River.

The sidewalk plans were announced to destroy the northern end of the nesting area.

The DCR and Cambridge installed a wall of bushes blocking access from Magazine Beach to the Charles River. The CRC heralded this wall as an boon to swimming through a swim-in after the DCR and Cambridge started starving the Charles River White Geese for the project.

The DCR heralded the starvation in years of statements that they intended to do no harm to the Charles River White Geese. The years of promises were explained by a statement that starving them is not harming them.

Scheduled next is destruction of GREEN maintenance at Magazine Beach for replacement by CHEMICAL maintenance, paid for by the City of Cambridge.

This introduction of chemical maintenance follows on Ebersol Field near Mass. General. The chemicals did not work so the DCR tossed on Tartan. The next day the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the BU Bridge.

Of course, the chemicals will destroy the eggs of birds eating the chemicals. The DCR, through the CRC, has been destroying the eggs of as much waterfowl as they can get away with for years now.

So enjoy the sidewalk project. It is part of a very bad record on the part of the DCR and Cambridge, but both will tell you how green they are. Just do not look at the environment and do not expect minimal competence.

DCR Belligerently Incompetent on BU Bridge Work and Elsewhere

Bob La Trémouille reports with responses in Section 5.

1. Introduction.
2. BU Bridge Sidewalk Project.
a. Sidewalk work – traffic closures THREE MONTHS EARLY.
b. Environmental Vileness of the Sidewalk Project.
3. The Boston Side of the BU Bridge.
a. Preexisting situation.
b. Improvements.
(a) Traffic channel to the BU Bridge.
(b) Carlton Street Bridge.
c. Summary.
4. The Governor’s attitude toward traffic.
5. Responses.
a. Marilyn Wellons, Anderson Bridge.
b. Bob, Longfellow Bridge.


1. Introduction.

The governor has announced a series of major bridge improvements. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)’s work in the BU Bridge area raises very meaningful question, once again, as to whether the DCR should be disbanded as incompetent to perform its construction function.

2. BU Bridge Sidewalk Project.

a. Sidewalk work – traffic closures THREE MONTHS EARLY.

On or about May 10, the DCR closed the westernmost of the four traffic lanes crossing the BU Bridge, causing severe traffic impact. This was for sidewalk work.

The DCR has just announced that NOW, after three months of traffic impact by the closing of that traffic lane, the DCR is going to START the sidewalk work.

b. Environmental Vileness of the Sidewalk Project.

In accordance with the DCR’s total lack of fitness to manage wildlife, the DCR’s plans, last I heard, were to destroy the northern end of the last remaining undestroyed part of the habitat of the Charles River White Geese. The DCR, through its agent the Charles River Conservancy (CRC) has destroyed almost all of the other ground vegetation in increments in the five years the CRC has been routinely destroying ground vegetation for the DCR.

3. The Boston Side of the BU Bridge.

a. Preexisting situation.

The heaviest traffic which crosses over the BU Bridge from the South comes from the Fenway by way of Park Drive and Mountfort Streets and from the Riverway, Longwood and Brookline by way of Carlton Street. These two lanes of traffic merge on a bridge over the Mass. Turnpike which bridge is the extension of Carlton Street.

The Carlton Street Bridge strikes Commonwealth Avenue one block east of the BU Bridge. The bridges and roads in this area have been reorganized as a complicated, modified, traffic circle.

Traffic from the Carlton Street Bridge at Commonwealth Avenue can turn right onto Commonwealth Avenue toward that part of Boston University and toward Kenmore Square.

Traffic from the Carlton Street Bridge can go straight onto a short street which feeds to Storrow Drive East. This is the major route to downtown Boston.

Traffic from the Carlton Street Bridge can go left, either to the BU Bridge or to the portion of Boston University to the west and to Allston.

Traffic on the Carlton Street Bridge is a massive jam up during rush hour. The overwhelming majority of the traffic on that bridge goes over the BU Bridge.

There long has been a mandatory left turn sign requiring the traffic in the left lane to turn left. If it went straight, it would have to fight through very large numbers of cars going to the BU Bridge. That would be very dangerous.

This traffic has long gone through a one lane channel which leads from Commonwealth Avenue to the BU Bridge. The traffic volume is such that commonly two lanes have tried to fit into that one lane channel.

There was an excellent row of greenery on the Boston University side of the sidewalk in this area, between a parking lot and the sidewalk.

b. Improvements.

(a) Traffic channel to the BU Bridge.

One of the first things done in the “improvements” was to destroy that block long row of greenery.

This seemed like a necessary evil, given the traffic situation in that one lane channel with two lanes of traffic using the one lane, and the DCR has increased the size of the channel to two lanes.

They just put in the street markings.

After destroying that excellent greenery to put in two lanes of right turn traffic, the DCR has put down traffic markings which prohibit the use of the left lane of the two right turn lanes for driving.

So the DCR has spent massive amounts of money and destroyed excellent vegetation to create a turn lane which it prohibits using.

(b) Carlton Street Bridge.

The traffic coming off the Carlton Street Bridge has so much traffic going to the BU Bridge that the traffic needs both lanes, and the left lane long has had a sign requiring a left turn.

That sign has been replaced with a sign that requires the left lane to turn left and TELLS THE RIGHT LANE TO GO STRAIGHT OR TURN RIGHT, NOT TO GO LEFT.

Another flatly and simply stupid traffic direction.

c. Summary.

The DCR has spent big bucks on “improvements” which, by its traffic markings and signs, it has tossed into the trashcan, IF THE TRAFFIC MARKINGS AND SIGNS ARE OBEYED.

4. The Governor’s attitude toward traffic.

This Governor has indicated distress at the way people drive in Massachusetts.

A very major factor in the habits of drivers is contempt displayed by the governments of Massachusetts toward highway safety.

The DCR with its THREE MONTH EARLY lane closing on the BU Bridge and its FLAT OUT STUPID signage and marking on the Boston side has displayed contempt for highway safety and toward highway regulation.

If the Governor is serious about highway safety, the Governor will discipline the people responsible for this stupidity and discipline them very publicly.

The Governor should also IMMEDIATELY end the further stupidity planned for Magazine Beach and for the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese to the east of the BU Bridge, and the governor should reverse FIVE YEARS OF OUTRAGES there.

5. Responses.

a. Marilyn Wellons, Anderson Bridge.

Marilyn reports the following concerning the intersection associated with the Bridge on the Boston side of the Charles River:

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

The DCR has also changed the intersection at Soldiers Field Road and North Harvard Street just before the Anderson Bridge.

Formerly two northbound lanes could go straight across the bridge. Now the DCR has restricted the right lane to right turns only, Consequently cars going straight or turning left (to go west on Soldiers Field Road) now line up single file at the light.

When the light changes, cars going straight must move to the right to go around cars waiting for the left turn through southbound traffic from the Anderson Bridge. When they do so, however, they run the risk of being hit from behind or sideswiped by cars in the right-hand, "right-turn only" lane that are in fact going straight--contrary to the DCR's new signs and lane-markings.

It really is an ordeal to navigate this intersection.

b. Bob, Longfellow Bridge.

The Longfellow Bridge is the bridge connecting Kendall Square, Cambridge to Beacon Hill, Boston and the Massachusetts General Hospital.

This bridge on the Boston side feeds into Charles Circle.

In the middle of Charles Circle is Charles Station on the MBTA’s Red Line, which was recently rebuilt along with the traffic circle which is under Charles Station.

The Longfellow Bridge going eastward into Boston feeds to the south of Charles station into a much more complicated road system than the road system which previously existed, and the old road system was complicated.

The two land bridge approach expands into three lanes, the left lane very promptly deadends.

There is a sign telling traffic where to go.

The right lane is directed to go right, to Charles Street, or straight ahead to Cambridge Street.

The middle lane is directed to go straight to Cambridge Street.

The left lane is directed to turn left into what is now six lanes of traffic under Charles Station, organized three lanes, divider, three lanes. The left lane then ends and cannot go straight. Traffic on that lane must turn.

As with the BU Bridge, the traffic turning left into those six lanes under Charles Station is too much for the left lane. The left lane cannot go straight. It must turn into one of those six lanes under Charles Station.

The center lane, because of the marking is prohibited from turning left and ordered only to go straight.

As at the BU Bridge, this is flatly and simply stupid.

Update on Monteiro case

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have been keeping folks up to date on the events in this case insofar as is possible strictly from the docket.

The reality is that, just looking at the docket, the situation looks decidedly strange.

On May 23, 2008, the second jury in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge presented its verdict. The Cambridge Chronicle has reported that the jury’s verdict found that Cambridge had harmed the plaintiff with damages exceeding $1 million because of Cambridge’s retaliation against the Black Female plaintiff for her filing a complaint of discrimination in violation of her civil rights. The jury further found that Cambridge should pay penal damages in the amount of $3.5 million.

This jury verdict, if it stands, could possibly be considered reason to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

On June 19, 2008, the judge conducted a hearing at which time, the plaintiff moved that judgment be entered in accordance with the jury verdict. The defendant, the City of Cambridge, sought a new trial or, in the alternative, reduction of damages.

On July 3, 2008, the City of Cambridge filed "Post Trial Submissions."

On July 13, 2008, the City of Cambridge filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal.

On July 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a response to Cambridge’s "Post Trial Submissions."

Now, on August 4, 2008, the City of Cambridge has filed a "MOTION to strike plff Monteiro’s memorandum in response to deft’s supplemental post-trial submission." Also noted as part of this filing is plaintiff’s opposition and a notice of filing under Superior Court Rule 9A which governs motion practice.

I do not know what is in the papers. They are on the judge’s desk. I have no knowledge of what was done in the trial. All I know is what is in the docket.

Cambridge, MA: A Primer on What Passes for Environmentalism

Bob La Trémouille reports:

A week ago, the Cambridge Chronicle printed a letter to the editor objecting to a new park being built in the eastern end of Central Square.

Yesterday, July 31, 2008, they printed the following response from me with consolidation of a number of paragraphs:

***********

The Columbia - Main Park project is highly unusual from the Cambridge City Council in that, as far as I know, it does not feature wanton environmental destruction.

Extreme bad examples are:

Fresh Pond where a massive number of HEALTHY trees are being destroyed because they are in the way of saplings.

Explanation: Golly gee, won't it look nice!!! Besides, we don't count trees we destroy. We only count trees we plant.

Magazine Beach pending: Destruction of GREEN maintenance to replace it with CHEMICAL maintenance. The prototype is Ebersol Fields near Mass. General. The chemicals did not work so the DCR dumped Tartan. The next day the Charles was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge and the results of the poisoning recur every year.

The chemicals have the side effect of poisoning feeding birds and destroying their eggs.

Explanation: Golly gee, won't it look nice!!!

Magazine Beach accomplished: Wetlands and animal habitat destroyed to wall off the Charles River with a bizarre wall of bushes.

Explanation? The developer funded Charles River Conservancy conducted a swim in to celebrate blocking off swimming. Some of the usual types say you have to be crazy to call this bizarre wall of bushes bizarre.

Simultaneously with blocking all of the waterfront at Magazine Beach, Cambridge put up a wall blocking off access to the grass at the Hyatt.

One hundred percent denial of their food to the Charles River White Geese.

Explanation: The DCR repeatedly denies intent to harm. They say that starving them is not harming them.

Or you might want to talk to some of these supposedly environmental groups containing friends of the city council / city manager. They do not want to know nothing.

So, live sweet. Ask any one of your beloved city councilors.

They will brag that they are pro-environment.

They are just shocked if you look at the environment. They want you to look at their lovely buildings and their lovely saplings.

The best thing that could happen to the environment in Cambridge would be for the $4.5 million CIVIL RIGHTS JURY judgment against the City Manager to go final.

That might force nine extremely bad city councilors to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

Update on Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports:

On July 25, 2008, the following paper was filed: Plaintiff, Malvina Monteiro response to Post-Trial Supplemental Submission of the City of Cambridge.

This follows on several actions since the jury verdict was rendered:

5/23/08: Verdict of Jury for the Plaintiff.
6/19/08: Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment and the Defendant's Motion for reversal of jury verdict or for reduction of damages.
7/3/08: Defendant's Post-Trial Submissions.
7/15/08: Defendant's Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal.

Please see below for detailed analysis of this matter.

Report on Citizens Advisory Committee on Urban Ring meeting, July 28, 2008

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. EOT’s alternatives to the bus tunnel are in blatant violation of the Secretary’s Certificate upon which the Phase 2 process is based.
a. Added Fenway Park Station.
b. Tunnel to BU Bridge.
c. Summary.
3. Games from the City of Cambridge.
a. Report from a Cambridge appointee.
b. Future of the Cambridge City Manager.
c. Results of a changing of the guard in Cambridge?
4. Allston.
5. Marilyn Wellons comments.

1. Introduction.

The Citizens’ Advisory Committee for the Urban Ring met in Boston City Hall on Monday afternoon, July 28, 2008.

The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT, hope I translated right) announced it is expanding on the grossly expensive bus tunnel proposed for the Longwood Medical Area as part of Phase 2, buses, of the Urban Ring transportation proposal.

This expansion would be done through two "alternatives" based on this massive tunnel.

The basic proposal connects buses from Yawkey Station (near Fenway Park and Kenmore) to Louis Pasteur and Longwood (in the heart of the Longwood Medical Area) and then to Ruggles Station. The entire route is underground and very expensive. It would cost $1.5 Billion of a $2.2 Billion project that is supposed to be regional.

The 1.5 mile busway would service two buslines. One is a renumbered CT-2 bus. The other is a renumbered CT-3 bus. It is proposed to have one stop, at Louis Pasteur and Longwood.

Additionally, Boston has proposed an alternative in Allston which would be further west than the existing proposal.

2. EOT’s alternatives to the bus tunnel are in blatant violation of the Secretary’s Certificate upon which the Phase 2 process is based.

There are two new alternative tunnel routes proposed. No cost estimates were provided but both would raise the price tag on the tunnel part of the Urban Ring.

a. Added Fenway Park Station.

One alternative would move the spot at which the northern end of the tunnel comes out of the ground closer to Yawkey Station.

The purpose of this change is to allow room for a station connecting to the Fenway Park station on the Green Line Riverside line.

This station would bring the tunnel buses much closer to Green Line passengers. This change would, however, require that Longwood passengers travel on only one branch of the Green Line, at least for the last few hundred yards. It would also create a station fairly close to the Kenmore Station on the Urban Ring Phase 3 subway line.

Without this change, the basic proposal would run the renumbered CT-3 Bus to Kenmore from Yawkey to pick up Green Line passengers. That would have quite major traffic impact especially in rush hours.

b. Tunnel to BU Bridge.

The other alternate tunnel would connect to the BU Bridge system. It would turn the bus tunnel at Park Drive / the Fenway Park station rather than going straight ahead toward Yawkey. The bus tunnel would then run under Park Drive and Mountfort. The bus tunnel would turn to the north just before the current BU Bridge roadway system. This tunnel would connect to the highways to be built over the Grand Junction railroad bridge and to the highways proposed to Harvard’s Business, Science and Med School campus in Allston.

Two additional stops are proposed, one at the Fenway Park station apparently connecting to the Riverside and Cleveland Circle lines and the second just south of Commonwealth Avenue in what is now a parking lot, connecting to the Commonwealth Avenue line.

c. Summary.

These alternatives would be in clear violation of the directions of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs in her certificate that initiated the current planning process. The Secretary ordered that nothing be done in Phase 2 which would interfere with the options in phase 3.

The bus tunnel connecting to the BU Bridge system would be the BU Bridge crossing. Building that tunnel in Phase 2 would decide which of the two Charles River crossings be would used in Phase 3.

Putting the phase 3 crossing tunnel in phase 2 would decide Phase 3 Charles River crossing determinations AGAINST the Kenmore crossing which is far superior from a transportation and an environmental point of view.

Problems with the change that would only add a Fenway Park station and move the portal slightly are much less major but not insignificant. That new stop would put two stops on the Urban Ring for the Riverside line, pretty close together, this new bus transfer, and the excellent Kenmore Station. This would hurt performance on the Urban Ring and provide no real improvement in service.

3. Games from the City of Cambridge.

a. Report from a Cambridge appointee.

The increasing violations of the secretary’s certificate are very reminiscent of a report an Audubon Circle (Park Drive and Beacon) resident got from a female friend appointed to a Cambridge entity.

My immediate reaction, before hearing anything else, when I heard the friend was a Cambridge appointee, was that the friend should not be trusted because of the lack of trustworthiness of many representatives of the City of Cambridge both disclosed and, much more importantly, undisclosed. This is not a condemnation of each and every member of such committees. Rather, it is recognition that these people can wind up on the receiving end of false statements.

The friend told her that the Phase 3 Kenmore Crossing was dead.

Looks like the City of Cambridge or one of its friends is trying to decide the issue without allowing it to be considered.

b. Future of the Cambridge City Manager.

The Cambridge City Council is on the verge of figuring out what to do with a jury verdict on civil rights abuses by the Cambridge City Manager. A Middlesex Superior Court jury has found illegal retaliation by the Cambridge City Manager in his firing of a black female department head for filing a civil rights claim.

It looks like the Cambridge City Council will have to decide between appealing the $4.5 million jury verdict or paying it and disciplining the Cambridge City Manager.

c. Results of a changing of the guard in Cambridge?

Perhaps the environmental dirty tricks will stop under a new City Manager? Firing him would still leave severe problems which would have to be cleared out in the development department. Firing him would not kill the massive army of an organization he and his predecessor have created through the development department over 35 years.

4. Allston.

The City of Boston has proposed an Allston alignment further west, near what is the Brighton Mills (Shaw’s Super Market) complex on Western Avenue.

The chair promised to send me a copy of the letter.

5. Marilyn Wellons comments on 3. c., above:

Your point about Cambridge if and when Healy-Rossi leave is very well taken.

As we're seeing, it's not easy to get rid of a rat infestation following uncontrolled construction projects.

To Cambridge City Council: Bar City Manager & City Solicitor from Monteiro Discussions as Advisors

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I mailed the following letter yesterday to the Cambridge City Council:

July 25, 2008
City Council
City of Cambridge
c/o City Clerk
Cambridge City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

RE: Monteiro v. Cambridge
Middlesex County Civil Docket MICV2001-02737

Gentlemen/Ladies:

Soon, the Cambridge City Council will be faced with a decision as to whether the City should appeal the judgment in the Monteiro case or, as the jury would seem to consider appropriate, fire the Cambridge City Manager plus, perhaps, the Cambridge City Solicitor.

The very major penal damages awarded by the jury in addition to major actual damages indicate rather strong contempt by the jury for the behavior of the City of Cambridge in this matter.

Should the City of Cambridge choose to accept the jury decision, a good deal of money is readily available by killing the outrageous environmental projects at Magazine Beach and Fresh Pond.

Since the jobs of the Cambridge City Manager and Cambridge City Solicitor are at stake, it would seem highly inappropriate that either participate in deliberations as advisors to the Cambridge City Council and, instead, be considered potential targets for personnel actions.

I did not witness the trial and the file on the case is not available. The file is on the desk of Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod who presided over the trial. I have reviewed the docket and have read the report in the Cambridge Chronicle.

The jury verdict was entered on May 23, 2008. The Cambridge Chronicle reports that the plaintiff was awarded more than $1 million in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages. These actions were taken in response to a complaint by the plaintiff that she had been fired in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint against the City of Cambridge.

On May 29, 2008, Cambridge moved for prompt hearing on post trial motions. On June 12, 2008, post trial motions were filed including Cambridge’s motion to set aside the verdict or reduce the award. On June 19, a hearing was held on the motions. Cambridge has since, on July 3, filed “Defendant’s Post Trial Submissions,” and, on July 15, filed “Defendant City of Cambridge’s MOTION to supplement record on appeal.”

Justice Catherine A. White presided over the original trial in which the jury was deadlocked on the issue of retaliation by Cambridge because the plaintiff filed the basic civil rights complaint.

Cambridge moved that Justice White find for the city on the issue of retaliation after the jury deadlocked. Justice White’s order in response, by electronic copy from the docket, is attached.

The relevant portion of Justice White’s order reads:

"Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable."

Justice White talks about a “number of incidents.”

It is unlikely that the evidence in the second trial was less favorable to the plaintiff. The jury verdict very clearly responds to what Justice White refers to as a “number of incidents.”

Cambridge is asking Justice MacLeod not only to reverse the jury verdict but also to reverse the order of Justice White.

Such a reversal by Justice MacLeod seems highly unlikely.

What is highly likely is that Justice MacLeod is spending a lot of time providing written documentation of the “number of incidents.”

The jury clearly considered the behavior of the Cambridge City Manager reprehensible. It is highly unlikely that the Cambridge City Manager accomplished this behavior without advice of the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Neither the Cambridge City Manager nor the Cambridge City Solicitor should participate as advisors in your consideration of whether to appeal or to take disciplinary action against the Cambridge City Manager plus perhaps against the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Thank you in advance for taking behavior appropriate for a City Council which states that it is pro-civil rights.

Sincerely,

Robert J. La Trémouille


Attachment 1, Monteiro v. Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court Civil Action MICV2001- 02737, paper 81, June 2, 2005, electronic copy of docket entry. [Ed: In the letter, this is a direct electronic copy of the docket. The docket is in tabular format. The numbers are in cells on the left. The text is in cells on the right. The tabular format has been lost in copying to this blog. In my edits, I have tried to block off the text to make it read better. My blocking has also been lost. Another possible edit would be to drop the numbers on the left. I have chosen not to do that edit because of my opinion that that edit would not be true to what was transmitted.]

ORDER on Defendant's Motion for
Directed Verdict and/or
2 Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict:
3 Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that, admittedly, a
4 long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial complaint of
5 discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate her. However,
6 there was also evidence of a number of incidents that could arguably
7 be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events. Accordingly, this
8 Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the passage of time
9 makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable. Plaintiff's statement
10 of supplemental authority, forwarded to the Court on April 21, 2005
11 does not persuade the Court to change its earlier rulings.
12 Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's earlier denial of
13 a motion for directed verdict on this issue is denied, and the motion
14 for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence remains
15 denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a) report to the Appeals
16 Court is also denied. ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Directed
17 Verdict and/or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion for Directed
18 Verdict: Evidence at the trial of this matter demonstrated that,
19 admittedly, a long period of time elapsed between plaintiff's initial
20 complaint of discrimination and the ultimate decision to terminate
21 her. However, there was also evidence of a number of incidents that
22 could arguably be viewed as retaliatory and not neutral events.
23 Accordingly, this Court does not find, as a matter of law, that the
24 passage of time makes plaintiff's retaliation claim untenable.
25 Plaintiff's statement of supplemental authority, forwarded to the
26 Court on April 21, 2005 does not persuade the Court to change its
27 earlier rulings. Accordingly, this motion to reconsider the Court's
28 earlier denial of a motion for directed verdict on this issue is
29 denied, and the motion for directed verdict at the close of all of
30 the evidence remains denied. Finally, the request for a Rule 64(a)
31 report to the Appeals Court is also denied. Dated: May 27, 2005
32 (White, Catherine A.) Justice of the Superior Court. Dated: May 27,
33 2005

Further update

At the previous post's Item 4, Bob La Tremouille reports on behavior by the City Manager and his appointees. Marilyn Wellons reports here one incident involving the Deputy City Manager:

I've heard that aggrieved citizens had a meeting with Cambridge Deputy City Manager Rossi about an issue he apparently did not agree with them on. When the residents entered his office, Mr. Rossi was at his desk with his feet up, and his feet remained there during the meeting, blocking the residents' view of his face and his of theirs.

Showing the soles of your shoes like this is a well-known and serious insult in other parts of the world.

If confirmed, this is the first instance of it I've heard of here. I'm struck how even in our culture this behavior comes across as deeply insulting.

My husband's reaction to the report was that "the people of Cambridge seem to have bought themselves an official who has no fear of consequences for such acts."

The judgment against the City of Cambridge under the management of people like this may change that.

Update on jury’s more than $4.5 million civil rights award against the City of Cambridge.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Update.
2. Analysis of case.
3. What the judge could be looking at.
4. My experiences.


1. Update.

The jury decision against the City of Cambridge in Monteiro v. Cambridge continues to be on the judge’s desk.

The jury found that Cambridge had retaliated against a black woman for filing a civil rights action against Cambridge. She was the head of the Police Review Board until fired, according to the jury, in retaliation for filing the civil rights complaint.

The jury awarded slightly over $1 million in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages.

The jury rendered its verdict on May 23, 2008. On May 29, the City of Cambridge moved for prompt hearing on post trial motions. The motions were filed on June 12, and a hearing conducted on June 19. On July 3, Cambridge filed something described as “Defendant’s Post Trial Submissions.”

On July 15, which I became aware of on July 22 when checking the docket, Cambridge filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal.

Cambridge is trying to get the judge to say that the jury decision makes no sense and throw it out. In the alternative, Cambridge is trying to get the judge to reduce the award.

2. Analysis of case.

It truly is impossible to enter into a specific analysis of the case. I did not witness any part of the trial. I have not read the transcript. I can’t even read the papers because they are on the judge’s desk while she thinks the matter over.

The judge hearing the case is Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod.

A similar motion was heard by the trial judge in the first trial of the case. In that trial, the jury found against the plaintiff on her primary claim of civil rights abuses, but was unable to come to a verdict on the plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.

The docket in the trial indicates some instances in which the Court was asked to intervene on preliminary matters.

Service in the case was made on September 25, 2001. A joint pre-trial memorandum was filed on March 1, 2005. Trial was held on April 12, 2005, matter taken under advisement, Catherine A White Justice.

It is not clear from the docket, but my understanding is that the jury found against the plaintiff on the main civil rights complaint and was unable to come to a verdict on the retaliation complaint.

On June 2, 2005, Judge White denied the City of Cambridge’s motion to order a finding against the plaintiff on the retaliation claim.

There is a lot of similarity between what apparently faced Justice White in 2005 and what is now facing Justice MacLeod. The most important difference is that the 2005 jury could not come to a decision and the 2008 jury came to a decision with a vengeance.

3. What the judge could be looking at.

There have been United States Supreme Court decisions on penal damages. The jury’s award rather clearly seems to push the limit allowed. A recent very major maritime decision by the U.S. Supreme Court limited penal damages to the amount of actual damages.

Clearly, Justice MacLeod is thinking things over and forging a decision with an eye to ensuring that it will stand up on appeal.

Clearly, as well, once a jury has reached a decision, there is very strong bias to retaining the decision. There has to be very good reason to overturn a decision.

Justice White in 2005 found that she could not order a decision against the plaintiff on the retaliation issue after the jury deadlocked. The law is such that the situation has to be extremely clear to make such an order.

The way the law works, it is highly unlikely that Justice MacLeod will overturn the jury’s decision.

That leaves the issue of damages and penal damages. The first point is whether damages were accurately awarded. The second point is whether penal damages are appropriate or are excessive.

$1 million plus in real damages is what the jury found to be the actual monetary harm done.

Something caused the jury to award $3.5 million in penal damages. It is reasonable to assume that the jury was given reason to have very strong contempt for the actions of the City of Cambridge.

To the extent that there was supporting testimony, the judge is probably trying to put that testimony together to determine if the $3.5 million in penal damages.

4. My experiences.

I can say very little about the Cambridge City Manager directly. I have been exposed to his organization in the community and to his representatives in the Development Department. The exposure leaves me with a very strong feeling that parallels the apparent feeling of the jury.

I have very strong concern for the behavior of the City of Cambridge on Environmental and Civil Rights matters. Judging the behavior of the City of Cambridge on the basis its own rhetoric, I see good reason to have contempt for the City of Cambridge.

Of the top of my head, I can remember one situation in which the Election Board flatly and simply refused to obey a clearly applicable case and threw out more than half the signatures on an election nomination petition. A strikingly bizarre “decision” from the City Solicitor blessed this outrageous action.

I can go on and on about outrageous behavior by the “neighborhood groups” and individuals which are aligned with the Cambridge City Manager. There have been repeated complaints about behavior of appointees of the Cambridge City Manager. His number two person, in particular, has earned a lot of concern, to use the nicest word conceivable.

The actions commonly can get quite personal.

My experience tells me that the judge probably has plenty in the record to justify the $3.5 million penal damage verdict.

We will see.

Update on Environmental Destruction by DCR

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The state's Department of Conservation and Recreation has contempt for the environment with which it is charged.

This contempt is demonstrated by the horribly irresponsible large projects but also by season to season destruction of vegetation which has the nerve to look like nobody paid to put it in. They pay contractors to put in irresponsible nonsense. And they destroy valuable protective vegetation through agents as well.

The bizarre wall of green which blocks off the Charles from Magazine Beach is far more intrusive than the stuff they spend massive amounts of work destroying, but the stuff they destroy has not been planted by generous contributors.

As part of the destruction of protective native vegetation everywhere on the Charles, these people have been destroying ground vegetation at the nesting area of the Charles River White Geese, piece by piece.

They started destroying ground vegetation toward the railroad tracks, then toward the Charles and then on the far side of the railroad tracks. Very little has returned. They have to be tossing on poisons as well.

The very visible parts of the nesting area have been spared the depravity of the DCR and its agents until this last off season.

We had deep brambles which held the soil together and which were used for nesting protection.

During the off season, contractors / the DCR had trucks in the nesting area preparing for the current projects. The trucks trampled vegetation. This spring, the DCR’s agents destroyed the vegetation which had been trampled.

If the vegetation had been let be, it would have healed itself, but the DCR’s agents found the situation offensive, so they dug up the crushed vegetation and exposed the dirt below.

We used to have a narrow path through the brambles from the corner of the BU Bridge and the Memorial Drive onramp. DCR’s sickos massively widened that path in the direction toward the BU Bridge. The damage created is unrepaired by nature. The destruction by the DCR’s agents is just dirt now.

The main brambles were untouched to the east of the path by the contractors’ trucks. The area away from the path, to the east, was damaged. The DCR’s sickos destroyed that vegetation.

Some vegetation has aggressively regrown, along the eastern edge of the brambles destroyed by the DCR’s sickos. The regrowth is quite limited and there is a lot of possible dirt where brambles have been dug up.

I walked the nesting area. I see a tiny amount of ground vegetation has returned under the trees toward the tracks.

In the last day or so, a very large tree has toppled next to the BU Bridge, not far from the Charles River. Its limbs are fully leaved, and it is lying on dirt / desolation created by the DCR’s sickos in past years.

The tree is still connected to the ground although toppled. It could very easily, I would think, survive and grow healthily.

This could be an improvement, but we are dealing with environmentally reprehensible people. Very certainly the DCR’s sickos will destroy the tree and destroy the ground on which it is lying, as they did with the brambles which were crushed during the off season.

We are dealing with really destructive people, environmentally reprehensible state and city governments.

Ebersol Fields: Excellent Globe Article - Marilyn's Letter

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital is the state's precursor to the outrage in the process at Magazine Beach in Cambridge.

On Wednesday, July 9, 2008, the Boston Globe printed an excellent article on this magnificent and unused part of the Charles River.

Marilyn Wellons sent out the following letter to the editor to the Boston Globe in response early in the morning on July 10:

**********

re: "Build it and they may not come," July 9, 2008.

Commissioner Sullivan’s Department of Conservation and Recreation and Cambridge are poised to repeat the errors of Ebersol Fields at Magazine Beach in Cambridge next month.

Restricted access to the playing fields there is imminent. At Cambridge’s expense, professional-level facilities will be constructed on state parkland now open to everyone. In return, Cambridge users will get privileged access. The DCR will advertise the project in two weeks for work to start in August.

A DCR official has stated that to maintain the “quality of turf our players deserve,” Ebersol Fields must get not only fertilizers but other chemicals, including a fungicide not to be applied near bodies of water. The agency has duly applied them. Runoff from these chemicals—organic or not—has fed astronomical algae blooms in the lower Charles since Ebersol Fields were installed in the spring of 2006. Now Cambridge and the DCR are bringing the algae to Magazine Beach. (For this we’ve spent $60 million to clean up the Charles?)

At Ebersol Fields, the donors’ good intentions and funds were diverted from the real needs of children in Boston neighborhoods to this blunder in the beautiful setting. The project at Magazine Beach repeats the error in Cambridge.

Update on Jury's $4.5 Million+ Civil Rights Award Against Cambridge

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have been keeping track of the Middlesex (MA) Superior Court case, Monteiro et al v. City of Cambridge. This is the case in which a jury has found the City of Cambridge, MA guilty of firing a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a discrimination complaint. The jury awarded over a million dollars in actual damages and $3.5 million in penal damages.

Of major importance here is the extreme hyporcrisy of government in Cambridge, MA. If this jury verdict goes final, there is a possibility that the Cambridge City Council, as bad as it is, will have no choice but to fire the Cambridge City Manager for extreme misbehavior in office.

On June 19, 2008, the judge conducted a hearing on Cambridge's post trial motions to set aside or reduce the jury's verdict. These motions were filed on June 12, 2008 with regard to the jury verdict entered on May 19, 2008.

I checked on the matter this past Tuesday, July 8. No judge's decision has been filed.

On July 3, additional papers were filed under the name of "Defendant's Post Trial Submissions."

Will Nine City Councilors Fire the Cambridge City Manager for Cause?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have reported to you concerning the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

In this case, the former head of the City of Cambridge’s Police Review Board filed a complaint alleging discrimination in the work place. She further complained that she had been fired in retaliation for filing the complaint.

The juries which heard the complaint found (1) that the original complaint was not proven; and (2) that the City of Cambridge had fired her in retaliation for filing the original complaint.

The jury found that Cambridge should pay Ms. Monteiro over a million dollars for harm done to her and $3.5 million as a penal judgment. The jury displayed very strong contempt for the actions of the City of Cambridge.

Yesterday, I traveled to the new location of the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn to review the file. The file was still on the judge’s desk. I was able to obtain the docket, which lists formal actions taken in the case.

On June 16, the Cambridge City Council went into executive session to discuss this matter.

The docket indicates that:

1. On May 23, 2008, the jury entered its verdict for the plaintiff.

2. On May 29, 2008, Cambridge filed an emergency motion for prompt hearing on post-trial motions.

3. On June 12, 2008, the following papers were filed:

a. Motion of the plaintiff for entry of Final Judgment, and Cambridge’s opposition.
b. Cambridge’s motion for Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the plaintiff’s opposition thereto.
c. Plaintiff’s response to the Emergency motion for prompt hearing.
d. Cambridge’s motion for a New Trial or in the alternative for a Remittitur and plaintiff’s opposition.

4. A hearing was held on June 19, 2008 with regard to the June 12, 2008 items.

Obviously, the judge is still considering the matter.

It will take quite a bit to convince the judge to overturn the jury’s quite strong verdict.

The most likely decision of the judge will be to reject Cambridge’s applications in whole, or, possibly, to order a reduction in damages.

If the most likely decision of the judge comes through, the Cambridge City Council will have a jury verdict that the Cambridge City Manager has indulged in severe misconduct in office.

The Cambridge City Council might decide to appeal.

The Cambridge City Council might decide to fire the Cambridge City Manager for cause.

Firing a department head in retaliation for the department head’s discrimination complaint, at minimum, is severe misconduct in office.

Without this jury verdict, I can think of plenty of reasons to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

This jury verdict would provide ironclad reason to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

BUT Cambridge has nine really bad City Councilors.

We will see what happens.

Environmental Sickos Destroy More Vegetation

1. Bob La Trémouille reports.
a. Use of agents by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
b. Nature heals, DCR / agents destroy.
c. Sidewalk work.
2. Marilyn responds.

1. Bob La Trémouille reports.

a. Use of agents by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Over the years, the Department of Conservation and Recreation has educated us on the many very varied techniques in lying.

One of their biggest techniques is environmental destruction through their agents. The most destructive agent in the last six years would appear to be the environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy.

These people, on behalf of the DCR, have poisoned the eggs of as much waterfowl as they can get away with over the period. These bastard, on behalf of the DCR, have routinely destroyed protective ground vegetation through the lower part of the Charles River. Twice a year, they proudly destroy the ground vegetation used as cover by migrating birds.

The DCR's explanation: they are not doing that, it is their agent who is doing that. Naturally, they neglect to mention the agency angle.

In October 1999, Boston University, acting as the DCR's agent, destroyed all the vegetation in the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese and replaced it with grass, along with a stupid path that promptly washed into the Charles.

b. Nature heals, DCR / agents destroy.

Since then, nature regained its own and a beautiful natural habitat returned.

However, during the sick reign of the CRC, ground vegetatation has been steadily destroyed and, inasmuch as the ground cover quite consistently has not returned, rather clearly, poisons have been applied to the ground.

Vegetation was first destroyed under the trees toward the railroad.

Vegetation has been destroyed under the trees toward the river.

Massive amounts of vegetation have been destroyed under the trees on the other side of the railroad track.

All this is animal habitat, DESTROYED.

c. Sidewalk work.

The plans for the sidewalk "improvements" showed destruction of the half of the nesting area toward the on ramp to Memorial Drive.

During the fall and winter, vehicles tramped down vegetation toward the BU Bridge and toward the off ramp.

That vegetation formerly was brambles.

This spring it was replaced with dirt by removing the brambles and replacing them, as usual, with nothing.

The DCR, as usual, promises all sorts of lovely things while they are destroying.

It looks like the destroyed brambles toward the BU Bridge are used for parking to access a barge in the Charles which is part of the sidewalk project.

Really sick people. Really sick liars.

Really, really destructive.

2. Marilyn responds.

In general the retreat of the plants is alarming and horrible. It's in contrast to the true wall of plants that block access to and from the water at Magazine Beach. The DCR has been so sanctimonious about the need for uninterrupted access to the river and here, at MBeach, it is happy to eliminate it.

I remembered the DCR's consultant for the Charles River Master Plan saying several years ago that at Herter West the plants were so thick you didn't know you were by the water. This was a patent lie, as any walk along the riverside path there will show.

What would he say about the DCR and Cambridge's handiwork at Magazine Beach, where you literally cannot see the water for almost the entire the length of the riverside walk? Maybe someone 6'1" or 6' 2" could see over the plants, but I certainly couldn't.

Damn good jury!!!

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have submitted the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. The preceding report goes into more detail.

***********

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

You recently reported a jury decision in a civil rights action against the City of Cambridge.

The jury found that the Cambridge had harmed the plaintiff in an amount of slightly over a million dollars and the jury awarded additional damages as punitive damages in the amount of $3.5 million to be paid by Cambridge.

I hope that you and your readers understand what happened here.

The plaintiff filed a civil rights action. The action first alleged that she had been mistreated in her workplace. The action had a second allegation. The second allegation said that she had been harmed by the city because she had filed the original civil rights complaint. This technical term for this second complaint is "retaliation."

The combined jury verdicts said (1) that the plaintiff’s original complaint had not been proven, but (2) that the city’s retaliation against the plaintiff was flatly and simply outrageous.

So the juries (1) awarded nothing on the original complaint, (2) awarded $1 million plus as actual damages on the retaliation complaint and (3) awarded $3.5 million to show its contempt for the city in the city’’s retaliation against the plaintiff, in addition to and above real damages.

We have a really bad city government. Cambridge’s city government routinely does outrageously nasty things and then sits back and says nothing.

The most we have gotten out of the heartless animal abuse being inflicted on the Charles River White Geese has been one statement from one councilor which translates as:

"How dare you object to my heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese. This is the little guy. I have an absolute right to abuse the little guy."

Kathy Podgers has now gotten two findings of probable cause of discrimination against the city from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. The responses from city pols have included a response which translates as:

"How dare you object to our treatment of Kathy Podgers. She is the little guy. We have an absolute right to abuse the little guy."

This appears to be a normal mentality from the City.

The jury has responded to this mentality. The jury has responded $3.5 million worth. Above and beyond real harm.

The jury is a heck of a lot more normal than the government of the City of Cambridge.

$3.5 million dollars in penalties to express contempt for heartless behavior by the government of the City of Cambridge!!!

Damn good jury.

CIVIL RIGHTS JURY ORDERS CAMBRIDGE, MA TO PAY $ 3.5 MILLION IN PENALTIES FOR HEARTLESS BEHAVIOR

1. Context.
2. Jury Order.
3. Reality.
4. The Cambridge Pols and Reality.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Context.

The City of Cambridge has a massive internal lobby which runs around making all sorts of lovely but ultimately false generalizations about the government and its City Councilors.

The most outrageous statements claim that these people are pro-environment and pro-civil rights.

They indulge in frequently reprehensible behavior.

They take the outrageous action and then refuse to discuss it, while making loud and very general proclamations about themselves which are the opposite of the behavior.

The heartless treatment of the Charles River White Geese, to the extent they will allow any discussion, is dismissed in ways which translate as:

*********

How dare you mention my treatment of these animals. These are the little guy. How dare you object to my mistreatment of the little guys.

*********

Similarly, the treatment of Kathy Podgers get a related explanation:

*********

That is just one person. How dare you expect me to treat one person’s civil rights with respect.

*********

Kathy Podgers has now obtained two findings of probable cause of discrimination against these bastards at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

They brag about treatment of Blacks and gays, but Blacks and gays are well-organized powerful lobbies in Cambridge, MA.

Civil rights is about respecting the rights of the little guy.

2. Jury Order.

Last week’s Cambridge Chronicle (May 29, 2008) headlined a jury award against Cambridge, MA for civil rights violations.

The plaintiff, a former department head, complained that she was singled out for mistreatment for grounds that constituted violation of state and federal civil rights .

The first jury trial found no basis for this claim.

The second jury trial found violation of her civil rights because of RETALIATION against the plaintiff for filing the basic claim.

The jury award slightly over $ 1 million in damages, and added an additional $ 3.5 million in punitive damages.

That $ 3.5 million in punitive damages is simply the jury’s way of communicating to the City of Cambridge that the City of Cambridge is a very reprehensible entity.

This is not surprising.

Cambridge keeps itself going internally by its massive internal lobbying arm, the Cambridge Pols, who run around saying lovely false things about this very destructive city government. The governmental and elected people do not want to know reality. All they want to know is what the Cambridge Pols are saying.

The jury very clearly hopes that the $ 3.5 million will communicate reality to the nine members of the Cambridge City Council.

3. Reality.

My feeling based on years of observation is that there is too often a feeling that if you want me to obey the clear requirements of law, sue me.

If you want me to be environmentally responsible, sue me.

One clear example of this mentality is the flat out refusal of the Cambridge Election Commission to obey the recent Jack E. Robinson decision based on the “opinion” of the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Another excellent example is the outrageous environmental destruction which is normal when the City of Cambridge does public works projects. Altogether too often, the first thing they do is destroy healthy trees.

Another excellent example is the “opinion” supposedly given by the Cambridge City Solicitor informing of legal requirements needed to be satisfied to protect the pittance of undestroyed open space in the Public Library area. I have gone into this extensively.

4. The Cambridge Pols and Reality.

The Cambridge Pols are not at all concerned about reality. They will just run around singing the praises of these bastards.

On Open Space in Cambridge, MA and Con Games?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.

What would you say about a “community leader” faced with an issue of use of open space in his neighborhood, about which the following applies?
a. The city has destroyed the best park in the neighborhood TWICE.
b. First they destroyed something like thirty out of 40 one hundred year old trees, promising they would provide perhaps 50 saplings as “replacements” in a nearby, inferior location.
c. The city has just destroyed the 50 replacements.
d. The “leader"’s constituents want protection for the pittance of open space which has not been destroyed yet.
e. In the key meeting, this “leader” introduces his wife.
f. His wife was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit which obtained ON APPEAL a preliminary injunction against the destruction of the original park with its hundred year old trees. It is next to impossible to get injunctions on appeal.
g. The judge eventually allowed destruction of the park and most of the hundred year old trees based on his interpretation of a state statute protecting parks.
h. At the key meeting, the “community leader” suppresses providing his constituents with the the judge’s decision on the meaning of the statute protecting parks in the case in which his wife was lead plaintiff.
i. Instead the “community leader” bullies his organization to obey the “legal opinion” of the attorney for the city government which destroyed the hundred year old park and just destroyed the supposed replacement trees.
j. The “legal opinion” quoted by the “community leader” certainly seems to be exactly the opposite of the clear language of the statute and the opposite of the judge’s opinion concerning the exact same open space.
k. The “legal opinion” would have the constituents chase their tails for a few years.
l. Cambridge Pols have a long record of getting well meaning people to chase their tails.
m. The “community leader” orders that the “opinion” of the city solicitor be obeyed and posted on the neighborhood association website.
n. The “community leader” orders that the court decision WHICH HIS WIFE GOT, be ignored and not be posted on the website.
o. The “community leader” is the head of a group with a long record of Cambridge Pols control.
p. The Cambridge Pols have a long record of getting constituents to chase their tails.
q. Is it any wonder that Cambridge is so terrible on environmental matters?

2. The bitter details:

a. Fake groups dominated by the Cambridge Pols.

The front organizations controlled by the Cambridge Pols and through them, by the City of Cambridge, date back to the 1970's.

In my opinion, the worst, as far as getting damage to their OWN supposed causes, has long been the “Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association.”

This sort of group commonly “appears” when a developer has a project and the group purports to represent the neighborhood with regard to the project.

A very tiny group then selects a slightly larger coordinating group. They all join together to stomp people who are really concerned about the supposed cause of the group.
It is possible to get things done in such a group BUT you commonly have to beat the people who dominate it. The technical name for such a group is “company union.”

b. Some of my experience with the Mid-Cambridge group.

I have downzoned about 85% of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Central Squares in Cambridge working with various groups and I have downzoned many other parts of Cambridge.

The purpose of the downzonings has been to protect sidewalk level open space, to protect housing and to minimize the environmental impact of excessively commercial development. Office uses generate three times the vehicular traffic as residential uses, and retail uses generate nine time the vehicular traffic as residential uses. Cambridge has approximately twice the jobs it needs for its population.

Cambridge Pols have been consistently on the wrong side of the Massachusetts Avenue downzonings and have done severe harm, commonly with outrageous lies. The key to these flat out lies has been to troop [people] into a meeting PEOPLE who will vouch for frequently outrageous nonsense.

I, however, have more than once beaten the Cambridge Pols and gotten support of this group.

(1) The La Trémouille Petition.

In 1980, the first zoning petition on Mass. Ave., the petition was written by a committee appointed by the Mid- Cambridge group, and the committee did what it was appointed to do on the downzoning petition it wrote.

The Cambridge Pols tried to bully the committee into turning the downzoning proposal into an upzoning. When the committee would not violate its orders from the group, theCambridge Pols then ran around claiming to represent the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association not only with no vote of the association but also pushing those goals which conflicted with the vote that formed the committee.

We finally forced another vote of the Mid-Cambridge group. We won again. HOWEVER, since we spent so much time fighting the bastards, their rogue effort destroyed the important parts of the initiative. This initiative changed zoning in the middle portion of Mass. Ave.

(2) The Natalie Ward Petition.

In 1989, we achieved a major downzoning of East Harvard Square.

After we had made the key agreements with members of the Cambridge City Council the Cambridge Pols spoke to the neighborhood group which was doing the work with the key lie:

You have made your deal with the City Council, now you have to deal with the Planning Board.

A flat out lie, but it bullied major concessions out of the petitioners.

In spite of the backstabbing, this downzoning forced the Inn at Harvard building on Harvard. Harvard wanted a building 72% larger and built to the lotline.

(3) The Anderson Petition.

In 1998, the Anderson Petition downzoned that portion of Massachusetts Avenue nearest Cambridge City Hall. This area had been in the original La Trémouille petition and had been lost because of the malfeasance of the Cambridge Pols. We got the same residential zoning we achieved in East Harvard Square with ciutywide improvements to reflect lessons learned from the Inn at Harvard building. We provide clear protection for adjacent owners and for trees on the site.

c. The latest outrage.

I attended a meeting of the Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Association on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. I spoke quite a bit. My biggest regret is that I was not belligerent enough. There were at least three terrible actions. Key was the behavior of the chair and his buddies. I will only report on one of the outrages right now.

Key in the Cambridge Pol group structure is a small core controlled by an even smaller group. The small core does the wishes of the smaller group. The small core is selected by the smaller group. Such sub groups commonly make it impossible to get Cambridge Pol groups to work for the supposed goals of the group.

That Wednesday the bad guys, as usual, were well organized, knew what they wanted and did not give a damn about reality.

d. Open space at the Public Library / High School site.

(1) The history.

Destruction of Library Park located between the Public Library and Cambridge Street could have been the reason why the Mid-Cambridge group was created in the mid-70's. The average member would have no knowledge of these machinations. The ones with knowledge would be the city employees who got their buddies to form a group.

Very promptly as these things go, after the group was created, the key organizers worked for the destruction of the best park in the neighborhood.
They promised a “better” park.

Better than a park dominated by 30 to 40 one hundred year old trees, creating an excellent visual connection between the two major streets of the neighborhood, exceeded in quality only by the Cambridge Common as a city neighborhood park?

The Cambridge Pols got their “improvement” with serious harm to the neighborhood and the destruction of irreplaceable beauty.

Part of the deal was a large number of trees in front of the Public Library building. The city, with help from Cambridge Pols, destroyed those trees last year.

(2) The bad guy’s forced decision this time.

Now, decent people want some sort of guarantees that the little which has not been destroyed of their park will not be destroyed. They want the park protected as a park. The Cambridge Pols came up with the usual bizarre solution.

They say they have an opinion from the Cambridge City Solicitor saying that they have to get permission from the legislature to protect parks.

The Cambridge City Solicitor is the same guy who, a couple of years ago, told the Election Commission that they do not have to obey the OBVIOUSLY APPLICABLE Jack E. Robinson decision.

Blatant lawlessness is not unusual in Cambridge government. There frequently is seen in Cambridge the mentality:

If you want me to obey that very clear law, sue me.

This could stem back to the city solicitor situation. So the Cambridge City Solicitor told the good guys to chase their tails.

The relevant statute is Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 45, section 5, which reads:

"Land taken for or held as a park under this chapter shall be forever kept open and maintained as a public park, and no building which exceeds six hundred square feet in area on the group shall be erected on a common or park dedicated to the use of the public without leave of the [state legislature]. . ."

The statute says “no building shall be erected on a common or park dedicated to the use of the public without leave of the [state legislature].”

The City Solicitor, according to the Cambridge Pols, says exactly the opposite from the very clear wording of the statute: protection is not legal without leave of the [state legislature].

So the Cambridge City Solicitor’s “opinion” is exactly the opposite of the law.

So the Cambridge Pols are passing this nonsense on to their victims as gospel.

(3) Legal history on that site.

In the 70's, I represented a 10 taxpayer group which fought against the destruction of that park. The case was sufficiently strong that I obtained a preliminary injunction ON APPEAL. Getting a preliminary injunction on appeal is, for all practical purposes, impossible. But I had a good case. I got it on appeal.

(a) The gift in trust.

We primarily based the suit on the terms under which the property was given to the city by a major donor who gave the city a very significant part of its key buildings. The City of Cambridge has contempt for the terms of gifts if Cambridge can evade the terms of gifts. The donor gave the property for use as a library.

He specifically said he did not want the property used for ordinary city purposes such as a school building. The donor gave the adjacent property for use as a school building. He also gave the city its city hall.

Trouble was that, after the suit was filed, the state Supreme Court came down with a charitable trust decision which was not fully thought out. The decision seemed to wipe out the distinction between two lines of cases to our severe detriment. A decision in the 80's clarified the situation. That decision in the 80's confirmed the legal rationale for our original filing, but when we got to court, we were going to have to appeal to get what we wanted. We needed to win on other grounds and to appeal to clarify the trust decision.

(b) General Laws, chapter 45, section 5.

We tried the case on General Laws, chapter 45, section 5. The judge, under chapter 45, section 5, found that our magnificent park was not a park but library grounds. There was no contention whatsoever that the nonsense currently being handed by the Cambridge City Solicitor had an relation to anything.

In the current situation, all that is necessary is for the City of Cambridge to say that the City of Cambridge is using the property as a park and has been using the property as a park since 1968. PERIOD. According to the Cambridge Pols, the City Solicitor says protection of open space cannot be achieved without vote of the State Legislature.

(4) City Solicitor’s Opinion being placed on website.

The chair announced that his organization was putting this bizarre piece of paper on their website as an example of The Truth. Earlier in the meeting, the chair introduced his wife. I commented that his wife was my lead plaintiff. The chair was not at all impressed with the idea that I suggested: put the judge’s decision in the 1970s case on the website. The case’s lead plaintiff is now the chair’s wife. Reality is not the sort of thing that concerns the Cambridge Pols.
The Cambridge Pols do not want the decision in ““Carmean v. Cambridge”” on their website. The Cambridge Pols have no interest whatsoever in a COURT DECISION DECIDING HOW THE SITE SHOULD BE USED.

The Cambridge Pols want to publicize an apparent piece of nonsense which conflicts with the court decision and with the clear statutory language, the “legal opinion” for the attorney for their most destructive enemy.

Note, however, that I have never seen this “Legal Opinion,” this piece of nonsense. I have only heard the con job presented to the group as to its contents.

3. More to Come.

I have written enough for now.

I will proceed later.

Deer Sighting on Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge

Karen Parker reports with Bob La Trémouille analysis:

Saturday evening at about 10 pm, saw a deer on Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge. She called the police to get help for the deer with no success.

When she last saw, the deer was last seen heading up Rindge Ave. That is a good direction. The urban wilds are in that direction.

This is not at all a surprise. Nine heartless animal abusers on the Cambridge City Council are destroying animal habitat on a large scale at Fresh Pond. Smaller animals have been seen at the Fresh Pond Shopping Center, driven there when these heartless bastards destroyed their homes.

Why are their homes being destroyed? So that the nine hypocrites can put in saplings and brag about the saplings. They will not want to hear about the thousands of healthy trees and animal habitat destroyed to put in the saplings. If they knew what they were doing, they would not have such a good lie to tell about themselves.

DCR's BU Bridge sidewalk repairs and the White Geese

Marilyn Wellons reports on the May 20, 2008
Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting:


I spoke with the DCR representative at the Cport NA
meeting last night about the DCR's nighttime work
under the BU Bridge on the Boston side.  We agreed the
[DCR] flyer was confusing.  She said she'd look into it.


Today [May 21] she says the night work is to put shielding
under the bridge.  It'll take 10-14 days.


I said the contractor had told me that work would be
from the barge, and it's supplied by pickup truck
through the goose meadow.  (As the resident engineer
and I stood there last week a pickup did drive over
the curb at Memorial Drive, into the meadow, and down
the hill.  Someone got out, went to the base of the BU
Bridge, got into a boat, and went out the barge.)


I asked the DCR representative whether the barge would
be supplied through the goose meadow at night.  She
said she'd find out.  I think we agreed that if that
was the case it would be a problem for the geese.


I told her I was glad the DCR press release said there
would be no harm to the White Geese.  But, I said, the
DCR's history is to say just that even as they are
harming the geese.  For example, in September 2004 the
Globe quoted DCR planner Richard Corsi as saying the
DCR wouldn't harm the geese--even as the agency and
Cambridge were keeping the White Geese from their
primary source of food at Magazine Beach, i.e.,
starving them.


(As we know, the geese haven't starved only because of
the heroic work of the people feeding them.  I had a
very good visit with Bill N. and the geese Tuesday
morning.  It was a beautiful day and the geese were
beautiful.  I saw goslings and ducklings.  I was
impressed by the logistics, coordination and
dedication of the people involved in that effort.


(Bill told me one of the construction workers had
commented on how beautiful the geese were, how
interesting their urban wild is.)


I believe the workers will be as careful as they can.
However, as I told the DCR lady, since the DCR and
Cambridge decided the White Geese didn't belong on the
Charles, occasions like this provid either cover or
opportunity for people wanting to attack the geese. 



Without going into detail, I recounted my conversation
with Julia O'Brien, head of DCR plans, in 2000. Yes,
O'Brien said, destroying the White Geese's nesting
habitat would expose them to predators when they were
most vulnerable, but the DCR didn't intend to harm
them.  I told the DCR representative that DCR plans
had in fact solicited a memo that recommended
eliminating all the geese.


I told her about the violent attacks on the geese in
2001, and that the DCR and Cambridge had failed to
condemn them.  She knew that people who attack animals
like that are a danger to humans.  I told her about Io
Nachtwey's kidnapping, rape, and murder, that the rape
took place exactly where we found the body of the
first goose, that like the human victim, that mother
goose was stabbed and beaten to death.  I said the
method of attacking the geese changed radically after
the arrest of her killers.


Again, the DCR representative listened, for which I
was grateful.


I pointed out that the White Geese have been confined
to the goose meadow since 2004.  In the old days, the
geese were at the goose meadow for 4 months or so.
Before the DCR and Cambridge changed their policy, the
gaggle would be finished nesting by now, and be
leaving the goose meadow to feed along the river at
Magazine Beach and by the Hyatt Hotel.  Now they're
confined to this ghetto year round.


It would be much better if the geese could resume
their mini-migration, if they once again had safe
access to the grass at Magazine Beach and near the
Hyatt.  That way work on the BU Bridge wouldn't
endanger them.


And we could all enjoy the White Geese in their entire
habitat.  I always think of my friend's son, whom I
knew as a child, bringing his own daughter down to
visit the White Geese not that many years ago.  I'm
looking forward to the day when the geese are once
again free animals.


For now, I'm waiting for further word from the DCR
official about how work on the BU Bridge will affect
the geese.

Photos from Phil Barber

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Phil Barber was kind enough to pass on these photos.

The brood of four is clearly larger now. They are beautiful. Their parents are showing them to the world and showing the world to them.

I saw the bunny in that portion of the upper meadow which was not destroyed last week.

These are what Massachusetts' Department of Conservation and Recreation and the City of Cambridge are aggressively destroying on the Charles River, as much as they can get away with.

Cambridge destroys wildlife pretty much as it finds it.

Another very aggressive area of Cambridge destruction is Fresh Pond where massive habitat destruction has now been ongoing for two years. Destruction of thousands of trees is slated along with associated habitat. Those healthy trees and animal habitat are in the way of saplings.

But Cambridge does love to put out nonsense about being pro-environment. The false words appease responsible members of their constituency who make the mistake of thinking they are telling the truth. When dealing with claims which impact the environment that only Cambridge can destroy, claims about behaving responsibly are belied by strikingly irresponsible behavior, on a large scale.

Thank you Phil.

I wish Cambridge, MA had a government which bore meaningful resemblance to the government's lovely words.



Addendum:


I separate sent the first two by email to various friends. I got rave reviews which I passed on to Phil.

Phil responding by passing on the following shot from last winter.


I think it is an oppossum. These are lovely beings who are still struggling and surviving in spite of aggressive destructive actions by some truly reprehensible pols and bureaucrats.

Diversity was heavily and deliberately destroyed by these bastards with their self-serving lies and hypocrisies.

Karen responds with regard to the oppossum:

I have some of them in my yard and they are cute.

Activities in the Fenway, Urban Ring planning

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. General.
2. The Monday Meeting, Urban Ring Citizen's Advisory Committee.
a. General. Two or three rail crossing options.
b. The consultants.
3. Fenway neighborhood meeting.
a. Longwood Hospital Area Tunnel.
b. Yawkey Station.

1. General.

Last evening, the City of Boston conducted a meeting of residents of the Fenway neighborhood. Monday I attended a meeting of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on the Urban Ring.

2. The Monday Meeting, Urban Ring Citizen's Advisory Committee.

a. General. Two or three rail crossing options.

Urban Ring planning is of major importance on the Charles River. The Fenway neighborhood is smack in the middle of the most complicated maneuverings.

One of the key requirements in the bizarre bus planning in place of the rail transportation that makes sense is that the bus planning do nothing to impact rail in the area. Naturally, the "planners" are working to impact rail planning to push the option favored by Harvard, MIT and Boston University.

There are two key possible crossings of the Charles River. One is the Kenmore Crossing with a station under Brookline Avenue between Kenmore Square and Fenway Park. That station is, from a transportation point of view, excellent. It provides an ideal connector between commuter rail, the proposed Urban Ring Subway and the three Green Line branches, plus it gives excellent support to Fenway Park.

The other option, the BU Bridge crossing, give BU a private station within view of Marsh Chapel, and gives MIT and other Cambridge developers their own private station. There is a third station under Park Drive between the Riverside and Cleveland Circle Green Line branches.

The Kenmore crossing has one station in a part of the proposal where the other has three stations. Two of the BU Bridge crossing stations are so close together as to be silly. This is needed to attempt to duplicate the connections the Kenmore crossing does in one elegant package at Kenmore.

Harvard seems to be pushing a different route for the benefit of Harvard. That route would include the two stations where the Kenmore crossing has one.

The BU Bridge and Harvard alternatives would move the Fenway Park rail station two blocks further away from Fenway Park to connect to the Marsh Chapel station.

b. The consultants.

The consultants dropped the other shoe on Monday. They are proposing that, in the name of buses, the state build one of the two BU Bridge crossing stations as part of the bus planning. And they are supposed to do nothing which will prevent the Kenmore crossing?

The proposed station would be on the edge of the Fenway neighborhood, connecting Fenway Park station to Beacon Street / the Cleveland Circle line.

3. Fenway neighborhood meeting.

The meeting last night impacted two urban ring options.

a. Longwood Hospital Area Tunnel.

The people at Longwood seem to be hardening on a subway tunnel called a bus tunnel to service Longwood and get traffic off their streets. The proposal is firming up as a tunnel to the Riverside line, hitting the Riverside line west of Park Drive and west of the Fenway Park station.
The City of Boston is proposal a small vehicle path in the same area.

I raised the point. They provided two answers: (1) Boston's planning is for the next two years. The Urban Ring is ten years out. (2) They think it all can be fit in.

b. Yawkey Station.

The state people show a bus route to Yawkey Station, the commuter rail station servicing Fenway Park. It seems to do a loop in the large parking lot at that location.

In the fine print of the city's plans for Brookline Avenue, they mention that changes, general, may have to be made for mass transit purposes. That would be the bus maneuverings at Yawkey Station.

More news on Brown Beauty and her babies

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The goose parents take their babies around to show them off, and to show the babies their world.

I understand Brown Beauty even brought her babies over to the traffic island which is their least dangerous source of food.

The reprehensible people from the city and state in their heartless starvation abuse on the beautiful animals have created a situation where they have to cross traffic to get food. Brown Beauty showed her babies that food.

One of the two babies died of natural causes.

The other "disappeared."

Urban Ring Plans Destructive to Geese; BU Condemns Other Part

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Yesterday afternoon, I attended the meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the plans for the bus / highway phase of the Urban Ring planning.

Their plans are on the Internet. http://www.theurbanring.com/currentmaterials.asp?area=gen is the indes to the most recent posting. It is not up to date.

The plans include a pedestrian / small vehicle highway through the same area where the DCR / its agents just destroyed vegetation and probably / possibly killed Brown Beauty's babies.

The DCR was represented by the environmentally vile Julia O'Brien. She has been a key part of the leadership in the outrages going on in Cambridge on the Charles river.

Boston University condemned part of the plans which they say are destructive to their campus.

I commented that, given the destruction being inflicted on the environment in Cambridge by BU and the DCR and implemented in the Urban Ring plans, it is a pleasure to see these reprehensible, destructive bastards bitterly objecting to "harm" to them.

Years of heartless abuse, years of heartless starving, the first attack on the Charles River White Geese when BU illegally destroyed the nesting area in 1999 (destruction which is a key part of the Urban Ring plans), probably repeated destruction of nests over the years and killing of geese who defended their nests, lying about the Charles River White Geese in their alumni magazine - there is a lot to have contempt for BU for. Truly reprehensible people.

Brown Beauty Mate Alive; BU Destructiveness

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Yesterday evening after the Urban Ring meeting reported separately, I went to the Goose Meadow to demonstrate the destruction inflicted by the DCR / their agents.

In the grass on the other side of the ramp to Memorial Drive were Brown Beauty and her mate.

I helped them cross the ramp when they had had enough food. They have been forced to make this dangerous trip by their access to food at Magazine Beach being destroyed.

In the Urban Ring report, I mention publicly condemning the environmental destructiveness of BU and the DCR on the north side of the Charles.

In addition to the physical destructiveness, Boston University has stooped so low as to print a false statement by a BU related goose-feeder that the Charles River White Geese cannot survive if feeders stop feeding them. The statement is true NOW because BU, Cambridge and the DCR have been so destructive as to their habitat. The statement is a flat out lie if the destructiveness of BU, Cambridge and the DCR is omitted. The Charles River White Geese survived for 25 years living on the food which BU, Cambridge and the DCR have taken away from them.

The lie was printed in BU's alumni magazine. Friends of the White Geese submitted a response which BU would not print.

It is scary to have such a flat out lie printed. It is scarier still to have these hypocrites refuse to correct it.

It is even more scary that the Charles River White Geese are relying on somebody doing such harm to them. We have no choice. The geese need to be fed.

FOWG did the feeding for a number of months until we could find people who would do the feeding, but these two key feeders with their political harm to the Charles River White Geese are most definitely not friends. We are overworked as it is. The geese need to be fed. We cannot do it, but the two key feeders are a cancer within.

Vegetation Changes - Baby Killers?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Over the fall and winter, severe damage has been done to protective vegetation in the Destroyed Nesting area.

This was rather clearly done by vehicles of government workers and contractors. They trampled over protective briar patches.

Between the main path and the BU Bridge was damage done by workers inspecting the BU Bridge.

Between the ramp to Memorial Drive and the worn out portion brambles were apparently crushed as part of the "sidewalk project."

The wasted area toward the river has heavily been created by nuts from the DCR and their agents. They have, over the years, shown their contempt for nature here and under the trees to the east.

These nuts dug up the protective ground vegetation and dumped poisons. This is an excellent example of man's destroying our world. Vegetation needed by nature and by our world is considered "unsightly" by nuts who have no business managing nature. That is our DCR and its agents.

The damage that was done to the briars has been picked up during the last week.

Prior times when nuts from the DCR and their agents have destroyed nature in the goose meadow, they have destroyed nests as well. The difference between the killing of geese by the rape-murderer who is now in jail and the DCR activities was that the rape-murderer left the dead bodies.

When the DCR / their agents were indulging in their outrageous cleanups, mother geese simply disappeared. We have seen mates become flat out nuts when the DCR / their agents did their vile work. I have seen day old babies wandering the nesting area looking for their mothers, crying for their mothers.

My first indication that somebody other than an individual nut was killing mother geese came after second the brood in the 2001 nesting season was hatched under a large board leaning against the BU Bridge. The board was too big for one person to move, but it disappeared, leaving a missing mother, a mate who had gone nuts and babies crying for their mother.

Brown Beauty has, in the past, been severely beaten protecting her nest.

Mother geese do not abandon their broods. Sick nuts kill mother geese.

The work that cleaned up vegetation that had been trampled was in the area I mentioned above.

Brown Beauty has been nesting in the area toward the on ramp.

Brown Beauty's babies have disappeared. Brown Beauty is very distraught.

Did the sickos from the DCR commit yet another outrage?

Well, we could ask them. These are the guys who promised to do no harm to the Charles River White Geese and then explained that they do not consider starving them to be harming them.

We are dealing with truly reprehensible people. Reprehensible people who are proud of being reprehensible except when they lie to decent human beings.

What do you think?

Afterthought:

Has anybody seen Brown Beauty's mate?

When the sick bastard's were "cleaning up" nests, mother geese rather clearly were killed and removed for defending their nests. Brown Beauty was alone yesterday. I have almost never in recent days seen her without her mate.

I have not seen a goose look like that since the rape-murderer apparently killed Bumpy.

Was Brown Beauty's mate killed for defending the nest and babies?

If anybody has seen Brown Beauty's mate, I would very pleased to learn differently.

Brown Beauty: Joy turns to loss

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Brown Beauty has had two surviving broods.

In 1999, she had five babies, three males and two females. Two of the males were shot in the ensuing years. One died rapidly. The second possibly died a year later.

In 2005 or 2006, she had one surviving baby, a male, a white beauty with a black hood.

Last week, I saw two babies huddling up to her under her wing. This was under the vegetation toward the tracks, but near the historical nesting area.

This week, they were no longer there. I found Brown Beauty under the vegetation near the river and not that far from the bridge. She was by herself, no mate, no babies.

She looked bedraggled.

Environmental Destruction and Lying on the Charles River

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introductory.
2. Objection to lying on the Charles River, long form.

1. Introductory.

In my prior blog report, I passed on a letter printed by the Cambridge Chronicle, and commented on a response published on line and probably printed in today's paper.

The response to my letter may, for now, be found at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/homepage/x2032091241/Guest-commentary-Should-the-Charles-be-a-private-cooling-pond-for-power-plant.

After an exchange, I submitted an op ed response. The Chronicle editor has asked me to cut it down to a 400 word letter.

The following is the full version. I will work on cutting it down to 400 words for the Chronicle.

2. Objection to lying on the Charles River, long form.

Editor

I have a great deal of difficulty with the Guest Commentary entitled “Should the Charles be a private cooling pond for power plant?”

The difficulty very strongly comes from the fact that one week before the submission of this article, I, yet again in the Cambridge Chronicle, condemned the environmental destructiveness of Cambridge and the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the Charles River .

In my letter, I used an indelicate comment with regard to my years of standing up to environmental destruction by these people on the Charles River: “The only thing that has been consistent on the Charles River has been lies and suppression of the truth.”

The variety of lies, deliberate or otherwise, which I have seen has been incredible. The subset of lies to which I have been subjected includes the approach of this op-ed piece, whether deliberate or not:

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge love to point fingers at the Mirant Power Plant, people who are cleaning up their act on the Charles River .

The fact that the DCR and Cambridge are aggressively going in the wrong direction is something that Friends of the DCR and Cambridge DO NOT want to hear about.

Two years ago, in late summer, all of a sudden, the Charles River was dead from the harbor to the Mass. Ave. Bridge .

THE DAY BEFORE the Charles River was dead, the DCR applied Tartan fungicide to Ebersol Fields, across the river from the Mirant Plant. Tartan is marked with prohibitions against use near water. But the DCR had replaced GREEN maintenance with CHEMICAL maintenance at Ebersol Fields and their beloved CHEMICALs did not work. So the DCR tossed on Tartan and THE NEXT DAY the Charles River was dead.

Cambridge and the DCR are doing the same thing at Magazine Beach . Cambridge and the DCR have a location which works perfectly well with GREEN maintenance. Cambridge and the DCR want to put in their beloved CHEMICAL maintenance.

Magazine Beach has seen the contempt for the environment practiced by the DCR and Cambridge . The DCR and Cambridge destroyed the wetlands and animal habitat to install a bizarre wall of bushes. Friends of the DCR and Cambridge publicly called this bizarre wall blocking the Charles River from Magazine Beach a way to improve swimming on the Charles River .

This bizarre project walled off the Charles River White Geese from their principal source of food for 25 years. Simultaneous with this project, Cambridge put up a wall barring access from the Charles River to their alternate source of food of the Charles River White Geese for 25 years, the grass across from the Hyatt.

These heartless, cruel people have isolated these beautiful, valuable animals in their nesting area, perhaps 5% of their 25 year habitat. Now these heartless people want to destroy half their nesting area in a project called a sidewalk project.

I complained on the pages of the Cambridge Chronicle. The Cambridge Chronicle got a response which talks about the Mirant plant.

Friends of Cambridge and the DCR do not want to know reality.

Friends of Cambridge and the DCR do not want to know that Mirant is decreasing pollution.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know that Cambridge and the DCR are aggressively increasing pollution.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know that the DCR and Cambridge certainly look like the only current aggressive destroyers of the Charles River environment.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know about DCR’s five years of destroying as many eggs of water fowl as is possible.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know about the DCR’s five years of destroying as much protective vegetation on the Charles River as is possible.

Friends of the DCR belligerently want to believe the DCR’s promise repeated over many years: We will not harm the Charles River White Geese.

Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know the caveat given after starvation commenced. Friends of the DCR and Cambridge do not want to know the caveat that the DCR does not consider starvation harmful to the Charles River White Geese.

As far as I am concerned, whether knowing or not, loudly yelling about Mirant and not wanting to know about Cambridge and the DCR destructiveness on the Charles River is flat out lying.

As far as I am concerned the litany of skillful lying techniques used by the DCR, Cambridge and their stand-ins are all just lying.

The lying techniques I have observed over the years include the technique in this op ed piece, whether the writer is "consciously" aware or not. The lying techniques I have observed include working through agents and denying responsibility. The lying techniques I have observed include playing games with funding.

I object to the ongoing destruction on the Charles River . I object to the decade of lies of so many different techniques which has helped make the destruction possible.

I object to holier than thou’s from Cambridge and the DCR, people who are most definitely not holier than thou.